The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About020926 City Council Workshop Meeting PacketPORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 540 WATER STREET Workshop Meeting 6:00 p.m. February 9, 2026 • Attend in person or virtually via computer or tablet at 1j:q1as.//zoom.us/�/98187633367 enter the Webinar ID 98187633367 • Phone only (muted - listen -only mode) United States: Local Dial In — 1(253)215- 8782„981876333674 Submit public comment to be included in the meeting record to: ljq as.//pubIicconi nn ent. fill out. cone /cityaa t * If you are experiencing technical difficulties, please attempt all methods listed above before reporting any issues to: cle1hs.. pa ort cry o • Council Chambers room capacity is limited to 70 people. We will ask that you join online if room capacity is met and if virtual attendance is available. Thank you L Call to Order/ Roll Call IL General Public Comment (regarding items not on the agenda A. Public Comment B. Staff or Council response, as needed III. Discussion Items A. Water Utility Rates Update Work Plan Preview i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Comment iii. Council Discussion B. Recycling Collections Options Discussion i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Comment iii. Council Discussion C. Economic Development and Review of Glen Cove Utility Extensions Analysis i. Staff Presentation ii. Public Comment iii. Council Discussion IV. Adjourn Americans with Disabilities Act In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodation for this meeting should notes the City Clerk's Office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at (360) 379-5083. ff!)\2! 75§�`{ /#z:l2« ; ( / \ § j \ \ k ) / \ \ \ / ) \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ k {�\ f )\a ( E}\!\{ - me» k oEP f [)§) f ) § \}\`§§ ! : - [i§§)E/ ) J((()f3 /k� \\\ /\\§5y\ \mo 1D \E E ,«§ k\ {\ \\ \\\\)\)} fi!!§2J 71§;§\ \ a a o uo : \lo { E - lo o o E _ o o \ o Eo E } \ \ \ E [ \ o _ _ k \ - o \ § _ > § o / - : ;o o m / \ \ \ ) \ _ ) o 2 - E \ E §o § ) / § ; » } ) % ® o # 7 E - k \ (o } \ { E \ ( _ o E _ § ) } 2 : _ ® }2 ; / : § - - { \ ! : - \ z ) : k ( E, E: i{ :! { : ( { : : { ® \ r ) ; , !— © { § E ! ) { _ { ! \ - t o. / § : \ \ { { ) _ _ { \ Im \ ) \ \ \ \ \ ou - ( { ) go m. � -\ } ) \ o \ » u ) { \ ) j 3: / ) \ { \ / / { E \ E \ / § ° / }{ ! ( ; e y ! o \ f { : \o / { { 2 _ o { ) / _) \ \ _ / ) 73 \ \ : {} �� ) {) \ �� E ! / ) - - E E t : o ; : ® j & y : r 2 \ y ° § 2 : - : K » �o : m. § oo / / ) - ) { { o ) : ) {) \ / lo f ! \ ( ({ : -_ ) o _ \ / \:o «\ �\ \ \ 32 ) §' : j\ ) m 3 ! E .2 =,llo to / k / lo CD (D §|±§�2) : : \ \))(\ >®$\ ff\o }) E )E f&§ )\ \{ lo \oOo ]\ }\\$\\\ }\\\)\\\ City0f Port ' m�10 Townsen Submitted By: Steve King, PW Director Department: Public Works Agenda Bill AB26-017 Meeting Date: February 9, 2026 Agenda Item: III.A ❑ Regular Business Meeting ® Workshop/Study Session ❑ Special Business Meeting Date Submitted: February 4, 2026 Contact Phone: 360-379-5090 SUBJECT: Water utility rates update work plan preview iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillilI CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ❑ Consent ❑ Resolution Expenditure Amount: $ ❑ Staff Report ❑ Ordinance ❑ Contract Approval ❑ Other: Included in Budget? Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted) ❑ 3-Year Strategic Plan: 4 - Ensure sustainable future for public services and facilities Cost Allocation Fund: Choose an item, SUMMARY STATEMENT: Every 5 years, the city updates the enterprise utility funds rate analysis to ensure fiscal sustainability of the utility as required by State law. The City's water utility includes a potable water rate and a raw water rate. Each portion of the utility is modeled financially over a 20 year project with the expectation of updates every 5 years. Results from this analysis to be performed in 2026 inform the City Council on the adoption of water rates for the next 5 year period beginning January 1, 2027. Staff will present information looking back and forward to prepare for this year's work effort and provide Council and the public with a preview of next steps with touchpoints along the way. ATTACHMENTS: Presentation to be provided at the workshop CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action ALTERNATIVES: ❑x Take No Action ❑ Refer to Committee ❑ Refer to Staff ❑ Postpone Action ❑ Remove from Consent Agenda ❑ Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ❑ Other: 0!02- L. Q) 4-j m m I I go CL ro N I of I I WE t, m m I of of IM _0 _0 buO C: 4- :3 4-J E -00 �o E u 0 0 4-J ai (3) 0- C: 0 (31 4-J u 4-J 0 4-J -00 u 4-J ai u > _0 _0 U 4- 4-J u E Lill W E w w 0 0 a) U 0 u W 0 4-J (3 =0 -4- 0 4-J u (3) 0 = UJ 4-J E U-j u-j4j)- U-j ilm IN 110 110 IN Q) C 0 I I N a� c *' O U �mluln 1,I� U imam�oo�oo�oo�oo�oo�oo��Ip 11��",. ymsnn �11 �\"`11 Ilu, umola�oa�oa�oa�oa�oa�oai 111m� E mm 0 VN VNVIVNVIVNVIVNVNVIVNVIVNVIVNVIVNVI� t1�66I �11w, N � U N N umoln�on�on�on�on�on�on��1�mF btp¢ � 4��1U18 f0 N Ir. 1 � 1 1 � � 1 1 1 • '�.. • , • • 1 1 � uNOiN?9�NNNN Nu�llly��lll�� Imlll��lll o ! 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 LM '�•. o 0 00 o� r- rry-i m rn � � � r-z .4 m Di o rri 4 m 1�6 rn rn lzt oo ro o rn lzt Rt Lr) Fa o o �.D cn rn am ca o ri u 00 r%j Lr) coo rn m N Lr) N Q N Lfl Co ❑7 R Rt Q7 ❑7 � � rl rY7 rV r-I o r) o rn m 0 rnn 0 0 Lf1 n Cfl r-I r-I N rV n ro ro co Lfl Lfl rV Lfl �7 m N ry n 07 r-I rn r-I 00 0 o u rr-i r- N m rn m N r- 00 N Q n Q7 D7 Q7 N N n Lr1 rl cri ❑7 r6 -� E m m 0 w r- 00 Ln 0 0 C E r-i � � m r.i I� G r'ri Lri Ln C m m o rn m rmn N 00 � r-I N - m 0 o� u m o�� rn � r-r�-I ¢ oo n n oo oo n -� rl rr] Lr7 0° 0 a -a o �LL V) V 0 d) u u C m N 7 N Vl m = L Q LL m LL xCL Lu .� 16 Ln LL 0 N N i ro i Q] E W C L G� 07 ,} r tw ❑ C N� ei 0� '6 7 M +J C. ❑ +J 4 qT Co ccW d Z W 0 w w w m • • i i w w w • 1-a #► ai , m L- 1.2 V) V) U) o w w �' �; V) m re V) �; a fu V)" = V) u V) Q) u w; 0 w • V) - ►► i w w !� CD �►7av) +-j r,4 �►; 1 w • s w (14 1 •1 • 1 + !►' M • 1 Ln EMS I w cr I xln� w CL 0) z z w z m �4 m "T to co It M Ln 00 rl- Ue a 9 V'4 A^ y14 L4 IA i^ t4 r, m m 0 0 - rn 19 e q 10 Oy Ca' ftb Ln W f Ln m -0 t^ lll-! 1¢fi " In Lq N CG Lq m Ln N (D Ln m U> *A Q)to 0� 0» �* 0 X CL :3 CL 5 _w Lr) E E 0 .0 E E E E Eas q o > 6 w 0 > cc u u (D I FA-mi-ilk ME Is I I 0 4 vi af ;z, T'' E V) 0 0) 0-3 > 0 V) V) :3 0) 0 V) u el i 0 0) X V) V) 0 tw V) V) 0 o x Q. LZ (V E 0 U 0 u 0 0 0 u u 41 0 Ln 0 J) LO m a 0 V) V) 14- U 0 c 0 C i5 0 (u E " 0 E 0 0 z E ("T3 QL) L)J) o 0 0 - o (j) wr > o o Lr) 4-J L- (j) C: (j) > 0 4-J V) V) (U M C;- x 0 L- t- 0) CL m CL w w i L , w • ILI i �. •i • i • 0 . 0 w M ;. w 0 i w w ' M i w i w; l 0-0 w 0' w w w w L M M M w N O E N N I Ln 0 >x 73 cc: 73 EE 0 ow co 0 EE C) rA 0 Of CD rq CA CL :3 0 cl. co 73 c: 4-J c: 0 Q) cm L- (3) fm EE ul Ul cx 0 C CL 0 0 C 0 4-j o CUD CL 0 s— CL CL m :3 § r14 0 o cl. 73 CL 0 0 un 73 + cx C) 0 I I WE FA-W OR EA 4-J m s- o -a -o r14 Ln 4-j r14 0 0 fu 4- .2 o +-� fu fu &- a) q- 0 0 -0 4-j U cn 4-j 0 E 4-j > 4-j Ln 0 M 0 4-j 0 t— 4-j o E t— o 0 4-j w E 0 0 U m 0 tali 4QJ Qu tali 4-J fm Qlj 4-J co 0 40 0 wf� 4QJ :3 0 U LIL vv) 401 >_ CL (CID 4-J V) V) 0 M CL Q) E (I) Qi) 0 QW 4-J QJ 4QJ 7 to Q) 4w CD LU 4QJ V) a) to EE 0 co 4" LU X: 4-J c= 3: .4QJ a r14 tali V) Z 0 u 4-J a) rn (A u CN4 to L_ CO pj cc: cu VA CNN w 4QJ 4--J 0 u -0 v-1 U ur) E 0 cu > 0 CL Si Qu 0 In 0 fm 4 IN IN IN 7 rAM 0A City0f Port ' m�10 Townsen Submitted By: Steve King, PW Director Department: Public Works Agenda Bill AB26-015 Meeting Date: February 9, 2026 Agenda Item: 111111.13 ❑ Regular Business Meeting ® Workshop/Study Session ❑ Special Business Meeting Date Submitted: February 5, 2026 Contact Phone: 360-379-5090 SUBJECT: Recycling Collections Options Discussion iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillilI CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ❑ Consent ❑ Resolution Expenditure Amount: $ ❑ Staff Report ❑ Ordinance ❑ Contract Approval ❑x Other: Included in Budget? Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted) ❑ 3-Year Strategic Plan: 4 - Ensure sustainable future for public services and facilities Cost Allocation Fund: Choose an item, SUMMARY STATEMENT: Changes to the Jefferson County Recycling program were presented at the January 12, 2026 workshop. Please see the City's website for reference. Given changes to of the recycling program to move to single stream recycling on April 1, 2026 at the Transfer Station, the City has an option to follow suit with the city's mandatory curb side service. Staff will provide the City Council with options to consider and facilitate a discussion regarding next steps of whether to modify the existing contract or keep the services as is under the existing contract with Olympic Disposal. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Presentation CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillilillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillilillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillilillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillilillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillilillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillilillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillilillillillillillilI RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillilI ALTERNATIVES: ❑x Take No Action ❑ Refer to Committee ❑x Refer to Staff ❑ Postpone Action ❑ Remove from Consent Agenda ❑ Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ❑ Other: rld— I C: 0 76 V) CL o 4-J 4-J x 4-J V) u a) M DL u > 0 M < E 4-J C-4 0 .0 u u cu bn r14 bn 0 0 u CL -I 4-j 0 U u cu CL u ............. rn 0 4-J UU u fu 0) 4-J *— U (D CIO CIO was QD 0 0 1 _: f 1 1 A e s s e E 0 • 0 • bn uj CO E -0 0 4—.0 ro CO 0 .2- u 0 u un u 41 m , 0 0 00) 4-j• 04- L- V) E"§ r4 m 0 0 L- M E --o-o L- V) 0• bn c- En 0 5-.— 0 0 u c- 4-J OG) L- bn•u >- U u u L.L w :D F- u CC L- . W2 n bn 0 M 0 > w 4- > W bn 0 E 0 CF u U w 0 u G)-o bn u c- 0 4- -P-., 0 w w OF- 0 >.- v ro = 0 . M -.i:; V) bn w w E a) M rH 0 (V 4- E i0— w L- >• W= 0 w ) (3) U U (1) •L- u bn •4- > V) 0 0) E W-0 0 W.— 0 r4 E 0 0 U, M bnw CC- 0 u -j O:L > u U u 4-J1 1 1u E c- 4- E 0 0)4- 0 —04- w W W y o 4- E E u V) > M m u u1 0 U4- 0) �:-- CL n r4 vi V) h u > bn n W 0 r4 U W W M 0 0 E 0 1 m> Lu 0 0 • 0 4-J u bn (1) M.— :Lj r) -I-J L/) 0 4- u•u (3) (1)"-1 b.0 -0 u b— 0 7- r-J >- 4-J > 1) 0 0 u c- -1 D (0 0 ='UM ou'uEuEZ• m v) bn (1) E 0 LO U4- 111,111-11"i yi O a-=� a--+ E ca N L � +_' — 'U f6 �' � � N Q Q N (/) ICUICU.0 N L +-+ 4A (/') LL � u N N O in Q >- O DO O N U .cn O O U N - O O U �!I m Q) E •o ryloo �. . w i •, txo •w 0 0 i w • w '�► w • w • 1 0 L- i w ai w • ....... •1 0 di L- L tj •1 0 � i w w w •1 w' -a V) •w 0�. •1 '' 0 •1 w w w a ' w r., w. U � � L � i aA Qcn � � N N .N E 4= U x U C6 U C6 C6 N f6 a.., Q ° 'a N z rc ° 0 CL . C6 N • � E • a N >- •� M •� O �O cn E aA vi O (a cn v aA •i — fa •� c> •� O • •N N a--j O }' Ln . N v =; N '_� .UCU N a..+ 0 O O O O U _ O 4A i U O O N CD ate-+ Ca - N Q O U . . . . . -Ne tali tali tali 4+-J 0 Qu > 0 > 0 4+-J Col. 0 Col. Qu C01. cm c0a. =3 Qj U -Ne Lfn ro 0 E 0 CaD c WE r14 QW) 0 E u V) V) CMT o. bn A: (1) +0 (CID A L ft) 4-1 LA C) 0 Qu cm 73 COL) 4+-J 03 vu cm Q) E= Om U (CID U 0 u E CT$ Sj a) V) 0 E 0 a.) CIO U $-- 4-0 u V) 4w V) 73 cl. zr; 0 Cali tio tbin u > co Q) a) 0 co co K S: 4-0 4w 0 u 01) CIO 7D 4-0 UO 110 Q. ai (CID 73 x U Cu C:) 0 u E < O Ln cu O U � a)N N ' f6 ate., N O O }, vi • — +- L O i — C N +-+ CAA i U N E f6 U U • a.., a--+ cn — N 4-j O a--+ a) — .X .— ® 4-j ate-+ N U N U N a)U — U O �O Q N i O N O N U CU cuN N N a--+ O• U O C6 (� . , U U N a-.+CU '� +-+ N U m � N CAA i f6 N Ln }' 0 " N — ca ca — ca ca c,n U n DC w U U a—+ U C6 � O Q 1 N U O U N U u U_ ate.+ +-+ cu ® i ate1 U C6 N E U O E O i Na--+ a"' U � - Q U a) Q 0 cr N L .� bn U ci O U I w Its PEW 1100 I on City0f Port Townsen Agenda Bill AB26-016 Meeting Date: February 9, 2026 Agenda Item: III.0 ❑ Regular Business Meeting ® Workshop/Study Session ❑ Special Business Meeting Submitted By: Steve King, PW Director; Emma Bolin, PCD Director Date Submitted: February 4, 2026 Department: Public Works Contact Phone: 360-379-5090 SUBJECT: Economic Development and Review of Glen Cove Utility Extensions Analysis CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ❑ Resolution Staff Report ❑ Ordinance Contract Approval ❑ Other: BUDGET IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Amount: $ Included in Budget? Yes ❑ No ❑ Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted) 3-Year Strategic Plan: 4 - Ensure sustainable future for public services and facilities Cost Allocation Fund: Choose an item, SUMMARY STATEMENT: Economic development is a function of local government in planning for the future. Balancing provisions of governmental services to support living wage jobs and housing along with other community assets, is the primary reason behind the Comprehensive Planning process and intentional efforts of the community, government, and private enterprises. Economic development is the recognition of a symbiotic relationship between services and private enterprises of which both depend on each other. In the last few years, several efforts and discussions around economic development bring the topic to the forefront. These efforts include the following: • Glen Cove Infrastructure Analysis (see attached) • A regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) drawn together by the North Olympic Development Council (NODC):.p..//ii.t.p....c,„ websiiteecom/6cHe905/fiilles/u Iloaded/North-�OII m iic+Pen iinsulla.+CEDS-+2026- ..................................................................................................................................................................... • The Cit's Comprehensive Plan: at hit s/cosmsaa e2 .. ........................ . r iiv ...... (Scroll down to the Economic Development Element on page 194). • Fiscal Sustainability Report: ,h. se//ciit of t.us/engage t/pace/fiinanciiall- u toiina iillii�y-iinii,�ii,a- iiv • Jefferson County 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update Economic Development Review Draft: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/21405/TRACKS-7- Econom ic-Development-2025_0423 This Council workshop is a two-part discussion including Economic Development discussion in preparation for the upcoming Intergovernmental Collaborative Group (ICG) on February 19, 2026 and a review of the Glen Cove analysis which is a good illustration of economic development potential and related governmental services. Staff will provide a two-part presentation to facilitate Council discussion. During 2025, Jefferson County engaged in a study precipitating from the Recompete project to look at option for extending utilities into Glen Cove to provide infrastructure to support Economic Development. The City had a seat at the table primarily based on impacts to City water and sewer utilities as well as it relates to options concerning UGA expansion with the former being the major element for the City to consider. The objective of this presentation is to provide a copy of the final report, present the key points and findings of the report and answer questions concerning the City's role in this effort. This work also relates to the Fiscal Sustainability initiative report where Glen Cove economic activity was an important consideration in terms of a sustainable economy and the resulting tax implications. At the ICG meeting on December 4, 2025, a question was raised by the Port about economic development focus. Glen Cove, being the key industrial area in the vicinity of the city is an important consideration when it comes to striking a balance between attainable housing and jobs with living wages. Finally, this study was timely with the completion of City's General Sewer General Sewer Plan which included an analysis of a special study area associated with the possibility of sewer service within the city limits and nearby adjacent properties. The Mill Road Lift Station is a key infrastructure component needed for the city limits and the Evans Vista housing development which also enables the possibility of sewer in the surrounding area subject to Growth Management laws and local legislative action by the County and the City. The attached report is provided for review and City staff will bring a presentation before the Council at the meeting. No action will be taken as this is a workshop and an opportunity to learn more about the contents of the report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Glen Cove Growth Alternatives: Existing and Utility Conditions and Infrastructure Extension Analysis report 2. Presentation to be provided at the workshop CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action ALTERNATIVES: ❑x Take No Action ❑ Refer to Committee ❑ Refer to Staff ❑ Postpone Action ❑ Remove from Consent Agenda ❑ Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ❑ Other: Prepared For: Jefferson County, Washington Prepared By: SO Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98516 360.352.1465 December 2025 SC . ...... ) A L. I.- I A NI C E`� C.OIr,JSUIL-'nING SIC IRPOICIES Gen Cove GirowtV-i III „t iir iiri t hive s iii°iiir iiir iiir iii iiii iii iii iiii Project Information Project: Glen Cove Infrastructure Extension Analysis Strategy Development Grant Prepared for: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Reviewing Agencies Jurisdictions: Jefferson County, WA City of Port Townsend, WA Project Representative Prepared by: SO Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98516 360.352.1465 scjalliance.com '"Iable of Contents 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Goals.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Activities.................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Planning Context: Glen Cove Industrial Area........................................................................ 2 2 Public Outreach..........................................................................................................6 2.1 Engagement Opportunities................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Integrating Feedback into Planning.......................................................................................7 3 Planning Requirements for Infrastructure Expansion Alternatives...............................8 3.1 Alternative 1: Extension of Infrastructure to the Glen Cove LAMIRD...................................8 3.1.1 Planning Process..........................................................................................................9 3.1.2 Timeline/Potential Challenges...................................................................................14 3.2 Alternative 2: Expand the LAMIRD...................................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Planning Process........................................................................................................15 3.2.2 Timeline/Potential Challenges...................................................................................19 3.3 Alternative 3: Conventional Amendment of UGA Boundary ............................................... 20 3.3.1 Planning Process........................................................................................................20 3.3.2 Timeline/Potential Challenges...................................................................................24 3.4 Alternative 4: UGA Boundary Swap..................................................................................... 24 3.4.1 Planning Process........................................................................................................25 3.4.2 Timeline/Potential Challenges...................................................................................27 3.5 Glen Cove Planning Alternatives Comparison..................................................................... 28 3.6 Infrastructure Considerations.............................................................................................30 3.6.1 Transportation and Multimodal Access in Glen Cove Industrial Area.......................31 4 Existing Utility Conditions.........................................................................................33 4.1 Power...................................................................................................................................33 4.1.1 Power Next Steps.......................................................................................................34 4.2 Telecommunications........................................................................................................... 35 4.2.1 Telecommunications Next Steps................................................................................35 4.3 Natural Gas..........................................................................................................................36 4.4 Water...................................................................................................................................37 4.4.1 Costs Analysis.............................................................................................................50 4.4.2 Water Next Steps.......................................................................................................52 4.5 Sewer...................................................................................................................................53 Sr(,:'.➢ A1111ua iin c e 1.2/ 9/2025 1 Page 11 4.5.1 Wastewater Discharge Permits for Industrial Uses...................................................60 4.5.2 Cost of Service Analysis..............................................................................................62 4.5.3 Sewer Next Steps.......................................................................................................70 4.6 Stormwater..........................................................................................................................75 4.6.1 Stormwater Management Options............................................................................76 4.6.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).......................................81 4.6.3 Stormwater Next Steps..............................................................................................82 5 Economic Development Analysis..............................................................................83 5.1 Scenario 1: As -Is / No Coordinated Economic Development Program ............................... 83 5.2 Scenario 2: Infrastructure Investment Only........................................................................83 5.3 Scenario 3: Infrastructure Plus Coordinated Economic Development Strategy .................84 6 Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................85 7 Next Steps................................................................................................................86 7.1 Recommended Next Steps for Economic Development and Infrastructure Planning........ 87 7.2 Coordination and Roles....................................................................................................... 88 1 III ° iiiguiires Figure 1-1 Glen Cove Industrial Area LAMIRD Map.....................................................................................3 Figure1-2 UGA Expansion Map................................................................................................................... 4 Figure1-3 Study Area Map.......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure4-1 Water Study Area Map............................................................................................................. 37 Figure 4-2 Key Fire Locations Map.............................................................................................................43 Figure4-3 GSP Area Map........................................................................................................................... 62 Figure4-4 GSP CIP Map.............................................................................................................................. 63 Figure4-5 Soils Map................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 4-6 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Map.......................................................................................... 78 Figure 4-7 Shoreline Slope Stability and Landslide Hazard Map................................................................ 79 Figure 4-8 Fort Townsend State Park Map................................................................................................ 80 Figure 4-9 Existing Stormwater Outfalls in Port Townsend....................................................................... 82 1 III ° '"I Table 3-1 UGA Alternatives — Key Differences at a Glance........................................................................ 28 Table 4-1 Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-Year Population Projection and Distribution(2025-2045)..................................................................................................................38 Sr(::J /\Illlua since 12/19/2025 1 f'aage iiii Table 4-2 Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-Year Population Projection and Allocation(2016-2036)......................................................................................................................40 Table 4-3 Projected Population for Port Townsend and West of City/Glen Cove Area for Years 2017-2036......................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 4-4 Types of Demand(mgd)............................................................................................................. 41 Table 4-5 Summary of Port Townsend Water Rights................................................................................. 42 Table 4-6 Demand Forecast Metrics — Quimper........................................................................................ 45 Table 4-7 Demand Forecast— Quimper...................................................................................................... 45 Table 4-8 Water Right Self-Assessment..................................................................................................... 46 Table 4-9 Summary of In -Service Capacity and Water Rights for Existing Water Systems ........................ 48 Table 4-10 Estimated CIP Costs — PT WSPU............................................................................................... 51 Table 4-11 Estimated CIP Costs—JPUD WSPU...........................................................................................51 Table 4-12 Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-Year Population Projection and Distribution(2025-2045)..................................................................................................................54 Table 4-13 Land Use Inside Future Wastewater Service Area................................................................... 56 Table 4-14 Population Projections............................................................................................................. 57 Table 4-15 WWTF Permitted Flow and Loading Design Criteria................................................................ 58 Table 4-16 Existing NPDES Permits............................................................................................................ 61 Table 4-17 Estimated CIP Costs.................................................................................................................. 64 Table 4-18 Estimated CIP Costs Attributable to Glen Cove....................................................................... 65 Table4-19 Costs Comparison..................................................................................................................... 69 Table4-20 Comparison Table.................................................................................................................... 70 Table 4-21 Glen Cove Sewer Service Options and Funding Matrix ............... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4-22 Glen Cove -Attributable Capital — Breakdown for Preferred Option ........................................ 73 Table 4-23 Existing NPDES Permits............................................................................................................ 81 1 111st of Appendices Appendix 1 - Power Appendix 2 -Telecommunications Appendix 3 - Natural Gas Appendix 4 - Water Appendix 5 - Sewer Appendix 6 - Stormwater III intirod u ction Jefferson County, as a partner entity in the North Olympic Recompete Coalition and recipient of a Recompete Pilot Program - Strategy Development Grant from the Economic Development Administration, was awarded funding to lead a project focused on investigating an extension of infrastructure to the Glen Cove Industrial Area located within Jefferson County, Washington. Extending infrastructure to the Glen Cove area emerged as a critical regional priority to support industrial development, business expansion and retention, and job creation in the area, all of which are essential to achieving higher rates of prime -age employment in the North Olympic region. Economic development with a focus on living -wage jobs has a long history in east Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend, dating back to the early days of the City's formation and even earlier as an important area for trade for Indigenous peoples. The community has repeatedly taken a stance in support of economic development initiatives to foster a sustainable environment for generations to come. This shared interest in seeing Glen Cove prosper to support jobs and business in this region is the spirit in which this report is written. Economic development is often fraught with controversy; however, without supporting infrastructure, the discussion is moot. This report was prepared through a County -City partnership, with Jefferson County seeking to explore existing infrastructure and environmental constraints to light industrial development in the Glen Cove Industrial Area. The report concludes that the City of Port Townsend is the most probable long-term service provider for water, sewer, and fire -flow improvements. Funding, permitting, operational responsibilities, and economic development potential would need to be further defined through a forthcoming interlocal agreement (ILA) and next steps. This report includes an analysis and evaluation of alternatives, including requirements under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) considerations; stakeholder engagement activities undertaken; and the County -City collaboration achieved thus far. In addition, the report includes an extensive analysis of existing infrastructure and pathways to achieving the infrastructure improvements needed to support industry. This information is in alignment with the interests of stakeholders and local government partners and is intended to guide the most prudent route to support existing and future potential light industrial/commercial activity in the area, while leveraging recent state and federal infrastructure investments consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan of 2016 and the periodic update currently underway. 1.1 Piroject Goalls The primary goal of this project is to understand how utility provision can be achieved to incentivize business expansion and retention in the Glen Cove Industrial Area enabling future job -generation. Glen Cove is one of the few Light Industrial and Light Industrial/Commercial zoned districts in rural Jefferson County. Its proximity to the City of Port Townsend presents a unique opportunity to connect to municipal infrastructure —particularly sewer, water, and stormwater systems —and maximize the return on existing public investments. Strategic extension of urban -level services will allow the County and City to address health and safety constraints, improve service delivery, and advance local economic development objectives without inducing unplanned urban growth. Notably, nearby investments such as the City of Port Townsend's Evans Vista Lift Station and a Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF) grant signal strong regional support for infrastructure provision in this area. The project comprises three primary activities designed to evaluate the infrastructure needs and potential for expansion of the Glen Cove Industrial Area: 1. Analysis of Planning Requirements: A comprehensive review of planning and zoning frameworks, including the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), to determine how infrastructure expansion or UGA adjustments must align with state and local policies. 2. Stakeholder Engagement: Coordination with local businesses, landowners, public agencies, and community groups to identify priorities, concerns, and shared goals for the future of Glen Cove. 3. Documentation of County -City Collaboration: This activity will focus on the collaboration between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. As mandated by the GMA, both agencies are required to complete the Periodic Update of the Comprehensive Plans and development regulations by December 2025. The collaboration between the county and city will play a critical role in planning for future population growth and addressing the economic development and infrastructure needs of the Glen Cove area. 1.3 P II ire ire fl ire ire text Glen CoveIII ire t it ii II Airea The Glen Cove Industrial Area is designated as a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) in the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 1-1). The area is zoned for Light Industrial and Light Industrial/Commercial uses and currently supports a variety of employment - generating activities. However, gaps in sewer, water, power and stormwater infrastructure have limited the area's development potential. Recent actions, including Jefferson County's 2024 adoption of Ordinance 09-1209-24—which expanded the Port Townsend UGA by 32.72 acres of public land (see Figure 1-2)—demonstrate ongoing regional efforts to revisit growth boundaries to facilitate clearly beneficial uses. As a result of stakeholder engagement and for expediency, the preferred alternative identified by this study is not UGA expansion at this time; instead, it emphasizes infrastructure improvements within the LAMIRD boundary. C �gure 3 3 Glen Cove lndustr4I Area I III I Il M a p ........ . ................ . ......... . .............................................. . .. . ... . ......... . ... .. . . . . .. .......................... . . . .. . . ..... .. .......... .... ........ . . .............. . ................ . ... . ................... . . . .............. .................. .. . . . . ... . ................... . . . . . . . f N-141 110 OVO Glen C I -rial Areo ndusl . .. . . ....... row, . .. ..... .. ff Fell" I ........ .. 1/111"M . . . ........ 0,12 OA ................................................................................... . . .. ........................................................... .. .. .... .................. ....... ................ ... . . . ........... .... .................. . .. .......................... ............................................................................................ ..... ............................................................................................ . . . ................................................................................ Source: Jefferson County 2018 Comprehensive Plan SCJ Alliance 12/19/2025 1 Page C gure 3 2. W)GIA Expansion 11Map Source: Jefferson County 2024 Amendment Docket Proposal 2 The study area (refer to Figure 1-3 for a map) is encompassed by: Port Townsend UGA expansion area, and Port Townsend City limits to the north, South Jacob Miller Road, Elizabeth Street, Pebble Lane, State Routes 20 and 19 to the west, Arrow Lumber and Hardware parcel, Whiskey Road, Old Fort Townsend Road, and parcels along Fredericks Street, Mill Road to the south, and Thomas Street, Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC) ponds and Port Townsend Bay to the east. PTPC, under new ownership, owns a significant amount of land within the north portion of the study area. C �gure 3 3 Study Area IIIap SCJ Alliance 12/19/2025 1 Pago 5 Public Ou, urea III Public engagement was a key component of the Glen Cove Infrastructure Extension Analysis, helping to ground the process in local knowledge and align planning decisions with the community's values and policy priorities. Project partners engaged stakeholders through focus groups, interagency coordination, and public meetings to identify shared goals and concerns, and to assess the feasibility of infrastructure alternatives in a transparent and collaborative manner. .1 Engagement Opportunities Focus GrouIps (piriin 2025) Two focus groups with a total of seventeen property owners in the Glen Cove LAMIRD were convened and facilitated by Commissioner Greg Brotherton in spring 2025. These sessions were designed to gather qualitative insights from residents, business owners, and local organizations about their priorities and perspectives on Glen Cove's future. This approach allowed for direct participation and candid discussion. Bringing the first draft of this report to a directed conversation with long-standing community members running small and medium-sized businesses, the focus groups provided an accessible platform for participants to help shape the direction of the project. Key themes that emerged through focus group discussions included: Infrastructure Development: Infrastructure, particularly sewer, was identified as a key priority. Sewer infrastructure was discussed in 78% of coded exchanges. Focus group participant comment: "Sewer is critical to everybody. That's what prohibits people from expanding their business or doing more." Economic Development: Job creation and business growth were also identified as top priorities, mentioned explicitly in 68% of stakeholder comments. Focus group participant comment: "We want small businesses here, like trades that want to grow but can't find any place." Communication and Transparency: Participants emphasized the need for clearer, more transparent communication between municipalities and stakeholders. Focus group participant comment: "We need more transparency about what's being planned." Annexation and Governance: Concerns about potential annexation were widespread, with 90% of stakeholders opposing annexation. Housing and Community Development: While housing needs were discussed, they were generally viewed as secondary to Glen Cove's industrial purpose. Some noted the potential for incompatibilities with business operations within the LAMIRD. Focus group participant comment: "Be cautious of turning the area into residential. Industry needs space to operate." Environmental and Safety Concerns: Environmental protection and public safety were also key priorities. Groundwater protection and earthquake hazards were identified as significant issues influencing infrastructure decisions. Participants expressed broad support for targeted infrastructure investments, such as sewer, power, and transportation systems, provided that such improvements preserve local governance and maintain transparency in decision -making processes. Infeir oveirnirnentM Collaborative Giroulp IMeeting (IMay '12., 2025) At the May 12, 2025, meeting of the Jefferson County Intergovernmental Collaborative Group (ICG), Commissioner Brotherton presented the focus group findings and an overview of the infrastructure extension analysis. The discussion reflected strong alignment among local partners (including the Port of Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD, the City of Port Townsend, and Jefferson County) on the importance of extending infrastructure to the Glen Cove LAMIRD. The represented entities expressed broad consensus that targeted infrastructure investments would support economic development and job creation in Glen Cove. No significant concerns were raised that would prevent the County and its partners from moving forward collaboratively, and the group agreed that advancing infrastructure improvements through available funding mechanisms —such as the Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF)—would serve the long-term interests of both the local community and the regional economy. 2.2 Integrating II Ib C k it Irk t IP II Irk Irk it Irk The feedback gathered through these outreach efforts provides a strong foundation for evaluating the infrastructure extension alternatives presented in the following sections. The ideas and priorities shared by community members and agency partners will help guide next steps and decisions about which approaches to pursue. Future planning for Glen Cove will build on this input, balancing local values with broader regional objectives. Based on the feedback received at the two focus groups and the conversation with the ICG, the scope of this report and local infrastructure planning in Glen Cove was reimagined to focus first on the most efficient way of getting infrastructure into the existing LAMIRD and away from larger UGA planning paths that would accelerate conversations about annexation into Port Townsend, which was unappealing to the focus group members. Planning lRequireirrients for Infrastructure II„ IIP iin it ire Alternatives This report evaluates planning options and regulatory considerations for infrastructure improvements in the Glen Cove area of Jefferson County. Initial discussions focused on potential adjustments to the Urban Growth Area (UGA), including expansion and boundary swaps. However, in response to feedback from the community, the preferred approach is to pursue the extension of infrastructure to the Glen Cove Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). This strategy is intended to address existing service limitations, support existing development, and avoid inducing urban growth in rural areas, consistent What Does "Inducing Urban Growth" with the Growth Management Act (GMA). Mean? While the infrastructure extension to the LAMIRD is now the primary focus, the report retains analysis of other growth - related planning actions for potential future consideration. With the infrastructure extension included and explained as Alternative 1, the alternatives described in this report are as follows: 1. Extension of infrastructure to the LAMIRD without altering its boundary (preferred approach) 2. An expansion of the existing LAMIRD 3. A conventional amendment of the UGA boundary 4. A UGA swap involving the exchange of areas within and outside the Port Townsend UGA Under the GMA, extending urban -level infrastructure into rural areas is generally discouraged unless it is needed to support existing development or to address a public health or safety issue. Any such extension must also avoid inducing urban growth, meaning it cannot create or enable new urban -scale development patterns outside designated UGAs. In practical terms, this means: No upzones or creation of new urban residential capacity Improvements must focus on correcting existing health safety fire - Each alternative presents different implications for land use, I' flow, or industrial service deficiencies environmental review, infrastructure funding, and Infrastructure should support only regulatory compliance. The sections that follow provide a existing industrial/commercial uses on detailed assessment of these alternatives, including current parcels planning processes, SEPA considerations, and public ■ No introduction of urban -level engagement requirements. This information is intended to development patterns outside UGAs support a coordinated decision -making process between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend, and to ensure that future growth aligns with community values and state planning requirements. The following analysis elevates the infrastructure extension alternative to reflect the current direction of the community while preserving the broader context of possible long-term options. 3.1 II t hire tfii 1: Extension III inf t tita ct ire 'to the II ire Cove The alternative being pursued for supporting the Glen Cove industrial area involves the extension of infrastructure to the existing LAMIRD, without any modification to its established boundary. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan identifies Glen Cove as one of the few areas for light industry in east Jefferson County. Comprehensive Plan amendments may be necessary to support this extension, particularly related to funding of infrastructure. Unlike a LAMIRD boundary expansion, which is a GMA action, extending infrastructure is a public facilities and services decision that must be consistent with GMA, as well as comply with local development regulations. The GMA generally discourages urban -level infrastructure in rural areas unless it is necessary to support existing development, or address an environmental public health matter, without inducing urbanization. Extending infrastructure to the Glen Cove LAMIRD could enhance service delivery while maintaining its existing boundaries and rural designation. Improved infrastructure —particularly related to water, sewer, and stormwater systems —would support the area's existing Light Industrial and Light Industrial/Commercial uses, including warehousing, light manufacturing, and software development. While the area is not intended to be pedestrian -oriented in the urban sense, addressing current limitations in septic systems, stormwater management, and water availability is critical to ensuring the safe operation of facilities that handle industrial materials and equipment. Enhancements that improve internal circulation and mitigate risks —such as those posed by hazardous materials, large vehicle access, or site -specific pedestrian safety for workers —would strengthen the area's overall functionality. This targeted infrastructure investment may also offer a cost-effective alternative to expanding the UGA boundary, particularly when evaluated in terms of job retention, industrial efficiency, and long-term economic productivity. Comparable models may include other light industrial zones in rural areas that are characterized by focused, employment -driven activity with minimal residential or commercial foot traffic. This approach aligns with Goal LU-G-24 and Policy LU-P-24.2 of Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan, which emphasizes the importance of planning discussions between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend regarding infrastructure at Glen Cove. Potential solutions such as Large On -Site Sewage Systems (LOSS) or other innovative infrastructure technologies could address septic limitations while supporting the area's industrial and commercial activities. Additionally, Policy LU-P-24.3 encourages integrating renewable energy systems, which could enhance economic resiliency and provide sustainable energy solutions for local industries. The extension of infrastructure is further supported by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). .1.1 111111ainining111'rocess The key planning steps for extension of infrastructure to the Glen Cove LAMIRD are described below. Phase'1„ Hirelliiirniinairy Research & Justification The first phase involves identifying the specific infrastructure needs and ensuring compliance with the Growth Management Act. This includes determining what services are proposed for extension —such as water, sewer, roads, or broadband —and assessing whether the extension is intended to support existing development or could inadvertently enable new urban -style growth. A thorough review of applicable GMA provisions, particularly RCW 36.70A.110 and 36.70A.070(5), is essential to ensure that urban services are used solely to address existing public health or safety concerns in rural areas, and not to induce inappropriate urbanization outside the UGA. Early and inclusive stakeholder engagement is critical at this stage. Key participants include city and county officials, Jefferson County PUD, affected property owners, the Department of Health, and the Department of Ecology (if water or sewer services are involved). The Washington State Department of What Might a Future County -City Interlocal Agreement (ILA) Look Like? As the preferred alternative for Glen Cove involves extending water, sewer, and fire -flow services to the existing LAMIRD, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend will likely need to establish a formal Interlocal Agreement (ILA) to define long-term service responsibilities. While the specific terms would be negotiated at a later stage, ILAs for shared infrastructure typically address several core elements to ensure clarity, operational reliability, and alignment with GMA requirements. Key components that may be included in a future County —City (and utility provider) ILA include: 1. Service Area and Phasing ■ Definition of the Glen Cove service area boundary. ■ Identification of any phased implementation (e.g., initial service corridors, later extensions). ■ Economic Development Case for public investment ■ Land Use goals for job creation and efficient use of land ■ Mapping of pressure zones, sewer basins, and operational limits. 2. System Development Charges (SDCs) and Connection Fees ■ Schedule of applicable water/sewer SDCs and connection fees for Glen Cove users. ■ Any special considerations for industrial users or existing businesses transitioning from onsite systems. ■ Treatment of latecomer agreements or cost -recovery mechanisms where applicable. 3. Operations, Maintenance, and Outage Protocols ■ Designation of the entity responsible for day-to-day operations and maintenance (O&M). ■ Procedures for planned and unplanned service interruptions, including notification standards for businesses. ■ Roles and responsibilities for emergency response, repairs, and coordination with other utilities. 4. Fire -Flow and System Performance Standards ■ Minimum fire -flow requirements for industrial and commercial uses in Glen Cove. ■ Commitments related to pressure zones, hydrant spacing, and system reliability. ■ Procedures for monitoring and reporting system performance. 5. Wastewater Pretreatment and Industrial Discharge Standards ■ Requirements for high -strength wastewater or process wastewater discharges. ■ Pretreatment standards, monitoring protocols, and enforcement mechanisms. ■ Clarification of responsibilities between businesses, the County, and the City. 6. Revenue Sharing ■ Return on investment analysis in support of private investment. ■ Service impact on City and County ■ Revenue sharing to reflect impacts on services 7. Data Sharing, Coordination, and Dispute Resolution ■ Procedures for sharing data on flows, capacities, outages, and system performance. ■ Coordination protocols for permitting, inspections, and development review. ■ A mutually agreed -upon dispute resolution process. Commerce should be engaged early to ensure alignment with GMA requirements and to advise on potential regulatory or procedural considerations. Additionally, if the project seeks state or federal funding, early coordination with potential funding partners —such as the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)—can help shape the scope, funding eligibility, and long-term viability of infrastructure investments. As part of the preliminary assessment, this phase will also outline procedural and interjurisdictional steps necessary to move the project forward, including evaluating the potential need for an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. Such an agreement would be used to define service terms, cost -sharing, and maintenance responsibilities, etc. Items for consideration when developing an interlocal agreement include the following: 1. Identify Infrastructure Need: What service is being extended? (e.g., water, sewer, roads, broadband). Is it needed to support existing development, or does it enable new development? 2. Check GMA Compliance (RCW 36.70A.110 & 36.70A.070(5)): Urban services (like sewer) cannot promote new urban -style development outside UGAs. Services should only support existing development or correct public health/safety issues. 3. Engage Key Stakeholders: City officials (utility providers), Jefferson County planning staff, affected property owners, Department of Health, Department of Ecology (if water/sewer involved). If state or federal funding is involved, early coordination is needed. 4. Determine if an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) is Required: Cities providing infrastructure outside their boundaries often require an ILA with the county. ILAs define service terms, cost -sharing, and maintenance responsibilities. Phase 2: Planning & EnviiironirnentM Il eeviiew Following the completion of preliminary research, the planning and environmental review phase begins. At this stage, any proposed infrastructure extensions must be incorporated into the City and County Capital Facilities Plans (CFPs), which may also require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan — particularly if the extension involves water or sewer services that extend beyond city boundaries. In addition to CFP consistency, compliance with Jefferson County's Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) is essential. If the CPPs do not explicitly allow for infrastructure extensions to rural areas under the proposed circumstances, an amendment process may be necessary. Depending on the type of infrastructure involved, project approvals from the Washington State Department of Ecology or Department of Health may also be required. Key planning considerations in this phase include: 1. Capital Facilities Planning: Ensure the infrastructure extension is included in both the City and County CFPs. For example, the Mill Road Lift Station is already in the City's General Sewer Plan and CFP to service Evans Vista and a portion of the City limits currently without sewer service. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be required if extending services beyond City limits. 2. Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs): CPPs should provide a framework for infrastructure extension to rural areas under defined conditions. y If not, a formal amendment to the CPPs may be needed. 3. Regulatory Approvals: Projects involving water or sewer infrastructure may require approvals from the Department of Ecology and/or Department of Health. 4. Department of Commerce Review: If updates to the CFP are adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County must provide a minimum 60-day notice to the Washington State Department of Commerce, as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Phase 3: State EnviiironirnentM Policy Act (SEPA) Il eeviiew This project will proceed through SEPA review. This section describes the SEPA process and the decisions to be made throughout the process as a general guide. Note that the specific SEPA strategy and approach chosen should be discussed with legal counsel for agency -specific guidance. Under WAC 197-11, the first step of the SEPA process is to prepare a project -level Environmental Checklist, with a high level of detail regarding the nature and location of infrastructure extensions. Given that extending infrastructure to the Glen Cove LAMIRD is the preferred alternative, SEPA compliance will focus on the infrastructure action itself, rather than a broader land use amendment. Because this is a project -level action, the appropriate environmental review will be conducted under SEPA as a "project action," with specific attention to the proposed infrastructure elements and their locations. This includes identifying impacts related to water and sewer lines, grading, construction corridors, and utility easements. Specific elements of the environment likely to be of greatest relevance include: Earth (grading, excavation, and soils) Water (surface water impacts, stormwater discharge) Plants and Animals (critical areas, habitat disruption) Environmental Health (especially hazardous materials) Land Use Compatibility (industrial context within rural zoning) Historic and Cultural Resources (potential excavation impacts) Transportation (construction -related traffic and access) Public Services and Utilities (service capacity and service area consistency) The SEPA Responsible Official will review the Checklist and use the information included as the basis for a threshold determination, which is the formal decision as to whether the project is likely to cause a significant adverse environmental impact. According to WAC 197-11-794, significant means "a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality." If no significant environmental impacts are identified, the Responsible Official may issue a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) or, if minor mitigation is required, a Mitigated DNS (MDNS). Either determination requires a 14-day public comment period and publication in the SEPA Register. A Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) or Mitigated DNS is anticipated for this alternative unless specific corridor siting and cumulative impacts demonstrate probable significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, in which case an EIS could be required. There is no likely change in planned land use intensity in this alternative which recognizes that the LAMIRD is currently covered under the County's EIS for their Comprehensive Plan. Thus, environmental review would be focused on specific project impacts such as installation of infrastructure. Note that the SEPA analysis for infrastructure extension is distinct from the non -project SEPA review required for the UGA boundary or LAMIRD expansion alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3). Those actions are reviewed at a programmatic level and do not substitute for project -level SEPA review, which must occur prior to construction or permitting of specific infrastructure. More extensive environmental analysis in the form of an EA or EIS may be required for other alternatives. Phase 4: Public Il eeviiew & IIdeairiin s Public participation is a key component of this phase. If the infrastructure extension necessitates updates to the Comprehensive Plan or Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), public notice and comment periods are required. In addition, any updates to functional plans —such as utility or transportation plans —may be needed to ensure consistency across planning documents. For the City of Port Townsend, infrastructure -related amendments may need to be scheduled as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, subject to local docketing procedures. The County Planning Commission will hold at least one public hearing to review the proposal for consistency with the GMA, SEPA, and county policies. Following the hearing, the Commission will issue a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for final consideration. With the City of Port Townsend as the infrastructure provider, its City Council must also approve the proposed extension. Alternatively, if a special purpose district (such as a water or sewer district) is the responsible agency, approval must be granted by its Board of Commissioners. Unlike LAMIRD boundary expansions, which alter zoning boundaries and require Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) review, infrastructure extension projects primarily require utility provider approvals, functional plan amendments and amendments to capital facility planning documents. Key steps include: 1. Public Notice & Comment Period: If part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment or CFP update, public notice is required. 2. Planning Commission Review: The County Planning Commission holds at least one public hearing. Reviews compliance with GMA, SEPA, and county policies. y Issues a recommendation to BOCC. 3. City Council or Utility District Approval: If the infrastructure is provided by Port Townsend, its City Council must approve the extension. If a special district (e.g., a water/sewer district) provides the service, its Board of Commissioners must authorize the extension. Phase S: Board of County Coirnirniissiioneirs and City of Hold Townsend Il eeviiew If the proposed infrastructure extension requires amendments to the County and City's Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Facilities Element, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the City of Port Townsend will review the proposed changes, hold public hearings, and vote on whether to adopt, deny, or modify the amendments. These are legislative actions, and BOCC involvement is limited to plan -level decisions, not project -specific permitting. In parallel, the owner of the infrastructure —typically the City of Port Townsend or Jefferson County PUD—must formally approve the extension. Their review ensures alignment with system capacity, financial planning, and service obligations. If a special purpose district is responsible for providing the service, its governing board must also authorize the extension through its own approval process. This phase ensures that both policy -level frameworks and infrastructure provider commitments are aligned before implementation proceeds. Phase 6: Fiinall Approvals, Construction, and Appeals The final phase involves securing all necessary regulatory approvals and preparing for construction. If the infrastructure extension involves water or sewer systems that impact public health or environmental standards, approvals may be required from the Washington State Department of Health and/or the Department of Ecology. If the infrastructure crosses private property, additional right-of-way acquisition and easement negotiations may be needed. Before construction can begin, detailed engineering studies and refined cost estimates must be completed. For grant -funded projects, all associated environmental conditions, permitting requirements, and contractual obligations must be satisfied. The process and venue for appeals will vary based on the nature of the action: If the project involves legislative actions —such as amending the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, or Countywide Planning Policies —any appeal would be directed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB), per GMA procedures. If the infrastructure extension proceeds as a permit or quasi-judicial decision, appeal procedures are governed by the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC), Chapter 18.40.330: Type I permits may be appealed directly to Superior Court. Type II and Type III permits, as well as SEPA determinations, may be appealed to the County Hearing Examiner. It is important to identify the applicable permit classification early to determine the appropriate appeal track. While infrastructure extensions do not typically require state -level approval unless tied to a GMA plan amendment, they can still be challenged if perceived to induce urban development outside the UGA. 3.1.2 II"'iiirnehine/ll oteintt all Challllein e The timeline for implementing this alternative is likely shorter than the other alternatives given the work already performed in the City's General Sewer Plan and the existing Comprehensive Plan of Jefferson County addressing the LAMIRD. Nevertheless, government action takes time and is dependent on the complexity of environmental review, permitting, public engagement, funding availability and interagency coordination. Several challenges may affect the project's schedule and feasibility: Regulatory Compliance: Demonstrating full consistency with the Growth Management Act (GMA) is critical, particularly ensuring that the infrastructure extension does not induce urban growth in rural areas. This alternative is founded on this principle. Funding Constraints: Securing state or federal grant funding may be difficult due to eligibility criteria, matching fund requirements, and competitive application processes. Stakeholder and Community Buy -In: Gaining support from residents, property owners, and service providers may be challenging, especially where concerns exist around cost -sharing agreements, long-term tax implications, or perceived development pressures. Environmental Constraints: The presence of critical areas, wetlands, or archaeological resources may require additional studies, design adjustments, or mitigation measures, increasing both cost and timeline. Legal Risk: Infrastructure extensions may face legal challenges from interest groups or property owners —particularly if the project is perceived to conflict with GMA provisions or local land use goals. Such challenges could lead to appeals and delays in implementation. Careful sequencing of permitting, early stakeholder engagement, and proactive planning will be essential to managing these risks and maintaining project momentum. 3.2 II -t it in t fii it e : IIN,�, Id a in the III,,,,,A IIM II IR III With respect to land use zoning, the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial Area is a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) in the GMA framework. Expanding the LAMIRD in the Glen Cove area would involve increasing its boundary to accommodate additional growth. This option must be carefully evaluated to determine if further expansion aligns with GMA regulations, which typically limit LAMIRD expansions. According to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), expansions must be consistent with the existing character of development and cannot lead to urban growth patterns inappropriate for rural areas. WAC 365-196-425(6) provides further guidance, stating that LAMIRD boundaries should be defined by logical outer boundaries, supported by existing infrastructure, and documented as meeting the criteria outlined in the GMA. Unlike UGA expansions, LAMIRD expansions cannot be justified by projected growth but must instead be based on existing development patterns. . .1 111111ainining111'rocess Planning steps toward expanding the LAMIRD include defining the new boundaries of the LAMIRD, conducting a land capacity analysis to justify the need for expansion, considering potential intensification of uses within the LAMIRD, and updating the Comprehensive Plan land use map to reflect the updated boundaries. Amendments to the use table in Jefferson County's Unified Development Code may be necessary to accommodate new or intensified uses. Public outreach will also be essential to address community concerns. Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan notes that the Glen Cove Industrial Area's zoning supports a wide variety of light industrial and commercial uses, but broader commercial designations are restricted to mitigate traffic and safety concerns. Any expansion proposal must carefully navigate these constraints and ensure alignment with local and regional goals. Goals LU-G-24 and LU-G-25 of Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan provide additional guidance for LAMIRD expansions. LU-G-24 emphasizes the containment of industrial development within defined boundaries, allowing limited infill. Policy LU-P-24.2 encourages ongoing planning discussions with the City of Port Townsend to explore infrastructure solutions that could support Glen Cove's growth, such as extension of city sewer and water. These goals reinforce the importance of maintaining consistency with RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) while addressing infrastructure needs and supporting economic opportunities. LU-G-25 highlights the potential to align expansions with natural resource -based industries, ensuring compatibility with existing resource lands and fostering employment opportunities. The area's existing uses (e.g., industrial parks, light manufacturing, and software development) align well with economic development goals. Expansion could focus on accommodating additional industries that support local employment while ensuring land use compatibility. Additionally, past challenges regarding pedestrian safety and hazardous materials suggest that expansion proposals should include strategies for mitigation. Phase '1: Prelliiirniinairy Research & Justification As with the UGA expansion and most other land use actions, the first step in planning a LAMIRD expansion is conducting preliminary research to justify the expansion and confirm compliance with GMA requirements. This involves identifying the rationale for expansion, analyzing the historical built environment to demonstrate that the area is already intensively developed, and conducting an environmental constraints analysis to assess potential impacts on wetlands, floodplains, and other critical areas. LAMIRD expansions must meet strict "infill, development, or redevelopment" criteria and cannot be based on future growth needs like a UGA. Early engagement with property owners, community groups, and county planning staff is also essential to gauge stakeholder concerns and support. Phase 2.: Coirnpirehensiive Phan & Zoning Airnendirnenf PiroposM The next step in the process involves formally proposing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations to reflect the expanded LAMIRD boundary. This begins with submitting a docket request, as LAMIRD expansions require inclusion in the county's annual docket for review. County planning staff must then prepare a report evaluating whether the expansion aligns with GMA requirements, demonstrating that the area meets the criteria for historic development and does not encourage urbanization of rural lands. If approved, updates must be made to both the County Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map to incorporate the expanded boundary. Unlike UGA expansions, which focus on accommodating projected population and employment growth, LAMIRD expansions must rely on historical development patterns as their justification. I. Submit Docket Request: LAMIRD expansions require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, which must be added to the county's annual docket for review. 2. Develop Planning Staff Report: County staff must evaluate whether the request meets GMA requirements. 3. Zoning & Future Land Use Map Updates: If approved, the County Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map must be updated to reflect the expanded boundary. Phase 3: State Enviiironirnenfall Policy Act (SEPA) Il eeviiew As with Alternative 1, the first step of the SEPA process is to prepare an environmental checklist. Because expanding the LAMIRD boundary is a non -project action, Section D of the Checklist ("Supplemental sheet for non -project actions") needs to be filled out. Elements of the environment that are most relevant to the proposed action and therefore may require the most analysis and detail in the Checklist, are land use and utilities. To the extent possible, the SEPA review should also acknowledge the potential impacts of actions that would take place pursuant to the LAMIRD Boundary amendment, such as infrastructure extensions. The SEPA Responsible Official will review the Checklist and use the information included as the basis for a threshold determination, which is the formal decision as to whether the project is likely to cause a significant adverse environmental impact. If the determination is that the action would not have a significant impact, then the next step will be to prepare a Determination of Non -significance (DNS). If the action would have a significant impact but that impact could be mitigated to the degree that it is not significant, a Mitigated DNS (MDNS) can be issued. For either a DNS or an MDNS, the document will need to be distributed to interest parties, public notice will need to be given, and the document will need to be posted to Ecology's SEPA Register. Both a DNS and an MDNS require a 14-day comment period. The SEPA Responsible Official will need to consider all comments made within the comment period and then choose to retain the DNS, issue a revised DNS (for example, if new mitigation measures need to be applied), or withdraw the DNS and issue a determination of significance. After the completion of the comment period, if the DNS is retained, then the action can be taken. If the threshold determination is that the action would have significant impacts, then a determination of significance (DS) needs to be issued. If the SEPA Responsible Official determines at the beginning of the process that the action is likely to have significant impacts, it is possible to skip the preparation of the Checklist and begin the process with a DS. The DS initiates an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. An EIS is a longer and more detailed document than a Checklist and it requires consideration of alternatives. The EIS also has greater requirements for public involvement. The EIS process can take six to nine months, or longer depending on the complexity of the environmental analysis required. The steps in the EIS process are: 1. Issue a Determination of Significance, which starts the scoping period. 2. Conduct a scoping comment period of 21 to 30 days to solicit input from the public, other agencies, and Tribes on alternatives, elements of the environment to include in the EIS, and potential mitigation measures. 3. Conduct analysis on the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures. 4. Write the Draft EIS. 5. Publish the Draft EIS and hold a 30-day (minimum) comment period, which will likely require a public meeting. 6. Revise the EIS, if required based on comments received. 7. Respond to all comments in the revised EIS. 8. Publish the Final EIS. Action can be taken seven days after the final EIS has been issued. At least 6 to 9 months should be included in the schedule for an EIS, though they can potentially take longer depending on the details of the specific action being analyzed. Phase 4: PUblliic Outreach & IIdeairiin s Public engagement plays a critical role in the LAMIRD expansion process. The county must notify affected property owners and conduct a public comment period to gather feedback. At least one public hearing is held by the Planning Commission to review the proposal, during which stakeholders can voice their support or concerns. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Based on public input and legal review, refinements to the expansion proposal may be necessary before it moves forward. LAMIRD expansions often face greater opposition from rural preservation groups, who argue that increased development pressure threatens rural character and environmental resources. Addressing these concerns through clear justification and mitigation strategies is essential to moving the proposal forward. 1. Public Notification & Comment Period: The county notifies affected property owners and holds a public comment period. 2. County Planning Commission Hearings: The Planning Commission holds at least one public hearing to review the proposal. y It then makes a recommendation to the BOCC. 3. Revisions & Refinements: Adjustments based on public input and legal review. Phase 5: Board of County Coirnirniissiioneirs Consideration and Action Following completion of the Planning Commission review and public outreach process, the proposal to expand the LAMIRD advances to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for legislative consideration. As the final decision -making body, the BOCC conducts at least one public hearing to evaluate the proposal, drawing from the public record, SEPA documentation, staff recommendations, and legal and policy analyses developed during prior phases. In reviewing a LAMIRD expansion, the BOCC must determine whether the proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA)—particularly the requirements in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)—as well as aligned with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. Key considerations include whether the proposed expansion: Reflects the existing pattern and scale of rural development as of July 1, 1990, Maintains a logical outer boundary, Avoids enabling urban -level development or sprawl, and Serves a demonstrated rural or natural resource -based economic function. Based on its findings, the BOCC may vote to approve, modify, or deny the proposed expansion. If approved, the expansion is adopted by ordinance and supported by formal findings of fact demonstrating compliance with GMA provisions specific to rural development, as well as local policy objectives. Step 6: State Il eeviiew & Fiinall Alplpirovall Following local adoption, the amendment is submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce for a mandatory 60-day review period, during which the state may provide comments or choose to file an appeal —but does not take formal action to approve or finalize the amendment. If no appeal is filed by Commerce or any other party, the amendment moves forward for local implementation. A 60-day appeal window also begins following adoption, during which interested parties may challenge the amendment before the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). While appeals can occur for any land use change under GMA, LAMIRD expansions are more frequently contested by environmental advocacy or rural preservation groups, particularly where concerns exist about rural sprawl. If appealed, the county may be required to defend the amendment through GMHB proceedings, which could lead to modification or remand. If no appeal is filed, the expanded LAMIRD is officially recognized, and the new boundaries are incorporated into the county's zoning and development regulations. Key steps include: 1. Washington State Department of Commerce Review (60 days): The adopted amendment is submitted to Commerce for review. The state may provide comments or file an appeal but does not take action to approve or deny. 2. Appeal Period (60 days after adoption): Any party may challenge the amendment before the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). If appealed, the county may need to need to defend or revise the amendment during the hearing process. 3. Final Implementation: If no appeal, the expanded LAMIRD is officially recognized in county zoning and development regulations. 3.2.2 II"'ii irn e h in e/ ll t in tt ll Chall1leinges LAMIRD expansions are subject to more stringent constraints under the GMA than UGA expansions, as they must be justified based on historic patterns of development rather than future growth projections. The most significant challenge is demonstrating that the area proposed for expansion was physically developed as of July 1, 1990, as required by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Without sufficient historical evidence —such as building records, aerial photos, or utility connections —the expansion may not withstand regulatory or legal scrutiny. Public opposition is also a recurring challenge, particularly from rural conservation or environmental groups that argue against development intensification in rural areas. Concerns typically center on potential environmental degradation, increased traffic, and the risk of incremental urbanization beyond the original intent of the LAMIRD designation. Infrastructure availability poses an additional hurdle. While UGAs are expected to be served by centralized urban services like sewer and water, LAMIRDs must maintain rural -scaled infrastructure. This creates challenges in areas where existing or expanded industrial activity may require more robust systems —particularly for wastewater treatment. In these cases, LOSS may offer a viable solution that preserves rural character while meeting environmental health standards. Use of a LOSS system generally does not require coordination with the City of Port Townsend, unless the facility would cross jurisdictional boundaries or affect shared utility systems. Regulatory oversight from the Department of Health and/or the Department of Ecology may be required depending on system design and scale. Finally, legal challenges are a real possibility. GMA compliance watchdogs frequently scrutinize LAMIRD expansions for signs of rural sprawl or inadequate justification. If appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB), the County must be able to clearly demonstrate that the proposed expansion aligns with statutory criteria and does not establish a precedent for circumventing rural development protections. Key considerations include: LAMIRD expansions must be based on pre-1990 development patterns. Public and environmental opposition is common. LOSS systems may be necessary where enhanced services are needed —but must retain rural scale. Legal appeals to the GMHB are likely if the expansion is not well -supported by data and GMA policy. While not currently under consideration, an amendment to the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary remains a potential long-term option that could be revisited in the future. Alternatives 3 and 4 (described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively) are included in this report for informational purposes only, to outline the procedural steps and planning requirements that would apply if a UGA expansion or boundary swap were to be pursued at a later date —particularly with support from community members or in response to evolving regional needs. Expanding a UGA boundary represents a significant undertaking under the Growth Management Act and must be approached with careful analysis of long-term impacts on land use patterns, infrastructure investment, and the provision of public services. As reinforced in RCW 36.70A.130(3)(a), counties are required to periodically review not only the boundaries of their designated UGAs, but also the patterns of development and permitted densities within both incorporated and unincorporated portions. Any proposed UGA amendment must also comply with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b), which requires that amendments be considered concurrently to evaluate their cumulative impact. Guidance on related requirements —such as land capacity analysis, urban services availability, and density thresholds —is outlined in WAC 365-196-310(2)(e) and WAC 365-196-325(1)(b), which jurisdictions must consult during the review process. Public engagement is a critical component, ensuring that community concerns and perspectives are incorporated into the decision -making process. If the amendment is approved, the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations must be updated to reflect the revised boundary. . .1 111111ainining111'rocess Key planning steps for a conventional UGA amendment are outlined below. Phase'1„ Hirelliiirniinairy Research & Justification The process begins with a comprehensive assessment of population forecasts, housing and employment trends and current land uses to determine whether an expansion of the Urban Growth Area is needed to meet the 20-year planning horizon. The local jurisdiction —Jefferson County and/or the City of Port Townsend —must demonstrate a clear and data -supported rationale for why the current UGA boundary is no longer sufficient. Common justifications for UGA boundary amendment include: Population Growth Projections: If updated population forecasts (from the Office of Financial Management or a jurisdiction's own study) indicate that the existing UGA cannot accommodate anticipated growth over the planning horizon (typically 20 years), expansion may be justified. Infrastructure Availability: Expansion may be warranted when areas outside the UGA can feasibly be served by urban infrastructure (e.g., sewer, water, transportation) and are well -suited for infill or new development. Economic Development Needs: Expansion may be justified when there is a lack of available land to meet commercial or industrial demand, particularly where expansion supports job creation and employment targets. Environmental Health Remediation: The need to address failing septic systems, groundwater contamination, or other environmental harms through extension of sewer or stormwater systems may support expansion when linked to existing development or public health risks. Existing Urban -Level Development: Areas already characterized by urban growth —through lot sizes, densities, or infrastructure —may warrant inclusion in the UGA to ensure consistency with GMA planning principles. Annexation Agreements or Interlocal Agreements: Formal agreements between the City and County that identify future annexation areas, service provision responsibilities, or financial terms may support UGA expansion. These may take the form of pre -annexation or revenue -sharing agreements, which often include provisions for delayed annexation, utility rate surcharges, tax revenue sharing, or infrastructure cost allocations. Such agreements help clarify governance and service expectations and can mitigate concerns from stakeholders who are hesitant about annexation. Current Economic Assessment: Expansion may be supported when market analyses that identify gaps in industrial, residential, or mixed -use capacity that cannot be addressed within the current boundary. A land capacity analysis is then conducted in accordance with GMA guidance and Commerce's WAC standards. This analysis evaluates how much developable land remains within the existing UGA, how it is used, and whether it can accommodate projected growth through infill or redevelopment. The preliminary analysis must also address consistency with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), and state GMA requirements. Early coordination with stakeholders —including landowners, service providers, city and county staff —is essential to evaluate site -specific feasibility and build a foundation for community and interjurisdictional support. Phase 2.: Coirnlpirehensiive Phan and FunctiionM Phan Airnendirnenf PiroposM Once the need for expansion is justified and consistency with regulatory requirements is confirmed, a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan is initiated. UGA expansions require a formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, typically submitted through an annual docket process or as part of a GMA- mandated periodic update. While the Washington State Department of Commerce has expressed a preference for UGA expansions to occur during periodic updates, there is no statutory prohibition against considering such amendments at other times. Because a UGA expansion affects the provision of urban services, both the County and the City of Port Townsend must update their Comprehensive Plans and relevant functional plans —including, but not limited to, Capital Facilities Plans, utility plans, transportation plans, and any applicable subarea or facility -specific planning documents. These updates are necessary to ensure that future urban services (e.g. sewer, water, transportation, stormwater) can be provided in a manner consistent with GMA requirements and countywide planning policies. Planning staff prepare a report outlining the rationale for expansion —drawing from growth forecasts, infrastructure assessments, and land capacity analysis conducted in Phase 1—and present it for review by the County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission evaluates the proposal's consistency with the Growth Management Act, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies, and may recommend revisions or move it forward for further consideration. Phase 1 State EnviiironirnentM Policy Act (SEPA) Il eeviiew As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal, a SEPA review must be conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the UGA boundary amendment. Because this would be a non - project (or programmatic) action, the review would generally be focused on broad policy -level impacts rather than site -specific development details. SEPA considerations for Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2. Local Practice — SEPA Addendum Process: In Jefferson County, it is typical to issue a SEPA Addendum in connection with the staff report during the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. This approach builds upon existing environmental documentation —most notably, the 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for the initial GMA Comprehensive Plan adoption. Glen Cove -Specific Consideration: In addition to the 1998 FEIS, the Glen Cove—Tri-Area Special Study (circa 1999) included an EIS specific to the Glen Cove industrial area. If relevant, the County may choose to issue a SEPA Addendum or a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) to build upon that prior analysis. The decision to issue an Addendum vs. a new threshold determination would depend on the degree to which new information, impacts, or alternatives are identified. Note that future actions, such as extending infrastructure within the newly expanded UGA, would not be covered by the non -project SEPA analysis and would require its own project -level SEPA compliance process if the action is not SEPA-exempt. In the non -project SEPA documentation, information about future related actions should be described in as much detail as is available. Phase 4„ Public Outreach & Hearings This phase begins once the proposal is ready for public review. The Jefferson County Planning Commission typically leads this stage by hosting public meetings and workshops to gather feedback from residents, stakeholders, and property owners regarding the proposed UGA swap or expansion. These forums offer important opportunities to address concerns related to land use, environmental impacts, infrastructure, and community character. At least one formal public hearing is conducted by the County Planning Commission, which may result in recommendations for revisions based on community input, environmental analysis, or legal review. Because UGA modifications carry implications for urban service delivery, the City of Port Townsend's Planning Commission and City Council may also participate in the review process. While the County controls UGA designation, the City is ultimately responsible for serving the expanded UGA area. As such, interjurisdictional meetings or joint study sessions are often necessary to: Evaluate the feasibility of extending services (e.g., sewer, water, transportation), Confirm alignment with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan, Discuss annexation timing, sequencing, or conditions, and Build policy alignment between the City and County. This collaborative approach ensures that UGA decisions are fully informed by both jurisdictions, support long-term growth management strategies, and reflect shared infrastructure responsibilities Phase S„ Board of County Coirnirniissiioneirs Il eeviiew Following completion of the Planning Commission process and public outreach and City of Port Townsend approval of the UGA expansion, the proposal advances to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for final review. As the legislative decision -making body, the BOCC holds at least one public hearing to consider the proposed amendment, supported by the public record developed during previous phases. Based on public testimony, staff recommendations, and policy consistency, the BOCC may choose to approve, modify, or deny the amendment. If approved, the UGA modification is formally adopted by ordinance, along with findings of fact that demonstrate consistency with the Growth Management Act, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies. Phase 6„ State Il eeviiew & Fiinall Alplpirovall Following approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), Jefferson County must submit the proposed amendment to the Washington State Department of Commerce for a minimum 60-day review period prior to formal adoption, as required under RCW 36.70A.106. During this pre -adoption review period, Commerce may provide advisory comments but does not approve or deny the amendment. Once the amendment is formally adopted by the County, it is subject to a 60-day appeal period, which begins upon publication of the notice of adoption in the County's newspaper of record. During this time, any party with standing may file a petition for review with the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Under RCW 36.70A.290(2) and related provisions, certain actions —such as UGA boundary expansions — do not take effect until the 60th day following publication, unless appealed. If an appeal is filed, the amendment's effective date may be delayed pending the outcome of GMHB proceedings. If no appeal is filed, the amendment takes effect and is incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Development Regulations. 3.3.2 II"'ii irn e h in e/ ll t in tt ll Chall1leinges The overall timeline for completing a UGA expansion depends on the complexity of the land use analysis, the scale of required Comprehensive Plan and functional plan updates, and the level of public and interjurisdictional engagement. Although the procedural steps are established under GMA, several challenges may affect the schedule and ultimate feasibility of a UGA amendment: Demonstrating Growth -Related Need: UGA expansions require a clear demonstration of population, housing, or employment need that cannot be accommodated within the existing UGA. Preparing defensible growth forecasts and land capacity analyses can be time -intensive and may undergo significant scrutiny during review. Infrastructure Feasibility and Cost: Expanding a UGA requires evidence that urban services, such as sewer, water, and transportation, can be provided efficiently and at urban levels of service. Developing and coordinating these analyses between the County and City, and with utility providers, can extend the planning timeline. Interjurisdictional Coordination: UGA expansions necessitate coordinated updates to both County and City Comprehensive Plans and functional plans. Negotiating service responsibilities, annexation expectations, and capital project sequencing may require sustained and potentially lengthy collaboration efforts. Public Opposition and Community Concerns: Proposed UGA expansions often raise concerns about increased traffic, loss of rural character, environmental impacts, or pressure for annexation. Addressing these concerns through public outreach, refined analysis, or mitigation strategies can extend timelines. Legal Appeals: As with all UGA-related amendments, a 60-day appeal period applies following adoption. A challenge brought before the Growth Management Hearings Board can delay implementation by 6 to 12 months or more, depending on case complexity. 3.4 All-t irinatfiiv (Boundary Swalp The fourth alternative —not currently under consideration, but which has been provided for informational purposes —is a UGA boundary swap. This approach involves removing one area from the existing Urban Growth Area while designating another area for inclusion, thereby maintaining the overall size and population capacity of the UGA. A boundary swap may be used to better align the UGA with infrastructure availability, environmental constraints, or long-term development goals, without increasing the total urban growth footprint. Although the legislative process for a boundary swap generally follows the same procedural steps as a standard UGA amendment (e.g., Comprehensive Plan update, SEPA review, public hearings), the substantive requirements differ. Unlike a conventional UGA expansion, a swap does not require a demonstration of additional population or employment capacity needs. Instead, the County and City must show that the land proposed for addition is of equal or greater suitability for accommodating planned urban development than the land being removed. This includes consideration of factors such as infrastructure feasibility, land constraints, development readiness, and alignment with adopted planning policies. . .1 111111ainining111'rocess Below is a step-by-step breakdown with a rough timeline and key differences from a standard UGA expansion. Phase '1: Prelliiirniinairy Research & Justification As with a standard UGA amendment, the boundary swap process begins by identifying the rationale for exchanging areas within and outside of the Urban Growth Area. Swaps are typically considered to better align urban growth with infrastructure capacity, long-range planning goals, or environmental constraints —without increasing the total UGA acreage. A key procedural distinction from conventional UGA expansion is that swaps involve both removal and addition of land. To initiate the process, particularly when removal involves land within City limits, a deannexation petition may be required from affected property owners. For designated farmland or resource land, this deannexation can occur without a public vote, per state law. Such a petition would typically trigger the initiation of the County's annual Comprehensive Plan amendment docket. Early in the process, the County and City should evaluate whether Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) or annexation -related agreements are needed to coordinate roles, responsibilities, and long-term service expectations. For areas proposed to be removed from the UGA or deannexed, agreements may outline how the transition will be managed, including the withdrawal of urban services. For areas proposed to be added, agreements may establish expectations for infrastructure extension, revenue sharing, and annexation timing or conditions. These agreements help prevent service gaps, clarify cost allocation, and ensure compliance with GMA objectives. Once potential areas for removal and addition are identified, a land capacity analysis must be conducted to confirm that the exchange maintains adequate residential, employment, and infrastructure capacity to meet growth targets. This growth -neutral approach distinguishes a swap from expansion, as no net increase in capacity is anticipated. Justification must be provided for the land that would be added to the UGA as part of the swap as well as the land that would be removed. Under the GMA, a county must demonstrate that the land no longer meets the criteria for inclusion in the UGA. Justifications for UGA removal may include: Farmland or Resource Land Protection: If land meets the criteria for agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands (RCW 36.70A.170) and the county determines it should be preserved for these purposes, it can be removed from the UGA. Landowner Consensus: A group of property owners can petition the county to be removed from the UGA, typically if they can demonstrate that urban services are not needed nor feasible. Growth Capacity Analysis: Excess developable land identified in a Buildable Lands Report (RCW 36.70A.215) may justify downsizing. Inability to Provide Urban Services: If a city or county determines that urban services (sewer, water, roads, etc.) cannot be extended cost-effectively, land can be removed. Environmental Constraints: Critical areas (e.g., wetlands, steep slopes) limiting urban development potential may justify removal. Existing or Updated Interlocal Agreement: Agreements may support realignment of the UGA boundary to reflect service capacity or jurisdictional changes. The proposal must then be evaluated for consistency with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Countywide Planning Policies, and GMA requirements. Early engagement with affected landowners, local jurisdictions, and the general public is essential to refine the proposal and address potential concerns. A critical distinction between a swap and a conventional expansion is that a swap requires the County and City to demonstrate that the land being added is of equal or greater suitability for accommodating planned urban development than the land being removed —preserving long-term urban capacity while avoiding sprawl. Phase :: Coirnpirehensiive Plan and Euncfiionall Plan Airnendirnenf Hirolposall The Comprehensive Plan and functional plan amendment process for Alternative 4 is the same as for Alternative 3. Phase 3„ State Enviiironirnenfall Policy Act (SEHA) Il eeviiew SEPA considerations for Alternative 4 are the same as for Alternative 3. Phase 4„ Public Outreach & IIdeairiin s This step closely mirrors the Public Outreach and Hearings process used for conventional UGA amendment, as outlined in Section 3.3 (Alternative 3) above. However, UGA swaps introduce unique sensitivities, particularly for property owners in the removal area, who may be concerned about reduced development potential or property value impacts. To navigate these dynamics, transparent communication and early engagement are essential — especially to explain the rationale for the swap, the criteria for land suitability, and the implications for urban services and future development rights. The County Planning Commission leads this phase by hosting public meetings and at least one formal hearing, with opportunities for both oral and written testimony. Coordinated messaging between the County and City of Port Townsend is especially important to reinforce a shared vision and build public trust in the process. Phase S„ Board of County Coirnirniissiioneirs Il eeviiew The BOCC review process for Alternative 4 is the same as for Alternative 3. Phase 6„ State Il eeviiew & Eiinall Alplpirovall As with Alternative 3, following approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), Jefferson County must submit the proposed UGA boundary swap to the Washington State Department of Commerce for a minimum 60-day review period prior to formal adoption, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106. During this review period, Commerce may issue advisory comments regarding GMA consistency but does not approve or deny the amendment. Once the swap is formally adopted by the County, it is subject to a 60-day appeal period, which begins upon publication of the notice of adoption in the County's newspaper of record. During this time, any party with standing —including property owners, environmental groups, or other stakeholders —may file a petition for review with the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Note: Under RCW 36.70A.290(2) and related provisions, UGA amendments —including swaps —do not take effect until the 60th day following publication, unless appealed. If an appeal is filed, the amendment's effective date may be delayed pending the outcome of GMHB proceedings. Although a UGA swap does not increase overall urban capacity, it often invites additional scrutiny due to its dual action of adding and removing land. The County must demonstrate that the swap: Maintains overall UGA acreage and growth capacity, Aligns with regional planning goals, and Does not encourage urban sprawl or disproportionately benefit specific landowners. If no appeal is filed, the UGA swap becomes effective on the 61st day following adoption and is formally incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 3.4.2 II"'ii irn e h in e/ ll t in tt ll Chall1leinges The total timeline for completing a UGA boundary swap depends on project complexity, public response, and legal review. While the procedural steps largely mirror those of a conventional UGA amendment, swaps introduce several additional challenges that can impact the schedule and outcome: Landowner Resistance and Equity Concerns: Property owners proposed for removal from the UGA may oppose the change due to concerns about reduced development potential, property value impacts, or loss of access to future infrastructure improvements. These concerns can generate political and legal pressure, requiring proactive outreach, detailed justification, and sometimes compensation mechanisms. Deannexation Logistics: If land within City limits is proposed for removal, a deannexation petition must be filed by affected property owners. This procedural step can add time, legal complexity, and coordination challenges between jurisdictions. Land Suitability and Capacity Neutrality: Demonstrating that the land added to the UGA is of equal or greater urban suitability than the land removed is a core requirement of a valid swap. This includes conducting a detailed land capacity and infrastructure feasibility analysis, and it may invite heightened scrutiny from Commerce, regional planning organizations, or watchdog groups. Public Perception and Legal Risk: Because swaps change both the geography and potential value of affected properties, they can be perceived as favoring or disadvantaging specific stakeholders. This increases the risk of public controversy or appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board, particularly if the rationale for inclusion/removal is not clearly articulated. Interjurisdictional Coordination: As with other UGA changes, boundary swaps require alignment between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend on land use goals, infrastructure responsibilities, and future annexation potential. Crafting or updating interlocal agreements, service extension terms, and revenue -sharing provisions may involve complex negotiations. Environmental Review and Constraints: If the land proposed for addition has critical areas, steep slopes, or other environmental constraints, the County may face barriers under SEPA or public opposition due to perceived environmental risks or development pressure. Appeal Delays: After adoption, the 60-day appeal period provides an opportunity for affected parties to challenge the amendment. If appealed, resolution through the GMHB may take an additional 6 to 12 months, delaying implementation. While a swap offers a growth -neutral planning option, it requires careful justification, robust public engagement, and interagency cooperation to succeed. Strategic communication and legal defensibility will be critical to navigating potential barriers and preserving regional growth integrity. 3.5 Glen CoveIP II ire ire fl ire II -t it ire tfii ire S Comparison A summary comparison of the four alternatives outlined in the previous sections is provided in Table 3-1. FaDI IIIe 3..3I. W.)GA Alternatives...... IIKey III''Alf°Ifer nces at a Gl*ic Must demonstrate that service extension addresses existing development or public health/safety—not intended to support new urban development. Urban services may be extended to correct deficiencies but must not induce new urban development outside UGA boundaries. Must prove that development existed as of July 1, 1990; cannot be based on projected growth. Must maintain rural scale and character; may not increase allowed densities or induce urban development patterns Must demonstrate growth -related need (population, housing, or employment), a land capacity shortfall, and infrastructure feasibility. Must justify need based on 20-year growth forecasts, land capacity analysis, and efficient provision of urban services. Must maintain total UGA acreage and show that the added area is at least as suitable for planned urban development as the area removed. Must ensure no net increase in total UGA capacity; justification focuses on more efficient spatial configuration rather than additional growth capacity. • Department of Health and/or Department of Ecology for utility approvals • WSDOT if road network impacts • Department of Commerce if related plan updates are adopted Limited GMHB risk because it does not alter land -use designations. Challenges would occur through the Hearing Examiner on project - level approvals or SEPA. • Department of Commerce (GMA consistency) • Department of Ecology (SEPA) • Growth Management Hearings Board (if appealed) Likely GMHB scrutiny. LAMIRD expansions face strict review under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), with appeals often focused on historic development and urban growth concerns. • Department of Commerce (GMA consistency) • Department of Ecology (SEPA) • Growth Management Hearings Board (if appealed) Likely GMHB scrutiny. UGA expansions are frequently appealed and must demonstrate growth need, land capacity limits, and service feasibility. Appeals may add significant delay. • Department of Commerce (GMA consistency) • Department of Ecology (SEPA) • Growth Management Hearings Board (if appealed) Highest likelihood of GMHB scrutiny through an appeal because it involves both removal and addition of UGA area. Must prove capacity neutrality and land suitability, making the record vulnerable to challenge. 3.6 11infirastiructu ire Considerations Section 4 of this report provides detailed information about the existing utilities within the study area. Existing infrastructure is generally limited in the study area and supports the existing development. For sewer and water, individual septic systems and wells are common for existing residential development. To allow for anticipated growth in the study area, infrastructure capacity will need to be increased to meet developer requirements and meet regulatory requirements such as fire flow. In general, it appears that the surrounding area currently has utilities that can be extended into the study area to allow for future growth. For example, sewer from the City of Port Townsend will need to be extended south into study area, and the use of septic systems will decrease with growth. Each of the alternatives presented above has a different potential "boundary" associated with it. After reviewing these boundaries relative to utility purveyors, it was noted that the specific purveyors involved would likely be the same no matter which alternative was selected. Furthermore, the general process for extending utilities into the resulting growth areas would be the same regardless of the alternative. Therefore, this report considered the largest "potential" boundary when looking at the existing utility infrastructure. Power is available in and around the study area including single- and three-phase. There is a significant utility easement for power transmission that runs generally north/south through the study area. This easement includes other utilities and the capacity to add additional utilities to this easement is potentially limited. Once the final boundary is established and the specific nature of future development (future loads, etc.) is determined, additional coordination and planning with the purveyor will be needed. The study area has potential access to three different telecommunication purveyors in the area. Once the final boundary is established, additional coordination and planning with each purveyor will be needed. For water service, the study area falls within the City of Port Townsend and future Jefferson County Public Utility District No. 1 water service areas. Therefore, no changes to the water service areas will be required. The City's Water System Plan includes discussion about extending the water system into the study area and highlights some of the improvements needed. Fire protection is noted as an area of particular concern in the study area. Once the final boundary is established and the specific nature of future development is determined, an update to the 2019 City of Port Townsend Water System Plan may be needed. Sewer service for the study area would be provided by the City of Port Townsend. The City has designated the Glen Cove area for possible inclusion in the City's wastewater service area. The 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan (GSP) discusses this potential in more detail. The City's sewer service area and GSP will likely need to be updated once the final boundary is established and the specific nature of future development is determined. Also, extending sewer service would eliminate the need for wellhead protection associated with septic systems. Stormwater will likely be handled on a project -by -project basis. A regional stormwater facility could potentially be provided to help streamline the development process. It is important to recognize that regional stormwater facilities increase the initial capital investment by the jurisdiction and put more of the operation and maintenance burden on the jurisdiction. Transportation impacts must also be analyzed, and collaborations with relevant agencies are needed to implement improvements. . .1 "ll"'rainslportatoin and I lullfirriodall Access ilia Glen Cove IlindustHall Area Purpose and Policy Intent The purpose of this subsection is to document transportation access, goods movement, and worker safety needs in the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Manufacturing area and to identify near -term multimodal improvements. These improvements are specifically intended to address existing conditions within the established Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). They are not intended to induce new urban growth, expand urban -level development patterns outside of designated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), or create new residential capacity. l...airiry Scoff Trail l Otto Street Connection Jefferson County Public Works, County planning staff, and City partners have begun collaborative field review of options to create a safe and direct pedestrian/bicycle connection from the Larry Scott Trail into the Glen Cove industrial area, specifically at or near Otto Street. The primary constraint is the elevation change between the trail grade and the roadway grade. Conceptual elements under review include: (a) a ramp or switchback structure providing an ADA-informed walking/biking route; (b) a separated sidepath or protected shoulder segment along Otto Street with appropriate edge protection, sightline daylighting, and truck turning clearance; and (c) wayfinding and conflict -point management at industrial driveways so that truck movements and worker/non-motorized movements are predictable and separated where feasible. Indusfiriiall Street Gross-Secfiion/Pireii ht Safety The County and City are also evaluating a cross-section concept for Otto Street and adjacent approaches that balances heavy -vehicle access (freight, deliveries, emergency response) with safe worker access. This includes consideration of lane widths, driveway consolidation, turning radii, and delineated space for non -motorized users so that bikes and pedestrians are not mixing unpredictably with industrial truck traffic. The objective is to support current industrial operations and employee access without authorizing or implying an upzone to urban -level development intensity. NAHAl Il-oad/Diiscoveiry Il ooad Coordination This Glen Cove access concept is intended to coordinate with the ongoing City —County work on the Mill Road/Discovery Road transportation corridor. The goal is to ensure that Glen Cove's access, circulation, and wayfinding treatments are consistent with the broader multimodal/freight strategy for the south Port Townsend area rather than being planned in isolation. Regulatory and GIMA Consistency The transportation and multimodal improvements identified in this subsection are justified on safety, freight efficiency, fire/emergency access, and worker access to existing light industrial parcels. They are not intended to expand the LAMIRD boundary, create new urban development capacity, or authorize urban residential uses. This framing is intended to maintain consistency with the Growth Management Act's limitations on extension of urban services to rural areas while addressing documented public safety and economic function needs. IlExisting Wility urn ui ti urn Availability of existing utility services in and around the study area is described in the following subsections. The information is based on information provided by each of the utility purveyors. Some of the information received may not reflect the exact current condition if upgrades or modifications have been completed and are not yet incorporated into the documents we received. Field verification of this information was not conducted. .1 Poweir Power for the study area is provided by Jefferson County Public Utility District (JPUD) No. 1. The following is a summary of the information received from JPUD: Existing transmission lines are utilized in the study area: starting in the City of Port Townsend to the north, located along Thomas Street and Mill Road, then continuing south in a utility corridor located east of and parallel to North Otto Street, parallel to State Route 20, and crossing State Route 19 while continuing to the south. Existing three phase primary overhead and underground lines are located within the utility corridor and throughout the Glen Cove Industrial Park area: along Denny Avenue, Glen Cove Road, North Otto Street, Otto Street, Fredericks Street, Bayview Street, Seton Road, and State Route 19. Existing single phase primary overhead and underground lines are located within the utility corridor: along Mill Road, Glen Cove Road, Carroll Avenue, South 8th Street, South 6th Street, North Otto Street, Otto Street, Fredericks Street, Bayview Street, Seton Road, Old Fort Townsend Road, and State Route 20. Existing single phase secondary overhead and underground lines extend beyond these rights -of -way into private properties. Existing 2/3 phase primary overhead lines are found in two locations within the study area: along Thomas Street and Julian Street. Available voltages: Transmission: 115 kV y Distribution: 7.2/12.47Y kV y Three Phase: 120/208Y V, 277/480Y V Single Phase: 120/240V JPUD has proposed a new Port Townsend substation to be located within the study area. Discussions between JPUD and Jefferson County are underway for property paralleling the utility corridor to resolve right-of-way issues (some land is owned by PTPC; some is right-of-way). JPUD does not know if there is physical capacity to add more utilities to the utility corridor or if there are restrictions around the utility corridor easement. Refer to Appendix 1 for power maps and associated power information. .1.1 IlowrINxt Stelps Next steps are as follows: Contact JPUD / City / PTPC to obtain a short "utility corridor constraints memo" documenting easement rights, available capacity, and construction windows as it relates to both power and telecommunications. Telecommunications in the study area is provided by JPUD, Astound Business Solutions, and Lumen/Century Link. The following is a summary of the information received from JPUD: GIS shows existing fiber systems (overhead and underground) utilized throughout the study area. Port Townsend Business District (within the study area): located along Mill Road, Thomas Street, South 8th Street, Glen Cove Road, North Otto Street, Otto Street, Seton Road, the west end of Old Fort Townsend Road, State Route 20, and State Route 19. Jefferson North District (south of the study area): located along State Route 20 and State Route 19. The following is a summary of the information received from Astound Business Solutions: Existing fiber systems are utilized throughout the study area: starting in the City of Port Townsend to the north, then continue south in a utility corridor located east of and parallel to North Otto Street. Existing coax systems are utilized throughout the study area: starting in the City of Port Townsend to the north, Glen Cove Road, in a utility corridor located east of and parallel to North Otto Street, and in the Glen Cove Industrial Park area. The following is a summary of the information received from Lumen/Century Link: Existing fiber systems are utilized throughout the study area: located crossing the Larry Scott Trail, along Frederick Street, Otto Street, Seton Road, State Route 20, and State Route 19. Existing coax systems are utilized throughout the study area: located along Thomas Street, Mill Road, South 8th Street, Glen Cove Road, Carroll Avenue, South 6th Street, Frederick Street, North Otto Street, Otto Street, Seton Road, Old Fort Townsend Road, State Route 20, and State Route 19. Refer to Appendix 2 for telecommunication maps. . .1 II... ell ecoirnim u incatioins IN xt Stelps Next steps are as follows: Contact JPUD / City / PTPC to obtain a short "utility corridor constraints memo" documenting easement rights, available capacity, and construction windows as it relates to both power and telecommunications. INat it ll Gas Per discussions with Jefferson County, no gas services are available in the study or surrounding areas. 4.4 Water Water service is already largely available in the study area through the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson PUD. Water in the study area is provided in the LAMIRD by the City of Port Townsend. Some of the residential areas nearby in the study area are served by private wells; refer to Figure 4-1 for a map of the water study area. The southern portion of the study area is located in a future water service area of JPUD. Any of the alternatives for the LAMIRD are the same in terms of water improvements and supply. In other words, this section of the report identifies water needs regardless of other utilities. Water requirements would only change if there was a change in land use such as between light industrial and heavy industrial or commercial. Water in this context is critical for fire protection. gore 4,..3I. ater Study Area IIMap Source: City of Port Townsend Water System Plan According to Jefferson County, there are six existing private wells in the study area, most located near the intersection of Glen Cove Road and South 8th Street. These wells are not associated with any of the water purveyors. Per the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Public Review Draft, dated April 2025: Existing and future population projections for the City of Port Townsend, the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA (County Urban), and specific rural areas are summarized in Table 4-1: Fable 4,..3I. Jell f rson Cc"Anty and City oll Part ""Ilromirllsend 20 Year PoptAla ion Projection and III'Xstribtxtion (2025............ 2.i"i45) Urban Subtotal 113,, a,a3 . ,. 1; .83 8 a 4,72:0 MS511 TA8% Fort ltraw ns,,,,nd f,llrr°fcor osiI 1t '5' W 10,9R"7 ^r ',Yn Z3I60 13.167 COLI 11 tV U Ifr la;:+ J 2,.15,:� ;,024 4041G 2,515I1 5,.:a84 2.91X- II & Resource Areas 20,217 210,75,5 20% 1,1810 11,93 0. 8% Pw-t l vdllovo KIF P—' Z979 2 79 N/A 660 7>.6:3, 1, 111", Pk. uM,int, Hai fl r'm, Va11F P," . ... rcllr"NInon 7714 774 WA 43 8:17 ri 27N,'r C)thl�r' Pulal ids Fk'e.&0L1mt Arq--ass 15,974 116,SVI Y+dVIA 252 16,764 .081914, C�ouintyvAde,Total' 33.700 .34,5861006A ° , I0 40j486 OO 79 I i't 1°i R' ',', "4. ud Jl; lAl #➢IYI V in +:: I Ic:V F° ,r V I CI °i!'M' d 1 nei II rni C' PI'A v :'il I f 4 ,.5, '. ..^ -II r"* r°1t " / avl '8f4 I^"i ':In 'i lA IhE k;F, ` Ip Ipa,Ah Nlr I. 10" Iluul. u"orll,r°k: V» 207'y ,10� 0 r luf"'i A,.",a li�fl�l�f,"'i Y�V AMA Q'F 'W"I� .✓'.., :'7"I{`"".d-10I"V.V.a.4"��SFIX I.Y10Ytlla "F ci I,I IatI:, Y r r U.VY V t a rn iY NV Y;. fr, Y V I I il,,k I:.bFZ fOVunS."v1 1,1 ti'fl' ,I" 1, I" awl 1, ,r uYf N r:N yp :➢il�v, VITYP Iir: wrc1 01h,-,. In,a qire l,J pd, reV?" hnr iV IL'rl IJU`100es �Aio 6;x, "mq a,,s!"'ne,:I In IV15^ "'O "7 Y' n+ —1 ".I'LI"��'`fE'nl Iin", NJ e`)Ce- E, 7LON""I"- .. `)dflvIC.III�; njnl lu1a.,�!f",,,,I ,41."•rc V"r'�I -"Y0.=° N '�1ip �4AY Y,y1�y„YV �I ;��e"•� yI bI�'lQ!9 6 v:mw1 '�;n M,ANIjb IIY ®�5 in d�p,pPv1d'1x hDr Y111,0 a" Lv run..V I d vv v u IN--,,nIV.flJ0r F I fig �,)7%1 t A "annall IF: t'rr Source: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 2025 Periodic Update Public Review Draft Note that the Countywide Total 2025-2045 Projected Growth Rate is 0.79%. The following is a summary of the information received from the 2019 City of Port Townsend Water System Plan (PT WSPU) Update: The study area is located within the City of Port Townsend Water Retail Service Area designated as High Zone: An existing 30-inch diameter Olympic Gravity Water System (OGWS) Pipeline parallels State Route 20 to the east in a utility corridor. The OGWS pipeline is capable of transporting approximately 16 million gallons per day (MGD) peak instantaneous of raw water to the City's Water Treatment Facility (WTF) and the PTPC. ".it::Jl Alliance 1.2/ 9/)025 1 Page ":15 The City owns the 30-inch diameter OGWS pipeline and has an easement for the pipeline but doesn't have a right-of-way for access. As noted in the Power section above: discussions between JPUD and Jefferson County are underway for property paralleling the utility corridor to resolve right-of-way issues (some land is owned by PTPC, some is right-of-way). JPUD does not know if there is physical capacity to add more utilities to the utility corridor or if there are restrictions around the utility corridor easement. An existing raw water metered connection off of the 30-inch diameter OGWS pipeline provides raw water to the PTPC for industrial purposes. The raw water metered connection provides the PTPC with up to 11 MGD average day annual consumption. In the event of a water shortage, the City has first priority for the available water and the PTPC must cut production or conserve water to deliver the contracted volumes of water to the City. The City's current peak draw on raw water is approximately 2 MGD during the summer peaks. The PTPC also has a domestic water service from the City via a meter on Thomas Street. Raw water may be available for future business subject to City and PTPC approval and as a result of conservation measures by the City and PTPC. Existing 10" water main comes from the City of Port Townsend: along Discovery Road at the southern City boundary, along South 2nd Street, Boren Avenue, Railroad Avenue, North Otto Street, Frederick Street, Otto Street, Seton Road, and State Route 20. Existing 8" and 4" water pipes connect to the 10" at various locations in the study area. Existing hydrants are present throughout the study area. Majority of existing hydrants are orange with fire flow of 500-999 gpm. Fire Flow: Simulation shows that the extreme south end (south end of Glen Cove) is substantially deficient with respect to available fire flow (AFF), which is below required fire flow (RIFF). In fact, the area within Glen Cove south of Seton Road contains the highest service elevation within the distribution system (Elevation 281 ft) and was found to have a tendency to unduly restrict AFF throughout the southern portion of the distribution system. The City Water System plan has a goal of 2,000 gpm identified for Glen Cove light industrial area. This may need to be increased given light industry typically requires higher fire flows. Future Conditions: The existing system, without expansion of the High Zone, was modeled under future (2026 and 2036) peak hour demand (PHD) conditions. There are projected to be no distribution system service pressures less than 30 psi within the 20-year planning horizon. The following excerpts from the PT WSPU show the metrics used in the demand forecast: Table 4-2 excerpts data from PT WSPU Table 2A, Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-Year Population Projection and Allocation (2016-2036), Jefferson County Resolution No. 38-15. As stated in the PT WSPU: "the City last developed population forecasts in 2015, which were adopted by mutual agreement between the City and Jefferson County. At that time, both the City and County selected the medium range forecast developed by the OFM for GMA planning purposes.... Population projections for the West of City/Glen Cove areas are not readily available. Therefore, the West of City/Glen Cove area's future population has been projected at the Unincorporated Rural and Resource Area annual growth rate of 0.62 percent from [the aforementioned Table 2A]." FaDl:wl e 4,..2 iell°Iferscm twruuAnty and t;fty ru°If Prurt ""Il%wrin swwnd 20 Y*w ar Pru2ulAatimi Prrufurwcticm and Allllllmaticm (2011.6 22336) (20111-2036) Projected Esflin ated Compound 2010 Growth Projected 2016 Annuall. Arco Population ttt ��t1;3 '1 tea utaatio" Growth ltaat> I'orC'l•trwnsend 9,113 2,7 I 1 12,165 UC A ilr��cre ro�orrt+�°t1P Unincorporated 14,576 2.,2.60 1!7,1 1;9 pW,62'2 '1> E' un. l and Resource Areas Source: 2019 City of Port Townsend Water System Plan Update Table 4-3 includes the projected population of Port Townsend and the West of City/Glen Cove area. As stated in the PT WSPU: "Port Townsend's population utilizes the US Census population from year 2010 and projects to year 2036 at 1.12 percent compounded annually. West of City/Glen Cove population is calculated from the Port Townsend 2010 population divided by the number of service connections to determine the number of persons per connection, then multiplied by the number of connections in the West of City/Glen Cove service area. The resultant population is projected to increase by 0.62 percent from 2010 through 2036 compounded annually. The combined population of Port Townsend and the West of City/Glen Cove area have an annual growth rate of 1.09 percent." FaDl:wl e 4,..3 Prrufue tee Pru2ulAatimi 11m Prurt ""Ilrruwrrn swwnd arid West ru°If t;fty/Gllllwm t'me Area 11m Years 203 7 22336 Year Port Townsend UGA West of CRYIGNIen Cove Area 'twotal 2017 9,852 74,0 10,592. 2018 9,962 744 10,707 2019 10,074 749 10,82) 2020 101,1137 75 3 10,940 2021 10,30 759 11,059 202i2 10,4l6 763 11,179 2023, 119,533 767 11,300 2024 10,651 772 1 1,42 3 2025 10,770 777 11,547 2026 ](),891 782 1.1,673 2027 1 I'm 797 11,8()() 20213 tl tl , tl 3f° 792 11,928 2029 11,261 796 12„057 2030 tl tl ,387 801 12,188 20.31 11,515 906 12,321 20,32 11 '644 811 12,455 2033 11,774 81 fy 12,590 211134 1 0% 821 12,727 2035. 12,039 827 12,860 2036 12,174 832 13,006 Source: 2019 City of Port Townsend Water System Plan Update Note: The above population estimates were performed ahead of the 2025 Periodic Update of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and thus should not be used except as in this report to recognize the basis for the City's Water System Plan Update. Table 4-4 summarizes demand types (ADD, MDD, and PHD). As stated in the PT WSPU: "Both MDD and PHD data are available from master meter SCADA system readings, which are used as the values for this Plan. The most recent 5 years of data were averaged to determine an overall ADD, MDD, and PHD for the system as the 'base year.' The 5-year averaged data was utilized to minimize any impact of atypical annual variations." FaDI 1 e 41 , ""Ilry es oll III'')er :and (mgd) Type 207 1008 2009 20,10, 2011 2012 2013 2014 2tns 2D1 ADD 1,066 0,9M 1'W5 0-915 0.8961 0,01 0.,9,71 e,a )43 (M),32; 0 904 0,i 2:8 NI11a[ 2 39 k 1,977 2,223 2 O104 1 .7ajS L" 1 9.35 1.87 1 ;kM 1 805 1.877 P]ID 2.700 2.274 2.05 2.-1M 2.036 2.357 2.12'7 1107 2.J07 2.376 2.21s Source: 2019 City of Port Townsend Water System Plan Update Per the PT WSPU, the ratios of MDD/ADD and PHD/MDD are computed for the purpose of characterizing demand for the water system. The demand ratios determined from the 5-year average "base year" for ADD, MDD, and PHD are: • MDD/ADD = 2.02 • PHD/MDD = 1.18 Summary of System Needs and Concerns: Water rights are sufficient to meet instantaneous and annual demands within the 20-year planning period. The City has a pending water right application for an additional 150 gpm instantaneous withdrawal at the Port Townsend Golf Course, exclusively for irrigation purposes. This water right, if approved, will further benefit the City by reducing the quantity of water currently treated and used to irrigate the golf course, which is the City's largest user of water for irrigation. See Table 4-5, excerpted from the PT WSPU, for a summary of Port Townsend water rights. Ilr"aDl:rllltr 4,..5 Surnrrttsry rW°I° Port ""Ilr"rWwnstrnd Water IIIUglrits WaterSiourcm Water Rigbt ("ertirfie wte Ntunbe. Pr:i wr°iit Do te 'Perniftud WithdrawilLk Maximum(t) mmmru �t' Big Quilcene River 3')2 02Ai91192' 30 X 21 U ) Lialle Oa lt:ubne ]Zivt;r 702.8 02/09 1927 ut. 4(`uW,- 6o9M otarl,l, Stiralirmce Walvr Rights I 39,,. d"'� 28,00 , mand ter J glu 't .W Wool (A "9 "rli aatmahtt Oral ) (12 34)59 061"13/21„ l2" `a 150 x rat 34 Waler,Storage esewr ypir R jilts Are -feet Million �[tr�tn Cily 1l.�faUcc� "" R 111 , ' 02/2 /19,29 800 ')61 Lords Laak ' l-6^2'u .e 02i119 )27 750 ?44 Lords Lau 0 a R- 11 a 02/f,")91I927 1,250 40 Tof»a1 Water StorN•, e Reservoir R1 tits+, ,$(N) 1 912 ('I ), MaJsimuaur instauvaueaauus witlralraw.d- l2), wcltel' 6Ptts (uwr tfiv 14 and Lil le Quiuiiceo'It Rivers are ttiamed 411'1 ilu��nYtiuulu"rw,�us wilhdr a%vaals aaaad dro not cmit ain a arraasinuu nt acre4ect ulta.aa:utily. ,Laic uuaaa:r:inaum aar Mhkl average acre faci vahi.", showia would lie f r the ecAji(turrucAas use.* of the uas�usunrurar irustaant,ancTMo flow raate.. (3), t1' ('ubic JaX'lt 4mu.^r seC('1MNuu1 (cf'o is a^ilri%"° ale^tit raa 19,4 111illion golllcmtts per dwr f rnr id'), ' ;vr° right is a primary right. (4), 91_56 cohie 1co per seetind (ctl'sr iselluis°ak"nt tar 6.2 raoAltluarr ;,laullarar,.s per day iurrg&j. Waler right is a pritnapy waW,er argh L5'1, 39.50 cubic feet per second tcfsw is euluiivalent to 25.6 inillion gallons lici- day (raigul): l.ti'l, 1°1W (44: irwd water )A,' aLer RiOit is as Peading wamtef rightapplietrticni. This %hate r right is. tau str4u-lalu artr�rrtaal us°tara,�r�tl;ht i'7), [Mic application arias submitted. t. 1' Prinhary Source = Big Quflc.cno. Riacr, Sou^ondary •4rrauu°cc° = Little Q uikcnu River. (9), Primary Sar uma e = 4...itt e Quilceno River, Soo,)iuhi `y Saarirce = Big; Q uilr;.u;°ne River. l I M "`l a ii iNhc licgraarucag of a righl aanrnober irrdiicaaes as reservoir or strrrage %vaatcr right. Source: 2019 City of Port Townsend Water System Plan Update Sources are able to meet demands throughout the planning period. Storage facilities are able to meet storage requirements throughout the planning period. No control system or generator deficiencies have been identified. A booster pump station deficiency has been identified in the study area: BP-02 — South Glen Cove Booster Station (Cost: $200,000): In order to improve available fire flow by preventing system pressures in at the far south end of Glen Cove from dropping below 20 psi in the event of a fire elsewhere in the water service area, the City could install a small pump station in the vicinity of Seton Road and Otto Street to boost system pressures in this vicinity. This pump station should include a fire bypass to be used in the event of a fire in this area. Distribution system piping is insufficient throughout the planning period: twenty-one different pipeline improvement projects totaling approximately 41,000 LF of new pipeline ranging in size from 8 to 16 inches are proposed in order to improve available fire flow throughout the system and replace aging and/or undersized AC pipe throughout the City. In Glen Cove, there are a few water system improvements needed. Capital improvement distribution system projects are proposed within the study area accordingly (see Figure 4-2). figure 4,..2. IIKey IIIire i..ocations IlMap Source: 2019 City of Port Townsend Water System Plan Update D-06 - Glen Cove (3,740 LF 16-Inch Pipe) (Cost: $1,123,000): This improvement targets Key Fire Flow Locations 5 and 20; refer to Figure 4-2 for key fire locations map. It provides an additional source of supply to Glen Cove. It would improve system redundancy, circulation, and available fire flow to the Glen Cove area. It is comprised of new 16-inch pipeline connecting to the existing 16-inch pipeline on the distribution system side of the old City Valve Shack just north of the southern City limit (at the south extension of Howard Street), extending southwest along the existing OGWS pipeline corridor to its intersection with Glen Cove Road, and extending west along Glen Cove Road to north Otto Street. D-21 - Southwest Improvements (4,970 LF 8-Inch Pipe) (Cost: $1,246,000): This project targets Key Fire Flow Locations 5 and 20 (refer to Figure 4-2 for key fire locations map), though with less effect than improvement D-06. It would provide service to a currently undeveloped area outside City limits along South Jacob Miller Road, as well as improving available fire flow and providing a redundant source of supply to the Glen Cove area. It should be considered if a significant amount of higher -density development occurs along South Jacob Miller Road. Additional information from City of Port Townsend includes: Fire flow from the 30-inch raw water transmission main is a possibility for hydrants near the main as a temporary measure to help with fire suppression. Currently, 2 hydrants are tied into the transmission main offering over 200 psi in pressure and connected to 140-million-gallon City Lake reservoir. The following is a summary of the information received from JPUD: The future JPUD water system located in the southern portion of the study area is called the Quimper Water Service Area. Existing water information for the Quimper Water Service Area provided by JPUD includes: GIS shows Quimper Water Service Area (Group A) existing water pipes along Parkridge Drive and south of Fort Townsend Historical State Park in the Kala Point neighborhood. GIS shows existing pipes as: 8" C900, 8" PVC, 6" PVC (some looped), 4" PVC, and 2" PVC. GIS shows existing hydrants present throughout the water system. Majority of existing hydrants are orange with fire flow of 500-999 gallons per minute (gpm). There is one green existing hydrant with fire flow of 1000-1499 gpm. JPUD treats nearly all their groundwater wells for iron and manganese (common minerals in groundwater sources in this area) via a combined chemical cation exchange and mechanical process that requires very little chemicals (called ATEC). JPUD also uses chlorine in most of their systems to adequately disinfect the water; chlorine also aids in the removal of iron and manganese. JPUD does not treat for arsenic, but there are traces of naturally occurring arsenic in almost all local waters. In January 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Drinking Water Regulations ''ee!eee��eeeer',',,'), r lowered the maximum contaminant limit of arsenic to 0.01 mg/I or 10 ppb. Under the Clean Drinking Water Act, JPUD is required to test on a regular schedule for certain potential contaminants. The water quality test results performed for compliance with state and federal regulations are posted on the WA State Department of Health's Sentry Internet Database. Samples, from sources located within the study area, that tested over the maximum contaminant level are as follows: Source 5: Quimper: Port Hadlock/Irondale/Chimacum: iron, manganese, lead, sodium. Source 6: Quimper: Port Had lock/Irondale/Ma rrowstone Island/Oak Bay/Eagle Ridge: iron, manganese, sodium, arsenic. Source 10: Quimper: Airport: iron, manganese, lead, sodium, arsenic. Source 11: Quimper: Woodland Hills: iron, manganese, sodium, arsenic, mercury. y Source 12: Quimper: Eagle Ridge: iron, manganese. Source 18: Quimper: Kala Point: iron, manganese, lead, sodium, arsenic, mercury. Source 19: Quimper: Kala Point: iron, manganese, lead, sodium, mercury. The JPUD 2021 Water System Plan Update (JPUD WSPU) was reviewed and the following items from the Capacity Analysis Summary within the Quimper Water Service Area were noted: The following excerpts from the JPUD WSPU show the metrics used in the Quimper demand forecast: Table 4-6 describes the basic metrics used in the Quimper demand forecast. As stated in the JPUD WSPU: "Residential and commercial base year growth rates were calculated individually and linearly reduced to the Countywide projected growth rate as described in Chapter 1. A single peaking factor was calculated for the aggregated Quimper system because production data and maximum day demand (MDD) data are only available for the aggregated system. Similarly, a single distribution system leakage (DSL) value was calculated for all Quimper sub -systems for the same reason." Fad I e 4,..°6 I.)ernaa" d III' areca st imetrics ...... Quirnper NCB P6nt 7.22"tau O.00% UD and ValaMi 647% 0»00�% Marrovrsloine Island 11583 2.24 _117% 10.13% 2. 0% 1uaulrnpti ar" 19.06 3.20% Glen Cave South 9.016% 3.20"y Source: JPUD 2021 Water System Plan Update Table 4-7 summarizes the base year, 10-year, and 20-year demand forecast for the Quimper water system. For this table, as stated in the JPUD WSPU: "The growth percentage was linearly decreased through a 5-year period in order to align with Jefferson County's 2018 Comprehensive Plan rural growth rate of 0.98-percent. This approach was reviewed by Jefferson County, as documented in the Local Government Consistency Checklist (Appendix 5-1)." Fai31 e 4,..7 '')eurnaur d III oreca st...... Quiurnr per Residential 4,051 642,920 41,996 792„881 5,787 918,359 Commercial 1,24 197,998 1,459 231,493 110 9 269d097 D8L 299 45,846 352 55,847 409 64,683 Total Demand (Avarae Day , 5, $86,7644 6,807 1,0m 0,22"1 71884 1„251,129 Demand (ADD)) laarmrriuurro Day 1d997„ 13 0 I 21420,651, 2d803„ r37 Demand (MOD) (9pd) Source: JPUD 2021 Water System Plan Update Quimper holds Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) certified water rights to annually withdraw 1.727.2 acre-feet of groundwater per year, with a maximum instantaneous withdrawal of 3,158 gpm. The Department of Health Water Rights Self -Assessment Form is presented in Table 4-8, which indicates that water rights are sufficient to meet instantaneous and annual demands within the 20-year planning period. FaDIDIIIe 4,..8 Ii. Water °�iB;h't StIII°I°.'•Assessrnent �IIIIIII I IIIIIIIII �� I��IJ II IIIIII �� uounu, a fiuJ ui y"i i. � IIIII� � lulli�l IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII Ililli�i �w Kuvely'Wells 3 2M 10 160 0 4. 3 97-w- $04;$M Sparlrcugi S02"Ot 2,250 Ot 1.150 0 Welldeld 02-27756 - 809,';5010 95 8 95 a Wei 28 02-27927 - 8,011 40 0 9.5 0 ffiltson sure G,2-24644 - $0 15 Stuo totals below Olympic 158 0 22.7 0 Village G2-2351 - So IS 56 Ot 89 p' Kola laadnt 11 G2-242tu3 - S0.7' 17 60 0 96 0 Kale Point 2 G2-2484f3 - Scu 18 : 200 © 1104 195 Kale P603 G 24996 - S0 19 IN 0 p 10 Ksla Point 4 1.727.2 1.380 1 779 993 734.2 1.681 1 A 77 ' 1 21 Q 517.2 1 947 1 211 1 x4C11 32.1=r.2 TOTALS3,158 G2-30083 New 1W3112002 600 0 I° o 0 2,30538 New 21V2010 168 9 160 0 Lily of Part 171800 No current purchases, aamud no planned purchases Towmend S02 1. Oi m Instanttanie+aurs Water Pnytit in units of 9prrn„ Oa m Annual Woluurtwe Water Ri,3d'ut in units of aao4Vyear 2. Ga for Kalo Point walls (SO15 through SO 19) is lirnuttud to 259 ac-Myeir Source: IPUD 2021 Water System Plan Update "SCJl Alliance 1.2/ 9/)025 1 Page 46 Sources are able to meet demands throughout the planning period, except for the Ocean Grove Booster Pump Station (BPS) fire flow deficiency which can be resolved by adding additional larger sized duty pumps or a dedicated fire pump to meet maximum day demand (MDD) plus fire flow. A fire pump was scheduled to be added to the Ocean Grove BPS within the Quimper water service area in 2024: R-P-1 —Addition of fire pump to Ocean Grove BPS, 2024, $95,000 Storage facilities are able to meet storage requirements throughout the planning period. Distribution system piping is insufficient throughout the planning period: several minor fire flow deficiencies across the system are related to pipe sizing and insufficient pressure through storage and booster stations. Capital improvement projects are proposed accordingly: R-S-1—New Glen Cove Storage Tank, 2028-2029, $4,650,000 R-D-4 — Upsizing 8" to 12" (3,700 linear feet (LF)) to support higher flows from new Glen Cove Storage Tank, 2029, $289,000 Jefferson County's Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) was prepared in 1997; the County closed a request for proposal on 11/7/24 for a 2025 coordinated water system plan update, which has not yet been completed. The study area encompasses portions of JPUD, City of Port Townsend, and Kala Point existing water systems. Per the 1997 CWSP: Expansion of the UGA into Glen Cove is addressed in the CWSP and is included in Jefferson County Planning Area No. 2: Quimper. The Quimper area's water systems have the capacity and water rights to serve only about 75 percent of the anticipated population increase. Without new water rights and capacity, 25 percent of the projected new growth will occur on small public systems or private individual wells. The JPUD has water rights that can mitigate some projected deficiencies. The City of Port Townsend is included in Jefferson County Planning Area No. 1. The City receives water from the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers through a 30-inch diameter raw water OGWS transmission main. The Little Quilcene River is used as an emergency or supplemental water source. When the system is low flow restricted, the system utilizes the Lord's Lake reservoir. This system provides water to the City, PTPC, and to some areas adjacent to the City. The City has substantial water rights and acts as a water "wholesaler" by contracting to supply water to other entities. The following is a summary of the City's water rights: 30.0 cfs (19.39 MGD) from the Big Quilcene River (perfected, primary water right) 9.56 cfs (6.18 MGD) from the Little Quilcene River (perfected, low flow restricted, seasonally restricted, water right) 50.0 cfs (32.32 MGD) from the Dosewallips River (application only, not a perfected water right) 5.46 cfs (3.53 MGD) from the Chimacum Valley in the form of groundwater (perfected water rights). These groundwater rights have since been transferred to JPUD, in a service area swap for the Tri-Area water system. The City has a surface water withdrawal right of up to 25.57 MGD; however, pipeline capacity is limited to 19.4 MGD. However, flows are limited due to pressure drop constraints per the water supply agreement in Table 4-9. The City is under contract to supply 14.9 MGD of its water as shown in Table 4-9: FaUe 4, 9 StArrunaryollin Service Capacity and Water i1ights for Existing Water Systerns Systein, Name PUD SYSTEMS Glen Cove b ater System (4) Glen Cove South LUD No., 3 (Hastings Loop South) (4) LUD No, I (Gardiner Water System) Lazy "C" Water System B,ywater Bray Triton Cove Estates Marshal Addition (LLD No, 6) OTHER SYSTEMS -f—ort"-Towat3i�md, — City of ... . . ...... Bridgehra,ven Water System Cape George Colony Club, In-c. JeMTS011 County WatAM- DiStriCt NQ- I Kala Point Water 9ystein Ludlow Water Co. Jefferson County Water District, No. 8 Olympic iP obile Village 01,y=pus Beach Tracts, Intl- Pleasant'Tides Water Co-op Searaount Estates Cominunity Club "110TAL, In -Service Capacityl Water Right,s r,PM 3D r5pM M66 1f10 0.15 100 0.15 167 95 0,14 95 014 96 305 0.44 305 0,44 15,5 70 010 70 0. 10 98 $0 O-G4 30, 0,014 7 65 0.109 1,30, 0,19 64 18,80027,07 20,266 2.10 (3) 195 0,28 195 0,28 200, 410 0-59 r15 3 6 0,77 1658, 98 0. 14; 1710 0.24 90, 405 0.58 415, OM 34 738 1.06, 954 1,38 465 130 0191 143 MO 126 100 0,14 1818 0,27 34 52 0.07 42 0.06, 27 83 0. 12� 85 0.12 1,20 325 0,47 304 0.4:41 52 22,0011 32 2a�968[ .3 b r7,, 9-f i Footnotes., (1) Existing public water supply systems, inrIude all systems with fifty (50) or more connections and all systfras managed or operated by the IPIUD No., I of Jefferson. County,, (2) In-service capacity represents those so-urce.,i that are equipped and on-Hne,, Mlle figiires reflect the reported maximum amount of water that can be taken from the water.,4ourue On, an instantaneous basis by the insta,11ed pumping ox- diversion facihties� it does not equateto source yield, nor doesit indicate how long the sy-i'tems are or can boperated at the maximum ratQ- (3), Most early (older) surfacewater rights do not ideatify a specific annual authoriZatiOn. (4), Water for these syAems, obtahie!d from Port Townsend- (5) The water right Filing for this system is in application staves; therefore, it is not yet a water right of record. Source: 1997 Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan Key issues which potentially affect water supply for the City are those relating to instream flows in the Quilcene River System and the contract with PTPC. Optimistically, the City will continue to work with PTPC to achieve a reduction in water demand for the facility and renegotiate a contract to "free" some of the supply; the mill has demonstrated its ability to operate with less than the contracted amount of 14.4 MGD. The City has transitioned a portion of its supply to groundwater wells. SCJ Alliance 12/19/2025 1 Page 48 The City of Port Townsend and the PTPC entered into a Water Supply Agreement on December 30, 2021. Per that agreement: The Mill will limit its water consumption under this Agreement to the following flow and volume limits: Maximum Day Demand = 13.0 MGD, subject to the City's ability to produce treated water to meet municipal water demand. Maximum Instantaneous Demand = 14.0 MGD or equivalent to 9,722 gallons per minute, subject to the City's ability to produce treated water to meet municipal water supply demand. Average Day Demand = not to exceed 11.0 MGD. This Average Day Demand water use average equates to an annual volume consumption limit of 12,322 acre-ft. The City may require the Mill to implement one or more of the following additional flow restrictions to maintain the City's priority water use. Water pressure, as measured at the inlet of the Water Treatment Facility, will be the compliance measure for the following limitations. If there is a discrepancy between flow data and pressure, pressure shall govern under the following use restrictions. The City will endeavor to minimize additional restrictions for the benefit of the Mill through management of the City's Retail Water System. Maximum Day Demand: If water pressure at the inlet of the Water Treatment Facility drops below 75 psi during a period of high water demand in the City Retail Water System, the Mill shall limit flows to 11.0 MGD on a daily basis until the period of high water demand in the Retail Water System has ended. The City will use reasonable best efforts to provide the Mill with at least one (1) week advanced notice of high water demand in the Retail Water System necessitating this measure. Maximum Instantaneous Demand: During periods of high water demand in the City Retail Water System, typically caused by extended hot weather events, the Mill shall limit Maximum Instantaneous Demand Flows to 11.5 MGD or equivalent to 7,986 gallons per minute. During these periods, the Mill shall not cause the water pressure at the inlet of the Water Treatment Facility to decrease below 55 psi. The City will use reasonable best efforts to provide the Mill with at least one (1) week advanced notice of high water demand in the Retail Water System necessitating this measure. Emergencies: In the event of Uncontrollable Circumstances affecting the water supply in the City's Retail Water System, the Mill may be required to reduce water usage to a Maximum Instantaneous Demand of 9.5 MGD or equivalent 6,597 gallons per minute. The Mill shall make best reasonable efforts to respond immediately to a request by the City to lower flows during an emergency. Jefferson County's Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP, June 2024) was reviewed for fire prevention strategies as the study area is substantially wooded. The study area is currently served by East Jefferson Fire Rescue district. The CWPP classifies most of the study area as having High and/or Extreme Composite Risk - Hazard and an "Area of Concern." The County is comprised of vegetative fuels that historically and naturally would burn every 50 years to over 1,000 years. Efforts to restore and maintain "SCJl Alliance 12/ 9/)025 1 Page 49 landscapes should focus on vegetation management and hazardous fuel reduction. Many of the recommendations listed can be implemented at the homeowner or community level. Refer to Appendix 4 for water maps and associated water and fire information. . .1 Costs Ainallysis The Capital Improvement Plan section of the PT WSPU identifies deficiencies within the study area: D-06 - Glen Cove: This improvement targets Key Fire Flow Locations 5 and 20. It provides an additional source of supply to Glen Cove. It would improve system redundancy, circulation, and available fire flow to the Glen Cove area. It is comprised of new 16-inch pipeline connecting to the existing 16-inch pipeline on the distribution system side of the old City Valve Shack just north of the southern City limit (at the south extension of Howard Street), extending southwest along the existing OGWS pipeline corridor to its intersection with Glen Cove Road, and extending west along Glen Cove Road to north Otto Street. D-21 - Southwest Improvements: This project targets Key Fire Flow Locations 5 and 20 though with less effect than improvement D-06. It would provide service to a currently undeveloped area outside City limits along South Jacob Miller Road, as well as improving available fire flow and providing a redundant source of supply to the Glen Cove area. It should be considered if a significant amount of higher -density development occurs along South Jacob Miller Road. BP-02 — South Glen Cove Booster Station: In order to improve available fire flow by preventing system pressures in at the far south end of Glen Cove from dropping below 20 psi in the event of a fire elsewhere in the water service area, the City could install a small pump station in the vicinity of Seton Road and Otto Street to boost system pressures in this vicinity. This pump station should include a fire bypass to be used in the event of a fire in this area. In addition to the above improvements, there is only one source of supply to the Glen Cove area at the intersection of Mill and Discovery Roads. This presents a high risk of outage to the study area. Staff recommends creating another connection either via Thomas Street or between Discovery Road and Jacob Miller Road near the 3rd Street right-of-way. It is assumed that 100% of the costs are attributable to the additional water flows from the study area. Estimated costs for Capital Improvement Projects associated with extension of City of Port Townsend water into the study area are as shown in Table 4-10: FaDI IIIe 4,..3I.0 i'stiVnPWa'ted CIP Costs ...... P"III WSM) South Glen Cove Booster Station The Capital Improvement Plan section of the JPUD WSPU identifies deficiencies within the study area: R-P-1— Addition of fire pump to Ocean Grove Booster Pump Station (BPS): Ocean Grove fire flow deficiency which can be resolved by adding additional larger sized duty pumps or a dedicated fire pump to meet maximum day demand (MDD) plus fire flow. A fire pump was scheduled to be added to the Ocean Grove BPS within the Quimper water service area in 2024. R-S-1— New Glen Cove Storage Tank: support fire flow increase. R-D-4 — Upsizing 8" to 12" (3,700 linear feet (LF)) to support higher flows from new Glen Cove Storage Tank: several minor fire flow deficiencies across the system are related to pipe sizing and insufficient pressure through storage and booster stations. It is assumed that 100% of the costs are attributable to the additional water flows from the study area. Estimated costs for Capital Improvement Projects associated with extension of JPUD water into the study area are as shown in Table 4-11: FaDI IIIe 4,..3I.3 i'stiVnPWa'ted CIP Costs ............ ,iPW.tlll'' SM) Addition of fire pump to Ocean Grove BPS Upsizing 8" to 12" (3,700 LF) to support higher flows from new Glen Cove Storage Tank These estimated costs would be implemented and recouped over time. Cost of service for an area is the cost of the cost of operations plus the cost of capital divided by the customer base over a period of time. This analysis helps establish fiscal viability of serving an area. The cost of capital can be offset by grants and low interest loans. Often a utility Local Improvement District or Local Facilities Charges are used to recoup proportional share of cost of improvements benefiting properties. 4.4.E WaterINxt Stelps Next steps are as follows: Evaluate the possibility of an intertie with the PUD water system to the south and the City's water system to the north. Investigation and hydraulic analysis to determine viability. Discussion with PUD on possibility of an intertie between the two systems. Recommend hydraulic analysis to evaluate solutions for the low-pressure areas. Alternatives may include a booster pump with new pressure zone and/or line upsizing in both systems related to low pressures during a fireflow event. Re-evaluate water line extensions and upsizing as well as redundancy of connections from the City system to the Glen Cove and Jacob Miller areas to eliminate one point of supply at the intersection of Mill Road and Discovery Road. Evaluate use of Olympic Gravity Water System as an interim fire flow provider in limited locations. 4.5 Sewer The main focus of this study is the provision of sewer service, as this utility is the primary limiting factor to development within the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Two sewer service options for the area include a Large On -site Septic System (LOSS) and extension of sewer to the City of Port Townsend municipal sewer system. As outlined below, extension of City sewer is the most probable and cost-effective approach, given existing sewer in the northernmost portion of the study area is located within the City limits and that there are current plans and funding to install a lift station to serve the Evans Vista development within City limits, as well as other parts of the City that currently do not have access to sewer. The surrounding areas of unincorporated Jefferson County (County) do not have sewer service, and wastewater is managed with on -site septic systems, community drain fields, or could potentially be served by Large On -Site Sewage Systems. The following is a summary of information from Jefferson County Environmental Public Health: Jefferson County Environmental Public Health is the permitting agency for new septic systems. Existing septic systems are utilized throughout the study area: located mostly north of Old Fort Townsend Road, west of Julian Street, along Frederick Street, west of and along South 6th Street, and along Glen Cove Road. Per the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Public Review Draft, dated April 2025: Existing and future population projections for the City of Port Townsend, the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA (County Urban), and specific rural areas are summarized in Table 4-12: Fable 4,..3 2 Jefferson County and f;fty oll Port ""IlFominlsend 20 Year Poptwllla ion Projection tion and III''Xstribul fiorll (2025............ 2Jf45) Urban Subtatall 113,48 w . ,. 13.837 8 a 4,7 la'S511 V % Pwt ltra+>r ns,,,,nd (lirrrr.r rpor'ated)l 1t '5' W 10,9R"7 ^r ',Yn Z3I60 13.167 COLI 11 tV Ifr J 2,.15,: ;,024 4041G 2,515I) 5,.:"84 2.91X- II & Resource Areas 20,217 210,75,5 20% 1,1810 21,93S0. r Pw-t l vdllovo KIF P—' 2,1179 2 79 N/A 660 7>.6.; , 1, 111", Pk.. ru,int, Hai fl r'm, Va11F P," . ... Birinnon 7714 774 h+leA 4,3 8,17 ri 27N,',r Q%Jflcene P"VC,,, dq9n 9490 N/ (13 5?r1', OA21vi C)thl�r' Pulal id Fk' . r ill Mtw +' 15,974 116,SVI Y+dVIA 252 16,764 .081914, a uintap ni'de Total' 33.700 .34,5861006A ° ,; I0 40j486 OO 79 I i't 1°i R' ',', "4. ud Jl; lAl #➢IYI V in �itln II Ic:V F° ,r V 101°i!'M' d 1 nei Il rni C' PI'A v :'il I f 4 ,.5, '. ..^ -II r"* °1t " / avl '8f4 I^"i ':In 'i lA IhE k;F, ` Ip Ipa,Ah Nir I" 10" Iluui. u"orll,r°k: V» 207'y ,10� 0 t luf"'t A,.",a li�fl�l�f,"'i Y�V AMA Q'F=0., k.Yr 'W"I� � .✓'.�� :'7"I{` 0 I"V. V. a.4" ��SFIX I. Y 10 Y filly "FciuIat I:"lY'4a-.r.VYVta rn iY NV Y;. F!.i Y It IIil,,k I:.bFZ fOVUn n 1,1 ti'fl' .ly 1, I" awl 1, ,f uYr N r:N yp :➢il�v, VITYP Iir: wrc1 01ik-,. In,a qire l,J pd, reV?" hnr iV IL'rl IJU`100es �Aio 6;x, "mq a,,s!"'ne,:I In IV15^ VO s f"n :AYE, 7LON""I"- .. njnl lu1a.,�!f",,,,I N '�1ip �4A Y 11";�,98 ,.�"YI'!Q!9 Y,1„YV �`,' �011 �I ;,, e"•� 6 F',F^ I xhib!I ir-i Ap,penidljxlE hy�r B",y I II "" I , ,f "c Fs 7s'—i 7�vv0 7rv <dl l9 „--,,nIV.VV0r v Cuo ! V 0.A SlI nIn a l l 'u ff ; IF; 5 h i l e:e K a,L '�E, .i v, l :"o ' �,53', Ffl I I,� Source: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 2025 Periodic Update Public Review Draft Note that the Countywide Total 2025-2045 Projected Growth Rate is 0.79%. The following is a summary of information from the 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan (GSP): The City has one existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and a compost facility with a small batch plant. The Compost facility, located on Jacob Miller Road, is the current method for disposal of biosolids from the main plant near North Beach. The PTPC just south of the City limits has one existing private WWTP for domestic wastewater purposes. The PTPC also has an industrial discharge permit for the paper production wastewater. The Glen Cove area located southwest of the City limits has been designated as a Special Study Area for possible future inclusion in the City's service area. The primary basis for allowing this area to be potentially included into the City sewer service area is based on the following four factors: ".it::Jl Alliance 1.2/ 9/)025 1 large 54 1. The Glen Cove industrial area is a Type 3 Local Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) intended for light industrial and limited commercial use that could benefit from the presence of sewer. Currently, all uses in this area are required to have an on -site septic system, which may be limiting industrial activities and potentially resulting in environmental degradation. LAMIRDs are permitted to be served by sanitary sewer per the Growth Management Act (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-196-425(6)(c), Rural Element). 2. In this area, the PTPC currently has an industrial waste treatment system and a domestic waste treatment system, both of which discharge to Port Townsend Bay. The City may consider allowing the domestic system to connect to the City's sewer system for the environmental benefit of eliminating a discharge to Port Townsend Bay. This option needs to be approved by Ecology and the Department of Commerce before executing a sewer service agreement for the PTPC. Note, domestic discharge would be an exception to the rule concerning sewer service outside of a UGA requiring both Commerce and Ecology approval for the purpose of environmental benefit. 3. Incorporation of the LAMIRD through a UGA expansion or swap in cooperation with the County. Based on existing, more intense development patterns, the Glen Cove Area may be deemed a key area to serve existing and future uses to support the local economy given the lack of industrially zoned properties and the need for housing within the City. An additional 20-acre parcel directly adjacent to the City is owned by the County and is serving as a homeless shelter. This parcel serves key public needs of providing for the unhoused. Sewer service to this property would be of great benefit to the community. Note, since the adoption of the Sewer Plan, the County property has been included in the City's UGA. 4. A portion of the area within the Mill Road drainage basin is already in the City limits and the Urban Growth area and does not have access to sewer without the installation of a sewer lift station. Therefore, locating a sewer lift station in an appropriate area that keeps options open will allow the City to make sewer service available for unsewered areas within the City limits while allowing Factors 1 through 3 above to be considered. All four of these factors involve the City and County working closely together to evaluate impacts of sewer extension. The purpose of the Special Study Area is to document the sewer basin planning process performed in 2012 as outlined in the Mill Road Pump Station and Force Main Predesign Report (GSP Appendix B). The City has funding to site a lift station in the Mill Road area to serve the current UGA— public investment of approximately $4 million. The following excerpts from the GSP show the metrics used in the demand forecast: Table 4-13 presents the land uses within the future wastewater service area which comprises the entire City. IlFaWt'n 4,.. 3I.3 i..and i.)se inside III"axture Wastemiater Service Area Land Use Type Acres of 'Total Commercial 205, 4. Mixed Use 1,01 23 Marine -Related Use 86 1.9% iPubll lInirastruct re 15 14 c Park/Open Space 58 1 1% Residential 2,254 5 5% D'ndesig;nated 1,01 24.2' Total 4,466 1 01.0% Source: 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan A Special Study Area expansion is included within the GSP that would include extending service to two new sewer basins already inside the City limits and could serve the Glen Cove LAMIRD just outside the City limits. For the purposes of estimating demand on the sewer system, an equivalent population for the industrial area was estimated for the Glen Cove LAMIRD. The additional population outside of the City limits illustrate this expansion would introduce additional sewer demand to the City's system and is shown in Table 4-14 under the assumption the expansion would start in 2025. Note that the actual population growth is effectively null given business customers do not necessarily add more population to the City. If the population growth for the City and the County hold, this table simply illustrates that increased sewer capacity would support jobs, which is necessary to community fiscal and social sustainability. F:10I:11 e 4,..3I.4, Pr:i7ulAla ion Projections Sewer Service sewN w $Wvem ckyw'Seaaer POPLIllatio w Su ryedll Expansion IErluiv,alent Polpu,laflori with Year City Population le mi Population by 3ePOIC 6y term Population:' Expamion 2G1'1w 9.579 9,713E 391, 2016 2,G17 9,,805 9.B71 9„41,4 9.480 391 391, 20111' 2G19 %91511' 1:0,060 9„5451 9,G69 391 391 2021 10,141:1 %757 391 20,21._ 10,220 9,329 391._ 2022 10,:139 %981 353 2073 10,460 10,134 326 2 024 11), °1G2 10, 239 294 9 10,289 2025 2G26 10,706 10,931 1.0,44.5 10,1603 261 223 11111 2,1E 10,5.5.1 1d1.3,1 2027 10.9514 10.762 1,96 3,24 11,,0A6 2G2 11,118„6 M923 163 432. 111,354, 2029 11,'21.5 1°1,11115 130 W 11,624 2G30 P 1,134b 1.1.,,24E °13 &18 11.,39E 2,0 31 11,4'',9 1.1„41, 3 255 12,169 2D32, 11,613 11,1580 33, 963 12„444- 033 010 ear's) 2G34 11,748 11,8E 11,,7411 I1,8H 11 0 971 1,041, 17,770 121,,9217' 2OID15 21G36 12,C125 12,1.G5 1,2, ,N25 1,2,165 11 0 1,1115 1„196 1„3,1,40 13,3131, "1117 12321„ 1,2,,3211 0 1,282 13,4a1 2038 12,479 12,473 0 1,374 11,1553 211.$11 12,N39 12,,639 0 1,421' 14,111 2 a40 12,801 12.,3G1 0 1,573 14,3 79 2041 12,961 14965 0 1,691 14:&56 2,042 03431[+30 Veair's) 13.132 13300 13.132 13,300 0 11 1,817 1,943 14„ 144, IS,243 iipair Ire, prpprr R,,�ry lgww Rnd is ri prrp;runl,rivP rd 9hg griyMb in pt pnpl) aI ii� Source: 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan Regarding population projections and designated land use within the City's planning area: the City's 2021 population was 10,220 people, which is expected to grow to 13,300 people by 2043. The City's residential areas largely are comprised of single-family homes, with approximately 75 percent of the housing units being single-family residences. The residential population estimate is based on an average single-family household size of 1.9 persons per household in the City. This table shows how Glen Cove creates an equivalent sewer system population of 15,242 people by 2043 for the purposes of estimating sewer flows. Again, this nearly 2,000 population increase estimate is not real humans moving to town, but rather represents additional sewer from the business activity. This population does not reflect actual population, but an estimate of equivalency for sewer expected from a light industry area. In other words, industrial strength sewer represents an equivalent number of residential units. Note: The above population estimates were performed ahead of the 2025 Periodic Update of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and thus should not be used except as in this report to recognize the basis for the City's General Sewer Plan. The station handling additional sewer from Glen Cove will be the proposed Mill Lift Station. Predesign studies show that a 1,062 gpm capacity is required ultimately at buildout. These flows include areas within the City limits and Glen Cove comprising the entire service area basin boundary. According to the City: More likely the initial pump station design would need to accommodate flows on the order of 280 gpm in the next 20 years including areas in Glen Cove as well as the City limits. Of the built out capacity of 1,062 gpm, the Glen Cove LAMIRD represents approximately 75% of the station capacity. During the initial 20-year period, Glen Cove only represents 36% of the lift station capacity. The Mill Road Lift Station is likely to be built in phases as capacity is needed. Incremental expansion capacity must be considered in the design. All of these estimates are based on typical light industrial development. If a heavy industrial user such as a large brewery located in Glen Cove, then the estimates would potentially change significantly. The City has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The permit includes effluent limits for treated water discharged to the City's outfall in the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Puget Sound. In addition, the permit includes facility flow and loading design criteria for the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) as shown in Table 4-15: Criteria FaWe �'� 4,..°1.�� .�'" QI��'"VrII�YWi'�t�'��. III'..... �"�i andandin ..a��. inlg; III.` )'„ "esi n� "; Parameter Design Quantity Maximum Month,, Design Flow (IMMDF) 2.05 MGD Annual Average Flow 1,44 MGD BODE, Influent (Loading for Maximum Month 3,,754 11 TSS Influent Loading for IMaximorn Month 4,568 �p�pol Design P�ipt�allati ��12,000, MG 7 raiIli On 9AIIIorl.; por day pPd= pouPids per d ay Source: 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan The GSP analyzed the WWTF capacity for the parameters listed in table 4-15. The reader is referred to the GSP at www.cityofpt.us/cityplans. The takeaway from the analysis is that BOD is the limiting factor for the wastewater treatment plant capacity. Including Glen Cove, the projected 2033 BOD loading exceeds 85 percent of the rated capacity with construction likely in 2037 depbased on estimated projections of loading. The City's NPDES Permit requires the City to begin planning for an expansion of facility capacity when flow and loading exceeds 85 percent of the permitted maximum month value for 3 consecutive months. It takes considerable time (up to 10 years) to properly plan for and permit major treatment plant expansion, and as such, it is recommended that the City begin planning for such an expansion in the first 5 years of the planning period. In general, the existing WWTF infrastructure occupies most of the area included in the City parcels and there is not sufficient available space on these parcels to plan for a major expansion of the WWTF. As mentioned above, the key to wastewater treatment planning is to monitor the types of businesses requesting service and to estimate the BOD impact on the wastestream. Significant Industrial Users (see section 4.5.1) can have a large impact on loading and thus every new connection needs to be analyzed against the latest sewer plan assumptions. Hydraulic Analyses Results: Hydraulic analyses were performed on the City's collection system trunk sewer pipes based on the existing flow rates (2018), as well as projected flow rates for 2028, 2033, and 2043. In the evaluation, the criteria for listing an existing sewer pipe as deficient is that the upstream maintenance hole is surcharged more than 1 foot during the estimated peak hour flow (PHF). Currently, the existing gravity sewers do not have deficient conveyance capacity. The primary driver of gravity main capacity improvements for the 5-year, 6- to 10-year, and 11- to 20-year planning periods are the projected flows from the proposed development of Rainier Subarea along with potential flows from the Mill Road lift station. Fortunately, existing lift stations will not be taxed by these additional flows given the gravity system will deliver sewage to the WWTF by gravity. The City has planned for and included in its rate model substantial investment in the upsizing of existing pipelines over the next 20 years to convey these flows to the existing City WWTF. Capital Improvement Plan: y 5-Year System Improvements 1111111 CIP WW4— Mill Lift Station (Cost: $6,300,000) Deficiency: Currently, there is no sewer service at the Mill site. This lift station and force main will allow for development of the Mill site to its potential. Improvement: Procure property and construct a submersible lift station with an ultimate firm capacity of 1,062 gallons per minute. This station will be built in phases given the 20-year flow is only 280 gpm and given lift stations typically have a design life of 20-30 years. The station is to include backup power generation and a 4,500- foot-long, 10-inch-diameter force main as shown in GSP Figure 10-1. Costs also include gravity piping in the area to supply the lift station. One project that is currently under way is CIP SM1— Sims Way Crossing and Wilson Street Realignment (Cost: $1,212,000) The existing pipe is currently deficient with new development in the Rainer subarea. Upsizing the pipe while under construction to accommodate future Glen Cove flows is a marginal cost increase. Most of the cost of constructing new sewer mains are associated with digging the ditches, engineering, paving, traffic control, etc. and not necessarily the pipe size. This project replaces approximately 786 LF of existing 8-inch gravity pipe with new 18-inch gravity sewer in a different alignment on an easement to be procured. This project must be completed concurrently with the construction of the Mill Lift Station (CIP WW4). Negligible costs for pipe size are not directly attributable to Glen Cove. The City receives far better benefit of having additional customers that would potentially come online with a sewer extension into Glen Cove. This is one of the reasons that the Glen Cove special study area was included in the GSP along with the goal of making sure that the City has a base for job creation to match population growth for a sustainable community as outlined in the GMA. The City has significant investments to make in the sewer system as outlined in the GSP and the Capital Facilities Plan. However, all these improvements in pipelines and the WWTF are required whether connection to Glen Cove happens or not. The City sewer utility stands to gain significant benefit to obtain additional connections to share the rate burden amongst a large customer base rather than assigning a portion of the cost of the infrastructure attributable to the Glen Cove area. Refer to Appendix 5 for sewer maps and associated sewer information. 4.,5.E Wastewater [Ascharge 1111enryflts for Ilindu tH ll Uses Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) are businesses that discharge wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and are subject to pretreatment standards and requirements, including potential charges for high -strength waste. Industries like manufacturing, food processing, power generation, and healthcare facilities can be SIUs. A high -strength sewer refers to a sewer system that receives wastewater with a higher concentration of pollutants than typical domestic wastewater, such as higher levels of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). High -strength wastewater can come from various sources, including food service establishments, car washes, automobile repair shops, and other industrial processes. High -strength discharges can place a heavier burden on the sewer system and treatment plant, potentially requiring additional treatment or pretreatment. SIUs are typically required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit that outlines their pretreatment requirements and discharge limits. SIUs must comply with applicable federal, state, and local pretreatment standards, which may include requirements for reducing or eliminating pollutants in their wastewater. Some cities and counties may impose surcharges or fees on SIUs that discharge high - strength waste, as these discharges can increase treatment costs. An industrial wastewater discharge permit is required for facilities discharging wastewater to groundwater, POTWs, or other waters. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulates these discharges to prevent pollution and protect water quality. The type of industrial wastewater discharge permit needed depends on the discharge destination and volume: State Waste Discharge (SWD) permits: Industry discharge to groundwater: This permit, issued by Ecology, prevents groundwater contamination by limiting the discharge of pollutants. Industry discharge to POTWs: This permit, issued by Ecology and also called a pretreatment permit, applies to industries discharging to public sewer systems, excluding industrial stormwater. The public utility is responsible for identifying limits and any restriction on discharge that might affect the treatment process including the production of biosolids. As an example, the City has high quality biosolids and thus discharges of contaminants that would make it through the treatment process would be limited. One of the most common requirements of a SIU that has high BOD loading is to require pre-treatment to mitigate the impacts on the WWTF. This is common for heavy users such as breweries. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Wastewater Discharge Permits: Industry discharge to surface waters: This includes direct discharges from treatment facilities or commercial industry to surface water bodies and requires an individual permit issued by Ecology. Industrial wastewater discharge permit requirements and key considerations: Permits specify the allowable levels of pollutants in the wastewater discharge. The volume of wastewater discharged is a factor in determining the type of permit required. The type of business and its wastewater characteristics can also affect the permit requirements. The potential risk to the local water quality or sewer system is another factor in determining the permit requirements. Permitted facilities are required to monitor the wastewater discharge and submit regular reports to the regulatory agency. The permit will outline specific requirements for treating the wastewater, as well as sampling, recordkeeping, and reporting. Existing municipal and industrial NPDES permits in the vicinity of the study area are as shown in Table 4- 16: FaDI IIIe 4,..36 Existing IY' PIII')ES Perrnits Industrial NPDES IP 4.5.2 Cost of SeMce Ainallysis SCJ Alliance, with the help of City and County staff, prepared a high-level comparison of two options for providing sewer service to the LAMIRD: 1) extending the City of Port Townsend sewer system and 2) using a Large On -Site Sewage System (LOSS). .5.2.1 Extending the City of IP irf Townsend Sewer Sy ern ( 1r)-til n 1) Per the 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan (GSP): The proposed Mill Site Pump Station Basin is shown in Figure 4-3 (red dashed line). It includes all of the LAMIRD and most of the study area: C gu re 4,..3 GSIP Area IIMap Source: Base Map - 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan. Lift Station Location is based on the latest information as of December 2025. For the purposes of estimating demand on the sewer system, flow estimates for the industrial area were estimated by the GSP. The Capital Improvement Plan section of the GSP proposes a Mill Lift Station and force main to allow for development of the Mill site to its potential (CIP WW4). The Mill Site Lift Station would be located at the intersection of Mill Road and South 81h Street, adjacent to the existing Mill Ponds (see Figure 4-4): gore 4,..• , GASP CIP IIMap CIP Project Time to Completion -year Source: 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan GSP Appendix B - 2012 Mill Road Pump Station and Force Main Predesign Report includes plan and profile sheets of the proposed force main alignment; refer to Appendix 5 of this report. GSP Appendix J - Mill Site Lift Station Sizing Analysis specifies Total Buildout Peak Flow of 1,528,650 gallons per day (gpd), or 1,062 gallons per minute. CIP WW4 proposes to procure property and construct a submersible lift station with an ultimate firm capacity of 1,062 gallons per minute. The station is to include backup power generation, a 4,500-foot-long 10-inch- diameter force main, and gravity piping in the area to supply the lift station. CIP WW4 Mill Lift Station has an estimated cost of $6,300,000 ($6.3M). Even though the Mill Lift Station will have capacity for the entire Mill Site Pump Station Basin, Glen Cove will shoulder most of the cost of the lift station since many components of the lift station will need to be constructed initially while providing for future capacity. For example: the above grade structures, power, piping, and wetwell need to be constructed for the future buildout even if not all of the pumps are installed. The City has indicated that the Glen Cove portion of the Mill Lift Station cost is projected at $2M that will be distributed to new connections through local facilities charges at the time of hook up. It is assumed that costs attributable to Glen Cove for the current Mill Site Lift Station and forcemain project is = $2M. Future upsizing phases of the lift station 20 plus years into the future will have a greater proportional share of the costs for Glen Cove depending on extent and type of industrial development. Lift station costs would likely be recovered through local facilities charges at the time of connection. The Local Facilities Charge of $2 million would be distributed to new connections based on the projected number of new connections over the 20-year planning period. Currently, the projected 20-year flow for Glen Cove is 280 gpm or 72,000 gallons per day. Downstream of the Mill Lift Station, the GSP specifies upgrades to collection and treatment systems. These improvements are funded by the City's rate system as they are required to serve the Rainier Subarea. Without these improvements, Glen Cove sewer extension would not be feasible. Approximately $15.6 million of downstream pipe improvements are necessary regardless of Glen Cove sewer extension or not. WWTF upgrades are also necessary regardless of Glen Cove sewer extension totaling approximately $32M. These improvements are required given the age of the WWTF and its need to be rehabilitated in order to comply with the NPDES permit and the new General Nutrient permit. GSP estimated costs for Capital Improvement Projects are as shown in Table 4-17 (note that only a portion of WW4 is directly attributable to Glen Cove): FaDI IIIe 4,..37 QI'sUrnated CIP Costs As described above, given the City's total investment required for the sewer system, the best option for mitigating rate impacts to the region and sewer customers is to expand the sewer customer base. This is a unique opportunity to create a win -win for economic development and jobs with help in paying for sewer plant upgrades with a larger customer base. Upstream of the Mill Lift Station, a gravity sewer collection system within the LAMIRD is required. It is assumed that this collection system will be the same as the LOSS collection system discussed in Section 4.5.2.2. Responsibility for paying for the collection system will be the landowners and/or Jefferson County through economic development grants. The rough order magnitude opinion of probable cost for the collection system is approximately $3,218,500; refer to Appendix 5 for the 20-year Buildout Single Drainfield Cost Estimate. Estimated costs attributable to Glen Cove for Capital Improvement Projects associated with the Mill Site Lift Station are as shown in Table 4-18: FaDI IIIe 4,..3 8 QI stirnated CIP Costs At'triDl utaDl llle to GIIIIen Cove The proposed LOSS system is anticipated to be septic tank(s) for treatment followed immediately by a pressure dosed drain field (laterals) for disposal. Alternative treatment and disposal methods are not included in this analysis. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) online soil mapping reports yield the following information regarding potential soil suitability for a LOSS system: The MRCS report for Septic Tank Absorption Fields shows that soil within the study area is "very limited" indicating that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use: depth to saturated zone, slow water movement, or seepage of bottom layer. These limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. The MRCS report for Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) shows that many areas within the study area have a high soil rating, representing the ease with which water can flow through the material, but Ksat is also highly variable across the study area, so depth to saturated zone needs to be verified during the process to determine potential drainfield locations. The MRCS report for Depth to Water Table shows that many areas within the study area have a soil rating of more than 200 centimeters, indicating that the expected depth to water table is more than 6.5 feet, but depth to water table is also highly variable across the study area, so depth to water table needs to be verified during the process to determine potential drainfield locations. The MRCS report for Depth to Bedrock shows that all areas within the study area have a soil rating of more than 200 centimeters, indicating that the expected depth to bedrock is more than 6.5 feet. The MRCS report for Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer shows that many areas within the study area have a soil rating of more than 200 centimeters, indicating that the expected depth to any soil restrictive layer is more than 6.5 feet, but depth to any soil restrictive layer is also highly variable across the study area, so depth to any soil restrictive layer needs to be verified during the process to determine potential drainfield locations. The MRCS report for Flooding Frequency Class shows that nearly all areas within the study area have a soil rating of None, indicating that flooding within the study area is not probable. The chance of flooding is nearly 0 percent in any year; flooding occurs less than once in 500 years. MRCS defines flooding as the temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather than flooding. The MRCS report for Ponding Frequency Class shows that all areas within the study area have a soil rating of None, indicating that ponding within the study area is not probable; the chance of ponding is nearly 0 percent in any year. The MRCS report for Drainage Class shows that many areas within the study area have a soil rating of "somewhat excessively drained" or "well drained", indicating the frequency and duration of wet periods. Septic systems in the study area could be challenging but not necessarily ruled out. Characterization of soil suitability in this report is not based on field observations, explorations, or testing. One or more of these activities will be required during the design process to verify the site -specific soil conditions. Changes to size, location, and suitability are possible, and may impact such factors as cost, site suitability, permitting, and design concept. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) online well logs search yields the following information regarding potential soil suitability for a LOSS system: We obtained well reports from the Department of Ecology for two well locations near the study area. One well report found silty sand for 0 feet to 44 feet below ground surface, the other found dense sandy gravel for 0 feet to 15 feet below ground surface. Neither well log mentions hitting the water table or other restrictive layers. Characterization of soil suitability in this report is not based on field observations, explorations, or testing. One or more of these activities will be required during the design process to verify the site -specific soil conditions. Changes to size, location, and suitability are possible, and may impact such factors as cost, site suitability, permitting, and design concept. Correspondence with Jefferson County Environmental Public Health (JCEPH) yields the following information regarding existing septic systems within the study area: The study area has somewhat variable soil conditions as it relates to septic systems. Some of the industrial use parcels along State Route 20 have well drained, medium sands that are excellent for septic systems. However, as you move eastward, useable soil depth decreases as observed groundwater becomes shallower. Overall, potential soil suitability is highly variable throughout the study area. Due to the variability of soil conditions in the study area, JCEPH has permitted many types of existing septic systems, including gravity, simple pressure, mounds, and proprietary treatment products. Therefore, establishing a certain type of system for this report (LOSS) is based on variables with a high degree of uncertainty, thus the cost estimates and preliminary sizing have a high degree of uncertainty. The Jefferson County Public Utility District (JPUD) website lists existing Community Drain Fields and LOSS systems — Kala Point has two which are the closest to the study area. Correspondence with Washington State Department of Health (WA DOH) yields the following information regarding existing septic systems within the study area: WA DOH is the permitting authority up to 100,000 gpd for LOSS. Jefferson County has high water tables and not the best soil for septic systems. WA DOH can do any complex LOSS system if the sewage is domestic strength and there is a drain field, but industrial sewage and agricultural sewage cannot go into a LOSS. Industrial sewage byproducts must be discharged separately: Possibly via a pump and haul plan to the WWTP, but there are no holding tank approvals for new projects as holding tanks are reserved only for repairs or existing systems with no more drain field area available. Ecology released a brewery/winery general permit in 2024 that can be used for industrial sewage of that nature. Possibly require each developer to treat their waste to domestic strength prior to discharge to the public LOSS system. Per AppendixJ - Mill Site Lift Station Sizing Analysis of the 2024 City of Port Townsend General Sewer Plan (GSP): The Glen Cove basin area is 800 acres: The 20-year buildout wastewater flow is projected to be 72,000 gpd, and The full buildout wastewater flow is projected to be 400,000 gpd to 600,000 gpd. The proposed LOSS system is designed for the LAMIRD area only. The total area of the LAMIRD is 155 acres including right-of-ways, and 130 acres excluding the right-of-ways. 1 OSS Systeirm: 220-yeah Buiilldouf Assuming the entire LAMIRD is one basin: LOSS layout includes a gravity collection system within the LAMIRD, draining to a lift station at a topographic low area. The proposed LOSS lift station is located near the Mill Site Lift Station specified in the GSP Appendix B - 2012 Mill Road Pump Station and Force Main Predesign Report by CH2M HILL, included in Appendix 5. The proposed LOSS lift station would pump sewage through forcemain to the proposed drainfield location; drainfield location to be determined based on soil suitability and land acquisition availability — refer to Appendix 5 for the figure titled LOSS Layout — 20-year Buildout. 20-year Buildout (72,000 gpd) requires one 450,000 square -foot drainfield; refer to Appendix 5 for the LOSS Sizing Calculations. The rough order magnitude opinion of probable cost for this one basin LOSS layout is approximately $12,630,000 with Operations and Maintenance at approximately $35,165 per year. Refer to Appendix 5 for the 20-year Buildout Single Drainfield Cost Estimate. I OSS Systeirm: 220-yeah Buildout Alternate Looking at the topography of the LAMIRD, there is an existing ridge separating the LAMIRD into two basins: North Sewer Basin: LOSS layout includes a gravity collection system within the LAMIRD's North Sewer Basin, draining to a topographic low area at the proposed drainfield location; drainfield location to be determined based on soil suitability and land acquisition availability; refer to Appendix 5 for the figure titled LOSS Layout — 20-year Buildout — Alternate. 20-year Buildout — Alternate (41,040 gpd prorated flow based on basin size) requires one 255,600 square -foot drainfield; refer to Appendix 5 for the LOSS Sizing Calculations. South Sewer Basin: LOSS layout includes a gravity collection system within the LAMIRD's South Sewer Basin, draining to a lift station at a topographic low area. The proposed LOSS lift station is located near the Mill Site Lift Station specified in the GSP Appendix B - 2012 Mill Road Pump Station and Force Main Predesign Report by CH2M HILL, included in Appendix 5. The proposed LOSS lift station would pump sewage through forcemain to the proposed drainfield location; drainfield location to be determined based on soil suitability and land acquisition availability; refer to Appendix 5 for the figure titled LOSS Layout — 20-year Buildout — Alternate. 20-year Buildout — Alternate (30,960 gpd prorated flow based on basin size) requires one 192,600 square -foot drainfield; refer to Appendix 5 for the LOSS Sizing Calculations. The rough order magnitude opinion of probable cost for this two basin LOSS layout is approximately $11,300,000 with Operations and Maintenance at approximately $48,865 per year. Refer to Appendix 5 for the 20-year Buildout Double Drainfield Cost Estimate. 1 OSS Systeirm: Fullll Buildout Assuming the entire LAMIRD is one basin: LOSS layout includes a gravity collection system within the LAMIRD, draining to a lift station at a topographic low area. The proposed LOSS lift station is located near the Mill Site Lift Station specified in the GSP Appendix B - 2012 Mill Road Pump Station and Force Main Predesign Report by CH2M HILL, included in Appendix 5. The proposed LOSS lift station would pump sewage through forcemain to the proposed drainfield locations; drainfield locations to be determined based on soil suitability and land acquisition availability — refer to Appendix 5 for the figure titled LOSS Layout — Full Buildout. Full Buildout (600,000 gpd) requires six 624,600 square -foot drainfields; refer to Appendix 5 for the LOSS Sizing Calculations. LOSS systems have maximum allowable design flows up to 100,000 gpd. Facilities exceeding this threshold are subject to different regulatory frameworks and design standards, typically necessitating the design of a more complex wastewater treatment plant. The full buildout wastewater flow exceeds the maximum allowable design flow of 100,000 gpd for LOSS systems. Therefore, we assume that six separate LOSS systems will be scattered throughout the study area. Six drainfields require a large land area for the Full Buildout scenario, but Full Buildout flow will depend on actual sewer flows — dry industries (such as warehouses and mini storages) have less flow. Also, there can be a future forcemain connection to the City sewer system at Full Build out as the location of the proposed LOSS lift station is located near the future Mill Site Lift Station (specified in the GSP Appendix B - 2012 Mill Road Pump Station and Force Main Predesign Report by CH2M HILL, included in Appendix 5). The rough order magnitude opinion of probable cost for Full Buildout is based on a single LOSS system (100,000 gpm) with six drainfields: approximately $54,820,000 with Operations and Maintenance at approximately $122,190 per year. Refer to Appendix 5 for the Full Buildout Cost Estimate. 4.5.2.3 Costs Comparison Comparing costs between the two scenarios of Extending the City of Port Townsend Sewer System and Using a LOSS System are as shown in Table 4-19: FaDI I e 4,..3 9 Crests C ornparison The estimated costs in Table 4-19 would be implemented and recouped over time. Cost of service for an area is the cost of the cost of operations plus the cost of capital divided by the customer base over a specific period of time. This analysis helps establish fiscal viability of serving an area. The cost of capital can be offset by grants and low interest loans. Often a utility Local Improvement District or Local Facilities Charges are used to recoup proportional share of cost of improvements benefiting properties. 4.5.2.4 Comparison Table Table 4-20 shows comparison of two alternatives for providing future sewer service to the study area: FaDI IIIe 4,.. 0 Cornparison ""IIFaDI III' The City has existing municipal and industrial NPDES permits with set discharge limits. Minimal land impact on 4.5.3 Sewer IN xt Stelps Next steps are as follows: Public LOSS system requires a SWD permit for industry discharge to groundwater or publicly owned treatment works. The type of business and its affect permit requirements. LOSS requires a very large area and could limit development. Determine preference between the two alternatives for providing future sewer service to the study area. Additional investigation or analysis beyond the scope of this report may be needed. Such as: analyzing and identifying possible locations of drainfields by evaluating the viability of land acquisition in areas of soil suitability if a LOSS is the desired approach. Table X provides a good synopsis of both options including the option of doing nothing and building additional septic systems. Table Y illustrates the preferred option in a concise synopsis. Further develop connection fee costs and financial resources options for capital improvements. This is especially important for building the sewer collection pipe network. Planning -level Glen Cove capital on the order of $5—$6 million, including • Glen Cove share of Mill Road Lift Station and infrastructure (approx. $2M planning -level). • New sewer mains and related infrastructure within the Glen Cove LAMIRD (approx. $3.0—$3.51VI planning -level). WWTP expansion and most downstream pipe upgrades are City- wide projects already contemplated in the GSP. They are funded through existing and future City sewer rates and bonds and are not treated as Glen Cove -only capital. Glen Cove customers contribute to those system costs over time through regular rates and standard connection fees, like other City customers. Planning -level capital likely similar to or higher than the City extension option when collection system, treatment units, dispersal systems, and land/easements are included. Exact costs depend on design, phasing, and regulatory requirements. The City still implements GSP projects and WWTP upgrades for other growth areas, funded through City sewer rates and bonds, largely independent of Glen Cove's LOSS decision. Low coordinated public capital, but potentially high cumulative private investment over time as individual systems are installed, repaired, or replaced. Limited ability to leverage major infrastructure funding programs for a cohesive solution. City proceeds with its own GSP projects for other areas. Glen Cove has little influence on system planning or rate structures under this option. Table 4-22 provides a more detailed breakdown of the Glen Cove —attributable capital components for the preferred Option 1 (City sewer extension via the Mill Road Lift Station). The figures are planning - level and are intended to illustrate how Glen Cove's share is constructed conceptually. Final numbers will be refined as engineering, financial planning, and cost allocation agreements progress. �lF abfwlle 4 22 Glen Cove .A trffwutafwle Ca f a ...... III3r akdcw n for Preferred Option New gravity mains, force mains (if needed), and related collection infrastructure within the Glen Cove LAMIRD to bring wastewater from individual parcels to the Mill Road Lift Station connection point. Major plant capacity and process improvements needed to serve the broader City wastewater service area over time. No (treated as City- wide system cost) Assumes a network of mains sized to support anticipated buildout under existing and planned land uses. Specific alignment, depth, and phasing will refine this estimate. Glen Cove customers will contribute to WWTP costs via regular sewer rates once connected, along with all other all sewer customers. WWTP upgrades are not triggered solely by Glen Cove and are planned as part of the City's system- wide obligations. Tables 4-21 and 4-22 above are intended as decision -support tools. They do not replace detailed engineering or financial analysis, but they provide a clear framework for comparing options and communicating with partners and the community. In particular, they: Clarify that Glen Cove's direct capital obligation under the preferred City sewer option is on the order of several million dollars, not tens of millions. Show how City-wide system costs are handled through rates and bonds, consistent with the City's GSP. Highlight the trade-offs between near -term capital, long-term O&M, regulatory complexity, and economic development potential for each option. Provide a foundation for future economic development analysis and intergovernmental agreements, including coordination with the Economic Development Council, Port, and other stakeholders as part of a Glen Cove -specific economic development strategy. 4.6 Stormwateir Jefferson County is the permitting agency for new stormwater systems in the study area, outside of the City of Port Townsend City limits: Jefferson County has adopted the 2024 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW)and the 2005 Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound Partnership). Portions of the study area are located within a Susceptible (SUSC) Critical Aquifer Recharge Area: critical area with geologic and hydrologic conditions that promote rapid infiltration of recharge waters to groundwater aquifers; areas vulnerable to contamination of drinking water. Portions of the study area are located within erosion, slope, seismic, and landslide hazard areas. The existing drainage patterns within the study area, north of Mill Road, generally flow southerly: Streams that begin along the south side of both State Route 20 and West Sims Way collect stormwater and convey it southward where they discharge into the PTPC ponds. The existing drainage patterns within the study area, south of Mill Road, generally flow northeasterly: There is a generalized high point located on the west side of Fort Townsend State Park. Streams from this high point, and along the south side of Old Fort Townsend Road, collect stormwater and convey it northward where it discharges into Port Townsend Bay at the southernmost corner of the PTPC property. A stream that begins in the vicinity of Arrow Lumber & Hardware, crosses under State Route 20, flows northward through the Glen Cove industrial zone, then flows northwesterly where it discharges into the PTPC ponds. The soil map shows the majority of the study area as hydrologic soil group A with saturated hydraulic conductivity being high to very high and groundwater at greater than 6.7 feet deep; these areas typically have the potential to infiltrate stormwater. Per the 2019 City of Port Townsend Stormwater Management Plan: The City of Port Townsend has adopted the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). Stormwater runoff in the City drains directly to: the ocean either via storm sewers (pipes) or from the two large named wetlands (Chinese Gardens and Kah Tai Lagoon) via an overflow pipe or to closed basins that discharge into the groundwater, often at small wetlands and surface ravines. No stormwater quality data has been collected by the City at city outfalls. The Jefferson County Health Department collected dry and wet weather samples to evaluate E. coli from storm sewer outfalls in 2013 and 2014. The samples can inform some elements of stormwater planning which would be focused on education (usually pet waste), source controls, and illicit discharges. There is insufficient available data to inform a basin or outfall-specific stormwater quality retrofit prioritization plan, which is the norm, not the exception, in most of Puget Sound communities. However, stormwater is a presumptive practice; therefore, a surrogate such as the percentage of roadways and intensity of development in a basin can be used to prioritize locations for stormwater treatment retrofits to improve water quality. The City has areas with platted lots, often 5,000 square feet in size and rights -of -way that are not developed. Proposed development or redevelopment of these lots may or may not exceed SWMMWW thresholds for stormwater control. Uncontrolled development of these areas does result in increased flows and can cause impacts: existing wetland boundaries expand and capacity of existing pipes and ditches is exceeded relative to both peak flow and velocity. The calculations for future runoff do not consider the benefits of stormwater measures required by the SWMMWW, thus the results are conservative and more protective than the standard. Development and buildout of individual lots are generally under the stormwater control requirement thresholds in the SWMMWW, although City code will require infiltration and control to the maximum extent practicable, therefore these results are also conservative. Reductions in allowable land use changes or changed thresholds for required stormwater controls are other measures the City can take to control future stormwater impact potential. Two capital improvement projects that discharge into the study area were underway in 2019: y Rainier Street Regional Stormwater Project y Logan Street Stormwater Pond Overflow Per meeting notes: The City has had conversations about possible connection to the PTPC for release of non -industrial stormwater. The feasibility of this is unknown. Refer to Appendix 6 for stormwater maps and associated stormwater information. The City of Port Townsend stormwater system includes a combination of wetlands, pipes, catch basins and detention basins for flood control. In the older sections of the city, stormwater runs down the pavement gutters, sidewalks, roads, driveways, and drains directly to Puget Sound. Therefore, it is important to keep the streets clean to minimize the amount of pollutants that enter the street drains. Residents and businesses see a stormwater utility fee on their monthly utility bills. This utility fee provides the City resources to maintain and continue to build projects to improve the stormwater system. The focus of the stormwater utility today is to provide water quality treatment in addition to flood and erosion control. In recent years, many rain gardens have also been installed for environmental benefit. The City is required by the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to follow Federal and State stormwater regulations and must maintain a Stormwater Management Program. This Program is a comprehensive plan designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the City in order to protect local waters. This requirement is rooted in the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The SWMMWW provides the best available science and best management practices to address stormwater impacts on the environment. The City has implemented many of these practices to correct existing potential stormwater pollution sources with best management practices such as filter units, vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, infiltration basins, and detention facilities. Additionally, the City sweeps the streets and cleans catch basins to remove pollutants before they enter the pipe systems. The soils map (Figure 4-5) shows the majority of the study area as hydrologic soil group A with saturated hydraulic conductivity being high to very high and groundwater at greater than 6.7 feet deep. These areas typically have the potential to infiltrate stormwater and could be potential locations for a regional facility for stormwater treatment and disposal. C gure 4,..5 o llls Map Source: 2025 Natural Resources Conservation Service However, portions of the study area could have limitations for infiltration as there are Susceptible (SUSC) Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and erosion, slope, seismic, and landslide hazard areas (see Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7): gore 4,..6 CriticaI Aqu [f r IllIechar e Area Map Source: 2024 Jefferson County GIS Sr(,:'.➢ A1111ua iin c e 1.2/ 9/2025 1 Page 78 I;ure 4,..7 Shortfline Sbpe tabEIland I..anftlHde III.l zard Map Source: 2024 Jefferson County GIS Also, areas south of Old Fort Townsend Road are included in Fort Townsend State Park so those areas cannot be utilized as a future stormwater facility (see Figure 4-8): figure 4,..8 Ill ort ""IlFominsend State Park IIMap Source: 2024 Jefferson County GIS Stormwater management options for future development within the study area are proposed as follows: Stormwater treatment on site specific basis where soils are good. Each developer has to do their own treatment and disposal, same with the streets. Where soils are not conducive to infiltration: if there are areas where the soils are not conducive to infiltration, land becomes undevelopable or facilities become too large and infeasible due to land coverage. ry The capital facility outlay isn't immediate. Stormwater treatment and disposal at a regional facility where soils not conducive to infiltration. y Immediate capital facility outlay. y. Constructed wetlands, biofiltration. Combination of both scenarios where soils are good and bad. Piping stormwater to Puget Sound for disposal requires a special NPDES permit, if that can even be approved. The exception will be if there is an existing stormwater outfall that has capacity. Industrial sites are typically required to do additional treatment to meet NPDES requirements. 4.6.2 INatioinall Pollutant If;A s c h r IE h irrfl in t i in Systeirn (I Il lf;) lE ) Ecology develops and administers Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permits in Washington. Municipal stormwater general permits regulate discharges from publicly owned Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs and gutters, ditches and other man-made channels, and storm drains. The 1990 NPDES Phase I regulation requires medium and large cities or certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. The 1999 NPDES Phase II regulation requires small MS4s in U.S. Census Bureau defined urbanized areas, as well as MS4s designated by the permitting authority, to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. The current Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit is effective August 1, 2024 and expires on July 31, 2029 — they are issued every 5 years. The City of Port Townsend, the LAMIRD area and the study area are likely to get pulled into NPDES Phase II compliance in 2029. This means that any MS4 will have to be permitted under NPDES. This will happen regardless of UGA expansion. A NPDES permit requires permit holders to manage and control the discharge of pollutants into U.S. waterways. This includes establishing limits on the types and amounts of pollutants that can be discharged, implementing monitoring and reporting requirements, and ensuring compliance with federal and state water quality standards. General permits often require the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are operational conditions designed to minimize pollution from stormwater runoff. Industrial NPDES discharge permits are required by Ecology for certain industrial uses; industrial sites are typically required to do additional treatment to meet NPDES requirements. Existing municipal and industrial NPDES permits in the vicinity of the study area are as shown in Table 4- 23: FaDl le 4,..2.3 Existing IY' IPIII')ES Perrrnits Puget Sound Nutrient GP Existing stormwater outfalls in Port Townsend are shown in Figure 4-9: C i ;ure 4,..9 Existing Storrrmiater OtxdVIs in Port ""IlFominlsend Drainage Basin Discharge Locations Figure 2 Im 12i§0air9B L4Gahm l `3 Drains to Salish Sea Kah, Tai Lagoon (overflows to salish Sea} Chinese Gardens (Ci to Salish Sea) Closed IBasln (No Cutlet) Drains to Ravines Drains to County outfalls Fa�lgrgs Drainage Basins Wetlands ,J Potential Wetlands C�3 I DO Year Flood Critical Drainage Corridors Key Draiinageways ^...^..._..^ City Limits Source: 2019 City of Port Townsend Stormwater Management Plan 4.6.3 Storimwater IN xt Stelps Next steps are as follows: Contact City / PTPC about possible connection to the PTPC for release of non -industrial stormwater. Determine preference between individual site stormwater facilities or a more regional facility. Additional investigation or analysis beyond the scope of this report may be needed. :13 11E,cainairnic ll ve ll III fir m n urn III ui The following economic analysis is based on the infrastructure analysis presented in the previous section. Any time a public agency invests in economic development, it is prudent to evaluate the potential outcomes and return on public investment. Not only must economic development strategies be realistic and consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans, but the rationale for economic development must be well understood and supported by the community. An example of this history of economic development investment is the recruitment of the Port Townsend Paper Mill in the mid-1920s. At that time, the City borrowed $600,000 through a landslide majority vote of the public to recruit the Mill and construct the Olympic Gravity Water System. This investment not only built the much -needed water supply line but also resulted in approximately $5.5 million in private investment by the Mill. The return on public investment was significant: for every one dollar of public investment, approximately $9.20 of private investment was generated. As a general rule, economic development initiatives should aim to create at least a 1:5 return on investment, in other words, for every dollar invested by the public sector, five dollars should be invested by the private sector. This return on investment strategy ensures that enough tax revenue is generated that the public is not disproportionately subsidizing private business. In addition to quantitative returns, qualitative returns on investment should also be evaluated. In the Paper Mill example, the City was in desperate need of a reliable water source, so there was a huge public benefit to constructing a 30-mile pipeline that the community still enjoys today. While a detailed economic impact analysis is beyond the scope of this report, the following economic development framework could be considered in a follow-up study involving key economic development organizations such as the Port of Port Townsend, Jefferson County EDC, and the North Olympic Peninsula Development Council. Evaluation of alternatives for economic development outcomes helps determine whether infrastructure investments are likely to generate meaningful returns. These scenarios could be framed as follows: .1 C in irfl 1 : -Ills / NO Coordinated Economic Devellopirneint IP it o g it a irn Under this scenario, Glen Cove remains constrained by existing infrastructure limitations and reliant on case -by -case investments. Sewer service continues to rely on on -site systems or limited solutions, and there is no coordinated effort to position Glen Cove as a strategic industrial or employment area. Land uses tend to favor lower -intensity, lower -employment activities (such as storage, low -flow service uses, or small-scale operations that can function within existing infrastructure). Job growth, private investment, and tax base expansion remain modest, and opportunities to support countywide economic resilience are not fully realized. In this scenario, the preferred sewer Option 1 (City sewer extension via the Mill Road Lift Station) and related infrastructure improvements are implemented, but without a dedicated Glen Cove economic development program. Improved sewer, water, fire flow, and transportation conditions make it easier for existing and prospective businesses to expand or locate in Glen Cove, and development intensity increases over time. Uses are likely to resemble existing regional industrial and marine -trades businesses, but at a larger scale and with more stable employment. This scenario offers significantly better economic outcomes than Scenario 1, but it leaves some potential on the table because recruitment, business support, and site -readiness efforts are limited or ad hoc. 5.3 C in irii :III infirastiructu ire P lI it ii n a t Economic Devellopirneint Strategy In this scenario, infrastructure investments are paired with a deliberate and coordinated economic development strategy for Glen Cove. The County, City, Port, Economic Development Council (EDC), and other partners work together to position Glen Cove as a key industrial and employment node for the region. This approach includes identifying target sectors (such as marine trades, light manufacturing, and related supply -chain businesses), proactively marketing available sites, supporting business retention and expansion, and coordinating permitting and infrastructure timing. This type of intentional approach is consistent with economic development best practices, which often aim for a leveraged ratio of private investment to public infrastructure investment (for example, a 5:1 private -to -public ratio over time). Scenario 3 requires more planning and coordination effort, but it also offers the greatest potential return on the infrastructure investments contemplated in this report. Conclusions and II a ii a ui u Alternative 1, extending sewer infrastructure into the existing Glen Cove LAMIRD, is the recommended most feasible alternative given public feedback and the cost of infrastructure. Next Steps The Glen Cove Infrastructure Extension Analysis provides a foundation for coordinated planning and investment in the Glen Cove Industrial/Commercial LAMIRD. Through technical review, interagency collaboration, and public engagement, the report identifies opportunities to extend infrastructure in ways that support local economic development and align with community values. Moving forward, the project partners will refine preferred alternatives, pursue funding opportunities, and continue engaging stakeholders to ensure that infrastructure planning remains transparent, data - driven, and responsive to local needs. This collaborative approach will help position Glen Cove for sustainable development and long-term regional benefit. A critical next step is to take this information on infrastructure and apply an economic development analysis with the development of a framework for achieving best possible outcomes. In parallel with economic development planning, project partners anticipate advancing preliminary infrastructure design for sewer extension serving the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Recent Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF) resources are intended to support early design, engineering, and feasibility work associated with extending City of Port Townsend sewer infrastructure. Advancing infrastructure design alongside economic development planning will allow partners to better align project phasing, cost assumptions, and funding strategies. Jefferson County has worked with the City of Port Townsend to facilitate SCJ Alliance's report. The next steps include sharing the final report with all ICG partners, the Port of Port Townsend and the Jefferson County PUD. Jefferson County and Port Townsend will continue to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and invite the Port and PUD to join in the conversation and potentially the MOU to collaboratively develop infrastructure in the Glen Cove LAMIRD. This report was funded with a Strategy and Development grant from Phase 1 of the Recompete program through the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The North Olympic Peninsula Recompete Coalition (NOPRC) was subsequently awarded $35 million in Phase 2 of Recompete for implementation of their plan. While construction of the Glen Cove infrastructure project was not funded through this phase, recent Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF) resources are intended to support preliminary planning, engineering, and design of sewer infrastructure extensions associated with the preferred alternative identified in this report. In parallel, partners such as the Jefferson County Economic Development Organization, EDC Team Jefferson, were awarded funding for workforce development in the region. EDC Team Jefferson has been convening conversations with small businesses and manufacturers and making similar findings that there is a need for primed industrial space in Jefferson County. These discussions have confirmed that the lack of this space is a barrier to local business expansion and retention. Integrating the ongoing work of NOPRC as well as the ICG into the planning conversations clarifies the need to prioritize the development of infrastructure in the Glen Cove LAMIRD. A broad table of stakeholders will also help our municipalities address planning and zoning issues in industrial areas to ensure that developing infrastructure has the desired outcome of business and economic development in Jefferson County. With the preferred infrastructure option identified and Glen Cove -attributable capital clarified, the next step is to align infrastructure investments with a modern, Glen Cove -specific economic development strategy. The goal is not only to correct existing infrastructure constraints, but to support a more resilient, higher -value mix of industrial and employment uses over time. This section outlines how Glen Cove's economic development path can be framed and what additional work is recommended to translate this infrastructure analysis into coordinated action. T 1 Recommended Irk Next Stelps for Economic IDev II I Irn in t aind III infirastiructu ire P II In in fll in The infrastructure analysis in this report provides a necessary foundation, but it is not a complete economic development plan. The following next steps are recommended to move Glen Cove from concept to a coordinated implementation strategy, recognizing that roles and responsibilities will need to be further defined by the partner agencies. Near-feirirn actions (D- 2 years) Advance preliminary sewer infrastructure design, including alignment, capacity, and cost estimates, using available PIF funding and in coordination with the City of Port Townsend and relevant utility providers. Convene a Glen Cove economic development working group including Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend, the Port, the EDC, JPUD, and representatives of local businesses and property owners. The purpose of this working group would be to align expectations, clarify roles, and establish a shared vision for Glen Cove's role in the regional economy. Commission or complete a focused economic development analysis for Glen Cove building on this infrastructure report. That analysis would refine target sectors, evaluate demand for industrial and employment space, and identify barriers to private investment (for example, site readiness, permitting, or workforce constraints). Begin scoping a Glen Cove -specific strategy for leveraging state and federal funding sources (including programs related to Recompete, climate resilience, infrastructure, and industrial development) in coordination with existing County and Port efforts. Confirm a shared understanding of how the preferred sewer option, and associated Glen Cove — attributable capital, will be structured in terms of funding tools (for example, local improvement district, local facilities charges, connection fees, and grants) so that future economic development discussions are grounded in the same financial assumptions. Maid-feirirn actions (.- 5 years) Develop a Glen Cove economic development strategy or subarea -level implementation plan built around the preferred infrastructure option. This may be a stand-alone strategy or part of a broader countywide economic development framework. Key elements could include land use and zoning refinements (where appropriate), site readiness actions, infrastructure phasing, and alignment with workforce and housing strategies. Identify and, as needed, formalize specific roles for the EDC, Port, County, and City. For example, the EDC may lead recruitment and business support; the Port may focus on industrial land and facilities; the County and City may focus on regulatory alignment, permitting, and infrastructure delivery. Develop outreach and communication tools (such as fact sheets, web content, and meeting materials) that explain the infrastructure plan, the Glen Cove —attributable cost framework, and the economic development objectives in accessible language for businesses and residents. Continue to pursue and secure funding for both infrastructure and economic development programs, aligning grant applications and local commitments with the phasing of sewer, transportation, and other capital projects. 1....on-feirirn actions (5+ years) Monitor development activity, job creation, and tax base changes in Glen Cove and compare them to the goals of the economic development strategy. Adjust the strategy as conditions change and as infrastructure projects are completed. Revisit Glen Cove's role in countywide economic development and land use planning at regular intervals, such as during Comprehensive Plan updates, to ensure that infrastructure, zoning, and economic development programs remain aligned. Evaluate whether additional tools (for example, tax increment financing mechanisms where available, public —private partnerships, or new grant programs) could further enhance Glen Cove's performance as an employment and industrial center. Update the Glen Cove economic development strategy and supporting materials as new infrastructure, business clusters, and market conditions emerge. 7.2 Coordination and Rolles Successful implementation of Scenario 3 will depend on clear coordination among multiple partners. While the exact structure should be determined collaboratively, the following general roles are anticipated: Jefferson County: Lead planning and regulatory coordination for the Glen Cove LAMIRD; help structure funding tools for Glen Cove -attributable capital; participate in economic development strategy development and outreach. City of Port Townsend: Lead implementation of General Sewer Plan projects, including the Mill Road Lift Station and downstream system improvements; enter into interlocal agreements with the County regarding service area, cost allocation, and connection policies; coordinate with the County and EDC on messaging to businesses. Port of Port Townsend: Provide leadership on industrial land, marine trades, and related facilities; collaborate on recruitment and site -readiness; help align Glen Cove investments with broader port district strategies. Economic Development Council (EDC): Lead or co -lead Glen Cove economic development analysis and strategy; support business recruitment, retention, and expansion; serve as a primary contact for businesses considering Glen Cove locations. JPUD and other utilities: Coordinate on power, telecommunications, and other utility needs to ensure that infrastructure capacity aligns with the planned intensity of development. Business and property owners: Provide input on market needs, site constraints, and investment timelines; participate in LID or other local funding mechanisms where appropriate; partner with public agencies to implement site -specific improvements. This report does not attempt to predetermine every aspect of Glen Cove's economic development strategy. Instead, it provides a framework and a set of recommended next steps that partner agencies can use to build a coordinated, implementable plan that leverages the infrastructure investments described in the preceding sections. W L. D U D L. UO a) 0 u } U rn N I I Do A 2 Tl- m W � B -a E m E 0 E E 0 0 e- 4-j 0 u 0 fu E 0 4-j 0 0 0 > 0) U o 0 Ln 0 4- u C: E E 0 o Ln 00 a) u 0 > 0 V) u uj 0) u !E uj -0 4-J 0 V) -0 _0 4-j E > !E 0 E 0 4-j p u 0 0 E E 0 0 u u F 0-- 4-j 4-j 4-j 4-J V) o 4-1 0 0 Lh -0 0 Ln -- V) 0 tjo -0 0 (3) tlo tlo (3) 0 V) a) 4-J -0 4- bn 0 (3) Cr 4-J 0 ON C: 0 0 > o 0 0 4= 0 u (3) m I 40 • • • Ow IA N -0 ■■ 4-1 0 c- u 0 m 4-1 1 . 0 1. 1 0 c- u 0 m CO Qu a--j N 0 CL EII.IN' . '� O (3) I cu CL - a- N Q) a- CD 4-ate-J p a-, ro 2 a-j Ln v s a a a v a o a i U Ln 13 13 a I v v Ln voC7o��13 Ln a v _ -t3 Ln CL �-+ Q I-, ate►, -0 ° a a v �, v o 13 cn O v sl., 40 Z v Q a, a 13 o a v o�, 13 o We i z ram; U.) 0 C14 IN o. Eaf 8 • • uffl� (1) 4-j co 4-j V) V) U " rO (1) 4- ro -0 0 0 4-j 4-j 0 •u 4-j 4-j 0 = -P 76 0 E CU " 4-j 4- — M M -0 C: 0 — 4- CU 0 0 0 0 E 0 " cr E u 4-1 0 cu E cu w 0 4-f u a) CL E m 0 a _0 u •Q) 0 +-, Q) u u o o o 0 u u u 4-j Q) E i 4, ml Ln Ln C) co ff) rN CD rQ cJ ED E 0 o 4--J u 0 Q) HIM u tA HIM D Cn Lli (11 C C v, -z < ld) 1A 2R D LO rr, 1,3 L" a� IN 4—j 0 rIq m uJ c: IT ory DIJ LL r° w CNd,..„p CYi r,j rNI +I— G.') P °j Mr✓� p Q) E [ry s 76 C: _E �n > U—j b W cl e .0 ry ) I A�q a �,, J ® 0°. VE % Q)l ��'s s 0 ��✓ .^�w L'j uj W 4-4 ^L rf,s Ln %T ", r r) ern r\j (NJ!! ryn s /� ry, par,. g {ire W I B I Em A o by ;pl 61 b �z V 01 2 0 0 0 00 rl m Ln R:t m I r'4 I rq I r,4 0 r'14 0wry0 N rl-4 N Ai .9 I m • • 4— • ON 1100 III III III & I] III b ar R R✓�pmd i�vy,r" �FP�1 d°tl� K �r.ry MEMM 6el'- m d")�y dumb �� 2 F ME=��A' wf C: n W M7F, A' df{ S4M Wa 1� mm v B d',2 0 { h mmtiti �!H.Y' �iwAifi� N C6 N cV O � N N U .O U N O � N U O �. O -E }' • U L N •� 4-a--+ i a� 0 o O " 70 o w 0 E cu o E wy �J S m re b �.fwh Illommmmmom V 'luk �V 'P cf•1I Ma F b d l pp 4Ab 4 o, tl "rell n Y n r^d ,.,q A 4 -. daF � J N N i a--+ .C6 N E N cu . O U N N O aA of EM U E D 0 0 c- = 0 u Lli 4-1 Q) Ln Q) 41 0 4-1 Q , Ln Q , 'i B I a; B I C�► CE 0- 0 v U On E MT --,Ve O (MT Q.)(U. O w +, v ca � i /�kJkJr- N 0 It I a--+ N E Ln cu cu ate-+ U aA a--+ i � N � N � U O N � N •� O N +-j ca U cu E • O N O 0 Ln U- CD C: N c Q cu cr N N � cu O Ca cu O N v , � X cn O L cuO U cu N cu cn N m Q a--+ OU E � • N > N �O C6 a-- cn U cu a--' •� bn 2 •> a)•� N O U O O O - v " 4- O O ca N N ca i j CAA v4-i U O N •a) C6 C6 E .O a.:, C6 \ cu U L E > -0cu N a) -0•— -0 N N N U O Q L L X U C:-0 Q-0 O •— U cn a w U 0 cn U� o Q N 0 It I L Q Q Lel u vi cu .E 0 N «1 U E E O i W 0 w w w w c 0 1 w 5 • CL w ► • w 1 • ., w` w • w w • ' X r a--+ O N X f� CL ateJ O CL a.., U — X O 4-4- o X N O �.o ca 06 r-I 4- m � 2 = cn .) N O v (3) %+- O C: . 4-j ca X M N ate+ a--+ U O 4-j O a (3) M.- IN PEW 0 It I II II Q� a--' V CAA � N � c�i� � > � ca � � U Q I m I • m 4-J 0 0 4-J D (3) 4-j CL (3) -0 Ln (3) 4--J 4mJ V) < 0 0 U 4mJ U (u (U 0 < L- V) C: C L- E o k+- U E 0 -0 o E U u 4-j 4-j 4--J 4-J V) I 2 G W1 L_ J I 76 cy m Ln (3) 0 C: 76 0 4-j E -Se -0 M -0 E 0 o fu 0 t— 0 > 4-j 4-j fu 4-j -le __Ile a) __Ile u fu M 4-J '4-j 4- fU Ln Ie Ln u -0 0 >- tw%- 4-j &- Ln o 0 0) E o u CL -0 CL C: 00 u 0 0CL 0 � �( � \ > 4-J (U 4-J U 4-J 4-J V) U 0 4-J (3) U4-J C-.0 4- "n U > u 0 0 n I • 0 U (Li E 0 0 rL- 75 E V; a) E 0 4-J V) a3 4-J V) u 0 m 0 V) < 4-J > 4-J 0 0 07 4-J a) (3) > u u u E V) V) u u 4-j 0 CL 4- 0 let, r5l, LAJ 11;1121: m I � I V 4- 0 4-J 4--J 0 4-J > U 0 4- mu Ln Ln U V) 0 U 0 0 a) +-.) w 4-J tt Ln 4-J 4-J E Ln -j m 0 0 4-J• 0 4-j Ln -C o m w L- E o 0.- 4-J a) 0 L- q-- bn 4-j W :3 U 4-j w 0 C: fu V) 0) E C- -I ��0 0 E E 4-j 4-j U +-, 4- bn U .— .— = 0 m — 4- C- U L- 4-j w 4-j - W 4-j ia- w >- bn c 4-j 0 4-j m W 0 OM O,Q- 4- :Lj U U L- —.- :3 -a o w w 0 •4-j 4- w 0 w m 4-j U Mi. OU —'C-) • 4-J 0 U w M 4- -1 4-0 fu a) W C;,. I � � ( I C: 0 *.P u N� LL U O -2 L.L J ate-+ 4-j 0 E > � _N 0 j L.L -j m ra T Vk 1, 9 V� 4o w DL CL LIO cr II�111�� II�111�� II�111�� II�111��