No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3105 Parks Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014-2020 Ordinance 3105 Page I of 3 Ordinance No. 3105 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ADOPTING THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE FUNCTIONAL PLAN 2014—2020 AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE RECITALS: A. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for development of a parks and recreation fitnctional plan and implementation strategy which addresses the community's needs for active andpassive recreation opportunities (Land Use Policy 4.1). B. Over fourteen years have passed since the 1999 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan was adopted and it has not been amended, updated or modified since then. As the plan is over six years old, it renders the City ineligible for Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and other grant funding opportunities. The City of Port Townsend proposes to adopt revisions, updates and amendments to the City of Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan ("Parks Functional Plan"). C. The purpose of the update is to: • Provide an inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities and programs; • Set forth key issues and recommendations for parks and recreation service delivery; • Ensure the city is in compliance with State grant funding programs. D. Throughout the planning process, opportunities have been provided for the public to express their interests and concerns. The actions proposed in this plan reflect a reasoned synthesis of public input and professional judgment to achieve the desired levels of service for park facilities. E. In the spring of 2010, two statistically valid surveys were completed to obtain community input. A community survey was sent out to 2,250 households, response rate was approximately 25% and the different geographical areas of the city were well represented. Also in the spring of 2010, a survey of youth programs and services was distributed to 1,100 middle and high school students in public and private schools. Response rate was approximately 40% with equivalent levels of response among grades 6-I1. F. In the summer of 2010, a community meeting was attended by more than 60 residents to discuss what had changed since the 1999 Parks Functional Plan was written and what is needed for the future. Ordinance 3105 Page 2 of 3 G. Between September 2010 and April 2011 the Parks, Recreation, and Tree Advisory Board (PRTAB) held 6 meetings as members gathered information identified key issues and prepared Draft I of the Parks Functional Plan for community review. H. On August 25, 2011, the City issued a SEPA Final Determination of Non-Significance for the 2011 Draft. Numerous public comments were received in response to the notice and in subsequent public hearings. I. On February 23, 2012, after timely public notice,the PRTAB and Planning Commission held a joint workshop on Draft II of the Parks Functional Plan. During a staff facilitated exercise in which citizens participated, 17 key issues were identified and discussed. J. Addressing a number of identified issues, the City facilitated a land swap with the Port of Port Townsend and resolution of the 6f boundary under the Land Water Conservation Fund Act(LWCF) at Kali Tai Lagoon Nature Park. In addition, City staff prepared a revised draft Parks Functional Plan (Draft III) for review by the Parks and Planning subcommittee at their January 22, 2014 meeting. Given the subcommittee's limited revisions to the draft plan,the SEPA Responsible Official adopted the previous SEPA Final Determination of Non-Significance dated January 22, 2014. K. On January 28, 2014, after timely public notice, the PRTAB hosted an Open House presenting Draft III of the Parks Functional Plan to the public. Following the Open House, the PRTAB took public testimony, engaged in deliberations, and recommended that Draft III be forwarded to Planning Commission with minor revisions. L. On February 13, 2014, after timely public notice, the Planning Commission held an open record public hearing. Staff provided draft Findings and Recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commission. Following the hearing, staff incorporated recommended revisions to the draft Parks Functional Plan and Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission as directed. The recommendation was forwarded to the City Council for final action. M. On February 18, 2014, the City Council took public comment, engaged in deliberations, recommended minor revisions, and approved first reading of Draft III of the Parks Functional Plan. N. The City Council finds that the adoption of the Parks Functional Plan-is fully consistent with and implements the goals and policies of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan and should be approved. Ordinance 3105 Page 3 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, and based upon the record before the Port Townsend Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1. ADOPTION. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014—2020 (Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). as recommended by the Planning Commission and revised by Council is approved in its entirety as a functional and implementing land use and development planning document for the City of Port Townsend supplementing and implementing the 1996 Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance 2539. The 1999 Parks Functional Plan is hereby REPEALED AND SUPERSEDED by the 2014-2020 Parks Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan. SECTION 2. PREPARATION OF FINAL REVISED PARKS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE FUNCTIONAL PLAN COPIES. Copies of a Final 2014-2020 Port Townsend Parks Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan incorporating all amendments to text and maps as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council (i.e. integrating all revisions and any addendum into one coherent document for public use) shall be prepared by Development Services Department staff and shall be made available for public inspection within 30 days of final adoption of this Ordinance SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after the date of its publication in the manner provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, at a regular meeting thereof, held this 3rd day of March 2014 David King, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form: F. 7 \ ���},�.�....-Air'(,--.._ ��'.'y"'��'C,.��.. _,. '" _ ".•-----9 Pamela Kolacy, MMC % John P. Watts City Clerk City Attorney Ordinance 3105 • ' CI*ty of Port T Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan PORTTOWNSEND PARKS& Recreation Effective ■ . 1 (Adopted by Ordinance 1 city of Port Townsend Ordinance 3105 - Exhibit A Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 City Council David King, Mayor Kris Nelson, Deputy Mayor Pamela Adams Michelle Sandoval Robert Gray Deborah Stinson Catharine Robinson Parks, Recreation & Trees Advisory Board (PRTAB) Rosemary Sikes Deborah Jahnke Ron Sikes Lys Burden Jason Cecil City Staff David Timmons, City Manager Rick Sepler, RICP, Community Services Director Ken Clow, Public Works Director Judy Surber, Senior Planner/Planning Manager John McDonagh, Senior Planner Steve Wright, Park Maintenance Lead Anji Scalf, Lead Operator, Mountain View Pool Acknowledgements The City of Port Townsend wishes to thank the following individuals for their contributions in developing this plan: Jeremy Bubnick, Former Parks & Recreation Manager Arvilla Qhide, AjO Consulting PRTAB and Planning Commission Subcommittee Members Rosemary Sikes, Deborah Jahnke, and Monica Mick-Hager Members Emeritus of the Parks, Recreation & Trees Advisory Board Barbara Smith, Matthew Berberich, Forest Shomer, and Daniel Milholland Adopted: 2014 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS page Executive Summary 1 Section I: Introduction 4 1.1. Community Vision - Parks & Recreation Mission 4 1.2. Purpose 5 1.3. Relationship to Other Plans 5 1.4. The Planning Process 8 1.5. Past Planning & Implementation 8 Section 2.Where We Are: Community Profile 10 2.1 Geographic Setting 10 2.2 Historic Character 10 2.3 Population Characteristics 11 2.3.1 Population Growth 11 2.3.2. Community Health and Well-Being 12 Section 3. What We Have: Inventory 14 3.1. Port Townsend Recreation 14 3.1.1. Recreation: 20th Century 14 3.1.2. Recreation: 21 st Century 14 3.1.3. Recreation: Current Operations 15 3.2. Port Townsend Parks 16 3.2.1. Defining City Parks 16 3.2.2. Urban Pocket Parks 18 3.2.3. Neighborhood Parks 20 3.2.4. Community Parks 20 3.3. Open Space 20 3.4. Additional Facilities 23 3.5. Management and Collaborations 25 3.5.1. Parks and Recreation Management Structure 25 3.5.2. Volunteers and Adopt A Park 25 3.5.3. Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Board 25 3.5.4. Combining Parks, Recreation and Trees 27 Section 4.Where We Want To Go: Goals and Policies 28 Section 5.What We Need: Demand and Need Analysis 33 5.1. Order of Analysis 33 5.2. Development of Local Standards -What Constitutes 'Need'? 34 5.2.1. Acres per Capita 34 Table of Contents Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 page 5.2.2. Local Service Standards - Park Function and Accessibility 35 5.2.3. Residential Level of Service 36 5.2.4. Commercial Level of Service 39 5.3. Demographic Trends - Then and Now 40 5.4. Community Input 41 5.5. Tourism 43 5.6. Maintenance and Operations 44 5.6. Conclusions 44 Section 6. How We Will Get There: Implementation 45 6.1. Overview 45 6.2. Core Themes 46 6.3. Long-term Capital Recommendations 47 6.4. Six-Year Capital Recommendations/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 48 6.5. Funding Resources 51 List of Figures Figure 2.1. Obesity in adults, Washington state, 1990-2009 13 Figure 3.1. Park Facilities Map 17 Figure 3.2. Open Space Inventory Map 21 Figure 3.3. Open Space Values and Functions 23 Figure 3.4. Park Facilities by Other Agencies Map 24 Figure 3.5. Management Structure of Parks and Recreation Division 25 Figure 3.6. Trails Map 26 Figure 5.1. Neighborhood Park Service Areas Map 37 Figure 5.2. Pocket Park Service Areas Map 38 Figure 5.3. Port Townsend Population Age Distribution, 2000 and 2010, US Census 41 Figure 5.4. Ranked Activities by Importance in Community Surveys 1975-2010 42 List of Tables Table 2.1. Port Townsend and Jefferson County population, US Census 1980-2010 12 Table 2.2. Population projections for Port Townsend 2015-2040 using OFM forecast 12 Table 3.1. Port Townsend Park Inventory 18 Table 3.2. Port Townsend Park Type and Function 19 Table 3.3. Additional Public Park Facilities 22 Table 5.1. Need Analysis - Conventional LOS per 1000 People 35 Table 5.2. Park Type and Function 36 Table 5.3. Port Townsend demographic changes, 2000-2010, from US Census 40 Table 6.1. Capital Improvement Projects 50 Table of Contents Ordinance 3105 - Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Appendices Appendix page Appendix A. Description of City Assets 1 Appendix B. Open Space and Other Regional Assets 29 Appendix C. Public Involvement: 2010 Community Survey and Youth Survey 42 Appendix D. Glossary and Acronyms 112 Appendix E. References 116 Appendix F. Adopting Ordinance 117 Table of Contents Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2014 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan for Port Townsend represents the City's vision, goals and objectives for the development of parks and open space in Port Townsend for the next six years and beyond. It updates and replaces the 1999 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan. A functional plan provides a tool with which public officials, staff and community members can plan for future parks and recreation needs for the Port Townsend community. This Plan presents a logical, consistent and purposeful approach to managing parks, open space and recreation services. It will serve as a guide for public policy and development decisions to preserve and enhance the quality of life that makes Port Townsend a unique and engaging place to work, live, play and visit. This plan was developed with input from: • Parks, Recreation and Trees Advisory Board • Public workshops, meetings, and public responses received during plan development • Information gathered from community surveys from 1975 to the present • Parks and Recreation Division staff, Planning staff and Public Works staff • Planning Commission • City Council Several key themes emerged from community members during the planning process for improving and expanding park and recreation services. These include: • Protection of existing open space and passive recreation areas • More accessible trails (nature, hiking, walking) and interconnection of trails with existing parks, schools and neighborhoods • Additional park and open space needs on the west end of town • Upgrading and repairing facilities/properties that the City already has established • Recreation programs for all ages (especially youth and teens) • Preserving habitat and wildlife corridors • Development of additional street ends for pocket parks • Providing long-term community access to a swimming pool Since the adoption of the 1999 Functional Plan,the City of Port Townsend's population has grown by almost 1,000 residents. In 2002, the City contracted with the YMCA of Jefferson County to provide recreation programs for City residents, providing start-up funding for a decade and now providing facilities for programming. In 2011, the City also committed half of its public safety sales tax revenues to the County to provide for recreational opportunities at County- owned facilities within City limits, an arrangement that will terminate in May 2015. The City continues to collaborate with area partners and explore alternative means to provide recreational opportunities. Improvements to park facilities and inventory are highlighted by the construction of the Skateboard Park; redesign of Pope Marine Park in the heart of the downtown's Historic District; addition of property to 35th Street Park; purchase of land and initiation of development of a small park on Parkside Drive; and updating of play equipment and restrooms at Chetzemoka and Bobby McGarraugh Parks. The transfer of ownership from the Port of Port Townsend to the City and 6(f)(3) protection for the entirety of Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park was completed. Executive Summary Page 1 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 The City's park inventory (2014) includes: • Urban Pocket Parks: Primarily located in the downtown/uptown urban core and in outlying commercial and industrial areas, pocket parks provide an open area where people can rest, watch and eat in pleasant surroundings with a few simple amenities. Ten parks totaling 3.39 acres currently exist in this category, including Adams, Bell Tower, City Entrance, Haller Fountain/Terrace Steps, Pope Marine/Jackson Bequest, Rotary, the three Triangle parks: Triangle I or Dahlia (aka Master Gardeners), Triangle II or Gateway and Triangle III or Intersection; and Tyler Street Stairs. ■ Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks serve the needs of an immediate residential neighborhood_ Neighborhood parks may be developed with highly landscaped areas and amenities; maintained in near natural state with primitive public trails as the primary amenity; or a combination of the two. Nine neighborhood parks totaling 23.17 acres currently exist in this category, including 13th and Hancock, 35th Street, Baker View, Bishop/Parkside, Bobby McGarraugh, Dog Park at Chetzemoka, Elmira, Golden Age and Sather Parks. • Community Parks: Community parks tend to be larger than neighborhood parks and draw residents from a wider distance than do neighborhood parks. Their features are generally unique for the area (e.g., Kah Tai Lagoon) or they provide a unique function (e.g. Skateboard Park). There are four community parks totaling 90.76 acres, including Chetzemoka Park, Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park, Larry Scott Trail and the Skateboard Park. This Functional Plan uses a variety of methods to assess future demand for park and recreation facilities. Methods include: comparing projected populations with the city's adopted level of service standard (LOS); an assessment of function, distribution and access: analysis of demographic characteristics; community input; a review of the impacts of tourism; and finally, consideration of available resources. In the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the City adopted a recommended Level of Service (LOS) standard of 7.6 acres per 1,000 citizens.As in the 1999 Functional Plan, the LOS calculations in this 2014 Plan did not include the City Golf Course (due to the specificity of its service population)or the lagoon and wetlands at Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park(44.74 acres). Excluding these areas, the current number of acres of park property is 72.61 acres which meets the recommended level of service for the current population. However, throughout the development of this Functional Plan a number of deficiencies in the current citywide park system were identified: • Based on anticipated population growth, additional park acreage will be needed by 2025 • Residents in the northwest side of the city lack adequate access to a neighborhood park • Pocket parks are lacking in the Upper Sims Way Commercial Corridor • Demographic indicators point to a greater need for after-school programs as well as safe access to public parks with ADA features • It has also been identified that the community would like to see a dedicated (and sufficiently sized) dog park as well as improvement and expansion of interconnected, signed and accessible trails and paths and an expanded community recreation program that engages the city's youth Executive Summary Page 2 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 • Many of the current park facilities need improvements and renovations • Staffing and funding levels for parks are not proportionate to the city's population. The determined conclusions are based on citizen input at public meetings, through Citywide surveys, input from the Parks, Recreation &Trees Advisory Board, as well as ongoing community input and contributions from city staff. Care was taken to put together a realistic plan of action while recognizing the financial strain most public agencies face due to the current economic environment. That is not to say that every recommendation will be accomplished during the six year lifespan of this Plan. Rather, as funding dollars remain scarce, diligent work will be conducted to leverage local dollars against possible matching grant funds. The donation of labor, funds and/or land will also be explored as we work to fulfill the needs of the community. This Plan lists different options and strategies to aid the completion of the recommended improvements/expansions. Executive Summary Page 3 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for development of a parks and recreation functional plan and implementation strategy which addresses the community's needs for active and passive recreation opportunities (Land Use Policy 4.1). Over fourteen years have passed since the 1999 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan was adopted by the Port Townsend City Council. It is time to reassess and, if needed, adjust the plan for the future. Much has changed since the 1999 plan; the City opened a state-of-the-art skateboard park in 2006, a national recession hit in 2008, the Port of Port Townsend transferred 29 acres of property at Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park to the City in 2013. The Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan (Parks Plan) is intended to provide a snapshot of the City parks and recreation system as well as reflect the needs and desires of the community as it relates to the current and future operation of facilities and assets. Needs and demand will continue to increase and evolve as the City grows. The provision of parks, open space and recreational programs must be within the means of the residents. As in most communities in America, the ongoing challenge of funding park and recreation services forces hard choices. 1.1. Community Vision — Parks & Recreation Mission The community direction statement from the Comprehensive Plan forms the foundation of this Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan. Parks and open space are a constant theme throughout the community direction statement, reflecting an integral role in the community's identity. Residents and visitors alike enjoy parks and trails as part of their daily schedules and take advantage of the city's waterfront and beach access. Whether enjoyed in solitude or as gathering spaces, the park system of the City of Port Townsend enriches the life of the community. Specifically, the direction statement describes: • An "extensive system of parks and open spaces including many environmentally sensitive areas that provide significant wildlife habitat" • Provision of a broad range of amenities from urban "town squares and streets lined with trees"to rural "green spaces that combine with the lower Olympics, the Cascades and marine vistas to create a dramatic backdrop for an attractive and memorable place". • Parks that add to the city's strong sense of community: "Historic commercial buildings, long established residential areas, and parks, town squares and streets lined with trees give the City an atmosphere of relaxed permanence. Parks, gateways and walkways are rich with historical monuments and public art." • A network of green spaces accessible throughout the city as part of daily routines: "The City is pedestrian oriented, and neighbors greet one another as they walk by for work, play or exercise. The City's free-lined walks, trails and streets provide shade and habitat and reinforce Port Townsend's network of green spaces. Open spaces offering an opportunity for rest, views, contemplation and enjoyment of the natural environment are found throughout the City." • A city that "cultivates opportunities for the youth of our town to play, socialize, find entertainment, work, and be involved in extra-curricular experiences." • A city where "public spaces are free of litter, well maintained and richly planted with flora that blends with the native vegetation." 1. Introduction. Page 4 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 • Volunteerism is also valued by the community: "Volunteerism remains essential to the fabric of the community. Citizen volunteers enrich the community by donating their time and services...". Affordability is a critical concern. Port Townsend's desire for better parks and recreational opportunities must be balanced by a clear understanding of the consequences of increased tax burdens on struggling families and seniors. The community should make better use of the creativity and sweat equity of volunteers and look for all possible alternatives for funding before seeking to raise taxes. Mission: The mission of the City of Port Townsend Parks & Recreation Division is to preserve and enhance natural resources and open space for future generations, to develop and maintain quality park spaces and recreation facilities and to provide diverse recreation and leisure programs. 1.2. Purpose of this Functional Plan The overall objective of the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan is to guide development of park and recreation facilities and programs which are responsive to the needs and interests of Port Townsend residents for the next decades. It presents a logical, consistent and purposeful approach to managing parks and recreation services. Implementation of this Parks Plan will preserve and enhance the quality of life and the natural beauty that makes the area home to its citizens and a destination for visitors. This Parks Plan examines Port Townsend's existing park and open space system, assesses needs, identifies short- and long-term recommendations, details funding sources and prioritizes our next steps. It refines the goals and policies for Parks, Recreation and Open Space set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Through implementation of the Parks Plan, the parks and recreation programs will be better able to provide a full range of recreational activities, park assets, facilities and strategies to implement the open space component of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it will maintain the City's eligibility for state and federal grant funds. The specific elements of this Parks Plan include: • Analysis of the city's population and setting • Analysis of existing parks, open space, recreation and trail assets • Analysis of current Parks and Recreation Division operations • Assessment of the community's park and recreation program and facility needs • Recommendations for the acquisition, development and improvement of parks, open space and trails within the city • Recommendations for funding and implementing this Plan. 1.3. Relationship to Other Plans & 'Studies This Parks Plan builds on a number of past programs, plans, ordinances and studies and is intended to integrate with several existing plans which are interrelated with the parks, open space and recreation system. The following provides a brief summary. Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan The overall context of this Parks Plan is directed by the Comprehensive Plan. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan establishes the community vision and provides goals and policies for parks, recreation, open space and trails. The Land Use Map is intended to guide both public and private actions with regard to future land use. Planning specific to parks and open space 1. Introduction. Page 5 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 should: maintain or improve the character and livability of established neighborhoods; protect natural resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas; create desirable and distinctive neighborhoods based on their cultural and natural characteristics; and provide for a comprehensive and interconnected system of parks, open spaces and trails. The Comprehensive Plan sets a Level of Service (LOS) standard for parks as discussed further in Section 5. 1999 Parks. Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan The 1999 Plan was the first parks functional plan update since the completion of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The 1999 Plan updated and replaced the 1991 Plan while working within the context provided by the Comprehensive Plan. It sought to refine the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to parks, open space, trails and recreation to more fully reflect community values and vision. The 1999 Plan is superseded by this 2014 Parks Plan. Shoreline Master Program The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was started in Port Townsend in 1974. An extensive update, initiated in 2001 and completed in 2007, was prepared to carry out the responsibilities imposed on Port Townsend by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58); to promote uses and development of the Port Townsend shoreline consistent with the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan while protecting and restoring environmental resources; and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by providing a guide and regulation for the future development of the shoreline resources of Port Townsend (http:tlwww.cityofpt.us/user/image/smp.pdf). Policies contained in the 1990 Urban Waterfront Plan (a sub-area land use and urban design plan focusing on the downtown waterfront)were incorporated into the SMP. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan The 1998 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan was updated in 2011 (https://webIink.cityofpt.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=61902&&dbid=O). The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan addresses transportation for pedestrians and bicyclists through development of trails and other facilities. The main goal of the planning process is to integrate bicycle and pedestrian transportation into the City's circulation patterns. The Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board has overseen the development of 31 miles of trails in Port Townsend; many of those are through parks, adjacent to parks, or connecting parks and neighborhoods. Stormwater Management Plan The goals of the City's Stormwater Management Plan are "to provide adequate drainage for the area under ultimate planned development conditions and to minimize the potential impact of urban runoff pollutants to designated receiving waters" The City's Stormwater Management Plan, originally adopted in 1987, notes that increased urban development can alter existing stormwater drainage patterns which can lead to new drainage problems in areas that previously were unaffected and to increased water quality issues. The retention of open spaces including City park lands has a moderating effect on the quantity and quality of stormwater run-off. Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park and Bishop Park are essential elements of the City's stormwater system while the Golf Course and 35" Street Park also play a considerable role in stormwater management. However, all designated open space tends to reduce drainage impacts. 1. Introduction. Page 6 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Gateway Development Plan The Port Townsend Gateway Development Plan, adopted by Council in August 1993, provides a comprehensive blueprint for actions to improve traffic safety along the Sims Way/State Route Corridor, make the City's entrance more visually inviting, and promote the economic vitality of district businesses. The 1999 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan identified the importance of additional open space designation and park development in commercial zones, especially along this corridor. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan The Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management(QWC) Plan identifies a series of wetlands and forested open space along a 3.5 mile corridor in the northwest area of the city. Spearheaded by the Jefferson Land Trust, the intent of the Plan is to preserve an undeveloped wildlife corridor of native vegetation connecting important wildlife habitat areas between Fort Worden and the Middlepoint Land Conservancy. The QWC Plan includes stewardship recommendations and information on public trails, signage and interpretive/education opportunities. City Council adopted the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan by Ordinance 2975 in May 2008 and sponsored the successful applications for two IAC grants for the Corridor. Jefferson County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan -Larry Scott Memorial Trail Though the majority of the County Plan addresses facilities beyond the city limits, one key facility, the Larry Scott Memorial Trail, will ultimately connect Port Townsend with the Olympic Discovery Trail providing non-motorized access from Port Townsend to the Pacific Ocean through Sequim and Port Angeles. Located on the former Seattle & North Coast Railroad grade, the Trail realizes a plan envisioned by community member Larry Scott, who first sought funding for a community trail. Port Townsend owns and manages 7.07 acres at the trailhead in the Boat Haven. Jefferson County owns and manages the 7.3-mile non-motorized, multi-use Larry Scott Memorial Trail from Port Townsend Boat Haven to Milo Curry Road in the Four Corners Area of Discovery Bay. The City's Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and this Park Plan recognize the linear park as an important transportation and recreation link to Jefferson County. Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park Over the years, a number of plans and studies have been completed relating to Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. The 1985, 1991 and 1999 Parks Plans contain references to a "master plan"for the park. However, this reference appears to be to a collection of documents rather than to a singular, stand-alone plan as one would expect today. Many of these past documents were developed with the assistance of grant funding. A 1980-81 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)acquisition grant allowed purchase of private parcels at Kah Tai to create a nature park, and a 1983 IAC grant partially funded park development. The 1983 grant was to be funded in two phases focused on the southern uplands resulting from dredge spoils emplacement. Seattle architectural firm Bassetti/Norton/Metier/Rekevics, Seattle landscape architectural firm MacLeod Reckord, and landscape architect Jestena Boughton developed plans for site development, landscape furniture, and park construction specifications. In 1985, City Council approved the 'Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application' request to dig the small lagoon as a part of park development. Ornithologist Dr. Dennis Paulson favorably reviewed the development plan at the request of the Jefferson/Port Townsend 1. Introduction. Page 7 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Shoreline Management Advisory Commission and it was approved by WA Department of Ecology. Permitted plans finalized by the Army Corps of Engineers stated the designated purpose as: 'Restore Wildlife Habitat'. Funding for the second phase did not materialize and completion of the recommended landscape design was inhibited by ownership disputes resolved in 2013. Community volunteers continue to care for the park and implement landscaping as envisioned by these early efforts. 1.4. The Planning Process The planning process comprised four basic steps. The first step involved an inventory and assessment of the condition of the current park and recreation facilities and properties. The assessment was done by the parks and recreation staff and was discussed at weekly staff meetings. In these meetings the staff identified, prioritized and provided cost estimates for repairs and improvements. This information, in addition to public input, was used as a guide in the development of the capital improvement program. The second step involved a comprehensive public survey delivered to a random sample of city utility customers (2,250)along with their bills. The 2010 Parks and Recreation survey quantified impressions citizens have of their community, identified areas for improvement and reinforced the conclusions of more than three decades of community surveys. Public input was also collected at public meetings and at the Parks, Recreation and Trees Advisory Board meetings. The third step in the process was to assess the parks and recreation services currently being provided by the city and to determine what modifications to the levels of service are needed. This determination was based on public meetings, the city wide survey, input from the Parks, Recreation and Trees Advisory Board, ongoing community input and contributions from city staff. The fourth and final step in the process was to establish priorities and a timeline for the implementation of this f=unctional Plan. This includes recommendations for improving and expanding park and recreation services in the city in addition to identifying a series of strategies for funding and managing the Parks and Recreation Division for the next six years. 1.5 Past Planning and Implementation The City completed its last Parks Functional Plan in 1999_ Since that time, much progress has been made including: • Preservation of significant open space areas including the Winona Wetland and the Levinski property. • Construction of trails for new residential and commercial developments and paths along San Juan Avenue. • Addition of property to the 35th Street Park inventory and consideration of appropriate recreational facilities in concert with neighborhood preferences. • Design and construction of several stormwater treatment/detention facilities that will enhance passive recreation, provide urban open space, and restore wildlife habitat. • Construction of the Skateboard Facility. 1. Introduction. Page 8 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 • Complete redesign and installation in and around Pope Marine Park and the Jackson Bequest. • Acquisition of a public walkway in connection with the Northwest Maritime Center. • Lease of the entire Mountain View School property, now known as Mountain View Commons, with efforts underway to develop a long-term trust management relationship with the property's owner, the Port Townsend School District. • Completion of City Dock replacement, Pope Marine Building rehabilitation, and Union Wharf reconstruction funded substantially by grants. Union Wharf and City Dock were transferred to Part of Port Townsend ownership on 24 July 2013 in exchange for Port-owned land at Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. • Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park's 6(f)(3) boundary map was finalized in 2013. (Follow-up actions will include recording with the County Auditor copies of the 6(f)(3) map, Project Agreement and Amendments as well as additional relevant historical records and documentation.) • Purchase of property for a neighborhood park in southwest Port Townsend and initiation of park development adjacent to Bishop Park at Parkside Drive in September 2013. 1. Introduction. Page 9 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1. Geographic Setting The City of Port Townsend is located on the northeast tip of the Quimper Peninsula (the northeastern portion of the Olympic Peninsula) in eastern Jefferson County, Washington State. The Strait of Juan de Fuca forms the northern boundary of the City, with Admiralty Inlet adjacent to the east and Port Townsend Bay on the southeast. Unincorporated portions of Jefferson County border the City on the southwest and west. The City is in the Olympic rain shadow, a climatologically unique phenomenon characterized by relatively low levels of precipitation, with approximately 18 inches of rain annually. With water on three sides, maritime climate prevails; winters are mild and summers cool. The combination of maritime climate and the rain shadow result in one of the most comfortable climates in the Pacific Northwest. The natural setting of this "Key City" of the Peninsula is accentuated with buildings and green spaces that combine with the Olympic Mountains, the Cascade Mountains and marine vistas to create a dramatic backdrop for an appealing and memorable place. By ferry and car, the city is the gateway to the Olympic Peninsula's natural wonders. With the exception of several shoreline cliffs, the topography is not severe. Elevation ranges from sea level to 300 feet. The City encompasses approximately 7.3 square miles or about 4,552 acres. 2.2. Historic Character Port Townsend has a semi-rural, small town character and an impressive Victorian architectural and maritime heritage. Founded in 1851, the city harbors a wealth of superb Victorian era homes recognized on the National Historic Register. These historic buildings provide a magnificent backdrop and preserve a tangible link to Port Townsend's vanished dreams of being the preeminent city of the Puget Sound region. In 1980, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service granted Port Townsend National Historic Landmark status, the highest possible level of distinction and protection. The greatest concentration of historically significant commercial buildings is in the Central Business District on Port Townsend Bay, although most of the architecturally interesting residential structures are located on the hill above the downtown area. A wide choice of housing types and prices is available for a diversity of lifestyles and incomes. Residential developments are centered in distinct neighborhoods that are safe, secure, and have identities and characters of their own. Opportunities for socializing, recreation, quiet and solitude are all close at hand, as are facilities and events that enrich the body, mind, and spirit. Fort Worden State Park and Conference Center occupies the northeast tip of the Peninsula within Port Townsend city limits. The 434-acre fort was built in the late 1890s and contains a fascinating collection of Victorian houses, barracks, theater, parade grounds and a labyrinth of concrete artillery batteries. The Fort was converted to a State Park in 1971 and has been developed into a conference and recreation center. The State Park is also designated as a Historic District and National Historic Landmark.The Centrum Foundation, located in the Park and established in 1974, provides creative workshops and hosts a wide variety of programs in the arts which attract visitors from around the country on a year-round basis. In August 2013 the Fort Worden Public Development Authority signed an operating agreement and 50-year lease with the State of Washington via Washington State Parks for 90 acres of the Fort property described as 'the Campus' and defined as the 'built area' or the historic buildings within the Park, devoted to cultural, artistic, educational, and historic programs and activities. The Fort Worden Section 2. Community Profile. Page 10 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Public Development Authority's (FWPDA) mission is to facilitate the implementation of a Lifelong Learning Center consistent with the Washington State Arts Commission's 2008 plan for the facilities. The PDA is charged with renovating the structures and populating them with tenants that support the goal of lifelong learning. This agreement will not change the use of the Park's natural areas and does not include the LWCF features within the Park. Port Townsend's historic commercial buildings, long established residential areas, parks, town squares, and tree lined streets give Port Townsend an atmosphere of relaxed permanence. Parks, gateways, and walkways focus on special places including historic structures and natural features of the area. Buses provide useful transportation options for workers, shoppers, and visitors. The City has developed a system of trails and bikeways. A mature urban forest provides shade and habitat and reinforces Port Townsend's existing network of green spaces. City park development traces a similar historic timeline. The Bell Tower was built in 1890 for fire calls, and now shelters a tiny park with benches overlooking the historic downtown and the bay. The original Galatea statue was donated in 1903 and replaced in 1993 with a replica that is now the centerpiece of Terrace Steps/Haller Fountain downtown. Chetzemoka Park was established overlooking Admiralty Inlet in 1904 by the Civic Club, an offshoot of the Native Daughters of Washington(Simpson 1986). Sather Park is the location of a now-vanished, half-constructed hotel started in 1886. The abandoned site became a City park in 1925 when Mayor Sather arranged the land purchase from the County and dedicated it to park use. Bishop Park was deeded to the City in 1966 as a part of the Bishop family's plat. Bobby McGarraugh Park has grown up around a retired gravel pit with City park development beginning in earnest in 1973. Citizen effort leading to an LWCF grant proposal in 1980 began the development of Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. The Skate Park was built with Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) and City matching funds in 2006 and a small neighborhood park at Parkside Drive is underway at the end of 2013. As neighborhoods have been created and needs made manifest, parks have grown in concert if not always in perfect harmony. (See Appendix A for additional history on the City's individual parks). 2.3. Population Characteristics Demand for park facilities is directly related to the makeup of the community including population, age, health, and household composition. A look at Port Townsend's demographics is one measure that can help determine how much and what kind of park land is needed to serve the specific needs of the community. The demographic information below is a broad overview based on information developed from U.S. Census data and the Washington State Department of Health (DOH). 2.3.1. Population Growth Under the Growth Management Act, all cities must designate sufficient land with appropriate densities to accommodate the next 20 years of projected population growth. Both the Port Townsend 1996 Comprehensive Plan and the 1999 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan were developed during a period of rapid population growth and assumed a compound annual growth rate of 2.66%4. For the period 1996-2002, the actual rate was just 0.93%. In 2003, the County and City adjusted the Joint Population Forecast and Allocation by mutual agreement. As of 2003, Port Townsend's Comprehensive Plan is designed to accommodate a population of 13,329, or 4,985 additional residents between 2000 and 2024. This projection anticipates that the City's population will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 1.97% over Section 2. Community Profile. Page 11 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 the course of the planning period. The 2010 Census confirms that growth is slower than the 1.97% projected (Table 2.1.). Table 2.1. Port Townsend and Jefferson County population, US Census 1980-2010. 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change Census Census Census Census 2000-2010 Port 5,067 7,001 8,334 9,113 779 Townsend Jefferson 15,965 20,406 26,299 29,872 3,573 County The City is currently in discussion with the County on proposed revisions to the Joint Population Forecast and Allocation. Revisions will be based on the Office of Financial Management's (OFM) mid-range forecast. Based on the State's medium growth rate of 1.01% compounded annual growth for Jefferson County with a starting population for the City of 9,113 from the 2010 Census yields Table 2.2. This updated forecast and allocation anticipates a slower growth rate than was projected under the city's initial GMA Comprehensive Plan in 1996. Jefferson County has agreed in principle with this approach. This 2014 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan is based on the population forecast assumed in Table 2.2. Table: 2.2. Population projections for Port Townsend 2015-2040 using OFM forecast. Population 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Average Projections annual growth Port 9,578 10,066 10,580 11,120 11,687 12,283 1.01% Townsend 2.3.2. Community Health and Well-being Recreational programs and convenient access to safe and attractive parks and open space areas promote physical activity. Research evidence (http:llwww.tpchd.org/page.php?id=2597) affirms that making changes to built environments can ultimately improve the health of the community. Open space and park areas, wildlife and trees, solitary and sociable activities play an integral role in living a healthy life-style. When the 1999 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan was written, the notion of 'screen time'described hours spent in front of the family television set. Today, all age groups find their hours monopolized by screens of all sizes, from iPods and smartphones to e-readers and computers at school, work and home; streaming 2417 content that disconnects us all from the reality outside our doors. As a culture, we have become ever more sedentary and distracted. One well-documented consequence of increased screen time is the health impact of decreased physical exercise. • Approximately 32% of Jefferson County adults don't get enough exercise • Nearly 60% of our 10th graders don't get enough exercise Section 2. Community Profile. Page 12 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 While Jefferson County is the second lowest county in the state for age-adjusted prevalence for obesity, there still is a 20-25% rate of obesity in the county (Figure 2.1; WA DOH 345-291) and adult obesity is increasing at just under 1% per year in the state. Obesity comes with higher risk factors for high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and 30 asthma. Although our county adult obesity rate is below the state 25 average, our adult high blood pressure and high cholesterol rates are significantly above the state 20 averages (WA DOH 345-271). p Recent studies have shown a m 15 v positive association between access to parks and physical activity levels a 10 (Blanck et al. 2012 and references 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 therein). The percentage of youth Year with parks or playground areas, community centers, and sidewalks Figure 2.1. Obesity among adults in Washington, or walking paths and the percentage of 1994-2009. Redrafted from DOH 345-291: Nutrition, census blocks with a park within a half Physical Activity, & Obesity Prevention Program, mile boundary are two measures of Washington State Department of Health. access to places for physical activity reported by the Centers for Disease Control (ibid.). The Trust For Public Land evaluates cities with their'ParkScore' -a measure for which a full one-third of the rating is determined by the percentage of citizens who have park access within a half-mile walk (http:ll parkscore.tpl.org/methodology.php). A second consequence of the distractions inherent in our electronic age, less visible but perhaps more pervasive, is the loss of connection with the outdoor world. Spending time in nature has been linked to reduction in attentional fatigue and stress (Blanck et al. 2012). An analysis of on-site interviews with 312 park users in Sheffield, UK concludes: " ...People choose to visit urban green space for many reasons, including both their own personal motivators and ones related to the space itself, healthful physical activity is but one of these motivators. Green space has the potential to provide several types of holistic health benefits including relaxation, positive emotions about self and environment, tranquility, revitalization, and satisfaction."(Irvine et al. 2013) The cost of creating and preserving parks and open space proves to be quite small, when compared to investments in medical care or construction and maintenance of roadways. Section 2. Community Profile. Page 13 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 3. WHAT WE HAVE - INVENTORY Overview This section provides an overview of the City's recreation programs, including relevant history, and the city's park and open space inventory. Also included is a brief overview of public facilities owned and operated by others.. 3.1. Port Townsend Recreation 3.1 A. Recreation History: 20th Century There have been many attempts in Port Townsend's recent history to create and maintain active recreation opportunities far youth, adults, and seniors. In 1973 a recreation department was established by the Port Townsend School District in cooperation with the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. In 1978, Jefferson County assumed leadership of the recreation program and created a recreation division. An intergovernmental agreement existed between the City and the County to operate the recreation program including the Mountain View Swimming Pool until 1994, when the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners decided to discontinue operation of the swimming pool and other recreation programs. The City of Port Townsend opted to provide its own recreation program in 1995 to address diverse community needs. In response to the number one priority in the 1991 City Park Plan community survey, a dedicated effort provided opportunities for youth and included after-school and summer enrichment camp programs. Recreation and pool operations were combined into a single division of the Public Works Department under the direction of the Public Works Director. Because of the previous involvement of other jurisdictions, recreational facilities in the City are in large part owned by either Jefferson County or the Port Townsend School District. Recreational programs were therefore offered in partnerships negotiated between the City and the facility owners. Examples included: • City management of the Mountain View Swimming Pool • City management of the swimming program as an element of the elementary school curriculum • City provision of an after school program and use of school facilities for recreation programs The recreation and pool programs were supported through a collaborative effort by the Port Townsend School District, community organizations, area businesses, grants, and fundraisers as well as the City budget. Many businesses contributed to the effort. The recreation program received the 1997 Association of Washington Cities Municipal Achievement Award. 3.1.2. Recreation History: 21st Century Much has changed since the late 1990s due to fiscal realities associated with public funding and shifting priorities. The City funded a professional evaluation of the Mountain View Pool in 2001 to determine what life cycle repairs were necessary and what upgrades were recommended for continued use. In 2003, the City encumbered general obligation bonds (Ordinance 2844) intended in part to upgrade and repair the pool but the inability to secure a long-term lease from the School District made amortization of 20-year bonds untenable. The School District considered briefly the idea of surplusing the property in 2008 and decided to consolidate elementary students onto one campus at Grant Street in 2009, at which time the City began to Section 3.Inventory, classification and management. Page 14 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 manage the whole Mountain View campus, but without a long-term lease that would be necessary for grant or loan acquisition for major repairs or renovations. Local pool proponents, organized as the private nonprofit group Make Waves in 2008, expended time and personal resources to have the Mountain View Pool maintained for the long term but eventually set their sights instead on fundraising to build a new aquatic center. The site chosen for construction in Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park was demonstrated to be protected by the 6(f) (3)servitudes of a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant received to create the park in 1981. No such building could take place without formal US Department of the Interior conversion and the procurement of replacement land of comparable accessibility, habitat and recreational value. The Make Waves group was unable to secure a viable site and their efforts generally terminated in 2012. No privately funded alternative has arisen. The City and County collaborated so that the City could fund nearly $200,000 in critically needed pool repairs and improvements in early 2013. 3.1.3. Recreation: Current Operations The City continues to serve a dual role as primary provider of recreation services (e.g., Mountain View Pool)as well as coordinator of facility use and activity schedules in cooperation with other agencies and organizations. Through these combined efforts, a range of programs are offered encouraging life-long development of skills and interests for all age groups. The future of recreation programs is, however, threatened by diminishing resources as discussed further in Section 5. The Port Townsend Community Recreation Program is now managed through a partnership with the Jefferson County Family YMCA, with programs offered primarily at Mountain View Commons. YMCA offers a variety of programs including: After school care, day camps, enrichment classes, and mentorship programs-The benefits of the YMCA youth programs are immediate and concrete as well as long term and subtle. Over time we may be able to measure improved test scores and examine youth crime statistics to reinforce the positive role these services provide. Exercise programs- Including yoga and a post cancer treatment wellness program. These programs recognize the needs of an aging demographic. Mountain View Swimming Pool: The City continues to staff, support and maintain the only public pool in Jefferson County on its own with only rare exceptions. The pool continues to be used extensively by schools for elementary school swimming lessons and middle and high school competitive swim teams and synchronous swim groups, city and masters swim teams and medically prescribed aqua therapy. It also provides water babies classes, public lessons, several varieties of aquatic fitness classes, lap swimming and open recreational swimming. The Jefferson County Family YMCA provides four types of aquatic classes twice a week at this time. In a community surrounded on three sides by water, water safety classes are essential. The City manages the entirety of the Mountain View Commons. At this writing, the City and School District are again in negotiations about Mountain View Pool, but this time the negotiation includes the future of the whole campus and all the non-profit partners in residence at the location. The City and School District are negotiating a 30-year lease with a 15-year extension. Such terms would allow sufficient ownership interest that the City would qualify for grants and Section 3.Inventory, classification and management. Page 15 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 loans to fund pool and campus repairs that have not been possible under the short-term leases of previous efforts. Port Townsend Golf Course: The City's 9-hole, 55.87-acre golf course has been leased by the City to a private operator since 1987. The existing lease was transferred to a new vendor in 2013 by Council Resolution 13-033. The facility includes a driving range and clubhouse that houses the pro shop, restaurant facilities and public conference room. Because the golf course represents a large acreage that serves a specific population for a fee under a lease agreement, it is a unique recreational facility. It is not listed as a park nor included in the level of service calculations of Section 5. More information about the golf course and associated features is included in Appendix A. 3.2. Port Townsend Parks 3.2.1. defining City parks Port Townsend's first Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan was written in 1975 and updates occurred in 1980, 1986, 1991, 1996 (in concert with the Comprehensive Plan) and 1999. Although National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) standards provide a matrix for identification of parks and recreational assets, no community's resources fit neatly into any such rigid classification. Port Townsend fits perhaps even less well than most communities, as it is in the unique situation of having the 433.6 acres of Fort Word en State Park within the City limits. The City also hosts Jefferson County's physical footprint of the Port Townsend Community/Recreation Center and the only lighted stadium in the County, Memorial Field. As well, Port of Port Townsend facilities along the waterfront and the current Little League fields at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds are within the City footprint. As mentioned above, none of these facilities are owned by the City. Although the City contains a wealth of open space and recreational facilities, it does not maintain or control these assets. It is not cost effective or good management of limited resources to provide redundancy for these existing assets but it is prudent to consider their future and plan for the possibility of loss and prioritize the necessity of replacement for those assets deemed critical. City parks can range from street end retreats to extensive open spaces that serve much larger areas (Figure 3.1. Park Facilities). Recent applications of NRPA and other established standards are less likely to base park designation on size and more logically on park function. The Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office includes a level of service (LOS) exercise in its most recent iteration of park grant planning documents (Manual 2, Planning Policies and Guidelines, January 2011) that recommends using a community's own guidelines for acreage LOS (in Port Townsend's case, 7.6 acres/1,000 population from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan). Additionally, RCO evaluates recreational assets by relative support for active recreation, by population distance from parks and trails within neighborhoods, communities and regions, and by accessibility with various modes of transport, most particularly nonmotorized transport and public modes of transport. This Parks Plan establishes an inventory of parks based on three types of park facilities currently existing in the City of Port Townsend. These park types were used in the 1999 Functional Plan; specifically, they are urban pocket parks, neighborhood parks and community parks (Table 3.1). The definitions are based broadly on the type of amenity, size and function in the landscape that is provided and have been tailored to meet the needs of this community. Section 3.Inventory, classification and management. Page 16 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A ti r z NCO CL CL as J O� �n N cn Y u o e a a F C ^ 12 _ d L o v c =)Cn Y @ ry O a = W rY i 12 Q m vcs d a U °- o Z Q1 CD C C -0 C Y ++ ° a < CL LL d E LL p m 7., OJ C Q1 6 'A Ln v °Ili v p ruv 7 O O O 06 VS lJ l� lJ 00 2 V'} d —� Q H LL o c Q C. � Y a Na CL .. a. Z O 0 O C Y C3 ,�. r'• 7. a J � O IL u 3 2r � !R Ln LL E �. l7 H x D -j CL Q � /�" •any uen{r ue5 � — ,,. - ' I I ' Y m a C o W Y o 35 ueppaq C 7 I J- f ro 0 CL a — a� u (AAA :s o Ln pl_ W ru M r CL LL W � } H V Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Table 3.1. Port Townsend Park Inventory'- The level of service (LOS)analysis in size, Chapter 5 factors in these conventional park Urban Pocket Parks region acres types and refines the analysis by identifying three key level of service indicators (i.e. Adams E 0.08 function, accessibility, and service area). Bell Tower E 0.07 Table 3.2 provides an overview of the City Entrance SW 0,59 amenities provided by the City's park system. (Note that, because the golf course serves a Haller/Terrace E 0.37 specific population for a fee, it is not included Pape Marine!Jackson E 1.33 in the LOS analysis in Section 5). All City Rotary E 0.34 parks and other City assets are described in greater detail in Appendix A. Descriptions of TVDahliaz' SW 0.13 open space and the regional partners' assets T2IGateway E 0.21 are provided in Appendix B. T3 1Intersection SW 0.19 3,2,2. Urban Pocket Parks Tyler Street Stairs E 0.08 `Urban', pocket or mini parks are designed to Total 3,35 provide visual relief and physical respite from Neighborhood Parks the indoor urban environment. Pocket parks are defined as facilities that provide an open 13thlHancock SW 1.00 area where people can rest, watch and eat in 35th Street NW 13.96 pleasant surroundings with a few simple Baker View SW 0.22 amenities. These areas typically offer some landscaping or vegetated natural areas, trash Bishop/Parkside SW 4.20 cans, benches with access to beaches, Bobby McGarraugh E 2.03 views or vistas where possible. Target users are a wide variety of visitors, employees, Dag Parlc3 E 0.60 customers, and youth. These parks are Elmira NW 0.54 primarily located in the downtown/uptown Gok�Age E 0.21 urban core and in outlying commercial and Sather E 6.72 industrial areas (Figure 3,1), Total 23.17 Ten parks totaling 3.39 acres currently exist Community Parks in this category (Table 3.1). Several are Chetzemoka E 6,53 maintained by volunteer groups (e.g., Rotary Park by Rotarians, Triangle Mini Park Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park SW 75.86 I/Dahlia Park by Master Gardeners and Larry Scott SW 7.07 Triangle Mini Park 2iGateway by Skateboard Park E 0.33 Soroptomists; Haller/Terrace by Friends of Steve Corra). To#a,�' SD.79 "At the time of the preparation of this plan, a long term lease for Mountain View has not been perfected. As such,it is excluded from the City's inventory and level of service at this time. If included, it would add 7.63 acres to the City inventory. z'T1,2 and 3 indicate reference to Triangle Parks 1, 2 and 3 in prior functional plans.Park names'Dahlia'and'Gateway' are from City records. 3'The Dog Park has been included in Neighborhood Park rather than Community Park as its relatively small size tends to limit its service area. 4.Because the golf course serves a specific population for a fee under a lease agreement,it represents a unique recreational facility. it is not listed as a park nor included in the level of service calculations of Section 5, Section 3.Inventory,classification and management. Page 18 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Table 3.2. Port Townsend Park Type and Function'- Y � 0 W � a v � UJ a az L � W W Q Z wp < = V � W 00 4 � _ ~ IL � Z Q � � � Lu aU Q � P m [] O W Q W ¢ a a I. Urban Pocket Parks[3.39 acres total] Adams Street M 0.03 PT Y 0S Bell Tower H 0.07 B A H 5 City Entrance M 0.59 1,000 A Haller/Terrace H 0.37 B 5,315 A 0S Pope/Jackson H 1.33 ADA Y PT, B 7,125 A Y S 8 Rotary M 0.34 PT 300 A Y 0S Tl/Dahlia H 0.13 0S T2/Gateway M 0.21 B M 0S TWIntersection L 0.19 Tyler St. Stairs L 0.08 B 0S Neighborhood Parks[23.77 acres total] 13th & Hancock L 1.00 35th Street L 13.00 Baker View L 0.22 PT,B Bishop/Parkside L 4.20 Y* PT,B* A* S* 0S Bobby McGarraugh H 2.03 ADA Y PT 13,400 M 15 Dog Park M 0.50 Elmira Street L 0.54 2 Golden Age L 0.21 6,534 H Sather M 5.72 PT, B 21,780 05 Community Parks[90.79 acres total] Chetzemoka H 5.53 ADA Y PT Sam A Y K 25 Kah Tai Lagoon L 75•$0 P PT, B 1 ace A S 20 Larry Scott L 7.07 ADA Y 9 [Skateboard Park M 0.33 P P Maintenance: H,M,L=high, medium,low maintenance intensity Irrigation:A=automatic; M=manual Restrooms: P=portable;ADA=handicapped-accessible Other amenities: K=kitchen; H=historic building;S=shelter Picnic Facilities: PT=picnic table;B=bench Parking: OS=on street; P=shared public lot Mowed area: in square feet unless noted "= in progress,2014 ''Because the golf course serves a specific population for a fee under a lease agreement, it represents a unique recreational facility. It is not listed as a park nor included in the level of service calculations of Section 5. Page 19 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 3.2.3. Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks serve the needs of an immediate residential neighborhood. As per the 1999 functional plan, they are generally considered to include parks an acre or more in size, with some exceptions. This is relatively small when compared with criteria in other cities within the region. However, it reflects an adequate standard for Port Townsend that is consistent with the high satisfaction level regarding neighborhood parks in the 1996 and 2010 surveys. Neighborhood parks may be developed with highly landscaped areas and amenities (e.g., restrooms, picnic tables, play equipment/fields); maintained in near natural state with primitive public trails as the primary amenity; or a combination of the two. Nine neighborhood parks totaling 23.17 acres currently exist. Bobby McGarraugh Park (formerly Cherry Street) is one example of a conventional neighborhood park providing family-oriented amenities including picnic tables and playground equipment. Others, including Elmira and 35th Street Parks currently provide only primitive trails but may be further developed as the neighborhoods around them are built out. Hancock and 13t" is undeveloped. Parkside Park is currently under development as a landscaped extension of Bishop Park into the surrounding neighborhood. Its acreage has been included in the Bishop Park acreage and inventory. Neighborhood parks that have been adopted by volunteers include Sather Park, Baker View Park and Parkside at Bishop. 3.2.4. Community Parks Community parks tend to be larger than neighborhood parks and draw residents from a wider distance than do neighborhood parks. Their features are generally unique for the area (e.g., Kah Tai Lagoon) or they provide a unique function (e.g. skatepark). Again, they can be highly developed, near-natural or some combination, depending on their function and purpose. There are four community parks totaling 90.79 acres (Table 3.1). Community parks that have been adopted by volunteers include Chetzemoka Park (butterfly garden), Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park (Admiralty Audubon and Friends of Kah Tai) and the Skate Park (user group), 3.3. Open Space Undeveloped space in Port Townsend including parks, cemeteries, sports fields, farms, forests, undeveloped lots, add to the sense of small town character valued by the community. The community highly values wildlife, wildlife habitat, and open space and considers parks as a major source of these amenities (as indicated in the 2010 Community Survey, see Appendix C). Figure 3.3 summarizes the primary functions and values of open space as described in Goal 3 of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan (Section 4 of this plan). Although the community values all of these assets, most are not controlled by the City. Based on the Community Direction Statement, the City Land Use Map includes a "Potential Park and Open Space (overlay)" (PIOS(A). This overlay includes areas that may have the potential to be included within a comprehensive and interconnected system of open spaces and trails. Much of the land within the overlay is environmentally sensitive such as frequently flooded areas, wetlands, or drainage corridors. Areas of"potential open space" as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, reflect an initial evaluation done through the comprehensive planning process to identify areas that may be valuable for a variety of functions in their current state. "Essential habitat", "significant open spaces" and "significant cultural resources" are referred to in the Comprehensive Plan goals but have yet to be applied to specific areas. The Comprehensive Plan identifies three primary approaches for consideration in developing this network: outright purchase of key properties; incentives for landowners to cluster new Section 3.Inventory, classification and management. Page 20 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A T N Cr o� N{o li P C1J CL B O V1 C: rei Y C Z w ar CL Q� V LL O •V W z fl- c ns v E ❑ ¢ C!-1 n w q } q1 L ' E V 'ro U 0 LLI j a CD Cl N L•J m C ] r Q u1 I U U a - Qj sc O Ri a C = p Z3 vY Ci n n Q a `? w CL r aE E ni cd 4 N m ° N 'ti D U 1 ry o Y �- _� Q S O 9 d ��y Fl E m � 'Alf nr es La + O a r . J on m r r ' m O a N - • Cyi 0 Lfi CL sue Ua S Cj ' t _ t - Q -- ,- t i m w 1 L • , g ❑ LLJ a� LL U Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Table 3.3. Additional Park Facilities Owned by Other Public Entities Park/ Facility Description' Jefferson County Jefferson public use buildings, campground, Little League ball fields; County administered by the Fair Board Association; 32 acres area Fairgrounds North Beach waterfront, adjoining Fort Worden State Park. Includes County Park mowed grass, restrooms, picnic shelter, water, and parking. Popular for beachcombers, birders and hikers; 1.0 acre area Memorial Field only lighted playfield in county; bleachers, restrooms, historic; 4.9 acres Port Townsend former public school now used for senior center, meetings, Community rec center, indoor basketball court, playground, landscaped Center rounds; 1.0 acre total area Courthouse Informal playfield, new basketball court, one tennis court; 1.0 Park acre area Washington State Fort Worden 90 acre-campus managed by PDA; beach access, trails, gun State Park batteries; prime birding location; tennis court, campground, picnic shelter, natural history museum and marine science center, total park area 433.6 acres Rothschild National Register; managed by Jefferson County Historical House Society Part Townsend Schaal District Port Townsend regulation size gym, track, sport fields, tennis courts High School Blue Heron full-size gym, track, sport fields, public meeting space Middle School Grant Street playground, informal playfield, play equipment, small Elementary gymnasium; auditorium used for public events School Mountain View only public swimming pool in county; police department, food Commons bank, Red Cross, YMCA, gymnasium, playground, play equipment, playfields Currently managed by the City of Port Townsend; Lease expires in 2014, City and School District are negotiating a 30-year lease with a 15-year extension . Port of Port Townsend Point Hudson historic buildings; shoreline trail, picnic tables, RV camping, moorage and small boat launch City Dock floating dock used by visitors and citizens for temporary moorage Union Wharf floating dock accomodates large vessels for commercial and transient boaters ' See Appendix B for greater detail. Page 22 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 development in areas outside, -VALUES or on the margins, of open economicf economic space areas; and reductions in educational wildlife: allowable density. Clustering trail corrido FUNCTIONS flora new development is � fauna flora PASSI HABITAT encouraged through the City's fauna RECREATION scientific Planned Unit Development aesthetic (PUD) ordinance (Ordinance aesthetic corridors 2571). The City and Jefferson trails Land Trust have successfully views OPEN SPACE wildlife partnered to purchase key wildlife properties in the Quim er flora, B UF ERS economic ST MWATER Wildlife Corridor. The inventory aesthetes protects air quality shown in Figure 3.2 is waterqualety described in more detail in CULTURAL econnmic Appendix A. minimizes noise, protection of RESOURCES visual impacts property,natural The City Comprehensive Plan drainage systems overall goals and policies economic social aesthetic agricultural related to open space are in sacred Section 4. An important water-oriented architectural component of the Comprehensive Plan is the role Figure 3.3. Open space values and functions. that open space plays in providing buffers, preserving view corridors, providing links between neighborhoods, providing wildlife corridors, and generally serving multi-purpose functions such as stormwater treatment and conveyance. All these factors contribute to the health, safety and welfare as well as quality of life that Port Townsend residents presently enjoy (Figure 3.3.). 3.4. Additional Facilities As noted throughout this Parks Plan, no one entity is expected to meet the needs of the entire community. In a time of diminishing resources, multi-agency coordination will be crucial in order to meet the community's growing needs. There are several facilities owned and maintained by other public entities that provide important and diverse recreational services to the community. They are summarized in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.4 because of the unique management and ownership considerations they entail. These additional public facilities are an essential consideration in assessing the community's need for parks and recreation. Recently, State parks shifted management of the main developed campus of Fort Worden State Park to a Public Development Authority (PDA). However, this will not alter the natural and recreational facilities located in the Park. Jefferson County has struggled to maintain facilities within the City limits. Through a cooperative agreement with the Port Townsend School District, the City's recreation programs are able to use the school's athletic fields and gymnasiums. The City should continue dialog with these agencies regarding change of ownership and management responsibilities to ensure current level of access to park facilities is maintained. Section 3.Inventory, classification and management. Page 23 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A N z VC) CL Co J a LA r D 0 D 0 t/1 rte,, 0 0 F U m i U o d -i5 Q1 t% Y to I N _- W d M _ q1 p !1 N1 O @ 4 W CD L rVG - © Q ry m D 0 N iL D D W CC t2 E N E z Q D 0 y ? p D ¢ G •""+ a N C O - 0 •t3*Q' LL 3 � D r �- �• (D r w L� Ln © J c � � 0 any Jumfu 5 C _ '4 5 sJepiaagS 3 > 0 / � W �. Q CL _ W H tJ Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 3.5. Management and Collaborations 3.5.1. Parks and Recreation Management Structure Figure 3.5 describes the City's administrative organization for decisions and responsibilities related to parks, recreation, and open space. Coordination and planning for parks, trails, and open space is provided between the Public Services and Public Works Departments through the development review process and through implementation PortTownsend of this and other functional Citizens plans. I The Parks, Recreation and City Council Trees Advisory Board is nominated by the Mayor and City Manager subject to approval by Public Services Director— Council. Parks,Recreation & The seven Board Tree Advisory Board members serve three-year terms and operate under rules Recreation Parks Maintenance Pool of order. The Advisory Board I I I guides policy of the City and YMCA partnership Parks Foreman Pool Operator provides management and Parks Assistants Instructors development Lifeguards recommendations to the Public Services Director and the Parks and Recreation Division (Fig. 3.5). Figure 3.5. Management structure of Parks and Recreation Division. 3.5.2. Volunteers and Adopt A Park A recurring theme in citizen surveys and public comments about parks is that there is a strong interest in volunteering. However, inadequate information regarding volunteer opportunities presents a challenge. Port Townsend has had in place since 2001 an Adopt A Park program and volunteerism is encouraged. Adopt A Park and Volunteer forms are available online as pdfs but are not interactive. The capacity for volunteers to log their own hours electronically would provide a major improvement in volunteer programs and the Advisory Board is actively pursuing options to accomplish electronic volunteer access and management. 3.5.3 Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board The 1996 Comprehensive Plan recommended that the City develop a transportation plan to identify a network of pedestrian walkways and bikeways to connect neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas and other destinations, with enhancement of recreational opportunities a secondary benefit accruing from the plan's development (Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, 2011). The plan, completed in 1998 and adopted by City Council, 'provided the impetus to build a system of non-motorized transportation facilities that serve residents'and visitors'needs both for transportation and recreation.'The NMT Plan was updated and supplemented in 2011 to account for new and emerging issues and new information about existing concerns. The NMTAB maintains an active volunteer effort for trail building and Port Townsend now has 31 mules of trails and paths that connect many of the City's parks (Figure 3.6). The trails system makes it problematic whether to describe Port Townsend as a city of parks connecting trails, or a city of trails connecting parks. A lack of funding leaves some important connectors undeveloped at this time. Section 3.Inventory, classification and management. Page 25 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Co N a -to) °Cu C N z N 5 O C u� a w Z (D �? sn m O 0 ~ LL a U .� Lo W O N O ❑ � Q N C Rf CL C4 0 LL CLU C 3 4 •-�e� 'any �5 � ���' m -.. WEPPINIS CL �6 ---- ---; --- cc 0 a O U Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 3.5.4. Combining Parks, Recreation and Trees In 2001, Port Townsend City Council replaced the Parks and Recreation Commission with a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (Resolution 01-015). In 2003, the Port Townsend Municipal Code was amended to establish a landmark tree program with a Tree Ordinance (2837)and established a Tree Committee in accordance with attaining Tree City USA status. In 2009 (Resolution 09-029), Council elected to combine the responsibilities of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Tree Committee into one board which advises the Public Services Director (Figure 3.5) about street and park trees and urban forestry in addition to parks and recreation issues and concerns. Tree City USA, a DNR Arbor Day program, recommends that a certified arborist be a member of the advisory board. In 2013, the Parks, Recreation and Tree Advisory Board initiated an Arbor Day Tree walk with development of a brochure highlighting four walking tours within city limits to include significant trees in Port Townsend. The community direction statement adopted in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan repeatedly mentions the City's trees and tree-lined streets. The volunteer effort that funded the extensive street tree plantings lasted almost twenty years.As those trees reach maturity, it has become the responsibility of the Parks and Street Departments to manage the care and maintenance of these assets for the community. Section 3.Inventory, classification and management. Page 27 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 SECTION 4. WHERE WE WANT TO GO: GOALS AND POLICIES The Land Use Element of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan declares that future patterns of land use in Port Townsend "will be influenced significantly by the City's development history. The land use element builds upon the City's history while looking to its future. It acknowledges that Part Townsend's 'special places'include its historical structures and natural features, and that there is community support to protect these resources from incompatible development" The Land Use Element also provides "for a comprehensive and interconnected system of parks, open spaces and trails." Goals are aims or objectives, the desired outcome of an effort or design, while policies are the course or principles of action proposed to achieve goals. The following Goals and Policies are those Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies in the Land Use Element which are most relevant to this Parks Plan. Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Element Open Spaces & Trails Goal 3: To develop a comprehensive open space and trails plan and implementation program which protects the natural environment and significant cultural resources, provides passive recreation opportunities, is integrated with the nonmotorized component of the Transportation Element, and is designed to link neighborhoods with parks, significant open spaces, schools, shoreline access areas, mixed use centers and employment centers. Policy 3.1: Acquire and develop public open space and trails within the financial capabilities and level of service standards of the Capital Facilities Element. Policy 3.2: Develop and implement nonregulatory and regulatory means for acquiring and developing the open space and trails network. 3.2.1 During development review, encourage applicants to dedicate land for future open space and trails. 3.2.2 Amend the zoning and subdivision codes to provide incentives for open space including, but not limited to clustered developments and planned unit developments (PUDs). 3.2.3 Acquire land for open spaces and trails through municipal or state programs, such as stormwater management and wild lifelwetland protection. 3.2.4 Apply for grants from public agencies and private foundations to acquire land for open spaces and trails. 3.2.5 Work with nonprofit groups, such as the Jefferson Land Trust, to obtain conservation easements and create incentives for open space and trails system development. 3.2.6 Use property tax deferral programs to promote the retention of valuable open space land in an undeveloped state (i.e., the Open Space Taxation Act, Chapter 84.34 RCW). 3.2.7 Explore other techniques for acquisition and development of the open space and trails network (e.g., Inter-Agency Commission on Outdoor Recreation (IAC)funding: utility bill donations, a community or regional bond issue, etc.). 4. Goals and Policies Page 28 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Policy 3.3: Locate trails in areas that are important to preserve as open spaces, such as wooded areas, drainage corridors, shorelines, scenic vistas, and others. Locate trails along drainage corridors when possible to do so without degrading the environmental functions and values of the area. Policy 3.4: Designate and retain wetlands, drainage corridors and other areas that provide essential habitat for priority plant or wildlife species as passive open space. Sites which the City should consider acquiring include, but are not limited to: a. Winona Wetlands; b. Howard Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor; c. 50th Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor; and d. Hastings/25th Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor. Policy 3.5: Where possible, accommodate multiple functions within the open space and trails system, including: stormwater management; viewpoints; protection of cultural resources; wildlife habitat; and passive recreation. Policy 3.6: Coordinate with Jefferson County to identify and designate open space corridors and trails within and between urban growth areas, as required under the GMA. 3.6.1 Integrate the open space and trails network with the proposed Olympic Discovery Trail. 3.5.2 Support the establishment of a @uimper Peninsula wildlife and open space corridor. Policy 3.7: Identify existing unopened rights of way, utility corridors and drainage corridors for use in developing the trails system. Design trails in a manner which allows the corridors to function as urban wildlife corridors. Policy 3.8: Preserve and enhance shoreline access areas consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program. [Ord. No. 2945, § 1.3, (April 15, 2007)]. Policy 3.9: Design the trails system to link neighborhoods with parks, significant open spaces, schools, cultural resources, shoreline access areas, mixed use centers and employment centers. Abutting or nearby larger scale developments should be encouraged to provide trail connectors to the larger trails and open space network_ Policy 3.10: Design trails to be accessible to people with disabilities as much as the natural characteristics (e.g., topography) of the region will allow. Policy 3.11: Develop a coordinated sign program which provides a user friendly guide to the location of trails. Policy 3.12: Consider trail linkages in the development of new government facilities, including new parks and open spaces. Policy 3.13: Prohibit the use of off-road vehicles on public trails designated in the Comprehensive Open Space and Trails Plan. Policy 3.14: Develop and adopt standards regarding trail uses that minimize conflicts between different types of trail users (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians). Policy 3.15: Provide adequate funding for open space and trails network operation and maintenance. 4. Goals and Policies Page 29 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Parks & Recreation Goal 4: To develop park and recreation facilities, programs and opportunities which are responsive to the needs and interests of Port Townsend residents. Policy 4.1: Develop a parks and recreation plan and implementation strategy which addresses the community's needs for active and passive recreation opportunities. 4.1.1 Provide recreation programs that are comprehensive, enriching, and affordable for all citizens. 4.1.2 Provide a wide range of athletic facilities such as: tennis courts; baseball and softball fields; gymnasiums; swimming pools; multi-purpose fields for soccer and general outdoor play; volleyball courts; and a golf course. 4.1.3 Provide a wide range of passive recreation opportunities within the parks system (e.g., nature walks, picnic areas, bird-watching, observation areas). Policy 4.2: Acquire and develop public park and recreational lands to serve the future population of the City. Policy 4.3: Pursue a variety of options for park and recreation facility acquisition and development. 4.3.1 During development review, encourage developers to dedicate land for future park and recreation facilities. 4.3.2 Apply for grants from public agencies and private foundations to acquire land and develop the City's park and recreation facilities. 4.3.3 When revising the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC)to implement this Plan, provide incentives that encourage developers to provide neighborhood parks which serve the residents of new developments (e.g., density bonuses, mitigation land banking, creative right-of-way use). 4.3.4 When revising the PTMC to implement this Plan, provide incentives that encourage developers in commercial districts to provide pocket parks, plazas, courtyards, arcades, atriums, pedestrian corridors, and through block corridors. Policy 4.4: Locate, design, construct and manage park and recreation facilities to be compatible with natural features (e.g., soils, geology, topography, and shoreline resources)and cultural resources. 4.4.1 Preserve natural features which are conducive to park and recreation functions. 4.4.2 Incorporate habitat considerations in the design and development of new park and recreation facilities. 4.4.3 Encourage the use of native plants which attract wildlife. 4.4.4 Incorporate significant cultural resources in the design and development of new park and recreation facilities, and provide interpretive opportunities where appropriate. Policy 4.5: Design and manage park and recreation facilities to maximize environmental protection and provide interpretive opportunities for ecological systems and features, and cultural resources. Policy 4.8: Design park and recreation facilities to accommodate a citizenry diverse in age, interests, income levels and abilities. 4. Goals and Policies Page 30 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Policy 4.7: Where adverse impacts could occur, screen and buffer park and recreation facilities to protect adjacent or nearby private properties. Policy 4.8: Consider acquiring inholdings and adjacent parcels that would increase the long- term integrity and viability of the City's park and recreational lands. Policy 4.9: Broaden the use of school buildings and grounds as places for public use after school and on evenings. 4.9.1 Increase cooperative management with the Port Townsend School District through joint use agreements. 4.9.2 Joint use agreements should seek to renovate, schedule, and manage facilities for greater public use and enjoyment. Policy 4.10: Support, encourage, and provide technical assistance to neighborhood associations seeking to acquire or develop property for neighborhood parks, recreation, and open space. Policy 4.11: Work with Jefferson County to identify future park and recreational facility needs within Port Townsend and facilities within Jefferson County which will serve Port Townsend residents. Policy 4.12: Assure that maintenance and operation costs are considered in the development of City park and recreation facilities. Ensure that City park and recreation facilities incorporate design and construction features that minimize long-term operation and maintenance costs (e.g., design park restrooms to include energy efficient light fixtures and skylights). Policy 4.13: Set City-wide standards for park and recreational facility maintenance, and the unit costs to achieve those standards. [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)]. Administration & Operations Goal 5: Provide the support and leadership to respond effectively to the community's evolving priorities and needs. Respond and be accessible to the community by creating new policies, procedures and technologies to meet the diverse current and future needs. Policy 5.1: Deliver measurable economic benefit to the community by providing or supporting programs, special events and facilities. Policy 5.2: Incorporate sustainable standards and best management practices into planning and design of new parks and rehabilitation of existing facilities. Policy 5.3: Keep clean and well-maintained parks and facilities, retaining a high level of appearance of landscaped sites. Policy 5.4: Identify, preserve and interpret Port Townsend's heritage, traditions, historic, environmental and cultural features. Policy 5.5: Master Plan major parks and facilities through a public input process to modernize and update sites. Policy 5.6: Develop staff growth through educational classes, certification and training. [Ord. No. 3075, § 3.5, (June 18, 2012)]. Budget & Funding Goal 6: Strive to adequately fund ongoing parks and recreation programming and maintenance through proactive well-planned budgeting practices, the pursuit of partnerships and the securing of grants. 4. Goals and Policies Page 31 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Policy 6.1: Prepare and anticipate for future staffing needs that may arise due to budget and other financial circumstances. Policy 6.2: Establish an ongoing six-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for parks and recreation facilities. Policy 6.3: Pursue local, regional, State and Federal grant sources for park maintenance and development. Policy 6.4: Develop new and additional partnershiplvolunteer stewardship programs utilizing local service clubs and organizations. Policy 6.5: Investigate establishing a set of impact and/or mitigation fees that fairly contribute to the construction and upgrading of parks. [Ord. No. 3075, § 3.5, (June 18, 2012)]. Conclusion Overall, the goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan are well developed and provide adequate guidance for parks and recreation planning. 4. Goals and Policies Page 32 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 5. WHAT WE NEED: DEMAND AND NEED ANALYSIS 5.1. Order of Analysis Assessing the community's needs and demands involves one of the most important elements of the planning process. Evaluation requires a variety of methods and must take into account a number of factors. This section assesses need in the following order: 1) Future demand for park and recreation facilities is based on comparing projected populations with the city's adopted level of service standard (LOS) of 7.6 acres/1000 population. 2) The adopted LOS standard is recognized as a minimum standard. Greater accuracy is achieved through the development of standards based on local goals and priorities, specifically residential and commercial standards which consider function, equitable distribution and access of parks. 3) Need is related directly to the demographic and use characteristics of the city's population. 4) Community goals and priorities are reviewed as expressed through surveys, meetings, and adopted plans. Ultimately, "The level of customer satisfaction"(Krohe, 1990) is the true measure of a good standard. 5) Consider the impacts of tourism, which places an increasing seasonal demand on the City's facilities. 6) Finally, parks staff and resources must be factored into the mix. In developing this Needs Assessment, it is crucial to recognize that: • No one agency is expected to supply everything for everyone; this is where partnerships and cooperation must come into play. The City's service area reaches into unincorporated Jefferson County. Also, a number of Jefferson County and State facilities are located within the city limits. These agency overlaps are not always known to the citizens, nor are citizens typically aware of who is supplying specific recreation programs, facilities or parks for the community. The citizens are keenly aware though when there is a deficiency in a system. • Ultimately, needs are affected by a variety of issues and priorities, based on population forecasts and characteristics, available land, obtainable grants, future funding and city policies. In an era of diminishing resources, needs and demands must be balanced with available resources. 5. Needs Analysis Page 33 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 5.2. Development of Local Standards - What Constitutes 'Need'? Under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), communities are responsible for providing public facilities without decreasing levels of service (LOS) below locally established minima (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). Measuring the adequacy of Port Townsend's parks, recreation, open spaces and trails requires an established set of standards. LOS standards are measures of the amount of a public facility which must be provided to meet the community's basic needs. The GMA allows flexibility in establishing the level of service standards to meet local needs and expectations. This Parks Plan assesses park demand based on three level of service standards: acres per 1000 capita, function, and accessibility. 5.2.1. Acres per Capita Over the past 30 years, the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) has developed guidelines and standards for parks, recreation and open space. In 1983, NRPA published the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines which recommended "that a park system, of minimum, be composed of a core system of parklands, with a total of 6.25 to 14.5 acres of developed open space per 1000 population." Since that time, various publications have updated and expanded upon possible "standards," several of which have also been published by NRPA. Rather than a one-size-fits-all acres/population standard, the NRPA now recommends that each community develop its own standards based on local goals, priorities, and conditions. LOS standards expressed as park acres/1000 population are, nevertheless, used throughout the United States, and Port Townsend's 1996 Comprehensive Plan level of service standard was developed with these standards. This ratio standard reflects the fact that demand is directly linked to the number of users. The LOS standards established in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan have been standard practice for decades and remain an appropriate starting point for assessing community need. Per the City's Comprehensive Plan, the adopted LOS for park facilities is 7.6 acres/1,000 capita. This ratio reflects the LOS based on the 1993 population of 7,755 and ownership of 59 acres of park land. The vast majority of City park acreage is open for public use, with only a single property undeveloped (1 Sh and Hancock). Population increases projected through the years 2015-2035 were used to assess the surplus and deficiencies of park land based on the adopted LOS (Table 5.1). The LOS for park land focused on City-owned park land only. It is important to repeat that there are several other parks within the city limits that are owned by the state and county (see Appendix B and Table 3.3). This abundance of acreage owned by other public entities should be considered when determining the future of the City park system; however, none of this acreage has been included in the tables and projections because the City does not have any control over the management of this land in terms of types of facilities available and access to there, nor does the City have capital expenditures for State and County parkland and recreation facilities. It should be considered, however, when outlining the City's Capital Facilities projections for parks, that these facilities are at the present time, and for the foreseeable future, available to City residents. 5. Needs Analysis Page 34 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Table 5.1. Need Analysis- Conventional LOS as Acres per 1,000 People Year City of Port Acres Acres Existing Net Reserve Townsend needed @ Available/ LOS [deficiency] Population 7.6 per 1000 Projected in Acres people 1993 7,755 59 59 7.611000 0 2010 9,113 69.3 Total 74.6 8.211000 5.3 2015 9,578 72.8 Total 117.35 12.311000 44.6 [Tot-water* 72.611 [7.511000] [-0.2] 2025 10,580 80.4 Total 117.35 11.6/1000 37.0 [Tat-water* 72.61] [7.311000] [-7.8] 2035 11,687 88.8 Total 117.35 10.5/1000 28.5 [Tot-water* 72.61] [6.611000] [-16.2] Tot-wafer is total park acreage excluding lagoon water acreage. Table 5.1 reports historical acreage data for 1993 from the 1999 Functional Plan, which excludes the golf course. Since all acreage in Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park was transferred to the City in 2013, the total shown for 2015 is inclusive of all acreage. However, since 44.74 acres of KTLNP are lagoon and wetlands, totals in brackets show acreage excluding water for comparison. Although it is the integrity of the entire nature park that provides the functioning habitat and experiential benefit, it is relevant to note that water-inclusive acreage totals may over-represent access and distribution of parks throughout Port Townsend. The Table indicates that by historical NRPA standards and the City's own Comprehensive Plan LOS estimates, a deficit begins to show as early as 2015. In order to maintain the current level of service of 7.6 acres/1000 population, development of a 1.0 acre parcel in inventory and acquisition of a 5-acre neighborhood park is anticipated by 2025. 5.2.2. Local Service Standards Park Function and Accessibility While the gross acreage level of service is a reasonable overall standard, the type of park and ease of access holds much more significance than the total park acreage. A quality park system should contain a good balance of property types and should be located geographically throughout the city. Resources must be allocated equitably throughout the community while reflecting changes in the level of demand for parks and recreation resources. Three types of developed City park facilities currently exist in the City of Port Townsend, community parks, neighborhood parks, and urban pocket parks (Section 3, Inventory). The definitions are based broadly on type of amenity, size, and function in the landscape that existing facilities provide in Port Townsend and on the 1995 NRPA Guidelines. The city's existing park system provides a variety of parks as summarized in Table 5.2 and detailed further in Section 3, Inventory and Appendix A. 5. Needs Analysis Page 35 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Table 5.2 Park Type and Function Type Number/Acres Function Urban Pocket Parks: Ten parks totaling 3.39 Provides open area where people acres can rest, watch and eat in pleasant surroundings with a few simple amenities. These areas typically offer some landscaping or vegetated natural areas, trash cans, benches with access to beaches, views or vistas where possible. Neighborhood Parks Nine neighborhood parks Serve the needs of an immediate totaling 23.17 acres residential neighborhood; may be developed with highly landscaped areas and amenities (e.g., restrooms, picnic tables, play equipment/fields); maintained in near natural state with primitive public trails as the primary amenity; or a combination of the two. Community Parks' Four community parks Provide a unique function (e.g. totaling 90.79 acres skate park and dog park). Again, they can be highly developed, near-natural or some combination' 'Because the golf course serves a specific population for a fee under a lease agreement,it represents a unique recreational facility. It is not listed as a park nor included in the level of service calculations of Section 5. A service radius is recommended in planning a logical distribution of parks and open space. Park users will generally walk a limited distance to access a park. Based on NPRA's 1995 classification system and the city's 1999 functional plan„ this 2014 Parks Plan uses a service radius of<114 mile for pocket-parks and <112 mile for neighborhood parks. Though streets designated as "minor arterial" in the City of Port Townsend are not considered boundaries to access, Sims Way, State Route 20, is recognized here by configuration and traffic load as a boundary for pedestrian park access. 5.2.3. Residential Level of Service Neighborhood park service areas as well as existing city, county and school facilities are identified on Figure 5.1. As shown on the figure, two types of deficiencies have been defined in Part Townsend. 1) No access - The areas of Port Townsend that are not within one half mile of an existing neighborhood facility are indicated in gray or in orange if they are within a school facility access area only. There is a need for an additional neighborhood park on the northwest side of the city. 2) Access limited to school facilities - Each of the three schools are shown in dashed circles on the Neighborhood Park Service Areas Map with a one half-mile radius because these facilities provide specific opportunities for recreation to some 5. Needs Analysis Page 36 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A CIO ti z N S6 J 0 7 o a ry Cu -E i v ¢ en u_ 0 N z 3 Cn n r 7 O 1n U N Ln r[3 Y z v z 1n C i+ m O Q Ln N 01 Q1 C 6- W v ra 0 41 as N a g LLL d 11'7 d U cc LL 'X •u W O O { v v a) 1n f4 = C: 01 - E LL u CI1 C) ' tJ z�3 0 0 �' 11 11 1 U vVi c2j 1r a 1 o E p o O a > 1n Y M C 0) tp �] m w d C D d 70- p`a C V r, r• O O p r6 O O •�• oes V C m �• p d oft Ln • +~ / �� o La �6L ► "y� D + C � C) © ■ ,+act - 'r � ♦ `° y+ �� • Y F- 0 -C anyuenrues � Ln .� m m (U - cn N cu a} m O O ? + * Q + L- !% m *• r V1 CL ija4s Ln C G x 1 # ••I, cI D * CL ■ -I ;vi V) z w U7 rn CL W Otis u Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A 00 ce) m \ jCqCo CU @ ® / \ CU 2 q 7 0 \ \ \ CTI � N - % CL < 6 Co \ S \ ƒ k \ ± U- m (D t f \ k \ c \ \ x G I % m r p / \ \ \ £ ƒ ¥ \ \ / \ IL (D $ § N § 2 g w Cl) ° \ ƒ ° E Co o ( q C ■ : CL /^ « o � * 0 «@i ` ? f � « * ® / c . 7 —Q) a LL < . \ \ M / 3 @ CLQ ■ _ O 2 - _ ■ � - « § m \ . 2+&Sr . . . . E Ll CL S_ mq , . . . ■ \ - C } _ R 0 o / g a o e �. . \ � � o . . � o Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 neighborhoods not served by city parks. However public access to school facilities is limited to non-school hours. For both of these types of service deficiency, the City should develop criteria by ordinance that could require dedication of some amount of usable open space as a condition of new development. An alternative to dedication should be an allowance for new development to pay fees in lieu of dedication to the City. The City would then either purchase land or provide recreational amenities that service the particular development to the level of service standard listed above, i.e., one half-mile radius of all residences. Also shown in Figure 5.1 is the zoning designation. The zoning adopted in the Comprehensive Plan dedicates large areas of the western portion of the City for multi-family residential clusters and neighborhood commercial use. These areas zoned for multi-family development are only partially served by existing or proposed neighborhood facilities. Additional facilities are needed to serve planned development in the multi-family residential zones. Recognizing the importance of on-site private open space in new residential complexes, as a separate and additional requirement from the neighborhood park level of service as recommended by the NRPA Guidelines, the City's zoning code requires new development in the mixed-use zoning districts to set aside a minimum percent of open space and the City's multi- family design standards include a requirement for useable open space. For any residential development within the City where a PUD, multi-family or subdivision is proposed, or where the development is subject to SEPA, the City should develop criteria by ordinance that will require some amount of usable open space. As an alternative, the recommended action is to provide an allowance for development to pay fees in lieu of dedication to the City to either purchase land or to provide recreational amenities that service the particular development. This fee or dedication would be in addition to the existing neighborhood park service area within which the new development is located. 5.2.4. Commercial Level of Service Pocket parks are often associated with commercial zones in the City. Part Townsend's pocket parks provide urban open space along the Waterwalk, in the downtown Historic District and in outlying commercial and industrial areas. The target users are a wide variety of employees, customers, visitors, and youth. Figure 5.2 shows the major employment centers, areas of commercial multi-family zoning and existing facilities that serve these urban centers.Analysis of the figure shows that the Sims Way commercial district and the Sheridan Street- Hospital Zone area do not have the same density of public open space as does the Downtown or Uptown Historic Districts. The City has identified or purchased properties along the Sims Way Corridor that may be developed in the future as City pocket parks. Figure 5.2 also shows multi-family and neighborhood commercial zoning. Many of these as yet undeveloped areas are not served by public pocket parks. New neighborhood commercial and manufacturing developments are encouraged through Comprehensive Plan Goals to provide on-site parks and open space for recreational use. The City should recognize the importance of on-site private open space in commercial/manufacturing complexes as a separate and additional requirement from the neighborhood park level of service as recommended by the NRPA Guidelines. 5. Needs Analysis Page 39 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 The NRPA recommends a set-aside of 25% of the development area of multi-family and commercial development for recreational use as a minimum standard. The City has adopted standard percentage set asides for new development in the Mixed Use zoning districts (CI-MU and CII-MU) and should consider similar standard percentage set aside for other commercial and light industrial zoning districts. Private open spaces can include but should not be limited to children's play areas. Where children's play areas are included in development proposals, these areas should meet safety standards in design and construction. 5.3. Demographic Trends - Then and Now In the first decade of this century, the City's population increased at less than 1% per year(Table 5.3.). Although the adjusted population forecast may appear less demanding, demographic trends can shift priorities. Table 5.3. Port Townsend demographic changes, 2000-2010, from US Census parameter 2000 2010 percent change population 8334 9113 +9.3% medlar age, yrs. 46.6 53.0 +13.7% home ownership rate 65.2% 64.4% -1.2%® persons/household 2.09 1.94 -7.2% %below poverty 14.0 17.2 +23% medlar per capita income $22,395 $27,356 +22% median house value $150,300 $302,700 +101% Port Townsend now has a significantly older population. While home ownership rates have decreased only slightly, the average household size is smaller. The percentage of citizens living below the poverty level increased significantly. And while the median per capita income has increased by 22%, because household size is smaller, there is less income to support each household. Since the median house value has doubled, those smaller households are less able to make ends meet. Percent decreases in all age groups of children and young adults occurred in the last decade with the most dramatic decreases in the 5-14 year age group (Figure 5.3.). The population age group most likely to be raising children and actively pursuing careers (ages 35-54)declined substantially while older age group percentages(ages 55-74) increased significantly. The OlyCAP Community Needs Assessment report (2013) indicates that the numbers of child care centers in Jefferson County have decreased to a far greater percentage during the same period where the numbers of children in age groups needing daycare remained relatively constant. Households with children have a lower median income than those without children and increased numbers of children are living in poverty. Concurrently, numbers of children diagnosed with disabilities are increasing and nearly half of live births are now to single mothers. As median 5. Needs Analysis Page 40 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 wages have increased only modestly while other household costs are much higher, more than 50% of Port Townsend's children are now reliant on free and reduced lunch programs in school. Free summer lunches and activities were provided to all children who attended YMCA programs in 2013. 25 As parents have fewer options to provide for children's access to cu 20 recreation and play spaces, public 4 parks and playgrounds become 9 15 ever more important. S Fewer day-care programs and more 14 single-parent households indicate a CL greater need for after-school ° 5 g programs. f i J 0 , Dramatic increases in Jefferson v v � n 19 � a Ln County food bank usage were reported T Lo Lo v Lo Lo Lo co for fiscal 2012 over prior years, in particular among people over age 55. 200D 2010 In 2013, the Port Townsend Food Bank opened an additional day each Figure 5.3. Port Townsend population age week, exclusively for senior citizens in distribution, 2000 and 2010, US Census. need of food bank services. As low-income seniors find themselves in smaller living spaces with fewer resources, safe access to public parks with ADA features is critical to maintaining quality of life. Although our definitions and accessibility standards represent the recommended level of service standard for parks for the City of Port Townsend, level of service definitions should now recognize and include consideration of NRPA's 2014 guidelines for conservation, health and wellness, and social equity. 5.4. Community Input The building of a city's parks, open space and recreation system is largely directed by community values, priorities, and resources. Clearly parks and recreation play an integral role in the community's identity as expressed in the community direction statement from the Comprehensive Plan (Section 1.1.). Local community goals and priorities in Section 4 further refine this vision. But preferences change over time (Figure 5.4.). Open and ongoing communication with the public is crucial to the development of this Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan. Measuring and monitoring of public needs, perceptions and satisfaction levels was done in several ways as described below. In the spring of 2010, a community survey about parks and recreation was mailed to a semi- random group of residents. Since the survey was distributed to 2500 of those residents who receive billing for water and sewer service, condominium owners, renters and those living in group quarters were not surveyed. Response rate was approximately 25% and respondents were divided into the same three geographical distributions used (NW, SW, E)for surveys supporting the 1999 Parks Functional Plan development. 5. Needs Analysis Page 41 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Also in the spring of 2010, a survey of youth programs and services was distributed to C7 1100 middle and high school students in N public and private schools. Response rate was approximately 40% with equivalent levels of response among grades 5-11 but very low response from 12th grade students. r In the summer of 2010, a community meeting was attended by more than 60 residents to discuss what had changed since the 1999 r Parks Functional Plan was written and what is M needed for the future. r The first draft of this Parks Plan was released in spring 2011. Notice was published announcing a 14-day public comment period. Extensive written comments and suggestions �— were received from the public. A second draft was released in October 2011.A series of public meetings before the Parks, Recreation C Co and Tree Advisory Board, the Planning cn Commission and City Council provided '- citizens considerable opportunity to critique and offer recommendations for improvement LO of the second draft. In total, more than one hundred pages of written comments and T suggestions were received from numerous individuals. In response, a third draft was m developed combining draft 2 and the existing _ a).- 1999 Functional Plan with necessary updates 0 E and input from the public. Draft 3 was CZ _0 released prior to a public open house hosted by the Parks, Recreation and Tree Advisory Board on January 28, 2014. Figure 5.4. Relative importance of top five activities common to all community surveys During the same interval as the first two drafts of about parks and recreation conducted from this Parks Plan were underway, an East Jefferson 1975-2010, with highest being most important. County effort (inclusive of Port Townsend) was focused on the feasibility of developing a Parks and Recreation District or a Metropolitan Parks District. As a part of this exploration, an online survey collected information for one month (19 September- 19 October 2011) and received 1473 responses, with approximately half the responses reporting in from the Port Townsend zip code. After a year of deliberations, the exploratory committee recommended that an MPD effort be pursued. Port Townsend City Council and Jefferson County Board of Commissioners voted to go forward with a more directed effort which continued until it was ultimately deemed unfeasible by both elected bodies in October 2013. While the effort to study the feasibility of an MPD was underway, no further progress was possible to complete this Parks Plan, due to staffing limitations and the uncertainty of future direction. 5. Needs Analysis Page 42 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 The conclusions of the 2010 and 2011 mail and internet surveys were consistent with historical information. Respondents: • valued parks for quiet places to walk and enjoy nature • prioritized the addition of more nature trails and wildlife corridors over other amenities • used nature paths and trails more than other city park facilities • wanted more opportunities for youth activities and development The 2010 youth survey found that of all the possible activities listed, visiting parks was the most consistent activity of youth. Thirty to 45% of all grades reported visiting parks 'often' and another 30% or more visited 'some'. Almost no youth indicated that they never went to parks. At the time of the youth survey, the Community Recreation Center had been closed for lack of funding and there was considerable support to re-open it. The most desired amenity was a 24/7 internet cafe. The 2010 community meeting participants identified significant changes since the 1999 Plan, which included: • Mountain View School closed, then re-opened as Mountain View Commons • YMCA established a partnership with the city • Northwest Maritime Center built • Skateboard Park built • Quimper Wildlife Corridor and Cappy's Woods and Trails supported with IAC funding • Parkside Park property purchased • New subdivisions developed on Castle Hill (southwest side of town) • Bobby McGarraugh Park play equipment replaced • County parks budget cuts closed North Beach, Memorial Field and the Community Recreation Center For the future, participants prioritized: • protection of existing open space and passive recreation areas • securing Mountain View Commons for long term community use • completion of the property transfer at Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park • development of an additional dog park and pocket parks at street ends • development of a larger neighborhood or community park on the west side • planting of more native tree and shrub species • long term community access to a swimming pool • more adult classes and spaces for adult enrichment classes 5.5. Tourism Residential growth is not the only foreseeable impact to park services. The City's ability to provide adequate tourist facilities such as restrooms, transient parking, interpretive services, and shoreline access for pedestrians and boaters is experiencing increasing seasonal demand. Extensive promotion through the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (formerly the Tourism Advisory Group) has been effective in increasing the length of the visitor season beyond the traditional summer months. Increases in tourist visits to Port Townsend will continue to increase demand on City park facilities and services. These demands are likely to center along the Waterwalk, along the Gateway Corridor, and in relation to the Golf Course and Fort Worden State Park and Conference Center. This increase in demand for service should be analyzed and included in future park planning. 5. Needs Analysis Page 43 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Use by visitors of City facilities is not well documented although the impacts are evident in the increased maintenance hours needed by park crews for cleanup. Future analysis of impacts on the Parks Department operations and maintenance should account for increase in use by non- residents. Tourists are attracted to a well maintained system of parks and trails and thus, wise investment in the Parks Department contributes to a healthy tourist economy. 5.6. Maintenance and Operations Another key consideration in future facilities planning is the community's ability to maintain parks. Maintenance and operations costs vary widely depending on the type of facility (e.g., natural open space parks with limited trails are likely to require significantly less maintenance than an athletic field with associated restrooms). Table 3.2. provides a relative ranking of high, medium and low (H, M, L)for all City parks. In the 1991 Parks Plan, an analysis of other similarly sized parks departments in the region found that staff ranged from 2 - 8 FTEs with 3- 10 seasonal staff and most reported that level of staffing to be marginal. City parks staff is currently 2 FTEs with no seasonal staff. Staff relies on volunteers for help leaf raking, weeding, and picking up litter. Routine maintenance efforts are falling behind. An analysis by the Trust For Public Land (tpl.orglcityparkfacts) indicates that the national median FTEs is more than five per 10,000 citizens; it also indicates that the median national spending on parks per resident is twice the City's expenditure. The City should strive to maintain staff levels proportionate to the City's population. 5.7. Conclusions Although the current number of acres of park property meets the city's adopted level of service, throughout the development of this Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Functional Plan a number of deficiencies in the current citywide park system were identified • Additional park acreage will be needed by 2025 • Residents in the northwest side of the city lack adequate access to a neighborhood park • Pocket parks are lacking in the Upper Sims Way Commercial Corridor • Demographic indicators point to a greater need for after-school programs as well as safe access to public parks with ADA features • It has also been identified that the community would like to see a dedicated (sufficiently sized) dog park as well as improvement and expansion of interconnected, signed and accessible trails and paths and an expanded community recreation program that engages the city's youth • Many of the current park facilities need improvements and renovations • Staffing and funding levels are disproportionate to the city's population. The determined conclusions are based on citizen input at public meetings, through the City-wide survey, input from the Parks, Recreation &. Trees Advisory Board, as well as ongoing community input and contributions from City staff. Section 6 (Implementation) describes how the Parks Plan will address these identified deficiencies in more detail. 5. Needs Analysis Page 44 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 SECTION 6. IMPLEMENTATION 6.1. Overview The following recommendations for implementing the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Functional Plan focus on park acquisition, development and repair. Implementing the recommendations contained in this Parks Plan will depend on both opportunity and funding availability. As competing demands escalate for increasingly limited City resources, creative solutions are needed to fund park-related projects. Realization of the Parks Plan will take time and will require a sound and realistic financing strategy. This section contains both long-term recommendations and a six-year capital improvement program (CIP) based on current assumptions. As noted throughout this Parks Plan, facilities owned by other entities supplement the City's system. A closure of a County/State/School/Port facility could result in a need to revisit the recommendations provided herein. The projects identified in this Parks Plan are intended to meet the current and future needs of the community and are written generally to facilitate flexibility over time to allow the City to adapt to changing desires, needs and development patterns. Projects are divided into three categories; Acquisition (AQ), Park Development(PD), and Major Repairs and Site Improvements (MR). Acquisition (A4): Property that if acquired would serve as a park or open space asset to the City of Port Townsend. In some cases these are specific sites and in certain cases they are more general in nature to meet a need over time. The following priorities should guide future acquisition for Port Townsend's parks, recreation and open space: • Where possible, preserve the integrity of existing parks with adjacent parcel acquisitions. Purchase new park land in order to anticipate and meet deficiencies in neighborhood park service. • Acquire park and open space land through 1. Direct acquisition 2. Joint funding with stormwater or other utilities (where possible)and 3. Where legally permissible, require dedication of park land or fees in lieu of dedication to mitigate direct impacts of development Park Development (PD): Generally these projects occur on City-owned property or within easement areas. The project description includes a basic scope of the project and location. The details of the development project are anticipated to be refined (with public input) as the projects move forward in the planning and funding process. Development of new facilities and/or redevelopment of existing park facilities must be balanced in a way that maintains existing investments while also providing new opportunities and facilities to meet demand and changing needs. The following priorities should guide future development of Port Townsend's parks, recreation and open space: $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 45 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 • The City should take a phased approach to implementation based on projected growth patterns and specific types of funding available over the next five to ten years. • Develop recreational facilities in partnership with other entities. • Develop additional neighborhood parks in a phased manner as growth increases demands in areas not currently served by park facilities. • Develop properties and areas identified in the CIP. Major Repairs & Site Improvements (MR): Renovation of facilities plays a role in ensuring a safe, functional and well-maintained park system by addressing the replacement and improvement of existing facilities. Generally these projects are identified based on the anticipated lifespan of a particular amenity or existing structure. Such efforts also address improvements to facilities required to meet the growing needs of the community or to address deficiencies in accessibility. The City should use the following policies to develop neighborhood parks: • Parks should develop in accordance with a master site plan in consideration of the specific site conditions, neighborhood characteristics, and recreational goals. • Park amenities should be provided in a phased manner that is linked with the build out of the neighborhood and as the facility use increases. To accommodate a broad use of the facility while preserving and protecting neighborhood characteristics, the City should evaluate the effectiveness of current off street parking standards. 6.2. Core Themes The Park Department proposes to focus attention on five core themes in order to meet the needs of the community. 1. Maintain Existing Facilities & Manage Demands Associated with Growth: Port Townsend has developed an established network of parks, open spaces and recreation facilities totaling more than 140 acres. A key component of the Park Plan is to recognize and re-invest in existing facilities. Continued maintenance and re-investment will ensure that existing facilities continue to provide recreational benefits for years to come. New development will increase demand on the City's park system_ The City should consider developing criteria that would require dedication of some amount of usable open space as a condition of new development. An alternative to dedication should be an allowance for new development to pay fees in lieu of dedication to the City. 2. Seek Sustainable Funding/Multi-agency Approach: As further described in Section 5.6. Maintenance and Operations, the City's capacity to fund and staff parks and recreation programs has diminshed in recent years. Both funding and staffing are below the national median. Fiscal constraints have forced the City to become more creative in the maintenance, redevelopment and programming of existing parks as well as in the acquisition of future parks and open spaces. Establishing partnerships with other organizations will become increasingly important if the City is to continue to provide and maintain quality parks, open space and recreation programs. Coordination with the Port Townsend School District's long-range planning is essential to maximize land acquisition opportunities. Combined usage of recreational 6. Implementation:Recommendations Page 46 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 facilities should be recognized as good public stewardship and these partnerships continued. 3. Green Port Townsend -Tree City USA -There is a substantial interest in and public concern about trees including their quantifiable impact on carbon cycling and climate change mitigation. As noted in Section 3.5.4, the City participates in the Tree City USA program, a national program that provides the framework for community forestry management for cities and towns across America. To qualify, the City must meet four core standards demonstrating a viable tree management plan and program. Funding for a tree program and a tree inventory is warranted. Community-member expertise would be of great benefit to such a program. Currently, these needs are being met through the Main Street Program and the Public Works Department, but the functions, benefits, and beauty of all trees may warrant a higher priority. Port Townsend is filled with spectacular specimens and varieties of native and landscape trees. Recently, the Parks, Recreation and Trees Advisory Board's has placed a greater focus on urban forests as an important attribute of the City's parks and open spaces and contributors to the health and well-being of the community. 4. Parks & Programs serving all ages and abilities—As identified in Section 5, there is an identified need for retaining and expanding recreation programs/opportunities for all ages and abilities. Young families need after-school programs, teens need a safe place to gather, seniors need to stay active and special needs populations require ADA accessibility. The City currently partners with the Jefferson County YMCA to provide recreation services to the community. In addition to this partnership, there are other agencies that provide recreation services for the community. It is recommended that the City create an inventory of the programs currently being offered to the community and invite community members (specifically youth) to discuss program wants/needs. This process will allow a better understanding of where recreation program needs exist and will be helpful for the City to develop strategy for future recreation program design, delivery and funding. 5. Connectivity— Recent studies have shown a positive association between access to parks and physical activity levels (Section 2). Port Townsend residents enjoy walking on the numerous miles of nature trails and paths found throughout the City (Section 5). This Parks Plan works in concert with the City's Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, emphasizing the need for connectivity between parks, schools, neighborhoods and other areas of public interest to create easy access to the outdoors and recreation. A connected system can become a part of the community fabric, weaving together elements of citizens' daily lives. Open space management plans and development proposals need to identify areas where trails would be compatible with development and open space functions. The City intends to accommodate trails in unopened rights- of-way, future park development, and through City owned parcels. 6.3. Long-Term Capital Recommendations Acquisitions: 1. Acquire a site for a Neighborhood Park in the underserved Northwest area of the City - As this area experiences development and population expansions the need for additional developed park space in this section of the City will increase. $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 47 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 2. Establish Pocket Parks in the underserved Sims Way commercial district, along Sheridan Street fronting the Hospital Zone, and in multi-family and neighborhood commercial zoning (CII-MU) as identified in Figure 5.2. Consider existing street ends and other opportunities and explore the possibility of developing additional pocket/mini parks where needed and feasible and where neighbors or adjacent businesses are willing to adopt for maintenance. 3. Where possible, preserve the integrity of existing parks with adjacent parcel acquisition for Kah Tai and Bobby McGarraugh Parks. Purchase new park land in order to anticipate and meet deficiencies in neighborhood park service. 6.4. Six-Year Capital Recommendations/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The capital improvement program (CIP) section of the Parks Plan identifies a number of specific park and open space projects and/or acquisitions to meet the needs of the community over the next six years and beyond. This list was developed based on the data collected through the public process, ongoing community input, staff input and the Level of Service (LOS)analysis. It should be noted that some of the projects are likely to be addressed in an incremental manner over a number of years. While timelines are indicated, it is possible that the City may determine that a particular project should be put off to a later date based on funding feasibility. It is anticipated that the City will review the CIP on an annual basis and determine any necessary changes to the time frame as part of that process. Acquisitions: 1. Explore the possibilities, costs and benefits of a pedestrian tunnel under Sims Way to connect Bishop Park with the southern continuation of the same geological feature. This is currently a dead end. Accessibility to the rest of the ravine on the southwest side of Sims Way would encourage greater use and connect the area north of Sims with access all the way to the Larry Scott Trail. It would also improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. 2. Acquire property (5+ acres) on the west side of the City (West of Sheridan, South of Hastings & North of Sims Way) and develop the property as a neighborhood park. 4. Acquire and develop an off leash dog park on the west side. 5. Work with the City's Non-Motorized Transportation Board to identify possible locations for trail connector development in the future as funding opportunities are available. Park Development 1. The development of a dedicated dog park facility is a pressing need. The only current off leash dog facility (Chetzemoka Dog Park) is too small for its use rate. 2. Explore the benefit of improving trails and adding of benches in the 35th Street Park in keeping with preservation of the natural area. 3. Build a park maintenance shop in Chetzemoka Park to store Parks Department equipment and tools. $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 48 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 4. In keeping with the basic principles of past PRTAB work plans, improve habitat at Kah Tai Lagoon future Park by removing invasive species and planting native species in the southern uplands; restore the southeastern wetland. 5. Develop a Golf Course Master Plan with the current leaseholder to provide long-term guidance for the maintenance and improvement of the facility. (Funding for the Golf Course is separate from parks and recreation and therefore it has not been included in Table 6.1). Major Repairs and Site Improvements 1. Replace/repair the roof structure of the Golden Age Club to help maintain this historic structu re. 2. Upgrade the restroom facility at Bobby McGarraugh Park to meet ADA accessibility standards. 3. Replace or renovate the kitchen shelter, picnic shelter and restroom facility at Chetzemoka Park to better serve the high amount of public use and to better accommodate family gatherings and events at the park. 4. Repair and upgrade Kah Tai restrooms. Work with the owner/operator to provide accessible public restrooms (which were a condition of approval for the Park and Ride facility)at the transit hub adjacent to Kah Tai to relieve pressure on the nature park facilities. 5. Continue to replace the Skateboard Park fence section by section as funds become available. 6. Continue with renovations at Mountain View Pool as funds become available. $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 49 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Table 6.1. Capital Improvement Projects Project Description Type Cost Timeline Possible Funding Estimate Sources 1' Develop Parkside Drive (Bishop) Park PD $30,000- 2013- General Fund/ Property $50,000 2014 Civic/Volunteers 2 Develop a dedicated sufficient sized PD1 $50,000- 2014- Private 1 Non-Profit 1 dog park on current City property or AQ $75,000 2016 General Fund new purchase 3 Develop connector trails with ADA PD $25,000- 2014- Ecology- LID; accessible amenities $75,000 2016+ WWRP; RTP 4 Replace Skateboard Park Fence MR $16,000- 2014- General Fund $20,000 2016 5 Repair/replace roof of Golden Age MR $18,000- 2014- General Fund Club $20,000 2016 6 Continue planting and wetland PD 2014- PCJV, Private/Non- restoration at Kah Tai 2020+ profit, Civic Organizations 7 Upgrade/repair restrooms at Kah Tai MR $25,000- 2015- CDBG- HUD, Lagoon Nature Park 30,000 2017 WWRP 8 Upgrade restroom facility (ADA MR $8,000- 2015- CDBG- HUD; standards) at Bobby McGarraugh $12,000 2017 WWRP Park 9 Renovate Mountain View Pool MR $100,000- 2015- Private 1 Non- $1M+ 2018+ Profit/General Fund 10 Acquire property on W side for AQ $200,000- 2016- WWRP-LP Neighborhood Park (5 acre min.) $250,000 2018 11 Develop W side Neighborhood Park PD $500,000- 2016- WWRP-LP property $850,000 2018+ 12 Construct a parks maintenance shop PD $25,000- 2016- General Fund at Chetzemoka Park 40,000 2018 13 Replace or renovate the kitchen MR $150,000- 2018- Civic Organization, shelter, restrooms and picnic shelter at 200,000 2020 Donations, Grants, Chetzemoka Park HUD 14 Acquire property on NW side for AQ $200,000- 2018- WWRP-LP or LWCF Neighborhood Park (5 acre min.) 250,000 2020+ 15 Establish pocket parks in underserved AQ Sims Way commercial, Sheridan/Hospital zone and other CII- MU 16 Explore pedestrian tunnel under Sims AQ TAP to connect Bishop Park to southern continuation 17 Explore improvement of trails and PD benches at 35th Street Park numerical list does not imply any order of priority. Dates for WWRP, LWCF and RTP listings are li'mi'ted to the RCO 2-year funding cycle and are suggested as one proposal per cycle 6. Implementation:Recommendations Page 50 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 6.5. Funding Resources Jefferson County citizens approved a County-wide ballot measure in November 2010 to increase the sales and use tax. The County's 60% share goes entirely to public safety and justice while the City Council agreed to provide one-half of its 40% share to support the two County-owned and run recreational facilities and programs within the City limits. An interlocal agreement transfers those funds to the County to be used exclusively for the operations and maintenance of the Port Townsend Community Center and Memorial Field. The interlocal agreement expires May of 2015 and the future of the County facilities beyond that time is uncertain. A multi-year process was undertaken as a result of the County-wide 2010 ballot measure to examine funding and management options for long term sustainability for City and County parks and recreational assets. The process concluded that a Metropolitan Parks District is not a viable option at this time. County recreational programs are at risk due to lack of funding and County staff are considering a partnership with the Jefferson County Family YMCA to provide their recreational programs, much like the City has done. City and County staff continue to explore the possibilities of cost savings and efficiencies via interlocal agreements. Based on the Capital Improvement Plan, budget revenues and expense projections indicate a need to develop new funding sources for parks and recreation. The following funding options should be considered: City Funding General Fund: This source comes from taxes, fees and other charges. It provides money for general operations and maintenance. Capital projects are occasionally funded from these sources when the capacity exists, usually via a transfer of funds to the Capital Improvement Program Fund (CIP). Seeking creative solutions to fund parks, in 2008, voters approved the Special Purpose Levy which was predicated largely upon a premise to segregate the Library finances and free up general funding for parks. Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET): Tax imposed at the time of a real estate sale. There are two component options of the tax. The first is the option of one quarter(1/4)of one percent (1%) of the selling price of the real estate sold. There is an additional option of imposing a second one quarter(1f4)of one percent (1%) of the property's sale price. Many cities dedicate the revenue portions or 100% derived from each of these components through City Council action to be used for park and recreation capital purposes. Revenue from this fund should be estimated conservatively, as the real estate market can be volatile. Special Excise Tax: Cities can levy special excise tax of 2% on lodging as allowed under RCW Chapter 82-08. The funds collected can be used solely for tourist promotion, acquisition and operation of tourism-related facilities or all other uses authorized under RCW Chapter 67.28. General Obligation Bonds: These are voter-approved or Councilmanic bonds with the assessment placed on real property. The money can only be used for capital improvements and not maintenance. This property tax is levied for a specified period of time (usually 20 to 30 years). Passage of a voter-ratified bond requires a 60% majority vote, while Councilmanic bonds require only a majority of the City Council. One disadvantage of using this type of levy may be the interest costs. 6. Implementation:Recommendations Page 51 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Voter approved Utility Tax Increase: Citizen voted increases in utility taxes are an option as a Parks and Recreation Facilities Funding Measure. The funds can provide an on-going funding source of dollars dedicated to specific capital funding projects, e.g. City of Olympia measure of 3% provides $2,000,000 annually for park capital projects which includes trails. Growth Impact Fees: Park Growth Impact Fees are fees imposed on new development to mitigate the impact of new development on the City's park system. Impact fees can be used only for parkland acquisition and/or development. Cities planning under the Growth Management Act, in title RCW 82.02.050(2) can impose, collect and use impact fees. Life Estates: This is an agreement between a landowner and the City where the city buys or receives, through donation, a piece of land and the City gives the owner the right to live on the site after it is sold for the lifetime of the owner. County FundingiLegislative Options Conservation Futures: Conservation Futures funds are a useful tool for counties to preserve lands of public interest for future generations in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County. RCW 84.34.230 allows a property tax levy to provide a reliable and predictable source of funds to help acquire interests in open space, habitat areas, wetlands, farm, agricultural, and timberlands for conservation and for maintaining and operating (O & M) any property acquired with these funds. Enactment of Conservation Futures by Jefferson County provides the opportunity to secure vital waterfront and habitat lands and would have the maintenance costs funded through the levy. Sales and Use Tax: Sales and Use Tax: In November 2010, Jefferson County voters approved Proposition 1 to increase sales and use tax. In support of the ballot measure the City and County entered into an interlocal agreement whereby half of the City's prescribed 40% of total revenues from the increase was committed to the County for temporary support of two County owned facilities within the city, the Community/Recreation Center and Memorial Field, while the City and County collaborated in an effort to secure long-term solutions for sustaining those facilities and their programs. Absent further negotiations/agreements that arrangement is set to expire in May of 2015 whereupon the City will recover direct control over the allocation of those funds. State Funding Washington State provides various grants for public recreation acquisition and development through the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Department(WDFW)and Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) programs. Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO): Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) administers several grant programs for recreation and habitat conservation purposes. Depending on the program, eligible project applicants can include municipal subdivisions of the state (cities, towns, and counties, or port, utility, park and recreation, and school districts), Native American tribes, state agencies, and in some cases, federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. To be considered for funding assistance, most grant programs require that the proposed project will be operated and maintained in perpetuity for the purposes for which funding is sought. Most grant programs also require that sponsors complete a systematic planning process prior to seeking RCFB funding. Grants are awarded by the RCFB Beard based on a public, competitive process which weighs the merits of proposed projects against established program criteria. http://www.rco.wa.gov/ $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 52 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 RCO state grant categories include: Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP): Funds the acquisition and development of conservation and recreation lands. The Outdoor Recreation Account of the WWRP provides matching grant funds for local and state parks, water access sites, trails, critical habitat, natural areas, riparian and urban wildlife habitat, and farmland preservation. The newest categories include the Farmland Preservation Program and the Riparian Protection Account. The RCQ accepts grant applications by May 1 st of each even year. The successfully scored projects are presented to the Governor, who recommends them to the legislature for capital funding the following year. Most recently with the budget crisis the WWRP funding category has been in jeopardy. Funding for this program was not recommended in the Governor's 2011-2013 budget but in the 2013 Legislative session $65 million was appropriated through the adoption of the approved capital construction budget. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account(ALEA) Gram Program:This grant-in-aid supports the purchase, improvement, or protection of aquatic lands for public purposes, and for providing and improving access to such lands. It is guided by concepts originally developed by Department of Natural Resources, including re-establishment of naturally self-sustaining ecological functions related to aquatic lands, providing or restoring public access to the water, and increasing public awareness of aquatic lands as a finite natural resource and irreplaceable public heritage. Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF): The program was approved by Washington voters as part of Referendum 48, which provides funding for the Seattle Seahawks stadium. The purpose is for acquiring, developing, equipping, maintaining, and improving youth and community athletic facilities. Eligible Grant Recipients: Cities, counties, and qualified non-profit organizations. Grant recipients must provide at least 50% matching funds in either cash or in-kind contributions. An initial $10 million was contributed by the Seattle Seahawks "team affiliate" in December 1998. Anticipated revenues from non-expended Seahawks stadium bond monies and other sources are not expected in the next several years. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW funds an Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account and Volunteer Cooperative Grant Program- Washington State Department of Natural Resources WA DNR funds Community Forestry Assistance, Community Forestry Tree Inventory and Urban Forestry Restoration (Tree Planting) grant opportunities via their Tree City program. Transportation Alternative Program (TAP): Washington State funds allocated to the Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs). Each RTPO maintains their own TAP application process, deadlines, criteria, etc. The RTPO responsible for the Port Townsend area is the Peninsula RTPO. (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/prtpo/). Contact the Peninsula RTPO for specific information regarding their TAP application process. Federal Funding On the Federal level, Congress appropriates funds through a variety of programs that may provide potential funding sources for various capital projects. These include the Environmental Protection Act, Land and Water Conservation Fund Account, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RICA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Economic Development Funding (EDI), Community Block Grant HUD, Environmental Protection Act with Brownfield's $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 53 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 clean-up funding, United States Department of Agriculture low interest loans and through direct Congressional Appropriation. Links to government grant sources can be found at firstgov.com and grants.gov. Congressional Grants for Neighborhood Initiatives are received annually and are by invitation only through your congressional representative or senator. The FY 2011 invitations will come out in the spring and are administered under the Homes and Communities Division of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD Block Grants: Grants from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development are available for a wide variety of park projects (5% of total). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)access projects for parks and playgrounds are eligible for this funding. Congressional Appropriation: Annually, U.S. Senators and House Members accept letters of proposals and applications for appropriation requests. Project descriptions and letters of request for appropriation are due March 1 st. The Land and Water Conservation Fund(LWCF): Funding through Congressional appropriation in the annual budget assists in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to outdoor recreation resources including, but not limited to, parks, trails, wildlife lands, and other lands and facilities desirable for individual active participation. Grant recipients must provide at least 50% matching funds in either cash or in-kind contributions. A portion of Federal revenue derived from sale or lease of off-shore oil and gas resources is re-appropriated to projects through the US Congress to the Department of the Interior to the National Park Service (NPS). The program is administered in Washington State by the RCO. Sites purchased or developed with LWCF funds are deed protected for outdoor recreation purposes in perpetuity and are defined through the use of'6(f)(3)" federal map delineation. Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RICA): RICA is a technical assistance program of the National Park Service (NPS) that implements the natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation mission of the NPS in cooperation with local communities and the states. RTCA provides planning assistance and project coordination to local governments and state agencies for trail planning, greenways, water trails, and special recreation projects. The President's FY 2014 budget sustains funding for RTCA at 2012 levels. Through the RTCA program, the National Park Service has launched a nationwide initiative to encourage healthful outdoor physical activity in National Parks and in local communities to demonstrate practical approaches for public land managers and community leaders who want to encourage active lifestyles. National Park Service provides benefit support information through the NPS's Pathways to Healthy Living; Promoting Physical Activity in Parks and Communities. The data and support documentation reiterates the close-to-home value of recreation on neighborhood trails and greenways that is vital for improving America's public health. Working with the National Park Service, grant seekers will realize the value of the current work and understand that as a value to local communities, the NPS is ideally positioned to respond to this urgent need to increase Americans' level of physical activity. National Recreational Trails Program (RTP): The National Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails and facilities that provide a backeountry experience. Eligible Projects: Maintenance of recreational trails, development of trail-side and trail-head facilities, construction of new trails, operation of environmental education and trail safety programs. Revenue Source: Federal gasoline taxes attributed to recreational non-highway uses. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Federal Highway Administration and in Washington State by the RCO. $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 54 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 National Tree Trust: National Tree Trust provides trees through two programs: America's Tree Ways and Community Tree Planting. These programs require trees to be planted by volunteers on public lands. Additionally, the America's Tree Way program requires a minimum of 100 seedlings be planted along public highways. The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA): EPA offers Low Impact Development Storm water Management Grants (LID) providing financial assistance through the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program (http:www.ecy.wa.gov). One of the most effective ways to manage storm water-runoff pollution is to minimize how much runoff occurs in the first place. LID-designed sites have fewer impervious surfaces and use vegetation, healthy soils, small-scale storage and dispersion f infiltration techniques to manage storm water. This grant program began as a pilot in 2006 with grants awarded over the past two years. If successful and federal funds continue to support the program, park improvements such as shoreline enhancements, parking, roadway and walkway replacement with pervious surfaces would all meet the criteria of the LID grant goals. An example of a successful LID waterfront park grant recipient is Lions Field Park located in the City of Bremerton which was an original LWCF federally funded development project. Contact: www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/rlflst.htm U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD): Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Economic Development Funding (EDI) http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/bedi/index.dfm program administers the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)which provides block grants to eligible cities and urban areas. Approximately$100 million of CDBG funds are utilized annually for park and recreation projects which often are initiated along with more comprehensive community redevelopment initiatives. US Fish and Wildlife USFW supports the Pacific Coast,Joint Venture (PCJV), which funds small North American Wetland Conservation Act grants for the acquisition, restoration and enhancement of wetlands. Private Funding Donations: The donation of labor, land or cash by service agencies, private groups, corporations or individuals is a popular way to raise small amounts of money for specific projects. The private funds are critical to show commitment of non-government dollars and as a positive result can elevate the standing of the grant proposal. Such service agencies as the Kiwanis and Rotary often fund small project improvements in partnership or provide the donated labor match to bring the project to fruition. Environmental groups such as the Trust for Public Lands or Cascade Land Conservancy organize and in partnership provide volunteer labor for habitat restoration which can serve as a value for consideration toward the local match requirement on specific grants. Principal property tax payers in the area such as major grocery stores are sources of local contributions for civic and environmental benefits. As a partnership opportunity they should be contacted, provided with collateral project information and approached with regard to an initial request for partnership support funding. As with all grant programs, grant agencies are looking to local communities to work with local advocates, sponsors and private partners to bring the project to a funding level. Community advocates can elevate the level of project scores in a competitive funding cycle. In some grant programs, grants require private partnerships as a condition of application. $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 55 Ordinance 3105- Exhibit A Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan 2014 Foundations & Grants Private grants and foundations: Many private foundations provide money for a wide range of projects. Grants are available for children, cultural enrichment and heritage preservation. In many cases, foundations require grant requests from non-profit 501(c)(3)organizations. On all phases of park projects, staff should work with or create a partnership with private non-profit organizations and seek opportunities to secure grant funds from private non-profit foundations. $. Implementation:Recommendations Page 56 Ordinance 3105 - Exhibit B Appendices to Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan Appendices Appendix A. Description of City Assets Urban Pocket Parks 1 Neighborhood Parks 12 Community Parks and Golf Course 22 Appendix B. Open Space and Other Regional Assets Open Space Inventory 29 Other Regional Assets Jefferson County 34 State of Washington Port Townsend School District 35 Port of Port Townsend 36 Areas Crossing Categories 37 Appendix C. Public Involvement: 2010 Community Survey and Youth Survey Public Survey Results 42 Community Survey Questions 47 Youth Survey 51 Appendix D. Acronyms and Glossary 112 Appendix E. References 116 Appendix F. Adopting Ordinance (Ordinance 3105) 117 / J ƒ 2 E ® ® \ / & ± @ \ g % 2 2 ` W § o \ & 2 % ¥ ¥ E \) 0 § \ ° / 0 / a \ $ a 2 m / / i }W0 2 ; : z E_ \ } k @ 3 3 \ \ $ ) 3 \ \ \_\/\ / / ' m ° < ° » 0 m \ G { m § § - ` } \ \ 2 $ 2 \ / 2 § / ± \ \ � W L 0 2 / a g a \ 2 $ 3 / _ z 3 = _ S co 7 \ / \ c z \ � \_ \ } / / \ \ cr � U / ° 3 CU 2 2 %\ e 4 O Q 2 z 0 ` \ ( \ /� 2 m c 3 \ / 2 \ 2 = s \ 3 2 a / / may, a , , � ._V s @ ° / 6 m / / � $ \ 0 LU \ , 4 3©' CL = u j u y 0 a @a k ! / \ \ \ = 2 ° / ( y / / f % £ $ / / �J / L/)"-" cr 2 \ J � / \ u Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 3 of 117 Appendix A. Description of City Assets This section provides location, description and other information as well as a more extensive history of each of Port Townsend's city parks and other assets, as it is available from park and City Council records. Figure 3.1 (Park Map) is repeated here for reference. Urban Pocket Parks Urban Pocket Parks The urban pocket or mini parks are those parks which aren't in areas that are dominantly resi- dential and therefore do not serve defined neighborhoods. The 1999 Plan described these assets to be primarily in commercial or manufacturing areas. The park spaces in this category are in or near the uptown/downtown historic district or business/commercial district. In the 1975 Parks Plan, only one of these, then called Marine Park, was identified as a potential park; other areas, including Haller Fountain, Bell Tower and what was then called the Taylor Street Stair- way on the Taylor Street right of way, were regarded as `landscaped areas maintained by parks staff'. The 1980 Parks Plan added Triangle Mini-Park I, Entrance Sign Park and Rotary Park in the City parks inventory as landscaped areas but did not mention the Taylor Street Stairway. The 1986 Parks Plan added no new landscaped areas or mini-parks. In the 1991 Parks Plan, the Jackson Bequest was added; Haller Fountain was mentioned in conjunction with what were now called the `Terrace Steps'; there were three Triangle Mini-Parks; and the Tyler Street Stairs were included in the inventory. The 1999 Parks Plan divided Port Townsend Parks into the three categories used today in keeping with NRPA, no longer referring to some of the urban pocket parks as landscaped areas. Adams Street Park was added to the inventory in the 1999 Plan. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 4 of 117 Adams Street Park Classification: urban pocket park Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: all Total Acreage: 0.08 acres General Location: Located on the corner of Adams and Water Streets. General Description: Adams Street Park offers a convenient respite for visitors and resi- dents as a tiny pocket park in downtown Port Townsend. History: Adams Street Park provides a backdrop of manicured flower beds and comfortable seating to enjoy the view of Port Townsend Bay. The downtown waterfront parcel located at the corner of Adams and Water Streets augments street end beach access. The 0.08 acre lot was purchased in 1993. Opportunities: Shoreline Access/Shoreline Views Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No Yes No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 5 of 117 City Entrance Park ' Classification: �.w urban pocket park F i Zoning: P/OS f Maintained Acreage: 'i i around sign Total Acreage: 0.59 acres General Location: Located on the corner of Mill Road and Sims Way. General Description: The official `welcome sign' at the City limits identifies Port Townsend as `A Victorian Seaport &Arts Community'. The new official logo for Port Townsend follows de- sign features on the historic City Hall and is carried throughout the City in official signage. History: This 0.59-acre, partially landscaped site welcomes residents and visitors to Port Townsend. In 1988, the City added land to the original parcel. The site is adjacent to the pro- posed forest corridor along the north side of Sims Way. It consists of landscaping, natural area and the City's welcome sign replaced in September 2013 as part of a National Park Service wayfinding grant. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches No No No No No No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 6 of 117 Haller Fountain/Terrace Steps v� Classification: t urban pocket park -` Zoning: r , P/OS Maintained Acreage: all �. Total Acreage: � 0.37 acres General Location: The park on the Taylor Street right of way provides a welcoming route for foot traffic between uptown Jefferson Street and the downtown intersection of Washington and Taylor Streets. General Description: The Fountain and Steps provide a connection between Port Townsend's uptown and downtown historic districts. The fountain is surrounded by low concrete benches that encourage relaxing and people-watching. Midway up the stairs is a convenient landing for resting. History: The landscaped staircase on the Taylor Street right of way provides a welcoming route for foot traffic between uptown Jefferson Street and the downtown intersection of Wash- ington and Taylor Streets. The 1993 bronze replica of the original 1903 Galatea Fountain do- nated by Theodore N. Haller stands at the foot of the steps. Two lots to the west of the fountain were protected by the Westerman conservation easement from the Jefferson Land Trust in 1993 in order to prevent tree removal or building near the park. In 2010, a memorial in honor of Steve Corra (longtime City Parks foreman) was added at the landing. The flag pole was replaced in 2011. Special Restrictions/Challenges: The park and fountain require a very high level of main- tenance. Mowing the steep slopes is difficult. The park is surrounded by a dense canopy of de- ciduous trees that often require the fountain to be turned off during autumn leaf drop. The flower beds require considerable effort. Opportunities: The fountain is a focal point for winter festivities and decorations. The park has been adopted by the Friends of Steve Corra. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No Yes No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 7 of 117 Pope Marine Park/ Jackson Bequest , Classification: urban pocket park Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: 1.33 acres Total Acreage: 1.33 acres General Location: Corner of Madison and Water Streets General Description: The park provides an outdoor focal point and gathering place for downtown visitors and residents. It serves as a venue for summer concerts and public space for events at the Northwest Maritime Center, the American Legion and other downtown facilities. History: Port Townsend's first waterfront park in the downtown historic district, originally called Marine Park, was renamed in honor of retired Park Superintendent John B. Pope. The 1.33 acre waterfront park fronts the city's main street across from City Hall. It comprises grass lawn area, picnic tables, play equipment, the Pope Marine Building and City Dock. The park was renovated as part of the $4 million Madison Street Streetscape Project that included remodeling of the Cot- ton Building (the relocated and historic quarantine station) and adding new public restrooms. The historic Pope Marine Building was completely refurbished with hotel/motel tax revenue and is used for community meetings, conferences and other rentals. City Dock was torn down and replaced with 50% of the funding provided by a Washington State Interagency Commission For Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grant. It was deeded to the Port of Port Townsend in 2013 as part of the exchange for Port property in Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. The Jackson Bequest park property adjoins Pope Marine Park. It was built in 1987 with a be- quest from Mrs. Ruth Jackson and featured a concrete sculpture referred to as the `tidal clock'. The park includes a wave viewing gallery and sand beds with native beach grasses and beach peas. In 2010 the foundation of the wave viewing gallery was replaced and in 2011-12 the tidal clock was removed as part of the downtown boardwalk/esplanade project. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Beach is subject to shoreline erosion. Opportunities: Shoreline Access/Shoreline Views Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches 8 Yes Yes No Yes ADA Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 8 of 117 Rotary Park Classification: urban pocket park Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: �! MUM all ' Total Acreage: 0.34 acres General Location: Adjacent to the ferry terminal on Water Street. General Description: Rotary Park provides a comfortable location for ferry users and resi- dents to take a break and relax while frequenting commercial businesses around the ferry termi- nal. The park has picnic tables, benches and a drinking fountain. History: When Port Townsend decided to move its ferry terminal from the downtown Quincy Street Dock to its current location at the foot of Harrison, the City was required to deed the prop- erty to Washington State (City Council Resolutions 82-2 and 82-3) so that Washington State Ferries could build the terminal. The property ownership reverted to the City as soon as the building was complete. After the terminal was complete, the local Rotary Club decided to adopt the facility referred to as `Ferry Terminal Park' in 1984. It was built by the Rotary Club and is used principally by ferry patrons. The landscaping was designed and installed by the parks staff and is maintained by the parks staff and the Rotary. Port Townsend Parks, Recreation and Trees Advisory Board members joined parks staff, Ro- tarians and others to celebrate Earth Day on April 27, 2012, with the planting of flowers and a specimen of Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (Port Orford Cedar). Special Restrictions/Challenges: The site is exposed to high winds and salt spray and receives heavy pedestrian traffic, presenting a serious landscaping challenge. Opportunities: Focal point for visitors arriving by ferry. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No Yes No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 9 of 117 T1/Dahlia Classification: urban pocket park Zoning: ; . P/OS(B) Maintained Acreage: all Total Acreage: 0.13 acres General Location: Located at the intersection between Sims Way and 10th Avenue General Description: A beautifully maintained pocket or mini park referred to variously as Triangle I, Dahlia Demonstration Garden and Master Gardener's Park. History: The 1980 Port Townsend Parks Plan added the property called Triangle MiniPark I to park inventory.The property was maintained as a dahlia demonstration garden in the 1980s and 1990s by two dedicated citizens, Herb Heinle and Art Tickner, and various proposals were made to name the park after both of them or either of them. In early 2005, the Master Gardeners indicated by letter to the City Manager that they had `been maintaining the Dahlia Garden on Sims Way...for several years' and asked the City for permis- sion to renovate the garden and improve the irrigation system. The City entered into an agree- ment in August 2005 with Washington State University, the Jefferson County Extension Program of Washington State University and the Master Gardeners Foundation of Jefferson County `for establishing and maintaining the Port Townsend Sims Way Master Gardener Demonstration Garden'. City provides the water and Master Gardeners maintain the garden according to a design provided with the agreement. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No No No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 10 of 117 T2/Gateway Park •4 w Classification: urban pocket park Zoning: �• C11 Maintained Acreage: all Total Acreage: 0.21 acres General Location: Kearney Street between Sims Way and Water Street. General Description: Gateway Park is anchored by a large Corkscrew Willow- Salix matsu- dana. History: While under threat of development, the mature Corkscrew Willow tree and 0.21 acres of surrounding land on Kearney Street between Sims Way and Water Street were protected by a conservation easement from the Jefferson Land Trust (the second easement undertaken by the brand new Trust) and then purchased in 1990 with private funding and deeded to the City. The Land Trust history calls it Willow Tree Park. It was referred to in City Council minutes as Triangle Mini Park 11 until Council agreed by consensus (6 July 1992) to rename it Gateway Park, likely in deference to the Gateway Plan developed for the City between 1987 and 1993. Landscaped in 1992 around the existing willow, the park demonstrates the use of drought toler- ant plantings for placement in a difficult microclimate. The use of low-maintenance plant species requiring no irrigation formed the concept for this passive-use park. Intended as a demonstra- tion garden for the community, this mini-park illustrates the idea of an aesthetically pleasing design requiring little maintenance and few dollars to create an appealing place to visit. Parking for the adjacent commercial area was included in the design. It has been adopted by the Port Townsend Soroptimists and is maintained primarily by that organization. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Conservation easement. Park zoned CII. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No Yes No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 11 of 117 TWIntersection �s- Classification: urban pocket park Zoning: - = CII Maintained Acreage: all mowed Total Acreage: 0.19 acres General Location: Located at the signalled intersection of Kearney Street and Sims Way. General Description: Several young Pin Oaks shade the grass-covered triangle park which serves as a pedestrian island at the signaled intersection of Kearney Street and Sims Way. It also serves as an occasional gathering space for local protests, political campaign sign-waving, demonstrations, celebrations and other spontaneous outdoor events. History: This pocket park first appeared in the parks inventory in the 1991 Parks Functional Plan. The park is the only one of the three so-called Triangle Parks in the 1991 Plan which has not gained a different name in common usage. It is still referred to in City records as Triangle III. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Property is zoned CII. High traffic limits access. Opportunities: Visual focal point for visitors arriving by car. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches No No No No No No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 12 of 117 Tyler Street Stairs V Classification: urban pocket park f1 Zoning: 9M P/OS Maintained Acreage: minimal Total Acreage: 0.08 acres General Location: Located in the Tyler Street right of way that connects Washington Street with downtown Tyler Street. General Description: It is a steeply sloping site that features a stairway with landings, benches and low maintenance landscaping. History: According to City Council minutes (21 January 1986), a group called `Trees for Port Townsend' intended "to give the stairs constructed on Tyler Street and the street trees down- town" to the City of Port Townsend.The Tyler Street Stairs were first included in the 1986 Park Plan inventory. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches No No No No Yes No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 13 of 117 Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks serve generally defined residential areas in the City. RCO describes the service area of neighborhood parks as `a reasonable distance, up to one mile', but recommends that a majority of users usually live within a half-mile radius of a neighborhood park entrance. The Trust For Public Land recommends a ten-minute walk (also described as a half mile) with- out barriers such as highways as a standard for park access. Neighborhood parks may be de- veloped with highly landscaped areas; maintained in near natural state with primitive public trails the primary amenity; or they may be a combination of the two. Sather, Bishop and Bobby McGarraugh (formerly Cherry Street) Parks all predate the 1975 Parks Plan. Elmira Park, 35th Street Park and the Golden Age Club adjacent to Chetzemoka were added in the 1999 Plan. Although none of these 1999 additions is a conventional neighbor- hood park, they are included in this category for discussion as their use is primarily within the immediate neighborhood. In this update we add what is now nominally called Parkside Park, currently under development as a landscaped extension of Bishop Park into the surrounding neighborhood. Its acreage has been included in the Bishop Park acreage and inventory. Also added here is Baker View Park. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 14 of 117 13th and Hancock Park Classification: neighborhood park Zoning: RIII Maintained Acreage: none Total Acreage: 1.00 acres General Location: Located on the corner of 13th and Hancock Streets. General Description: A 1.00 acre parcel of mature forest with a robust exterior buffer of na- tive and introduced shrubs. History: As a part of the development of Seaport Landing, Mountain West LLC deeded the property to the City of Port Townsend as passive open space in partial fulfillment of PUD ap- proval criteria. Special Restrictions/Challenges: No restrictions were placed on potential future uses of the park to allow for flexibility in future planning, so long as any planned use or development is consistent with the City's Hearings Examiner's decision. Opportunities: Passive park. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No No No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 15 of 117 35th Street Park Classification: neighborhood park Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: r primitive trails Total Acreage: - _ 13.96 acres R M ya .�. General Location: Corner of Rosecrans and 35th Streets General Description: An urban forest of mature native trees with wetlands and a few primi- tive trails. History: Jefferson County deeded 6 acres of the park to the city in 1995, designated for de- velopment into an active use park with a playfield, parking, restrooms, basketball court and children's play structure. The property is currently mostly natural open space with trails. Existing wetlands, storm water management and neighboring property owner disapproval have delayed the development of this property. In 2002, the City purchased additional acres adjacent to the original parcel but less complicated by wetlands than the original parcel. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Neighbors have been reluctant about any further devel- opment into an active use park as originally intended and preference appears to be maintaining the park as natural open space for habitat and buffer. There is no plan to develop at this time. Opportunities: Improvement of trails for wildlife observation, with a few benches and bicycle racks. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No No No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 16 of 117 F Baker View Park r Classification: neighborhood park Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: 0.22 acres Total Acreage: 0.22 acres General Location: Corner of 22nd and Wilson Streets General Description: More the size of pocket parks in the urban core, this small jewel of a neighborhood park is entirely residential and is enjoyed by the immediate neighborhood. History: Landscaped property includes grass lawn area, manicured flower beds, maturing shrubbery and landscaping, a picnic table and bench. The `pocket' park serves the immediate neighborhood as a casual outdoor gathering space and has been adopted by the neighborhood. It was deeded to the City in 2002. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No Yes No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 17 of 117 Bishop/Parkside Park Classification: neighborhood park Zoning: P/OS v Maintained Acreage: 0.61 acres Total Acreage: 4.20 acres a . General Location: Between Sims Way and Parkside Drive with a landscaped addition be- tween Hancock Street and Memory Lane General Description: Bishop Park proper will remain primarily open space with trails; no ad- ditional facilities are planned in the interior. Adjacent property at Parkside Drive is under devel- opment as a small neighborhood park in 2014. History: In April 1966, William and Astrid Bishop recorded their intention to "dedicate to the use of the public forever all streets, avenues, places and parks..." in their plat of Bishop's Park Addi- tion. The William Bishop Park and its trails are clearly delineated on the plat map. In 1990, two adjoining 40 x 100 foot lots (lots 45 and 46) on the western perimeter were added to the park through the considerable efforts of private citizens and council members. A third lot was added in 1993 (lot 47) as well as easements for water management across other lots in the area. A final lot (44) was purchased in 1999 to complete the western boundary of the park (as described in Resolution 99-003). Bishop Park is the northern expression of a ravine that drains into Port Townsend Bay. The importance of Bishop Park to storm drainage can be readily observed in the City's stormwater basin map, where Basin #11 is called `Bishop Park' and includes nearly 200 acres. Foot paths wind along the ravine through the understory of salal, sword ferns and Oregon grape under mature native trees including Big-leaf Maple, Red Alder and Douglas Fir.Adjacent to Sims Way, this has been the only City parkland in the rapidly developing southwest portion of town. Landscaped property north of Parkside Drive will bring play equipment for small children, bench- es, picnic tables, bicycle rack and other amenities to an underserved neighborhood. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Sims Way/SR20 creates a barrier to access. Parkside property is zoned RI I. Opportunities: Proximity to Larry Scott Memorial Trail offers potential for connections. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street Yes* Yes Yes* Yes* No *in progress, 2014 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 18 of 117 Bobby McGarraugh Classification: neighborhood park Zoning: P/OS 7 Maintained Acreage: _= 2.03 acres Total Acreage: 2.03 acres General Location: Cherry Street between S and P Streets General Description: Bobby McGarraugh Park sits in a south facing depression that shel- ters users from the wind and provides an intimacy to the location. It now includes a grass play area, picnic shelter, young children's play structures and a restroom. New play equipment was installed in 2010 and a new picnic shelter was built in 2011. In October 2013, the Park Board scheduled `Bulbfest at Bobby's', a community event to plant 3000 spring flowering bulbs at the park. History: The 2.03-acre park site, formerly called Cherry Street Park, was renamed in 1996 to honor the late City Parks employee Bobby McGarraugh. It was once a city-owned gravel pit. Council minutes report on grading, topsoil distribution and playground equipment on 16 October 1973 and note an area planned for tennis courts. The 1975 Parks Plan recommended develop- ment and a grant proposal was submitted to IAC in 1976 for development funding. Council min- utes (17 August 1976) note that IAC required that unopened street rights of way for Q between Cherry and Willow Streets and Rose between P and R Streets be vacated within the month for the proposal to be considered. Although this was done promptly by Council, there is no record that an IAC grant was received for the park. The 1991 Parks Plan mentions a grass volleyball court, picnic shelter and children's play equipment. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches 15 Yes Yes Yes Yes ADA Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 19 of 117 Dog Park at Chetzemoka 2,. Classification: neighborhood park Zoning. P/OS 1t Maintained Acreage: 0.6 acres t Total Acreage: 0.6 acres General Location: Corner of Hudson and Taft Streets General Description: A fully fenced dog park with sand and bark-chipped open areas. History: The Dog Park is the only one of its kind in Port Townsend at this time, although there is considerable public interest in development of other similar facilities and an additional facility is listed in the CIP. Other parks which are ill equipped to accommodate dogs offleash are used for that purpose in lieu of sufficient offleash areas. Formerly used by the Golden Age Club for outdoor activites, this 0.6 acre property adjoins Chetzemoka Park and has been converted to an offleash dog park. It is located on the corner of Hudson and Taft Streets, is fully fenced and offers sand and bark chipped open areas, a picnic table, park bench and water faucet. Special Restrictions/Challenges: The park isn't large enough to accomodate the needs of the dog-owning public. Opportunities: Water and mountain views. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No for dogs No Yes No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 20 of 117 Elmira Street Park Classification: neighborhood park Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: - trail Total Acreage: 0.54 acres General Location: northern end of Elmira Street General Description: The property is natural open space with a walking trail and a small abandoned observation post. History: The property was acquired in 1994 as a trade with the adjoining property owners on the northern coast of the Quimper Peninsula. The property offers breathtaking views from a high wave-cut bluff across the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is accessible for foot traffic only. No further development is planned due to instability of the undercut bluff. The area is known among local youth as `The End of the World'. Special Restrictions/Challenges: The bluff was dramatically undercut in winter storms of 2013-14 and a major portion collapsed down onto North Beach. At this writing the park is closed to the public and its future is undetermined. Opportunities: Water and mountain views. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches 2 No No No No No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 21 of 117 Golden Age Club Classification: neighborhood park ti Zoning: WF P/OS 9 - Maintained Acreage: 0 acres Total Acreage: 0.21 acres General Location: Corner of Hudson and Roosevelt Streets General Description: Historic facility fallen on hard times History: Golden Age Club building formerly served as part of the coastal defense system and as a recreation facility for senior citizens, but it is deteriorated and no longer usable. Special Restrictions/Challenges: The building has failed to the point that it is no longer safe for public use. Opportunities: Water and mountain views. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No No No No No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 22 of 117 Sather Park Classification: neighborhood park oil Zoning: —man P/OS �, -- Maintained Acreage: 1.41 acres �- Total Acreage: 6.72 acres General Location: Corner of Foster and Adams Streets General Description: An urban forest of mature native trees including Douglas Fir and Ma- drona that provide a green buffer in the midst of a densely populated neighborhood. History: The 6.72 acres now known as Sather Park on Morgan Hill include the site of a failed vision of grandeur started during Port Townsend's 19th century boom years. An elegant three- story hotel called the Mountain View was begun in 1886 by Captain H.E. Morgan as a part of the platted Mountain View Addition but it was never finished. The building was abandoned and blew down in a windstorm in 1916. The site became Sather Park when Jefferson County sold it to the City for$50 in 1925. The park was named after Mayor Floyd Sather, who arranged the sale and dedicated the land for park use. The area where the hotel stood is now a clearing in the center of the park. In 1974, Park Board discussions considered development of nature trails and ponds fed from the (then) nearby City reservoir. In the 1975 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, Sather was still described as a `proposed' park and recommended for development with volunteer effort into a nature park with a defined budget and timeline. Recommendations included planting only native species and retaining the natural character. In 1994, Jefferson County deeded a block of property to the east of Sather Park's entrance to the City on condition that it be used for an informal play field for the immediate neighborhood. A lack of communication in 2006 led to an effort to turn the informal play field into a dog park without adequate public process. After neighborhood protest, the designation as a dog park was suspended by unanimous City Council vote on 7 August 2006. On 4 February 2008, Council unanimously tasked the Park Board to consider appropriate places for additional off-leash dog parks in the work plan. See more information with regard to this task in the Implementation sec- tion. Opportunities: Mix of open field and forest. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches on street No Yes No Yes No Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 23 of 117 Community Parks and Golf Course Community Parks Community parks serve the entire city. Their features are generally unique for the area and draw residents from a wider distance than do neighborhood parks. Again, they can be highly devel- oped, near-natural or some combination, depending on their function and purpose. The Munici- pal Golf Course and Chetzemoka Park were fully developed prior to our earliest Parks Plan in 1975. Also included in 1975 was the potential Kah Tai Lagoon Park. The 1980 Parks Plan was focused on extensive plans to develop Kah Tai Lagoon into a fully functioning wildlife habitat and nature park, and the successes and frustrations of that effort are described in the 1986, 1991 and 1999 plans. The Larry Scott Memorial Trail was added in the 1999 Parks Plan. In this update we add the Port Townsend Skate Park, opened in 2006. Port Townsend Golf Course The Port Townsend Golf Course is a large, publicly-owned asset that serves a specific popula- tion for a fee under a lease agreement. It is therefore considered a unique recreational facility. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 24 of 117 Chetzemoka Park Classification: community park Zoning: P/OS ~� Maintained Acreage: 6.53 acres Total Acreage: 6.53 acres General Location: Intersection of Blaine and Jackson Streets General Description: Chetzemoka Park sits on a gently sloped hillside overlooking Admiralty Inlet with a commanding view of the Cascade Mountains. This highly developed and intricately manicured park is considered by many to be the crown jewel of the city park system; its care and maintenance consume a major fraction of the park budget and staff time. It includes flower gardens, a bandstand, picnic areas, play structures, a kitchen shelter, and ADA accessible rest- rooms. Excellent access to the beach and tidelands is provided. A caretaker house is currently being used as the park shop and office space. In 1987 the park beach was severely damaged by storms and high tides and an IAC grant funded repairs to the beach access. An irrigation system was installed in 1990 and the restrooms were improved. The gazebo/bandstand was completely reconstructed in 1991. In 1993 the play equipment in the park was upgraded and replaced while in 1995 an ADA restroom was installed. Repair work was done to the kitchen shelter in 1998. In 2002 a new play structure was erected at the north side of the park. History:Port Townsend's first community park was established in 1904 as the first project of the newly formed Civic Club. Nearly 200 volunteers showed up to help carve the 6.53-acre park out of forested land that had been donated for the purpose by City Council (Simpson 1986). Special Features: Bandstand, kitchen shelter, mature trees, access to the tidelands, views of Admiralty Inlet and the Cascades. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Maintenance for this highly manicured and intensively used park is a challenge which consumes a substantial fraction of the parks budget. Kitchen shelter and park office need repair. Opportunities: Shoreline Access/Shoreline and mountain views, gazebo and kitchen shelter make this park popular for events. Park attracts dedicated volunteers. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes ADA Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 25 of 117 Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park Classification: community park Zoning: UP R P/OS Maintained Acreage: 1 acre + 0.5 mi. trails mowed Total Acreage: 75.86 acres General Location: bounded by Sims, 12th, Landes, 19th and Kearney Streets General Description: Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park belongs in its entirety to the City of Port Townsend as of 2013. As a Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) park, perpetual 6(f)(3) protections prohibit its use for any purpose other than that described in the grant which funded its creation: a passive nature park supporting activities that are in keeping with protection of wildlife habitat. History: Kah Tai was a tidally flushed estuary until 1930, when Port Townsend built Sims Way across the mouth of the lagoon. In 1963, the Port of Port Townsend decided to expand its boat haven with the assistance of the Army Corps of Engineers. At the time, the ecological value of estuaries wasn't readily understood and Kah Tai's value as an inexpensive dumping location for dredge spoils was considered a better purpose. The transfer of 231,000 cubic yards of marine sand and mud decreased the lagoon area by more than half and completely altered its physics, biology and chemistry. Subsequent attempts to build a planned unit development on the dredge spoils mobilized citizens to save what remained. Volunteers did all the legwork, and a 1980-81 IAC grant proposal for federal LWCF support (grant no. 53-00486/81-043A) to purchase the private parcels in the park received funding from the Secretary of the Interior's contingency funds. The expectation upon purchase of all private parcels (from a total of 19 owners) was that the publicly-owned parcels (County, PUD and Port) would all be transferred to the City. A second grant funded in 1983 by IAC (grant no. 83-018) provided funds to match private dona- tions and sweat equity to develop a nature park primarily on the recovering dredge spoils of the Port-owned southern uplands, with Port agreement (minutes of 16 August 1982). The final plan was unanimously approved by City Council (minutes of 6 August 1985). The small lagoon was dug and connected to the bay, with approval of the Army Corps of Engineers (now better versed on the importance of wetlands and estuaries). Trails were established and volunteers built the bridge, picnic shelter and restroom. However, the full realization of a detailed plan to re-establish wetlands in the southeastern uplands and develop 12 zones of native plant species was halted and planting was forbidden when the transfer of Port lands stalled and then was forgotten. Other plans developed and disappeared for the uplands while nature took her course and replanted without permission from anyone. What should have been the most straightforward part of the transaction, transfer of public lands, took 30 years to complete in 2013. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 26 of 117 Today Kah Tai serves as the second largest drainage basin in Port Townsend; drainage basin #9 serves more than 700 acres of the City. The 1960s dredge spoils have matured into thriving uplands. Kah Tai became Port Townsend's first Adopt-A-Park in 2001, when a consortium called the Kah Tai Alliance adopted the Park. More recently, the park has had its adoption renewed by Admiralty Audubon and the Friends of Kah Tai. In spite of intermittent prohibitions on planting native species in the uplands until the recent transfer to City ownership, volunteer efforts to re- move invasives and robust natural succession have produced a beloved nature park. The Park is on the Olympic Loop of the Great Washington State Birding Trail.Admiralty Audubon docu- mented 62 land-associated and 36 water-associated species in a twice-monthly, two-year study completed in 2011. More than 150 species of birds have been sighted at Kah Tai since the first thorough documentation in 1978. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Proximity to public transit and commercial areas results in homeless populations making use of the urban forest. Original restrooms are three decades old and in need of repair so are closed and a portable toilet is in place. As a 6(f)(3)-protected Land and Water Conservation Fund park, development possibilities are limited by federal re- strictions and public sentiment. Initial concerns about heavy metal contamination of the dredge spoils were proved unfounded in 2001 when studies by the Washington State Departments of Health and Ecology found the lagoon and uplands to `not pose a threat to human health or envi- ronment'. Special Features: Birding is a favorite pastime at the park. Kah Tai's southern uplands have walking and bicycle trails that are heavily used since the park provides access between east and west Port Townsend. The trails are handicapped-accessible and are used by citizens with strollers, walkers and wheelchairs. The open meadow and trail edges are the only areas that are mowed. The meadow is used as a play area for children and teens and also sees significant, unauthorized and occasionally problematic use as an offleash area to exercise neighborhood dogs. Off-leash dog use is generally incompatible with wildlife habitat and is discouraged. Opportunities: Proximity to Golf Course and Mountain View Commons. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches Yes No Yes Yes Yes Portable Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 27 of 117 Larry Scott Trail Classification: community park Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: 7.07 acres Total Acreage: 7.07 acres General Location: Trailhead is on the western edge of the Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven General Description: A multiuse trail system along wetlands and shoreline of Port Townsend Bay. History: A section of abandoned railway grade was deeded to the City in 1997 by the Port Townsend Paper Company. The strip of waterfront along the railroad grade was converted to a trail with a terminus at the Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven and dedicated in September 1998 as the Larry Scott Memorial Trail. It will eventually extend all the way to Port Angeles as part of the Olympic Discovery Trail System, providing one of the most scenic routes for alterna- tive travel on the Olympic Peninsula. The entire system inside the City limits is over 7 acres of designated open space along wetlands and shoreline of Port Townsend Bay. The City is respon- sible for maintenance of the trail head. Jefferson County maintains the restrooms, benches, bike racks, interpretive signs and kiosk, lighting, and garbage cans. The Urban Waterfront Plan identified the railroad transfer span that extended into the bay as a desirable feature for public access. The span was accessed from the Larry Scott Memorial Trail. In 2010, Department of Natural Resources money was acquired and the span was removed because of concerns about creosote contamination. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Occasional conflicts between different user groups. Bluff and shoreline erosion. Opportunities: Future expansion of the trail will extend to Port Angeles. The trail serves as an excellent example of intergovernmental cooperation. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches 9 No No No Yes ADA Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 28 of 117 Skateboard Park Classification: Ogg; community park Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: 0.33 acres I" �Jn Total Acreage: 0.33 acres General Location: Monroe and Jefferson Streets General Description: The state-of-the-art skateboard park, designed and built by Dreamland Skateparks, opened in May of 2006. The facility provides advanced deep bowls, rails, a begin- ner section, drinking fountain. It is maintained in large part by its user group. History: In Council minutes from 16 October 1987, Port Townsend youth asked for assistance to find places to skateboard and were advised to `try Fort Worden'. In the 1991 Parks Plan, a skateboard area was identified as a community need, and highlighted with a quote from a youth survey: "These should not be ruled out as `dangerous' or `difficult to insure' or `faddish'. Youth have been skateboarding for decades. They are getting better at it. If they don't have places to do it, they will do it in dangerous places". Council Resolution 96-53 allowed the parking lot at Monroe between Washington and Jefferson Streets to continue to be used as a skate park. The lot had become a de facto skate park built by volunteers of all ages with City assistance and Boiler Room guidance and fundraising. The discussion of a location for a permanent skateboard park continued into the 21st century. Mountain View School, Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park, and Lincoln School grounds were all considered as possibilities in 2000 and 2001, with substantial public protest against the Kah Tai location. Finally, in July 2001, Council instructed the City Manager and the Parks Board to come up with a location that did NOT include Kah Tai. In July 2002, Council passed Resolution 02-035 to submit a grant proposal to IAC for funds. The proposal was ranked 7th of 44 and $200,000 were received, requiring the City to match the funds. City Council approved matching council- manic bonds (December 2003, Ordinance 2844) to construct a permanent skateboard park at the Monroe Street site. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches shared Yes No No No portable Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 29 of 117 Golf Course a Classification: recreational facility Zoning: P/OS Maintained Acreage: golf course Total Acreage: 55.87 acres General Location: 1948 Blaine Street General Description: A 9-hole, 55.87-acre public golf course is leased by the city to a pri- vate operator. It includes a driving range and clubhouse. The clubhouse consists of a pro-shop, restaurant and a public conference room. History: The Golf Course Conference Center, built in 1988, was partially financed with Tran- sient Accommodations Tax receipts. This conference center, operated by the tenant, is available to the public by scheduling with the golf course operator. There is no charge for use by City de- partments, officials, committees and other official uses. The City paved the apron to the parking lot and the gravel areas around the clubhouse in 1995 as part of the lease agreement. During 1997, additional capital improvements were provided by the City including a new heat pump and financial contribution to the clubhouse interior remodel. Special Restrictions/Challenges: Two environmentally sensitive areas are located on the grounds: a three-acre native prairie preserve and a four-acre (spring fed) freshwater pond and associated wetland and buffers. The native plant preserve is a small remnant of the ancient native prairie plants and foliage that once covered large portions of the north Olympic Peninsula. The public has access to these areas so long as they do not interfere with or obstruct the operation of the golf course. Since the City designated the preserve and pond as "critical areas", no distur- bance is allowed by the operation of the golf course or actions of others. Except for the operator's responsibility to remove trash, no maintenance is to be performed in these areas without the written consent or direction of the Public Works Director. Planting of trees or tall shrubs or other obstructions that might shade the areas from the south are not allowed. No herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, or irrigation are used on these areas. The reserve areas are maintained and remain under the exclusive control of the City. The City maintains the golf course pond with the right to design and construct mitigation and storm drainage facilities in the general area of the pond as needed. Encroachment on the pond or its buffers is not allowed in any manner unless authorized by the City and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) except for trash re- moval. Opportunities: Proximity to Kah Tai and Mountain View Commons. Parking Play Play Fields Shelter Picnic Restrooms Equipment Tables /Benches 66 No golf course N/A N/A ADA o � N Z O _ N u a-+ U 7 Q C o Q > N o V) C N O 0 Q M -0 Z Q iJ Ln v O Q D m Q C C tC U (p C C Q LL1 o a a U 2 H c N a, a p LO Q ° N = O tC LU T C d O V a O 0 _ O 0 0 cr U w N O rri N N j a C u'1 O Oi co L O N W C C, — L N C i1 T ,• J N L Y `o vi M V j Ol O N 00 � N a 06 N U- A v N N _ J O .m p O Y m v v o 06 tj Ln L � 1 W V � i m N i ryi 00 N = , r r i : N Z Lr; K3 • , N , a o ' a;�, ol �ecaKNa eS�y Baca, _ Q z cr et �5 O x>%QQQC>QQ � v Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 31 of 117 APPENDIX B. OPEN SPACE AND OTHER REGIONAL ASSETS OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES as illustrated on Figure 3.2. 1. FOREST CORRIDOR-A forested buffer 100 feet wide along the south side of Highway 20 from Howard Street almost to the City edge was deeded to the City to preserve the parkway entrance to the City in 1994. Property along the north side of the highway is recommended for similar protection in the Gateway plan. 2. HOWARD'S END WETLAND - Acquired by the City to mitigate impacts of the CT-Pipeline; the area includes restored buffers and wildlife habitat in an urbanizing area. 3. BUSINESS PARK'S ENFIELD GARDENS - Located at the junction of Cliff Street and East Park Avenue, Enfield Gardens is owned and maintained by the Port Townsend Business Park. This 3.8-acre park includes open green space with trees, a pond, informal trails, barbecues, and picnic tables.This area was set aside as part of the stormwater plan. 4, 6. BISHOP PARK and HOWARD STREET WETLANDS - 3.59 acres of wooded ravine with trails is included in the park land analysis. However while neighboring Parkside Park is under development, Bishop Park is likely to remain primarily open space. Several parcels have been purchased by the City in the general vicinity of Howard Street and Discovery Road and 14th and McPherson to allow drainage to flow from a series of wetlands toward Bishop Park. These parcels will allow for natural constructed wetland treatment, detention, and conveyance while maintaining open space in this neighborhood. 5. KILHAM CORNER -A 15-acre working farm protected by a Jefferson Land Trust conservation easement recorded in 1992. The property is adjacent to the Port Townsend Business Park and several recently developed residential neighborhoods. The Kilhams wanted to assure the land would remain intact and be reserved for agricultural uses into the future. The conservation easement restricts further residential development, and limits the property to agricultural use. 7. LARRY SCOTT MEMORIAL TRAIL —The City has acquired 7.07 acres of wetland, shoreline and railroad grade that is now the trailhead for a regional multi-modal trail. 8. PORT WETLANDS — This area of freshwater wetlands at the base of a marine bluff has been protected from further industrial development with biofiltration swales and dedicated buffer areas. 9. HAMILTON HEIGHTS PUD- Community commons and stormwater detention areas provide significant dedicated open space (approximately 8.5 acres, 34% of site). 10. LAUREL HEIGHTS PUD -A Planned Unit Development with 75-foot treed buffers, walking trails, and open space. 11, 23. LAUREL GROVE, REDMAN'S AND SAINT MARY'S CATHOLIC CEMETERIES —These areas provide open space in a developing residential area. These privately owned cemeteries in Port Townsend with limited public access, provide a variety of landscaped and naturalized open space. Redmen's, Laurel Grove, and Saint Mary's Catholic Cemeteries provide buffers Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 32 of 117 between differing land uses and a variety of habitat. These sacred places function as significant cultural resources for the community. 12. DOWNTOWN POCKET PARKS —The Urban Waterfront District contains several pocket parks and street ends that provide access to the water and function as urban open space. These areas are described in Section 3.2.2. Urban Pocket Parks, and are fully detailed in Appendix A. 13. POINT HUDSON —The former Coast Guard Station, now owned by the Port of Port Townsend, provides significant shoreline access in the Urban Waterfront District, is included in Table 3.3. and under Port of Port Townsend assets under Other Assets in Appendix B. 14, 16, 18, 21, 27. STREET ENDS — Surrounded on three sides by high bluffs and shoreline, several street ends remain undeveloped, providing significant views and beach access. Of particular note are Taft, Hudson, Walnut, W and Reed Streets. These rights-of-way are not yet clearly marked for public access. In some neighborhoods, landscaping from adjacent properties obscures access. In addition to street ends specified on the Figure 3.2, a number of street ends in the shoreline jurisdiction may be appropriate for shoreline access/viewpoints (per the City's adopted Shoreline Master Program Policy 7.3.12): these include but are not limited to: a. South shore: Thayer, Decatur, Kearney, Gaines, Scott, Walker, Calhoun, Tyler, Adams, Quincy, and Monroe Streets; b. East shore: Clay, Taft, Reed, W Street; c. North shore: Gise Street and Cook Avenue; d. Kah Tai Lagoon: Garfield Street. 15. PORT TOWNSEND GOLF COURSE - Described in detail in Section 3 and Appendix A, the Golf Course is a full service recreational facility. Special consideration is given to the two natural features on the property, the pond/wetland complex and the native prairie preserve. These two areas provide multiple open space functions and values including habitat, buffers, stormwater and passive recreation opportunities. 17. WHITAKER WETLAND - The intersection of C and Beech Streets was excavated to provide open space, stormwater retention and open water habitat. 19. ROSEWIND PUD - This planned unit development includes street vacations and wetland set asides of permanent open space, trails and common ground for residents (approximately 4 acres). 20. FROGGY BOTTOMS - This three-acre piece of property was purchased by the City in 1992 with additions in 1997. It historically existed as a wetland, but had been filled over the course of several years, prior to 1990. The City purchased the area in a contained drainage basin, with this property as the low point. The improvements to the parcel restore the wetland and provide stormwater treatment and detention for San Juan Avenue. The restoration provides habitat appropriate for birds and other wildlife. 22. BLUE HERON MIDDLE SCHOOL WETLAND - Preserved and protected by the Port Townsend School District in conjunction with the construction of new school facilities, approximately 11 acres of pasture have been restored to a natural wetland condition used for multi-disciplinary studies by a variety of grades and classes of students. Ongoing monitoring as required in the ESA permit include water fluctuations and viability of plant restoration. 24. LYNNESFIELD PUD - Community commons, trails, and stormwater detention areas provide significant dedicated open space (approximately 6 acres, 25% of the site). The Lynnesfield Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 33 of 117 detention pond combines with wetlands at Blue Heron School (#22) to provide a popular birding area listed on the Admiralty Audubon 'Where to Find Birds' brochure. 25. NORTH BEACH DRAINAGE CORRIDOR - Drainage from Stormwater Basin #4 flows between Hendricks and Jackman Streets along the north side of 49th Street, which is largely undeveloped. Numerous lots have been purchased, which support keeping this area natural for storm drainage and as a wildlife corridor. A Department of Ecology loan has been used to purchase much of this section of the northern corridor drainage. 26. HENDRICK'S POND - This project is a neighborhood-City partnership project allowing for the use of a street right-of-way between 30th and 31st Streets to be used as a stormwater pond. 28. LEVINSKI WETLAND - This 50 acre piece of property, located in Fowler's Park off the corner of 49th Street, Cook Avenue, and Hendricks Street serves multiple purposes. The Seaview Sewer crosses the site, providing an access trail across the property. Several wetlands and a drainage corridor are on site, including an Aspen wetland complex. The site was purchased with wastewater and stormwater funds as a possible site for future Wastewater Treatment and stormwater drainage needs . Vegetation is varied throughout, though the property was logged years ago. This project began a partnership between the Jefferson Land Trust to provide an open space corridor from Middle Point to Fort Worden. This and other City property purchases are important elements of the North Quimper Peninsula Wildlife Corridor Protection Project described below. In 2005 a deed of right for conservation of the 11-acre portion in the lower southwest corner of the parcel was granted by the City in return for state funding for acquisition of additional drainage/open space property in the vicinity. 29. WINONA WETLAND - This is a large wetland (approximately 6.5 acres) located in the northwest area of town in the middle of Fowler's Park. The entire area was platted back in 1890 and consists of dozens of 50 x 100 foot lots. The City has purchased most of the area, including the buffer and major portions of the drainage corridor to the east of the Levinski property. The Seaview Sewer encroaches into the wetland, but there are plans for rerouting it out of the wetland. The overall area is important for wildlife and as a natural stormwater detention area. A Department of Ecology loan has been used in purchasing much of this section of the North Quimper Peninsula Wildlife Corridor. 30. DEERING WETLANDS - North Deering Wetland is located generally along 31 st Street between Rosecrans and Thomas Street. As part of a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) approved in 1998, Mr. Deering dedicated 1.5 acres within Blocks 3 and 6 of the Monogram Addition to the City for preservation in open space. Much of the land contains identified wetlands, critical drainage corridors, and frequently flooded areas. All of Blocks 3 and 6 of the Monogram Addition also lie within the P/OS(A) - Potential Park & Open Space overlay as defined by the City's Comprehensive Plan. 31. NORTH QUIMPER PENINSULA WILDLIFE CORRIDOR -The goal of the Jefferson Land Trust North Quimper Peninsula Wildlife Corridor (NQPWC) project is preservation of a green space wildlife corridor across the northern portion of the Quimper Peninsula. This corridor connects important wildlife habitat areas between Fort Worden State Park and the Middlepoint Land Conservancy on the west side of McCurdy Point. Completion of the project will provide a protected pathway along which native wildlife species can move in relative security between the high quality habitats of the area. Whenever possible, the corridor follows natural drainage corridors that have higher habitat value and are important for stormwater management. Habitat works best when it is connected to other high quality habitat. Much of the proposed corridor is Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 34 of 117 relatively wild and sparsely developed, though a number of development proposals are under review. Wildlife species such as bobcat, fox, small mammals, tree frogs, rough-skinned newts, and others need continuous habitat in order to prevent isolation and species decline. With the NQPWC, the chance exists to shape development appropriately so as to preserve the habitat values and wildlife of the area while protecting wetlands, forests, and meadows for future generations of wildlife and humans alike. The Land Trust efforts are creating opportunities to preserve these biologically rich, varied habitats from fragmentation. This preservation and connection of habitat is the goal of the NQPWC. Portions of the corridor are already protected by conservation easements or held in public ownership. The City of Port Townsend has purchased the 50 acre Levinski Wetland property and portions of Winona Wetland (see below) as part of its stormwater management plan. Chinese Gardens and Fort Worden State Park are also in state ownership. Beyond the City limits, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources holds 80 acres of forested school trust land located in the corridor. The Middlepoint Land Conservancy is protected by a conservation easement with the Jefferson Land Trust. Protection of the proposed connector lands will be through cooperative agreements with city, county, and state agencies overseeing the public portions and through voluntary conservation easements or donations from private landowners. The ultimate path of the corridor connecting portions will be determined by those corridor neighbors that choose to participate through conservation easements or land donations and through landscaping for wildlife, habitat creation, and wetland restoration efforts. In May 2008, The Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan was adopted by the City (Ordinance 2976). The purpose of this plan is to re-examine and refine the vision of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project (QWCP) and to provide recommendations for long-term management strategies for Jefferson Land Trust and its partners. Protection of the corridor in cooperation with the City and the Jefferson Land Trust has significant benefits to adjacent landowners as well as to the community as a whole. Participation in the project can: • Enhance property values by providing adjacent open space • Reduce the risk of flooding by maintaining the integrity of the drainage corridor • Assist landowners in native planting and habitat restoration efforts • Provide potential tax savings through donation of conservation easements or land • Preserve a contiguous greenbelt of native vegetation for safe passage of wildlife species • Preserve green space and habitat permanently for the benefit of future generations • Protect existing habitat and water quality • Provide interpretive signs, observation areas, and pathways in public portions of the corridor • Maintain natural stormwater management, reducing the need for costly stormwater facilities PUBLIC TRAILS AND PATHS: An extensive network of trails (as shown on Figure 3.6) comprising approximately 31 linear miles and 188 acres (assuming that trails in large part occur in 50-foot rights of way) can be found throughout the City and the network has been highlighted throughout this Plan. A more detailed inventory and maps are available in the City of Port Townsend's Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, 2011 update. Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 35 of 117 OTHER REGIONAL ASSETS JEFFERSON COUNTY PORT TOWNSEND COMMUNITY CENTER Located at 620 Tyler Street, the 17,708 square foot facility sits on one city block of land. The center offers space for dance lessons and performances for all ages and is used regularly for public meetings. Formerly the site of the Port Townsend High School, the gymnasium, often used by the community, needs repair. The building provides a recreation room for youth and is used for a variety of recreational activities. The center provides space for a day care and senior programs. There are landscaped grounds, maintained by Jefferson County, with several picnic tables and a recently remodeled playground. COUNTY COURT HOUSE PARK A 1-acre park spans a city block seaward of the County Court House. It consists of an informal playfield, one tennis court and a new basketball court built with private donations. The location offers stunning views of Port Townsend Bay and the Olympic Mountains. MEMORIAL FIELD The 4.9-acre historic athletic facility has bleachers, restrooms and the only lighted playfields in Jefferson County. The facility is used for school league soccer, football, softball and baseball as well as special events. It is located in the heart of downtown at the intersection of Madison and Washington Streets. NORTH BEACH PARK This 1-acre waterfront park is one of the few public access beaches on the north end of the Quimper Peninsula. It is a popular summer gathering place for wading and lounging and year- round for beachcombing, walking and birding. It is on the Great Washington State Birding Trail Olympic Loop. The park adjoins Fort Worden State Park and is located at the intersection of Kuhn and 58th Streets. In addition to the beach access, the park includes a grass area, restrooms, a picnic shelter and parking. JEFFERSON COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS The fairgrounds complex encompasses 32 acres at the intersection of Landes and 49th Streets and includes sport fields, camp grounds, multi-use buildings, a very large meeting room with a stage and commercial kitchen facilities, barns, a go cart track, restrooms, grandstands and large grass areas.The Port Townsend Little League constructed three softball fields at the fairgrounds.This facility has buildings used regularly for theater and music productions. The complex is managed by the Jefferson County Fair Board Association. STATE OF WASHINGTON FORT WORDEN STATE PARK The 433.5 acre Fort Worden, built at the turn of the last century, originally functioned as a military complex. The park grounds include the fort complex and parade grounds, over two miles of beautiful beach on the Strait of Juan de Fuca, trails through forests to labyrinths in the gun batteries, a pier and boat launch, moorage facilities, many scenic picnic sites and numerous full-service campsites. Fort Worden is a prime birding location and is on the Great Washington State Birding Trail Olympic Loop. Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 36 of 117 Designated a National Historic District and a National Historic Landmark, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission restored the facilities for recreational and educational use as a conference center for arts, business, and family groups. Thirty-three units of housing, most in renovated officers quarters, are available for conferences and vacation rentals. Fort Worden offers various types of overnight accommodations, numerous meeting and class rooms, and a theater. In 1988, the City secured sufficient leasehold from Washington State Parks to qualify for an FHA loan toward the renovation of the historic military blimp hangar into a performing arts pavilion. Ribbon-cutting for the McCurdy Pavilion occurred in August, 1990. More recently, the cafeteria was replaced with a $10 million dollar commons building with multipurpose dining rooms and a state of the art kitchen that provides on-site dining as well as catering. Both Goddard College and Peninsula College offer classes at Fort Worden. The park houses several for-profit and not-for-profit agencies in its campus-like setting including Madrona MindBody Institute which operates in the historic gymnasium and offers workshops, retreats, massage, and classes in yoga, Soul Motion, Nia, and meditation. Centrum, in partnership with Fort Worden State Park, offers many leisure activities to the community since it functions as a gathering place for artists and creative thinkers from around the world, students of all ages and backgrounds, and audiences seeking extraordinary cultural enrichment. The marine-life touch- tanks and exhibits at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center add to the park's interpretive experiences. The science center offers summer camp sessions, conducts informative programs, and educational beach walks. The Olympic Rhododendron Society planted the demonstration garden in 1989 for the State Centennial celebration. The park also houses the Commanding Officer's House Museum and the Coast Artillery Museum. The State and the Fort Worden Public Development Authority signed a joint agreement in 2013 to establish a viable partnership for the future development of Fort Worden State Park. PORT TOWNSEND SCHOOL DISTRICT GRANT STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The Grant Street Elementary Campus (1637 Grant Street) houses a small gym, playground equipment and an informal play field. In 1994, new play equipment and surfacing were installed at Mountain View and Grant Street. BLUE HERON MIDDLE SCHOOL The Blue Heron Middle School Campus (3939 San Juan Avenue) includes a full-size gym with bleachers, lockers, and shower rooms, all weather track, football field, softball/baseball field and soccer field. There is an irrigation system and an electronic scoreboard. Built in 1995, the long- range plans for the track and field are to add lighting and bleachers so the high school can use the field for games. Blue Heron contains a public meeting space to be made available for community use. It offers a public address system, theater-style lighting, and a room for food service. OlyCAP Gleaners' organization planted a fruit tree orchard on the grounds in 2012. See Blue Heron's wetland contribution in Open Space, above. PORT TOWNSEND HIGH SCHOOL The Port Townsend High School Campus (1500 Van Ness Street) includes a regulation-size gym, all weather track, football field, softball/baseball field and soccer field. In 1983-84, extensive improvements were made by adding a warm-up gym and replacing the gym floor. In 1994, the high school added dugouts and reconditioned a regulation-size baseball field and a minor league practice field and constructed four tennis courts. In years past, the gym has been open for adult league sports. The citizens of Port Townsend and Jefferson County make use of Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 37 of 117 the Port Townsend High School auditorium for social, dramatic and musical events several times a year. Food Bank volunteers maintain a community garden on the school property. MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMONS Constructed originally as a junior high school and subsequently used as an elementary school, The Commons are located at 1925 Blaine Street. The property is leased by the City from the Port Townsend School District. The current 5 year lease expires in 2014 but negotiations begun in 2013 are intended to establish a 30-year lease with a 15-year extension. The facility houses the Port Townsend Police Department and a variety of community organizations including the YMCA, Community Radio, Port Townsend Food Bank, the Red Cross and Working Image. The facility includes office space, community meeting space, a gym, grass lawn area, a playground, play fields, outdoor basketball court and the Recyclery, a nonprofit that promotes bicycle use. The Port Townsend Public Library moved temporarily into space at the Commons while their Carnegie building was FEMA retrofitted in 2012-13. Mountain View Pool is an indoor swimming pool used by City and County residents, the school, and the Port Townsend Swim Team, all under the management of the City's Parks and Recreation Division. The facility consists of male and female locker rooms, restrooms, a sauna and a public viewing area. The pool was originally built by the Port Townsend School District as an outdoor pool in 1963. Over the years it has been managed by the Port Townsend School District and then Jefferson County; currently, the City of Port Townsend funds and manages it. Improvements to the pool's heating system and shower rooms were made in 1984. In early 1995, the tile in the pool and the gutters around the pool were replaced. The area around the pool was repainted and the decking outside was painted. A filtration system was added and the chlorination system was upgraded. A pH balance system was installed. These improvements were made by the school district using the district building bond for funding. The City also made various additional improvements to the pool including construction of a small sauna. In 2013, the City redirected funds from other projects in order to make emergency repairs to the pool, including a new liner and deck surfacing. The County allocated Public Infrastructure Funds to the City for other qualified projects to recover the shortfall. PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND BOAT HAVEN The Boat Haven, owned by the Port of Port Townsend, provides moorage and haul-outs for boats, ship building and repair, and an extensive system of docks for boat access. The south end of the Boat Haven provides community access to the Larry Scott Trail. City-owned rights of way including parts of the former railroad right of way along Jefferson Street in the Boat Haven were transferred from City to Port ownership in 2013 as a part of the land swap agreement that placed former Port land in Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park into City ownership and under LWCF 6(f)(3) protections. POINT HUDSON Originally built as a Coast Guard Training Center, Point Hudson is now owned by the Port of Port Townsend. This facility has a number of amenities in a unique historic setting, including 59 RV sites. Point Hudson provides moorage and a boat launch facility for small craft. In 2010, after an extensive renovation, the marina now sports attractive and safe walking docks and access to view points and beaches fronting on Port Townsend Bay and Admiralty Inlet. The City supported development of Point Hudson, in conjunction with the proposed Maritime Heritage Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 38 of 117 Center as a component of the Point Hudson Master Plan that was completed in the mid 1990's. Point Hudson Marina is the site of the largest annual festival in Port Townsend - the Wooden Boat Festival. Point Hudson is a popular birding area for residents and visitors. UNION WHARF Union Wharf is located on the south end of Taylor Street. In 1990s, it was the last of the historic waterfront docks remaining in Puget Sound. In 1981, the facility collapsed and remained unused until its reconstruction in 1996 and 1997 with the help of matching grant funds from the Washington State Interagency Commission for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). A decision to decrease the dock's width and length improved the health of eelgrass beds below. The new dock features a timber-framed, open-air structure that echoes old warehouse facades. Display panels describe historical and environmental topics. A floating dock, built to accommodate larger vessels, makes the wharf accessible to commercial and transient boaters. Union Wharf was transferred from City to Port ownership in 2013 as a part of the land swap agreement that placed former Port land in Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park into City ownership and under LWCF 6(f)(3) protections. CITY DOCK City Dock is located across from City Hall. It is adacent to the Pope Marine Building and Park. In 1993, the original City Dock was torn down and replaced with 50% of the funding coming from a Washington State Interagency Commission for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grant. The new structure features a floating dock and is used by visitors and citizens for temporary boat moorage. City Dock was transferred from City to Port ownership in 2013 as a part of the land swap agreement that placed former Port land in Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park into City ownership and under LWCF 6(f)(3) protections. AREAS CROSSING CATEGORIES Cross-Categorical Area assets generally serve a variety of purposes and populations within the town. They augment recreational programs and expand the possibilities for healthful and leisure activities, but they are not necessarily owned by the City or under the control or management of the Parks Division. Sometimes they are shared with other agencies but do not fall into an existing or traditional designation in past functional plans. Some facilities in this designation are the current responsibilities of the Parks Division, but they do not meet the definitions of parks and open space, so fail to be listed in the preceding inventory. Most of the facilities listed below contribute to the goals and policies in this Functional Plan but are not considered in setting levels of service, but it would be a loss to the community if they were to disappear, become unsightly, or present a danger. Their very ambiguity and resistance to simple categorization make them easy to overlook and belie their importance to our community's physical, mental and emotional well-being. VIEW POINTS Street ends are described in the Open Space category earlier in Appendix B. These view points offer some of the smallest but most spectacular of the community's assets: streets that terminate at high points along the bluff or at water's edge, with views of Port Townsend Bay, Puget Sound or the Strait. View points are ideal spaces for park benches where people can pause and rest. Examples include: • Clay Street view point • Van Buren Street view point • Kah Tai Lagoon next to the Life Care Center Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 39 of 117 AQUATIC ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES Many acres of fresh and brackish water, our seashores, and a community pool (highlighted in Section 3.1.3.) fall into this category. In our community, water is a constant. Activities are not necessarily centered in any one place but are found indoors and outdoors, in natural places, during spring flooding, at sea shores, and under piers and docks. We take for granted that our lives revolve around the water. We play, wade and swim; we harvest food and treasure hunt; we study other species in their water environment; we boat and walk for miles along beaches; we spend hours birding along the coast. We use our community pool for recreation and sports, for water therapy, and to teach children to swim. Festivals, races, and regattas bring thousands of visitors to town. Many here speak the language of sailing and understand the tools and talents of shipwrights. We've become increasingly aware of the functions of aquatic lands and have chosen to approve substantial investments through several agencies to maintain access to and protection of aquatic lands, shorelines and facilities. Fresh and marine water bodies and shorelines are finite natural resources and an irreplaceable public heritage. In 2013, our School District began a Maritime Discovery place-based education initiative. The effort will systematically focus learning by using the resources unique to our community to enrich classroom learning by providing real-world examples and lessons for all disciplinary fields. For citizens of all ages, interactions with our aquatic environment may include: Activities • Education • Swimming • Fishing, shellfishing • Scuba diving • Boat races, regattas, festivals • Pool-oriented sports programs • Pool-recreation programs • Birding Facilities • Port with two marinas devoted to the world of boats and water • Mountain View Pool • Point Hudson and Boat Haven docks and bulwarks • City Dock and Union Wharf • Maritime Center public walk way ( a $1 M City purchase) • Ponds, wetlands, and lagoons Boat Launches • Monroe Street • Point Hudson • Boat Haven • Fort Worden Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 40 of 117 Beach Access Points • Cal's Beach • Indian Point • Bench and access behind Columbia Bank • Water walkway from Indian Point around to Chetzemoka beach front • North Beach • Fort Worden CREATED LANDSCAPES Although the City has developed significant numbers of created landscapes, maintenance of these features is often undefined. Some maintenance is contracted out, some is done by willing volunteers, and some is left to chance. These areas need to be included in an inventory with acreage and descriptions of amenities (benches, drinking fountains, bathrooms, etc.). Landscaped areas require regular staff time, tools, irrigation, and money even though they have not been identified as part of the community's vision for its parks and open spaces. • City Hall grounds • Downtown rain gardens • Median strips and roadside landscapes • Pink House/Library Acreage scattered through the town provides the qualities of open space in developing residential areas. Included here are privately owned cemeteries, community gardens, and commercial farms with limited public access, some of which are described in the Open Space section above. They provide a variety of landscaped and naturalized open spaces. Some provide buffers between differing land uses and a variety of habitat. Some are sacred places and function as significant cultural resources for the community. • Laurel Grove, Redmen's and Saint Mary's Catholic Cemeteries • Seed Dreams garden • Corona Farm • Collinwood Farm • Community gardens SEPA MITIGATED AREAS Where legally permissible, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) allows the City to mitigate any significant impacts in an area proposed for development pursuant to its subdivision and critical areas statutes. Such mitigation can either require or incentivize the dedication of land for parks, recreation and open space facilities, trails, buffers and other uses. The fact that such mitigation arises through a lengthy and thoughtful process gives weight to the need for and importance of the establishment and protection of the mandated mitigation. The requirements of open space establishment, trail construction, stormwater retention, drainage corridor, wetland, and plant and animal habitat protection in new developments contribute to the health and well- being of the entire community. Often these SEPA requirements provide small areas of beautification, open vistas, trees and wildlife protection that community members throughout the city may benefit from and enjoy. As time passes and institutional memory fades, a real danger exists from the degradation of and encroachment upon these refuges with trails threatened by blackberry brambles and/or fallen logs; water features drained or choked with invasive plantings; open spaces reverting to patches Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 41 of 117 of noxious weeds. Often the loss of a mitigated impact means the adverse effect has not been dealt with but only postponed. Currently, no inventory of SEPA mitigation areas exists so that they might be occasionally monitored and their continued existence ensured. Many of these sites would be sorely missed, if not by everyone, at least by those who live nearby: neighbors, children, Pileated Woodpeckers, and Leopard Frogs, to name a few. The Open Space Inventory, Figure 3.2., includes the larger open space areas set aside as part of the Planned Unit Development/SEPA processes (e.g., #3, 8, 17 listed above). Smaller open space areas also exist (e.g., The Treehouse Planned Unit Development: stormwater retention and 10-foot trail easementacross from Fort Worden). PUBLIC ART/MEMORIALS/AREAS OF LOCAL INTEREST Some of the following are formally recognized by the City on the public art roster while others are locally celebrated art features: • Haller Fountain: Historic statue of Venus Rising from the Sea or Ga/etea was dedicated in 1906. Volunteer contributions made possible the replica by River Dog Fine Arts Foundry, with Mark Stevenson in the lead, that replaced the deteriorating original in 1993. It continues to be one of the most admired public art works in Port Townsend. Galatea inspires photos and paintings, and is an iconic image in brochures and program guides. More information about the history can be found in Appendix A. • Steve Corra Memorial: In 2010, a memorial was created for Steve Corra, longtime City Parks Division employee. Friends of Steve Corra, who have adopted the Haller Fountain/Terrace Steps Park, designed a plaque crafted by Mark Sabella with materials donated by Edensaw Woods and others. It stands at the midpoint landing on the Terrace Steps. • Salish Sea: A bronze circle by sculptor Gerard Tsutakawa, was commissioned by the City Arts Commission for$70,000 and installed near the Cotton Building in 2011 as part of the Madison Street Streetscape Project. It is a part of Port Townsend's "one percent for art". • Seal Bench: Created by artist Mike Ryan of Port Hadlock, the sculpture, carved from a driftwood log, rests at the edge of Port Townsend Bay in Pope Marine Park. • Chetzemoka Statue: In the summer of 1996, a bronze statue of Chief Chetzemoka by sculptor Dick Brown was set on top of a sentinel rock which overlooks the Port Townsend Golf Course. The statue honors Chetzemoka who, legend has it, helped the white settlers avert an attack from the local Indians by giving signals from the top of the rock. • Ruth M. Jackson Bequest: Designed through a competitive process under the direction of the Washington State Arts Commission, the bequest required a sculpture be erected that could be viewed from the water. Also known as the Tidal Clock and Wave Viewing Gallery, the sculpture was completed in 1987. The City constructed the sculpture in the street right of way along the waterfront overlooking Port Townsend Bay. The sand beds with native beach grasses and beach peas were planted by volunteers. On March 2, 2009, City Council voted to formally remove the sculpture and its surrounding landscape area from the public art roster to make way for the Waterfront Streetscape Revitalization Project. In 2010, the foundation of the wave viewing gallery was replaced, and in 2012 the "Tidal Clock" was removed and replaced with an amphitheater. • Kah Tai Community Tiles: Designed by kids and adults in the community in a project led by artist Yvonne Pepin in 1985, the tiles represent the creatures and natural features that Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 42 of 117 surround the Lagoon Nature Park. They are installed on the restroom wall near the park entrance. Interpretive posters are also installed around the exterior walls of the restroom. • Rhody Royalty Sidewalk: Continuing a tradition that began in 1960, each spring the designated royalty for the Rhododendron Festival placed their hand prints and names in fresh cement in the sidewalk on Water Street. In recent years, due to safety concerns and wheelchair needs, the hand prints have been imprinted in moveable concrete blocks. The ultimate location for this display has yet to be determined. • Memory's Vault: Dedicated in 1988 at Fort Worden State Park near Battery Randol is a memorial walkway installation by sculptor Richard Turner, featuring the poetry of Sam Hamill. The installation by the Washington State Arts Commission marks an important place in state history. • Leafwing: Sculpture by Russell Jaqua sited along the Larry Scott Trail. Also by Russell Jaqua is the railing on the stairs in the lobby at City Hall. • Milestones: Stream of Consciousness:A work created as the "one percent for art" for the F Street upgrade. The sculptures created by Sara Johani were placed at four different locations along F Street. Each piece represents historical milestones: Native and natural aspects of Port Townsend history, Victorian Seaport historic moments, Chinese history in town, and present times. The shapes are suggestive of stylized mountains, valleys and rivers. Each portrays a "moment" in the wayside, a reminder of intentionality. • Two Cats from Clinton: Two bronze cats by Georgia Gerber recline on outdoor seating at Port Townsend Public Library. • Weather Vane: An iconic Great Blue Heron sculpture by Russell Jaqua perches atop the bus shelter at Jefferson Transit Park and Ride Appendix B. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 43 of 117 APPENDIX C: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Open and ongoing public involvement was, and continues to be, an important aspect of the development of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Functional Plan. Measuring and monitoring the public needs, perceptions and satisfaction levels is a crucial part of developing goals to serve parks and recreation needs of the community. Throughout the process there were several methods used to obtain public comment. PUBLIC SURVEY A community survey was developed in the spring of 2010 to be distributed to a random sample of households. The draft survey was reviewed by Parks Staff, City Council, City Manager, Public Works Director and the Parks, Recreation and Trees Advisory Board. In May of 2010, the final document was distributed (direct mailed)to a random sampling of 2250 households through the city utility bills. A month later a reminder to complete the survey was included in the utility bill newsletter. The goal was to collect 500 completed surveys. The goal was accomplished with 562 completed surveys returned. Based on the current population of 9,113 our data collected should yield 99% confidence that it is an accurate representation of the entire population with an error level of+1-5%. The respondents were asked to consider their entire household when completing the survey. Out of the 562 households that participated in the survey, there were 585 seniors (60+), 447 adults (18-59), 68 teens (13-17) and 149 youth(0-12)represented. The average age of the individual completing the survey for their household was 58.5 and the median age was 59. Women made up 65.8% of the respondents and men made up the other 34.2%. The different geographical areas of the city were well represented with 42.2% of the respondents residing on the east side (east of San Juan Ave.) and 52.3% of the respondents living on the west side (west of San Juan Ave). 5.5% of the survey respondents were not clear of what geographic category they reside in. Key Findings: The survey respondents place a high value on parks & recreation services. • 94.5% of respondents stated that parks &recreation services are important to the quality of life in Port Townsend. (Q:5) • 94.5% of the respondents stated that it is either important or very important that every household has reasonable access to parks/open space. (Q:16) • 80.9% of the respondents would support some sort of dedicated tax increase to fund improvements or expansion of the parks &recreation system. (Q:21) I primarily depend on parks & open space to provide: (Q:6) 1. 87% A quiet place to relax, picnic or walk 2. 82% A place to hike and enjoy nature 3. 82% Preserve green space for future generations Appendix C. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 44 of 117 4. 78% Habitat for wildlife 5. 67% A place for children to play 6. 65% A physical break between urban development 7. 51% A place to gather for family events 8. 40% A place to ride my bicycle 9. 39% A place to play with or walk my dog 10. 27% A place to play organized sports Please indicate the importance/need for additional park amenities. What would you like to see added? The ranked percentages below indicate the combination of respondents indicating either a yes or a strong yes. (Q:10) 1. 86% Nature paths/trails 2. 77% Wildlife corridors 3. 59% Open grass areas 4. 58% Picnic tables 5. 54% Play structures (play structures) 6. 52% Picnic Shelters 7. 45% Special needs accessible play structures 8. 42% Off leash dog area 9. 37% Paved (multi-use)trails 10. 36% Sport fields 11. 30% Boat launch 12. 26% Basketball courts 13. 26% Water Features (spray park area) 14. 18% Bocce ball court 15. 16% Tennis/Pickle ball court Out of list of possible additional park amenities,please rank your top five. (Q:11) 1. 77% Nature paths/trails 2. 60% Wildlife corridors 3. 47% Open grass areas 4. 37% Picnic tables 5. 35% Play structures (playgrounds) 6. 33% Picnic Shelters 7. 33% Off leash dog areas 8. 29% Paved (multi-use)trails 9. 21% Special needs accessible playgrounds 10. 16% Sport fields 11. 16% Boat launch 12. 15% Water features (spray park area) 13. 10% Bocce ball court 14. 9% Basketball court 15. 8% Tennis/Pickle ball court Appendix C. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 45 of 117 The most used city park facilities are ranked below based on the answers to: Approximately how many times during the past year have you or someone in your household visited each of the following park facilities? (Q:15) 1. Nature paths/trails 2. Terrace Steps/Haller Fountain 3. Chetzemoka Park 4. Kah Tai Nature Park 5. Mountain View Pool 6. Sather Park 7. Pope Marine Park 8. City Dock 9. Union Wharf 10. Port Townsend Golf Course 11. Chetzemoka Dog Park 12. Pope Marine Building 13. Adams Street Park 14. Bobby McGarraugh Park 15. Rotary Park Rank this list of suggested park improvements in order of priority? (Q:17) 1. Connect parks with widened, multi-use (possibly paved) trails with green space, benches and amenities along the sides (linear parks) 2. Replace or add play equipment for children 3. Replace the restroom facility at Chetzemoka Park 4. Replace the kitchen &picnic shelter at Chetzemoka Park Rank this list of suggested park improvements in order of priority? (Q:19) 1. Enhance some trails (widen, possibly pave and install amenities)to create linear parks to connect existing park/open space areas. 2. Develop a park on the west side of the city similar in size to Chetzemoka Park(5-10 acres) 3. Acquire land, but do not develop or make improvements 4. Develop an off leash dog park with space for large and small dogs Sandwiched between Chetzemoka Park& Chetzemoka Dog Park sits the Golden Age Club. Formerly part of the coastal defense system and a recreation facility for senior citizens, the building has deteriorated to the point that it is no longer safe for use. If the city was to remove the building,what would you like to see the land used for? (Q:18) Ranked suggested options are below: 1. 34% Use the land for open grass area 2. 24% Use the land to expand the Chetzemoka Dog Park 3. 20% Replace it with a new building for the public 4. 12% Use the land for additional parking for Chetzemoka Park 5. 11% Other: Most popular suggestions—traditional long house, picnic shelter, community garden or bocce ball court Appendix C. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 46 of 117 Which of the following recreational activities did you, or someone in your household, participate in within the last year? (Q:20) 1. 97% Hiking or Walking 2. 79% Wildlife Observations 3. 72% Picnicking 4. 64% Bicycling 5. 40% Swimming 6. 35% Canoeing/Kayaking 7. 14% Golf 8. 13% Tennis/Pickle Ball 9. 12% Soccer 10. 8% Skateboarding 11. 6% Bocce Ball 12. 6% Softball 13. 4% Baseball The city contracts with the YMCA to manage the city community recreation program. Which statement best matches your thoughts? (Q:7) 1. 46.5% I do not have an opinion 2. 28.3% The YMCA does a good job of providing a variety of quality programs that meet the needs of the citizens. 3. 15.1% The YMCA does a good job of providing youth activities, but needs to offer more for other age groups. 4. 10.1% The city could do a better job managing the community recreation programs. Whether or not the city continues to contract recreation services with the YMCA,what types of recreation programs should be provided? The ranked percentages below indicate the combination of respondents indicating either a yes or a strong yes. (Q:8) I. 87% After school youth programs 2. 83% Teen programs 3. 74% Youth day camps 4. 71% Youth/Teen enrichment classes 5. 65% Youth sport leagues 6. 62% Senior programs 7. 53% Adult enrichment classes 8. 47% Outdoor adventure 9. 38% Adult sport leagues Of the list of possible recreation programs listed in the previous question,which three would you, or someone in your household, most likely take advantage of if offered? The ranked list below. (Q:9) 1. Adult enrichment classes 2. Senior programs 3. Outdoor adventure 4. Adult sport leagues 5. Youth sport leagues Appendix C. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 47 of 117 6. Youth/Teen enrichment classes 7. After school youth programs 8. Youth day camps 9. Teen programs 65.6% of the survey respondents indicated that they, or someone in their household, had used the Mountain View Pool during the past year. (Q: 12) The most popular pool programs used by the respondents or household members are ranked below(Q:13): 1. Lap swim 2. Aqua fitness classes 3. Swim lessons 4. Rec/Open swim Those who indicated that no one in their household frequently uses the pool, the reasons for not taking advantage of this service are ranked below (Q:14): 1. Other: The most popular"Other"responses were: don't like chlorine and water too cold 2. Run down facility 3. Doesn't fit my schedule 4. Don't swim 5. Poor publicity 6. Program offerings do not match my interests 7. Fees too high 8. Poor customer service 9. Staff not professional 10. Location of the pool (live too far away) Appendix C. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices City of Port Townsend Parks & Recreation - Community Survey (Please consider your entire household when answering) INTRODUCTION: The citizens of Port Townsend have opportunities this year to direct the goals of city government relative to parks&recreation through the development of the new Parks, Recreation& Open Space Functional Plan. The first opportunity will be the completion of the Parks&Recreation Community Survey (below), followed by public meetings in June and again in the fall. This survey was sent to a random sampling of city households. Please take a few minutes to complete and return it to us. Your participation and crucial feedback will be used to develop the plan that will ultimately guide the improvement and expansion of parks& recreation services for the next five years. Few things measure and define the quality of life of a community as directly as access to parks,open space and recreation opportunities. Survey also available online at: www.surveymonkey.com/s/ptparks 1.) Including yourself, how many people in each age category live in your household? (Place a number next to each item) a. Children(age 0-12) b. Teenagers(age 13-17) c. Adults(age 18+) d. Seniors(age 60+) 2.) What year were you born? 3.) What is your sex? (Circle One) Male Female 4.) What part of town do you live in? (Circle One) a. EAST (East of San Juan) b. NW (North of Hastings&West of San Juan) c. SW (South of Hastings& West of San Juan) 5.) Which ONE of the following three statements represents the closest to the way you feel about parks & recreation services in Port Townsend? (Circle One) a. Members of my household use parks or participate in recreation programs on a regular basis,and I believe that these services are important to quality of life. b. Although members of my household do not use parks or participate in recreation programs frequently,I believe that these services are important to quality of life. c. Parks and recreation programs do not currently play an important role in my household. 6.) I primarily depend on parks & open space to provide: (Circle all that apply) a. Habitat for wildlife g. A place for children to play b. A quiet place to relax,picnic or walk h. A physical break between urban development c. A place to play organized sports i. A place to hike and enjoy nature d. A place to play with or walk my dog j. A place to ride my bicycle e. A place to gather for family events k. Nothing—I don't use the park system f. Preserve green space for future generations 1. Other Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices 7.) The city contracts with Jefferson County YMCA to manage the city community recreniin Ai9ogijii. Which statement below best matches your thoughts? (Circle One) a. The YMCA does a good job of providing a variety of quality programs that meet the needs of the citizens. b. The city could do a better job managing the community recreation programs c. The YMCA does a good job providing youth activities,but needs to offer more for other age groups d. I do not have an opinion 8.) Whether or not the city continues to contract recreation services with the YMCA,what types of recreation programs should be provided? (Rate each on a scale of 1-5) 5=Strong Yes, 3=Neutral, I=Strong No a. Youth day camps f. Adult enrichment classes b. After school youth programs g. Youth sport leagues c. Teen programs h. Adult sport leagues d. Senior programs i. Youth/Teen enrichment classes c. Outdoor Adventure j. Other 9.) Of the list of possible recreation programs listed in the previous question,which three would you,or someone in your household, most likely take advantage of if offered? 10.) Please indicate the importance/need for additional park amenities. What would you like to see added? (Rate each on a scale of 1-5) 5=Strong Yes, 3=Neutral, I=Strong No a. Open grass areas i. Off leash dog areas b. Picnic table J. Basketball courts c. Picnic shelters k. Nature paths/trails d. Tennis/Pickle ball court 1. Wildlife corridors c. Play structures(playgrounds) m. Water features(spray park area) f. Bocce ball court n. Sport fields g. Paved(multi-use trails) o. Boat Launch h. Special needs assessable playground p. Other 11.) Of the list of possible park amenities in the previous question,please rank your top five? (Please rank 1-5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 12.) The city manages the Mountain View Pool. Have you, or someone in your household, used this facility in the past year? (Circle One) a. Yes b. No 13.) If you answered yes to the previous question, how often do you participate in each of the following each month? (Place a number next to each item) a. Lap swim c. Swim club b. Rec/open swim f. Swim team c. Swim lessons g. Private pool rental d. Fitness class h. Other 14.) If you DON'T frequently visit the city pool,what is keeping you from taking advantage of this service? Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices (Circle all the apply) Page 50 of 117 a. Don't swim f. Staff not professional b. Run down facility g. Program offerings do not match my interests c. Poor customer service h. Location of the pool(live too far away) d. Doesn't fit my schedule i. Poor publicity(didn't know it was open to public) e. Fees too high j. Other 15.) Approximately how many times during the past year have you, or someone in your household,visited each of the following city park facilities? (Place a number next to each item) a. Chetzemoka Park j. Adams St. Park b. Chetzemoka Dog Park k. Port Townsend Golf Course c. Bishop Park 1. Sather Park d. Pope Marine Park m. 35th Street Park e. Mountain View Pool n. Pope Marine Building f. Bobby McGarraugh Park o. City Dock g. Rotary Park p. Terrace Steps/Haller Fountain h. Union Wharf q. Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park i. Misc.Nature Trails r. Other 16.) How important is it that every household has reasonable access to a park/open space? (Circle one) a. Very Important b. Important c. Neutral/Not Sure d. Unimportant e. Very Unimportant 17.) What improvements would you like to see at our current park facilities?(Please rank 1-5) (Place a number next to each item) a. Replace the restroom facilities at Chetzemoka&Bobby McGarraugh Parks b. Replace the kitchen shelter&picnic shelter at Chetzemoka Park c. Connect parks with widened,multiuse(possibly paved)trails with green space,benches and other amenities along the sides (linear parks) d. Replace or add play equipment for children e. Other 18.) Sandwiched between Chetzemoka Park& Chetzemoka Dog Park sits the Golden Age Club. Formerly part of the coastal defense system and a recreation facility for senior citizens,the building has deteriorated to the point that it is no longer safe for use. If the city was to remove the building what would you like to see the land used for? (Circle one) a. Use the land for additional parking for Chetzemoka Park b. Use the land to expand Chetzemoka Dog Park c. Use the land for open grass area d. Replace it with a new building for the public e. Other 19.) Of the list of possible park system additions below,which would you most like to see? (Please rank 1-5) Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices (Place a number next to each item) Page 51 of 117 a. Develop a park on the west side of town similar in size to Chetzemoka Park(5-10 acres) b. Enhance some trails(widen,possibly pave and install amenities)to create linear parks to connect existing park/open space areas. C. Develop an off leash dog park with space for large & small dogs d. Acquire land,but do not develop or make improvements(additional natural green space) C. Other 20.) Which of the following recreational activities did you, or someone in your household,participate in within the last year? (Mark all that apply) a. Hiking or Walking h. Golf b. Bicycling i. Swimming c. Picnicking j. Canoeing/Kayaking d. Wildlife Observation k. Softball e. Tennis/Pickle Ball 1. Baseball f. Bocce Ball m. Soccer g. Other n. Skateboarding 21.) Which of the following funding options would you support in order to improve/expand the city parks& recreation system? (Circle all that apply) a. 3%additional utility tax(dedicated to parks funding) b. .1% additional sales tax(dedicated to parks funding) c. Creation of a metropolitan parks district(new taxing district) d. Property tax levy of$.25 per 1,000 valuation of home ($87.50 on a$350,000 home) e. Property tax levy of$.10 per 1,000 valuation of home ($35 on a$350,000 home) f. None—Continue current funding level 22.) Any additional comments or suggestions: I greatly appreciate the time you have given to complete this survey. The results will be utilized for future decisions regarding park&recreation facilities and programs. Please return the survey with your utility payment or(by June 1) to: Parks & Recreation Manager OR Complete the survey online at: 1925 Blaine St. Suite 108 www.surveymonkey.com/s/ptparks Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 52 of 117 Youth Prop-rams and Services in Port Townsend: Opinion Survey Results Prepared by: Satya Santi and Abby Danner The City of Port Townsend Development Services Department 250 Madison Street Suite 3 Port Townsend, WA 360.379.5095 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 53 of 117 Table of Contents Purpose..........................................................................3 Methodology....................................................................3 Results...........................................................................4 Basic Results —Grade, Gender and School....................................4 Which activities do youth tend to participate in and how frequently?......6 What are the barriers to participation, according to our youth?................8 Where do youth spend their time?...........................................................10 When should programs and services be offered?....................................11 Are an adequate number of programs being offered?.............................12 What other programs and services should be offered?............................13 What other activities did youth suggest?.................................................14 How can we best inform youth of available programs and services?......15 Any other comments or suggestions?......................................................15 Appendix A: Results by Gender..............................................16 Appendix B: Results by Grade................................................22 Appendix C: Full Text of Survey..............................................52 Appendix D: Full Text of Final Comments.................................58 FINAL: November 16, 2010 2 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 54 of 117 ,0 , The City of Port Townsend's goal was to conduct a statistically valid survey of youth on the topic of public recreational facilities and programs. The survey was intended to assess awareness of existing recreational facilities and programs and to determine potential areas for growth. Methodology 1) Existing planning documents and relevant reports and studies were reviewed (including but not limited to the City's Parks and Open Space Plan, How to Conduct Surveys: A Step by Step Guide by Dr. Fink, and a community youth survey conducted by Oak Bay). This review provided background information on recreational planning for youth. Dr. Fink's book provided insight on research methods for designing and conducting a statistically valid survey (including the pros and cons of the basic types of survey questions, sample size and limitations on youth surveys). Based on an estimated student population of 1,100, taken from numbers on the Washington State Superintendent's website, a minimum sample size of 290 students was determined to be statistically valid with a 5%margin of error and 95% confidence. 442 completed surveys were received. Therefore, the survey is statistically valid. However, the vast majority were from students enrolled in public or private school.' 2) Data was collected from the Port Townsend School District through phone calls and personal interviews on existing youth programs and recreational facilities. From this data, questions were formulated about the main identified programs and facilities, using the principals in Dr. Fink's book as a guide. Care was taken to avoid biased or unclear questions. 3) Consultation with the following individuals helped to refine the purpose of the survey, identify the target audience, and potential partners: Michelle Sandoval, Mayor Philip Morley, Jefferson County Administrator Anne Dean, Jefferson County Community Network Catharine Robinson, Councilmember Jeremy Bubnick, Director of City Parks Rick Sepler, Director of Planning Judy Surber, Planning Manager 4) Superintendent Tom Opstad was then contacted for permission to distribute the surveys for 6th-12th graders within the Port Townsend School District. Principal Decker,Principal Ehrhardt and Linda Maguire of Jefferson Community School 'Results may not be representative of students in alternative programs or home schooled youth(see#6 below). FINAL: November 16, 2010 3 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 55 of 117 were contacted and asked permission to distribute surveys at their schools. Permission was granted in all cases. 5) A draft survey was distributed to focus groups at both the Port Townsend High School and Blue Heron Middle School to determine the need to clarify questions. The survey was revised based on the recommendations of the focus groups. Revised surveys were distributed to all participating schools. 6) Completed surveys were collected from 6th-8th graders at Blue Heron Middle School, 9th-11tt'grade surveys from the Port Townsend High School, and all grades from Jefferson Community School. Few ICE Program, home school and 12th grade surveys were able to be collected due to late distribution. 7) Results were tallied and analyzed with the aid of Microsoft's Access and Excel programs. Data from each survey was entered as an individual record in a Microsoft Access database. The records were then sorted and filtered based on various criteria, and data was transferred to Microsoft Excel for ease of numerical analysis. Because there were an uneven number of male and female respondents, and of respondents from each grade, it was determined that sections comparing those categories should be presented in percentages only, so that greater or lesser absolute numbers did not falsely indicate a greater or lesser preference. Results are presented in percentages. As such, some amounts may not total to 100 due to rounding. The main body of the survey includes narrative, tables and pie charts representing the collective results. The narrative text also includes some discussion of preference by gender and grade. For more detail and supporting tables and pie charts, please refer to Appendices B and C. Basic Results — Grade, Gender and School: The first three questions of the survey asked the student's grade, gender and school. Responses were gathered from 442 youths. As noted above, few ICE Program, home school and 12th grade surveys were able to be collected due to late distribution. Thus, results may not be representative of youth in alternative programs or home schooled. Gender Number of Youth Percent of Youth Female 233 52.71% Male 206 46.61% Unspecified 3 0.68% Grade 6th 69 15.61% 7th 70 15.84% 8th 70 15.84% 9th 75 16.97% 10th 82 18.55% 11th 53 11.99% 12th 21 4.75% Unspecified 2 0.45% FINAL: November 16, 2010 4 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 56 of 117 School Public School 402 90.95% Jeff. Community School 34 7.69% Other 6 1.36% Gender Female Male Unspecified Schools Public School Jefferson Community School Other FINAL: November 16, 2010 5 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 57 of 117 Grades 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11 th 12th Unspecified Which activities do youth tend to participate in and howfrequently?: Question 4 of the Survey was a two part question. First,youths were asked to indicate frequency of participation (either current or past) as follows: • Often(weekly) • Some (once a month) • Not much (few times/year) • Never In general, the activities with the strongest"weekly"participation include team sports (42%); individual sports (25%) and school clubs (21%). Activities with stronger participation on a monthly basis include volunteering (15%) and individual sports (14%),while military programs and tutoring showed the least participation. Overall, 329 separate youth (74% of respondents) said they participated in an activity "often", 218 said they participated"some", 285 said they participated"not much" and 418 said there was an activity they never participated in. FINAL: November 16, 2010 6 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 58 of 117 Results By Gender (Appendix B) -Team sports remains the most popular activity for either gender, but it is significantly more popular among males than females (48% vs. 36% respectively). Females are more likely than males to participate in individual sports (27% to 21%respectively). Military activities remain at the bottom of the list, with slightly more male participants than female and neither in great quantity (2.91% to 1% respectively). Results by Grade: Weekly participation(i.e., "often") in team sports is relatively high across all grades (mean of 42%). 6 t graders have the lowest rate (38%), and several mentioned in comments that they felt there was a lack of opportunities for them to participate due to their age. Weekly participation in school clubs is greatest at the high school level with a high of 48% in 10th grade. Participation in leadership opportunities is generally low(mean 15%). Weekly participation spikes in 10th grade (24%) and then sharply declines. Weekly participation in church groups is highest in 6th and 7th grades (23-29% respectively), after which it generally declines steeply, though it does spike to 21% in 11 grade(Appendix B). Participation in All Activities, By Frequency Number of Students 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never Team Sports Individual Sports School Clubs Other Clubs Comm unity Programs Tutoring Volunteering Leadership Opportunities ■Church Groups Mil itary Prog ra m s FINAL: November 16, 2010 7 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 59 of 117 Total Not Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent % Team Sports 42.31% 12.44% 54.75% 20.36% 21.95% 42.31% 2.94% Individual Sports 25.11% 13.57% 38.68% 17.65% 38.01% 55.66% 5.66% School Clubs 21.04% 8.14% 29.18% 13.35% 52.04% 65.39% 5.43% Other Clubs 7.24% 6.33% 13.57% 6.56% 73.98% 80.54% 5.89% Community Programs 4.98% 6.11% 11.09% 9.95% 70.81% 80.76% 8.15% Tutoring 2.26% 2.49% 4.75% 5.88% 81.45% 87.33% 7.92% Volunteering 8.82% 15.16% 23.98% 17.87% 52.49% 70.36% 5.66% Leadership Opportunities 15.84% 9.50% 25.34% 9.50% 57.69% 67.19% 7.47% Church Groups 18.78% 7.24% 26.02% 10.86% 57.69% 68.55% 5.43% Military Programs 2.04% 0.45% 2.49% 2.49% 88.46% 90.95% 6.56% Minimum 2.04% 0.45% 2.49% 2.49% 21.95% 42.31% 2.94% Maximum 42.31% 15.16% 54.75% 20.36% 88.46% 90.95% 8.15% Mean Percentage 14.84% 8.14% 22.99% 11.45% 59.46% 70.90% 6.11% What are the barriers I participation, according The second part of question 4 asked if`if you did not participate in an activity more than a few times a year, why not?' Lack of interest was the primary reason for limited to non- participation. Very few youth reported cost as a barrier, though cost appears to be more of a barrier in regards team sports (11.4%) than for any other activity, with the next highest being individual sports at 6.5%. Perhaps more outreach is needed in regards volunteering, leadership opportunities, and tutoring as over 20% of students reported they were "not sure what it is." Responses in the "other" category generally indicated lack of time or lack of opportunity to participate. 54 separate youth said that cost was a barrier to their participation, 91 said they had difficulties getting to where the activities were held, 188 did not participate in an activity because they weren't sure what it was, and 386 youths said they did not participate due to lack of interest. Note: Cost as a barrier to participation may be under-represented given that students in this age group appear reluctant to report financial difficulties. For example, it is typical to see the percentage of students requesting Free and Reduced Lunch drop significantly from elementary school to middle school and even further by high school. This isn't because high school students are somehow more affluent than elementary or middle school students; rather, as students age, they become embarrassed to admit that they need subsidization to buy lunch. FINAL: November 16, 2010 8 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 60 of 117 Non-Participation Reasons, by Reason Number of Students 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 A. Not Interested B. Costs too much Ems_, C. Can't get there D. Not sure what it is E. Other Team Sports Individual Sports School Clubs Other Clubs Com m unity Programs Tutoring Volunteering Leadership Opportunities ■Church Groups Military Programs Not Costs Too Can't Get Not Sure Non- Interested Much There What It Is Other Respondent% Team Sports 59.07% 11.40% 6.22% 4.15% 19.16% 0.00% Individual Sports 67.89% 6.50% 6.10% 4.47% 10.98% 4.06% School Clubs 64.36% 2.08% 4.50% 11.42% 11.42% 6.22% Other Clubs 79.11% 1.95% 1.67% 4.74% 8.36% 4.17% Community Programs 65.27% 1.40% 4.48% 18.21% 7.56% 3.08% Tutoring 56.74% 0.78% 3.37% 23.32% 14.25% 1.54% Volunteering 52.73% 1.29% 7.07% 24.12% 9.00% 5.79% Leadership Opportunities 58.92% 0.34% 3.70% 22.56% 12.79% 1.69% Church Groups 68.32% 0.33% 6.27% 2.64% 15.84% 6.60% Military Programs 67.66% 1.99% 5.47% 9.20% 9.70% 5.98% Minimum 52.73% 0.33% 1.67% 2.64% 7.56% 0.00% Maximum 79.11% 11.40% 7.07% 24.12% 19.16% 6.60% Mean Percentage 64.01% 2.81% 4.89% 12.48% 11.91% 3.91% FINAL: November 16, 2010 9 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 61 of 117 Where / / youth spend their time? The most frequently attended locations were parks other than the skate park, such as Fort Worden and Chetzemoka(Survey Question 6). The least frequently attended was the YMCA with 322 youths saying they never went there. The most common reason given for low attendance was lack of interest. It should be noted that parks are not typically associated with structured activities and thus may simply be an indicator of where youth gather while other locations, such as the pool and YMCA, provide structured activities. In addition, it may have been unclear to represent YMCA as a"location" - as respondents may have interpreted this strictly as the Mountain View campus while the YMCA offers various activities in a number of locations. By Gender: Both genders report parks, other than the skate park, as the location they visit with the highest frequency (i.e,weekly). With the exception of the pool, males are more likely than females to attend all other locations. Likewise, excepting again parks and the pool, females are more likely than males to never attend a given location. By Grade: Pool attendance is highest in 6th and 7th grade (with 50% and 46% respectively reorting weekly to monthly attendance). Attendance declines to a low of 11.32%by 11 grade. Attendence Frequency by Location Number of Students 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 Boiler Room 11 Jk- AL Com munity Center RENE M4 Pool ---- N W MTC -0400 Skate Park -�■■� Other Parks YMCA A.Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never FINAL: November 16, 2010 10 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 62 of 117 Total High Not Total Low Non- Often % Some% Att. % Much % Never% Att. % Respondent% Boiler Room 6.33% 8.14% 14.47% 23.08% 61.09% 84.17% 1.36% Community Center 6.79% 17.42% 24.21% 26.92% 45.93% 72.85% 2.94% Pool 15.16% 16.74% 31.90% 40.05% 26.92% 66.97% 1.13% NWMTC' 6.11% 14.48% 20.59% 26.70% 48.87% 75.57% 3.84% Skate Park 8.37% 11.99% 20.36% 25.11% 53.17% 78.28% 1.36% Other Parks 40.95% 37.10% 78.05% 16.52% 2.71% 19.23% 2.72% YMCA 2.94% 7.24% 10.18% 12.22% 72.85% 85.07% 4.75% Minimum 2.94% 7.24% 10.18% 12.22% 2.71% 19.23% 1.13% Maximum 40.95% 37.10% 78.05% 40.05% 72.85% 85.07% 4.75% Mean Percentage 12.38% 16.16% 28.54% 24.37% 44.51% 68.88% 2.59% 1 NWMTC - Northwest Maritime Center/Wooden Boat Foundation When shouldprograms and services be offered? Most youths said that they preferred activities and programs to be offered after school or in the summer(Survey Question 47). Before school is not a desirable time. 428 youths gave an opinion on times to offer programs. Times to Offer Programs Number of Students 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 After School Before School +` Weekends Summer Good Okay Bad Good Okay Bad Non-Respondent % After School 60.86% 26.70% 8.60% 3.84% Before School 5.66% 19.91% 68.55% 5.88% Weekends 24.43% 40.50% 30.54% 4.53% Summer 50.23% 28.51% 17.19% 4.07% Minimum 5.66% 19.91% 8.60% 3.84% Maximum 60.86% 40.50% 68.55% 5.88% Mean Percentage 35.30% 28.91% 31.22% 4.58% FINAL: November 16, 2010 11 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 63 of 117 Very few youths thought there were too many of any program, mostly indicating the number was just right or that they didn't know (Survey Question 48). In general, females believe more activities are needed, with a significant percent of female youth indicating the need for more individual sports and volunteer opportunities (37% and 33% respectively). Progam Numbers, by Number 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Team Sports Individual Sports School Clubs Other Clubs Community Programs Tutoring Volunteering Leadership Opportunities ■Church Groups Military Programs Don't Too Many Just Right Need More Know Non-Respondent Team Sports 6.33% 47.06% 26.92% 10.18% 9.51% Individual Sports 4.75% 37.33% 31.67% 19.91% 6.34% School Clubs 7.69% 42.76% 26.70% 19.46% 3.39% Other Clubs 6.11% 34.62% 19.91% 35.29% 4.07% Community Programs 7.01% 31.67% 24.89% 31.67% 4.76% Tutoring 4.52% 27.38% 22.17% 42.53% 3.40% Volunteering 5.43% 33.26% 26.92% 30.09% 4.30% Leadership Opportunities 3.85% 31.90% 23.30% 35.97% 4.98% Church Groups 20.14% 29.86% 9.28% 35.97% 4.75% Military Programs 7.92% 12.90% 16.06% 57.47% 5.65% Minimum 3.85% 12.90% 9.28% 10.18% 3.39% Maximum 20.14% 47.06% 31.67% 57.47% 9.51% Mean Percentage 7.38% 32.87% 22.78% 31.85% 5.12% FINAL: November 16, 2010 12 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 64 of 117 What other programs and services should be offered? Survey Question 99 suggested several activities,which all had some support from the youth, and allowed participants to write in"other" activities. The average youth wants 4.17 of the suggested activities, with a 24 hour internet cafe being the most desired by all grades. A youth activity advertising section in the newspaper was also strongly supported. 370 individual youths indicated a desire for one of the suggested activities. By gender: In general, females want more activities than males. The average female youth wants 4.75 activities, over the average male's 3.5. A twenty-four hour internet cafe remains the favorite for both genders, but the second most popular for females is an arts and crafts shop (56%), while for males it is an Ultimate Frisbee team (41%). There is also a strong interest from both genders in a youth advertising section in the newspaper. By grade: The second most wanted activity varies by grade (Appendix C); for 6th graders, it is an arts and crafts shop, and for 7th graders, it is a youth advertising section in the newspaper. 8th graders would like another bookshop, 9th graders are also in favor of an arts and crafts shop, 10th and 1 ltn graders support an Ultimate Frisbee team and 12th graders prefer the youth newspaper section(however, recall that a low percentage of 12th graders were surveyed). Wanted Activity Number of Youth Percent of Youth 24hr/internet caf6 278 62.90% Teen Activity Section in Newspaper 195 44.12% Arts and crafts stores 195 44.12% Independent bookstores and other businesses 183 41.40% Ultimate Frisbee Club 173 39.14% Kayak Club 155 35.07% Bike Club 152 34.39% Teen Co-op Garden 144 32.58% Community Center 133 30.09% Tutoring Centers 120 27.15% Other 116 26.24% FINAL: November 16, 2010 13 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 65 of 117 What other activities didyouth suggest? Of the youth who had a write-in suggestion for Question 49, most wanted some athletic activity or a club, with a significant few still holding out for a bowling alley or roller rink. The responses were grouped into the categories below. The "activity" category covers art classes, dances, writing programs, etc. "Music"refers to things such as community choirs and youth orchestras. "Other"refers to non-activity requests like internet access, arcades, and television programming. "Other groups" are spiritual and political groups. Other Wanted Activities Number of Youth Percent of Youth Athletics 34 7.69% Clubs 23 5.20% Activity 18 4.07% Mall/Shopping 14 3.17% Bowling Alley 12 2.71% Music 11 2.49% Roller Rink 11 2.49% Other 9 2.04% Other Group 6 1.36% Pool 6 1.36% Food 5 1.13% Gaming 5 1.13% Recreation Center 5 1.13% Youth Space 5 1.13% Total 164 1.41 FINAL: November 16, 2010 14 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 66 of 117 How can we best inform • of available / I • I and services Most youths indicated that the best way to contact them was through school announcements, or, failing that, through a social networking site such as Facebook (Survey Question #10). However, very few of them said Twitter was a good method to use. This is possibly due to Twitter's low character limit in posts. Means of contact were gathered from 389 separate youths. Means of Contact Number of Youth Percent of Youth School Announcement 246 55.66% Mys pace/Face book 183 41.40% Email 124 28.05% Flyers/Posters 128 28.96% Newspaper 118 26.70% Website 77 17.42% Other 22 4.98% Twitter 12 2.71% Any other comments or suggestions? In the "fill-in" comments, many youth noted that there seem to be very few activities for them and very few places they felt comfortable hanging out with friends. Several of them said they felt this town was mainly for"old people" and that their thoughts and opinions were generally ignored by those in charge. Many also want the recreation center to be reopened. The full text of the final comments is included in Appendix D. FINAL: November 16, 2010 15 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 67 of 117 / , / Results D' Gender Numbering corresponds to Survey Questions: 4) Team sports remains the most popular activity for either gender, but it is significantly more popular among males than females. Females are more likely than males to participate in individual sports. Military activities remain at the bottom of the list, with slightly more male participants than female and neither in great quantity. Activity Frequency by Gender 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Team Sports Individual Sports School Clubs Other Clubs Community Programs Tutoring Volunteering Leadership Church Groups Military Programs Female Often Male Often Female Some Male Some Female Not Much Male Not Much Female Ne\er Male Ne\er Total Total Non- FEMALES Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent % Team Sports 36.48% 14.16% 50.64% 21.03% 24.03% 45.06% 4.30% Individual Sports 27.47% 11.16% 38.63% 16.74% 38.63% 55.37% 6.00% School Clubs 23.61% 6.44% 30.05% 14.16% 49.79% 63.95% 6.00% Other Clubs 6.87% 6.44% 13.31% 7.73% 74.25% 81.98% 4.71% Community Programs 6.44% 6.44% 12.88% 11.16% 69.96% 81.12% 6.00% Tutoring 2.58% 3.00% 5.58% 6.87% 81.97% 88.84% 5.58% Volunteering 8.58% 18.45% 27.03% 15.45% 53.22% 68.67% 4.30% Leadership 15.88% 7.73% 23.61% 9.01% 60.52% 69.53% 6.86% Church Groups 20.17% 8.58% 28.75% 12.02% 54.51% 66.53% 4.72% Military Programs 1.29% 0.00% 1.29% 1.29% 92.70% 93.99% 4.72% Minimum 1.29% 0.00% 1.29% 1.29% 24.03% 45.06% 4.30% Maximum 36.48% 18.45% 50.64% 21.03% 92.70% 93.99% 6.86% Mean Percentage 14.94% 8.24% 23.18% 11.55% 59.96% 71.50% 5.32% FINAL: November 16, 2010 16 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 68 of 117 Total Total Non- MALES Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent% Team Sports 47.57% 9.71% 57.28% 19.42% 19.42% 38.84% 3.88% Individual Sports 21.36% 16.50% 37.86% 18.93% 35.44% 54.37% 7.77% School Clubs 17.48% 10.19% 27.67% 12.14% 52.91% 65.05% 7.28% Other Clubs 7.77% 6.31% 14.08% 5.34% 73.30% 78.64% 7.28% Community Programs 3.40% 5.83% 9.23% 8.74% 71.36% 80.10% 10.67% Tutoring 1.94% 1.46% 3.40% 4.85% 81.07% 85.92% 10.68% Volunteering 9.22% 11.17% 20.39% 20.87% 51.46% 72.33% 7.28% Leadership 15.53% 11.65% 27.18% 10.19% 54.37% 64.56% 8.26% Church Groups 17.48% 5.83% 23.31% 9.22% 61.17% 70.39% 6.30% Military Programs 2.91% 0.97% 3.88% 3.88% 83.50% 87.38% 8.74% Minimum 1.94% 0.97% 3.40% 3.88% 19.42% 38.84% 3.88% Maximum 47.57% 16.50% 57.28% 20.87% 83.50% 87.38% 10.68% Mean Percentage 14.47% 7.96% 22.43% 11.36% 58.40% 69.76% 7.81% FINAL: November 16, 2010 17 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 69 of 117 6) In all cases except parks such as Fort Worden, males are more likely than females to attend a location often. Likewise, excepting again parks and the pool, females are more likely than males to never attend a given location Attendance Frequency by Gender 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% 55.00% 60.00% 65.00% 70.00% 75.00% Boiler Room Community Center Pool Wooden Boat/NWMTC Skate Park Other Park YMCA Female Often Male Often Female Some Male Some Female Not Much Male Not Much Female Never Male Never Total High Not Total Low Non- FEMALES Often % Some% Att. % Much % Never% Att. % Respondent % Boiler Room 4.72% 9.01% 13.73% 22.32% 63.95% 86.27% 0.00% Community Center 5.15% 15.45% 20.60% 29.61% 48.50% 78.11% 1.29% Pool 14.59% 18.45% 33.04% 40.77% 24.89% 65.66% 1.30% NWMTC 3.86% 14.16% 18.02% 29.61% 49.79% 79.40% 2.58% Skate Park 6.87% 8.58% 15.45% 28.33% 55.79% 84.12% 0.43% Other Parks 45.49% 38.20% 83.69% 12.45% 1.72% 14.17% 2.14% YMCA 2.58% 6.87% 9.45% 14.59% 72.96% 87.55% 3.00% Minimum 2.58% 6.87% 9.45% 12.45% 1.72% 14.17% 0.00% Maximum 45.49% 38.20% 83.69% 40.77% 72.96% 87.55% 3.00% Mean Percentage 11.89% 15.82% 27.71% 25.38% 45.37% 70.75% 1.53% Total High Not Total Low Non- MALES Often % Some% Att. % Much % Never% Att. % Respondent % Boiler Room 7.77% 7.28% 15.05% 23.79% 58.25% 82.04% 2.91% Community Center 8.25% 19.90% 28.15% 24.27% 42.72% 66.99% 4.86% Pool 14.56% 15.05% 29.61% 39.81% 29.61% 69.42% 0.97% NWMTC 8.25% 15.05% 23.30% 23.30% 48.06% 71.36% 5.34% Skate Park 8.74% 16.02% 24.76% 21.84% 50.97% 72.81% 2.43% Other Parks 35.44% 35.92% 71.36% 21.36% 3.88% 25.24% 3.40% YMCA 2.91% 7.77% 10.68% 9.71% 72.82% 82.53% 6.79% Minimum 2.91% 7.28% 10.68% 9.71% 3.88% 25.24% 0.97% Maximum 35.44% 35.92% 71.36% 39.81% 72.82% 82.53% 6.79% Mean Percentage 12.27% 16.71% 28.99% 23.44% 43.76% 67.20% 3.81% FINAL: November 16, 2010 18 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 70 of 117 8) A significant percent of female youth believe more individual sports and volunteering opportunities are needed. Females believe more activities are needed in general, as is shown in the chart of activities wanted, below Activity Numbers, By Gender 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% 55.00% 60.00% 65.00% Team Sports -� Individual Sports School Clubs Other Clubs Community Programs Tutoring Volunteering Leadership Church Groups �! Military Programs Female Too Many Male Too Many Female Just Right Male Just Right Female Need More Male Need More Female Don't Know Male Don't Know FEMALES Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent % Team Sports 9.01% 45.49% 26.18% 10.30% 9.02% Individual Sports 4.29% 40.34% 37.34% 13.73% 4.30% School Clubs 5.58% 42.92% 31.76% 18.03% 1.71% Other Clubs 3.43% 33.91% 25.32% 34.33% 3.01% Community Programs 3.43% 33.05% 30.04% 30.04% 3.44% Tutoring 3.00% 27.90% 24.89% 42.06% 2.15% Volunteering 3.00% 33.48% 33.05% 27.04% 3.43% Leadership Opportunities 2.58% 33.48% 27.04% 33.48% 3.42% Church Groups 17.60% 36.91% 8.58% 33.48% 3.43% Military Programs 7.73% 14.59% 8.58% 64.38% 4.72% Minimum 2.58% 14.59% 8.58% 10.30% 1.71% Maximum 17.60% 45.49% 37.34% 64.38% 9.02% Mean Percentage 5.97% 34.21% 25.28% 30.69% 3.86% FINAL: November 16, 2010 19 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 71 of 117 MALES Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent % Team Sports 3.40% 49.03% 27.18% 10.19% 10.20% Individual Sports 5.34% 34.47% 25.24% 26.70% 8.25% School Clubs 9.71% 42.72% 21.36% 20.87% 5.34% Other Clubs 8.74% 35.92% 13.59% 36.41% 5.34% Community Programs 10.68% 30.58% 18.93% 33.50% 6.31% Tutoring 5.83% 26.21% 19.42% 43.69% 4.85% Volunteering 7.77% 33.01% 20.39% 33.50% 5.33% Leadership , Opportunities 4.85% 30.10% 19.42% 38.83% 6.80% Church Groups 22.82% 21.84% 9.71% 39.32% 6.31% Military Programs 8.25% 10.68% 24.27% 50.49% 6.31% Minimum 3.40% 10.68% 9.71% 10.19% 4.85% Maximum 22.82% 49.03% 27.18% 50.49% 10.20% Mean Percentage 8.74% 31.46% 19.95% 33.35% 6.50% FINAL: November 16, 2010 20 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 72 of 117 9) In general, females want more activities than males. The average female youth wants 4.75 activities, over the average male's 3.5. A twenty-four hour intereet cafe remains a strong favorite for both genders, but the second most popular for females is an arts and crafts shop, while for males it is an Ultimate Frisbee team. There is also a strong interest from both genders in a youth advertising section in the newspaper. Wanted Activities by Gender 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00%20.00% 25.00% 30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00% 50.00% 55.00%60.00% 65.00%70.00% 75.00% Cafe Bookshop Tutoring Center Ultimate Frisbee Team Bike Club Kayak Club Community Center Youth Co-op Garden Newspaper Section Arts and Crafts Shops Other Male Female Female Number Percent of Gender Male Number Percent of Gender Caf6 173 74.25% Caf6 103 50.00% Arts and Crafts Shops 130 55.79% Ultimate Frisbee Team 85 41.26% Newspaper Section 125 53.65% Bike Club 73 35.44% Bookshop 120 51.50% Newspaper Section 69 33.50% Youth Co-op Garden 95 40.77% Kayak Club 68 33.01% Ultimate Frisbee Team 86 36.91% Arts and Crafts Shops 63 30.58% Kayak Club 86 36.91% Bookshop 62 30.10% Tutoring Center 83 35.62% Community Center 57 27.67% Bike Club 77 33.05% Other 55 26.70% Community Center 75 32.19% Youth Co-op Garden 48 23.30% Other 59 25.32% Tutoring Center 36 17.48% FINAL: November 16, 2010 21 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 73 of 117 ' i R' i II Survey Questions were broken down further to extract results by grade-the first number corresponds to the Survey Question: 4-1)Weekly participation (i.e., "often")in team sports is relatively high across all grades (mean of 42%). 6th graders have the lowest rate (38%), and several mentioned in comments that they felt there was a lack of opportunities for them to participate due to their age. Team Sports Participation by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent % 6th 37.68% 13.04% 50.72% 20.29% 24.64% 44.93% 4.35% 7th 42.86% 21.43% 64.29% 12.86% 20.00% 32.86% 2.85% 8th 44.29% 4.29% 48.58% 28.57% 20.00% 48.57% 2.85% 9th 44.00% 13.33% 57.33% 21.33% 21.33% 42.66% 0.01% 10th 40.24% 15.85% 56.09% 18.29% 20.73% 39.02% 4.89% 11th 45.28% 3.77% 49.05% 22.64% 24.53% 47.17% 3.78% 12th 42.86% 14.29% 57.15% 14.29% 28.56% 42.85% 0.00% Minimum 37.68% 3.77% 48.58% 12.86% 20.00% 32.86% 0.00% Maximum 45.28% 21.43% 64.29% 28.57% 28.56% 48.57% 4.89% Mean Percentage 42.46% 12.29% 54.74% 19.75% 22.83% 42.58% 2.68% FINAL: November 16, 2010 22 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 74 of 117 4-2) Individual Sports Participation by Grade 100.00% 90.00% so.00�io 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never B6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent % 6th 26.09% 14.49% 40.58% 17.39% 34.78% 52.17% 7.25% 7th 27.14% 17.14% 44.28% 15.71% 34.29% 50.00% 5.72% 8th 20.00% 11.43% 31.43% 21.43% 44.29% 65.72% 2.85% 9th 28.00% 10.67% 38.67% 21.33% 34.67% 56.00% 5.33% 10th 25.61% 15.85% 41.46% 15.85% 35.37% 51.22% 7.32% 11th 26.42% 13.21% 39.63% 15.09% 39.62% 54.71% 5.66% 12th 14.29% 4.76% 19.05% 14.29% 61.90% 76.19% 4.76% Minimum 14.29% 4.76% 19.05% 14.29% 34.29% 50.00% 2.85% Maximum 28.00% 17.14% 44.28% 21.43% 61.90% 76.19% 7.32% Mean Percentage 23.94% 12.51% 36.44% 17.30% 40.70% 58.00% 5.56% FINAL: November 16, 2010 23 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 75 of 117 4-3)Weekly participation in school clubs is reatest at the high school level,peaking at 10th grade and with a sharp drop at 12th. Most 12t graders who participate at all in school clubs do so approximately once a month School Clubs Participation by Grade 100.00% - 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Active Total Non- Often % Some % % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent% 6th 11.59% 5.80% 17.39% 8.70% 65.22% 73.92% 8.69% 7th 10.00% 4.29% 14.29% 12.86% 64.29% 77.15% 8.56% 8th 8.57% 7.14% 15.71% 25.71% 55.71% 81.42% 2.87% 9th 29.33% 12.00% 41.33% 9.33% 42.67% 52.00% 6.67% 10th 36.59% 10.98% 47.57% 9.76% 37.80% 47.56% 4.87% 11th 32.08% 3.77% 35.85% 18.87% 43.40% 62.27% 1.88% 12th 14.29% 19.05% 33.34% 4.76% 61.90% 66.66% 0.00% Minimum 8.57% 3.77% 14.29% 4.76% 37.80% 47.56% 0.00% Maximum 36.59% 19.05% 47.57% 25.71% 65.22% 81.42% 8.69% Mean Percentage 20.35% 9.00% 29.35% 12.86% 53.00% 65.85% 4.79% FINAL: November 16, 2010 24 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 76 of 117 4-4) Other Clubs Participation by Grade 10o.00°i° 90.00% low 80.00°i° 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent% 6th 13.04% 5.80% 18.84% 7.25% 68.12% 75.37% 5.79% 7th 11.43% 7.14% 18.57% 1.43% 72.86% 74.29% 7.14% 8th 4.29% 0.00% 4.29% 7.14% 87.14% 94.28% 1.43% 9th 10.67% 8.00% 18.67% 4.00% 70.67% 74.67% 6.66% 10th 2.44% 9.76% 12.20% 7.32% 71.95% 79.27% 8.53% 11th 1.89% 7.55% 9.44% 13.21% 69.81% 83.02% 7.54% 12th 4.76% 4.76% 9.52% 9.52% 80.95% 90.47% 0.01% Minimum 1.89% 0.00% 4.29% 1.43% 68.12% 74.29% 0.01% Maximum 13.04% 9.76% 18.84% 13.21% 87.14% 94.28% 8.53% Mean Percentage 6.93% 6.14% 13.08% 7.12% 74.50% 81.62% 5.30% FINAL: November 16, 2010 25 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 77 of 117 4-5) Community Program Participation by Grade 100.00% 90.00% � ■ 80.00% ■ 70.00% � ■ 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent % 6th 7.25% 4.35% 11.60% 11.59% 57.97% 69.56% 18.84% 7th 1.43% 7.14% 8.57% 8.57% 74.29% 82.86% 8.57% 8th 2.86% 2.86% 5.72% 7.14% 85.71% 92.85% 1.43% 9th 8.00% 4.00% 12.00% 10.67% 70.67% 81.34% 6.66% 10th 7.32% 10.98% 18.30% 10.98% 64.63% 75.61% 6.09% 11th 3.77% 5.66% 9.43% 11.32% 69.81% 81.13% 9.44% 12th 0.00% 9.52% 9.52% 4.76% 80.95% 85.71% 4.77% Minimum 0.00% 2.86% 5.72% 4.76% 57.97% 69.56% 1.43% Maximum 8.00% 10.98% 18.30% 11.59% 85.71% 92.85% 18.84% Mean Percentage 4.38% 6.36% 10.73% 9.29% 72.00% 81.29% 7.97% FINAL: November 16, 2010 26 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 78 of 117 4-6) Tutoring Participation by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% ' 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent % 6th 2.90% 4.35% 7.25% 7.25% 69.57% 76.82% 15.93% 7th 1.43% 2.86% 4.29% 5.71% 80.00% 85.71% 10.00% 8th 1.43% 0.00% 1.43% 2.86% 95.71% 98.57% 0.00% 9th 2.67% 2.67% 5.34% 9.33% 78.67% 88.00% 6.66% 10th 2.44% 1.22% 3.66% 6.10% 81.71% 87.81% 8.53% 11th 3.77% 3.77% 7.54% 5.66% 77.36% 83.02% 9.44% 12th 0.00% 4.76% 4.76% 0.00% 95.24% 95.24% 0.00% Minimum 0.00% 0.00% 1.43% 0.00% 69.57% 76.82% 0.00% Maximum 3.77% 4.76% 7.54% 9.33% 95.71% 98.57% 15.93% Mean Percentage 2.09% 2.80% 4.90% 5.27% 82.61% 87.88% 7.22% FINAL: November 16, 2010 27 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 79 of 117 4-7) Volunteering Participation by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% bk 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent% 6th 5.80% 13.04% 18.84% 14.49% 55.07% 69.56% 11.60% 7th 12.86% 11.43% 24.29% 10.00% 60.00% 70.00% 5.71% 8th 5.71% 11.43% 17.14% 21.43% 61.43% 82.86% 0.00% 9th 10.67% 17.33% 28.00% 18.67% 46.67% 65.34% 6.66% 10th 9.76% 26.83% 36.59% 18.29% 37.80% 56.09% 7.32% 11th 9.43% 11.32% 20.75% 26.42% 49.06% 75.48% 3.77% 12th 4.76% 4.76% 9.52% 19.05% 71.43% 90.48% 0.00% Minimum 4.76% 4.76% 9.52% 10.00% 37.80% 56.09% 0.00% Maximum 12.86% 26.83% 36.59% 26.42% 71.43% 90.48% 11.60% Mean Percentage 8.43% 13.73% 22.16% 18.34% 54.49% 72.83% 5.01% FINAL: November 16, 2010 28 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 80 of 117 4-8)Participation in leadership opportunities is generally low. Weekly participation spikes in 10th grade and then sharply declines. Yearly participation has a high point in 12th grade Leadership Opportunity Participation by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% F 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent % 6th 13.04% 14.49% 27.53% 7.25% 50.72% 57.97% 14.50% 7th 15.71% 8.57% 24.28% 12.86% 52.86% 65.72% 10.00% 8th 17.14% 12.86% 30.00% 8.57% 55.71% 64.28% 5.72% 9th 12.00% 9.33% 21.33% 8.00% 64.00% 72.00% 6.67% 10th 24.39% 3.66% 28.05% 10.98% 54.88% 65.86% 6.09% 11th 13.21% 11.32% 24.53% 5.66% 66.04% 71.70% 3.77% 12th 9.52% 4.76% 14.28% 19.05% 66.67% 85.72% 0.00% Minimum 9.52% 3.66% 14.28% 5.66% 50.72% 57.97% 0.00% Maximum 24.39% 14.49% 30.00% 19.05% 66.67% 85.72% 14.50% Mean Percentage 15.00% 9.28% 24.29% 10.34% 58.70% 69.04% 6.68% FINAL: November 16, 2010 29 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 81 of 117 4-9)Weekly participation in church groups is highest in 6th and 7th grades, after which it mostly declines steeply, though it does spike again in 11th grade before dropping again Church Group Participation by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent % 6th 23.19% 5.80% 28.99% 13.04% 49.28% 62.32% 8.69% 7th 28.57% 11.43% 40.00% 11.43% 41.43% 52.86% 7.14% 8th 15.71% 11.43% 27.14% 14.29% 57.14% 71.43% 1.43% 9th 16.00% 8.00% 24.00% 6.67% 64.00% 70.67% 5.33% 10th 13.41% 2.44% 15.85% 9.76% 69.51% 79.27% 4.88% 11th 20.57% 5.66% 26.23% 11.32% 54.72% 66.04% 7.73% 12th 9.52% 4.76% 14.28% 9.52% 76.19% 85.71% 0.01% Minimum 9.52% 2.44% 14.28% 6.67% 41.43% 52.86% 0.01% Maximum 28.57% 11.43% 40.00% 14.29% 76.19% 85.71% 8.69% Mean Percentage 18.14% 7.07% 25.21% 10.86% 58.90% 69.76% 5.03% FINAL: November 16, 2010 30 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 82 of 117 4-10) Military Program Participation by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total Total Non- Often % Some % Active % Not Much % Never% Inactive % Respondent% 6th 1.45% 1.45% 2.90% 2.90% 82.61% 85.51% 11.59% 7th 2.86% 0.00% 2.86% 1.43% 88.57% 90.00% 7.14% 8th 5.71% 0.00% 5.71% 2.86% 88.57% 91.43% 2.86% 9th 2.67% 0.00% 2.67% 4.00% 85.33% 89.33% 8.00% 10th 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.44% 92.68% 95.12% 4.88% 11th 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 92.45% 92.45% 7.55% 12th 0.00% 4.76% 4.76% 0.00% 95.24% 95.24% 0.00% Minimum 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 82.61% 85.51% 0.00% Maximum 5.71% 4.76% 5.71% 4.00% 95.24% 95.24% 11.59% Mean Percentage 1.81% 0.89% 2.70% 1.95% 89.35% 91.30% 6.00% FINAL: November 16, 2010 31 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 83 of 117 6-1) Boiler Room Attendance Frequency by Grade 100.00 90.00 ■ 80.00 ■ 70.00 ■ + ■ 60.00 50.00 Wood A S 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total High Total Low Non- Often % Some% Att. % Not Much % Never% Att. % Respondent % 6th 1.45% 11.59% 13.04% 11.59% 68.12% 79.71% 7.25% 7th 5.71% 7.14% 12.85% 22.86% 62.86% 85.72% 1.43% 8th 10.00% 7.14% 17.14% 32.86% 50.00% 82.86% 0.00% 9th 8.00% 10.67% 18.67% 16.00% 65.33% 81.33% 0.00% 10th 7.31% 6.10% 13.41% 28.05% 58.54% 86.59% 0.00% 11th 5.66% 7.55% 13.21% 28.30% 58.49% 86.79% 0.00% 12th 0.00% 4.76% 4.76% 23.81% 71.43% 95.24% 0.00% Minimum 0.00% 4.76% 4.76% 11.59% 50.00% 79.71% 0.00% Maximum 10.00% 11.59% 18.67% 32.86% 71.43% 95.24% 7.25% Mean Percentage 5.45% 7.85% 13.30% 23.35% 62.11% 85.46% 1.24% FINAL: November 16, 2010 32 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 84 of 117 6-2) Community Center Attendance Frequency by Grade 100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 - 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total High Total Low Non- Often % Some% Att. % Not Much % Never% Att. % Respondent% 6th 2.90% 21.74% 24.64% 21.74% 43.48% 65.22% 10.14% 7th 12.86% 14.29% 27.15% 25.71% 44.29% 70.00% 2.85% 8th 17.14% 18.57% 35.71% 25.71% 37.14% 62.85% 1.44% 9th 4.00% 17.33% 21.33% 21.33% 56.00% 77.33% 1.34% 10th 1.22% 17.07% 18.29% 35.37% 45.12% 80.49% 1.22% 11th 5.66% 18.87% 24.53% 33.96% 39.62% 73.58% 1.89% 12th 0.00% 9.52% 9.52% 23.81% 66.67% 90.48% 0.00% Minimum 0.00% 9.52% 9.52% 21.33% 37.14% 62.85% 0.00% Maximum 17.14% 21.74% 35.71% 35.37% 66.67% 90.48% 10.14% Mean Percentage 6.25% 16.77% 23.02% 26.80% 47.47% 74.28% 2.70% FINAL: November 16, 2010 33 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 85 of 117 6-3) Pool Attendance Frequency by Grade 100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total High Total Low Non- Often % Some% Att. % Not Much % Never% Att. % Respondent % 6th 28.99% 20.99% 49.98% 31.88% 17.39% 49.27% 0.75% 7th 21.43% 24.29% 45.72% 31.42% 22.86% 54.28% 0.00% 8th 15.71% 21.43% 37.14% 44.29% 15.71% 60.00% 2.86% 9th 10.67% 20.00% 30.67% 36.00% 32.00% 68.00% 1.33% 10th 9.76% 9.76% 19.52% 40.24% 39.02% 79.26% 1.22% 11th 3.77% 7.55% 11.32% 62.26% 26.42% 88.68% 0.00% 12th 9.52% 4.76% 14.28% 38.10% 47.62% 85.72% 0.00% Minimum 3.77% 4.76% 11.32% 31.42% 15.71% 49.27% 0.00% Maximum 28.99% 24.29% 49.98% 62.26% 47.62% 88.68% 2.86% Mean Percentage 14.26% 15.54% 29.80% 40.60% 28.72% 69.32% 0.88% 6-4)7th graders visit the Wooden Boat Foundation most frequently. Several of them noted in comments that this was due to a school project, and so the results may not entirely reflect how often they would visit of their own volition. FINAL: November 16, 2010 34 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 86 of 117 Wooden Boat Foundation Attendance Frequency by Grade 100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 Mod 30.00 20.00 e 10.00 0.00 A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total High Total Low Non- Often % Some% Att. % Not Much % Never% Att. % Respondent% 6th 7.25% 11.59% 18.84% 21.74% 50.72% 72.46% 8.70% 7th 8.57% 22.86% 31.43% 37.14% 30.00% 67.14% 1.43% 8th 7.14% 14.29% 21.43% 22.86% 51.43% 74.29% 4.28% 9th 8.00% 12.00% 20.00% 24.00% 52.00% 76.00% 4.00% 10th 1.22% 13.41% 14.63% 26.83% 56.10% 82.93% 2.44% 11th 7.55% 11.32% 18.87% 28.30% 50.94% 79.24% 1.89% 12th 0.00% 19.05% 19.05% 23.81% 52.38% 76.19% 4.76% Minimum 0.00% 11.32% 14.63% 21.74% 30.00% 67.14% 1.43% Maximum 8.57% 22.86% 31.43% 37.14% 56.10% 82.93% 8.70% Mean Percentage 5.68% 14.93% 20.61% 26.38% 49.08% 75.46% 3.93% FINAL: November 16, 2010 35 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 87 of 117 6-5) Skate Park Attendance Frequency by Grade 100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total High Total Low Non- Often % Some% Att. % Not Much % Never% Att. % Respondent % 6th 11.59% 11.59% 23.18% 21.74% 52.17% 73.91% 2.91% 7th 8.57% 14.29% 22.86% 25.71% 51.43% 77.14% 0.00% 8th 15.71% 5.71% 21.42% 32.86% 44.29% 77.15% 1.43% 9th 5.33% 14.67% 20.00% 26.67% 49.33% 76.00% 4.00% 10th 4.88% 17.07% 21.95% 19.51% 58.54% 78.05% 0.00% 11th 5.66% 7.55% 13.21% 26.41% 60.38% 86.79% 0.00% 12th 0.00% 4.76% 4.76% 23.81% 71.43% 95.24% 0.00% Minimum 0.00% 4.76% 4.76% 19.51% 44.29% 73.91% 0.00% Maximum 15.71% 17.07% 23.18% 32.86% 71.43% 95.24% 4.00% Mean Percentage 7.39% 10.81% 18.20% 25.24% 55.37% 80.61% 1.19% FINAL: November 16, 2010 36 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 88 of 117 6-6)Very few youth never go to the parks, though 6th and 7th graders visit them less frequently than the older youth. Other Parks Attendance Frequency by Grade 100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 IL 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total High Total Low Non- Often % Some% Att. % Not Much % Never% Att. % Respondent% 6th 28.99% 40.58% 69.57% 21.74% 4.35% 26.09% 4.34% 7th 32.86% 38.57% 71.43% 24.29% 1.43% 25.72% 2.85% 8th 48.57% 32.86% 81.43% 14.29% 1.43% 15.72% 2.85% 9th 46.67% 34.67% 81.34% 12.00% 2.67% 14.67% 3.99% 10th 45.12% 37.80% 82.92% 9.76% 4.88% 14.64% 2.44% 11th 45.28% 32.08% 77.36% 20.75% 1.89% 22.64% 0.00% 12th 38.10% 47.62% 85.72% 14.28% 0.00% 14.28% 0.00% Minimum 28.99% 32.08% 69.57% 9.76% 0.00% 14.28% 0.00% Maximum 48.57% 47.62% 85.72% 24.29% 4.88% 26.09% 4.34% Mean Percentage 40.80% 37.74% 78.54% 16.73% 2.38% 19.11% 2.35% FINAL: November 16, 2010 37 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 89 of 117 6-7) YMCA Attendance Frequency by Grade 100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 - A. Often B. Some C. Not Much D. Never 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total High Total Low Non- Often % Some% Att. % Not Much % Never% Att. % Respondent% 6th 2.90% 11.59% 14.49% 8.70% 68.12% 76.82% 8.69% 7th 7.14% 5.71% 12.85% 8.57% 74.29% 82.86% 4.29% 8th 5.71% 4.29% 10.00% 12.86% 71.43% 84.29% 5.71% 9th 0.00% 9.33% 9.33% 16.00% 69.33% 85.33% 5.34% 10th 1.22% 9.76% 10.98% 14.63% 71.95% 86.58% 2.44% 11th 1.89% 1.89% 3.78% 13.21% 79.25% 92.46% 3.76% 12th 0.00% 4.76% 4.76% 9.52% 85.72% 95.24% 0.00% Minimum 0.00% 1.89% 3.78% 8.57% 68.12% 76.82% 0.00% Maximum 7.14% 11.59% 14.49% 16.00% 85.72% 95.24% 8.69% Mean Percentage 2.69% 6.76% 9.46% 11.93% 74.30% 86.23% 4.32% FINAL: November 16, 2010 38 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 90 of 117 8-1) Team Sports Numbers by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% MEMEL- 10.00% 1 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent% 6th 4.35% 49.28% 18.84% 13.04% 14.49% 7th 8.57% 34.29% 37.17% 8.57% 11.40% 8th 7.14% 45.71% 27.14% 10.00% 10.01% 9th 5.33% 52.00% 22.67% 5.33% 14.67% 10th 6.10% 56.10% 28.83% 7.32% 1.65% 11th 5.66% 45.28% 26.42% 18.87% 3.77% 12th 4.76% 38.10% 38.10% 14.29% 4.75% Minimum 4.35% 34.29% 18.84% 5.33% 1.65% Maximum 8.57% 56.10% 38.10% 18.87% 14.67% Mean Percentage 5.99% 45.82% 28.45% 11.06% 8.68% FINAL: November 16, 2010 39 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 91 of 117 8-2) Individual Sports Numbers by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent % 6th 8.70% 30.43% 34.78% 21.74% 4.35% 7th 5.71% 31.43% 30.00% 28.57% 4.29% 8th 8.57% 41.43% 24.29% 20.00% 5.71% 9th 4.00% 38.67% 37.33% 8.00% 12.00% 10th 2.44% 35.37% 39.02% 14.36% 8.81% 11th 0.00% 54.72% 20.75% 22.64% 1.89% 12th 0.00% 28.57% 33.33% 33.33% 4.77% Minimum 0.00% 28.57% 20.75% 8.00% 1.89% Maximum 8.70% 54.72% 39.02% 33.33% 12.00% Mean Percentage 4.20% 37.23% 31.36% 21.23% 5.97% FINAL: November 16, 2010 40 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 92 of 117 8-3) School Club Numbers by Grade 100.00% T 90.00% A 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent% 6th 7.25% 33.33% 28.99% 27.54% 2.89% 7th 10.00% 38.57% 31.43% 17.14% 2.86% 8th 10.00% 28.57% 31.43% 28.57% 1.43% 9th 1.33% 60.00% 20.00% 12.00% 6.67% 10th 6.10% 52.44% 26.83% 10.98% 3.65% 11th 9.43% 47.17% 16.98% 22.64% 3.78% 12th 14.29% 28.57% 38.10% 19.04% 0.00% Minimum 1.33% 28.57% 16.98% 10.98% 0.00% Maximum 14.29% 60.00% 38.10% 28.57% 6.67% Mean Percentage 8.34% 41.24% 27.68% 19.70% 3.04% FINAL: November 16, 2010 41 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 93 of 117 8-4) Other Club Numbers by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% - 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent% 6th 5.80% 31.88% 15.94% 42.03% 4.35% 7th 7.41% 30.00% 24.29% 34.29% 4.01% 8th 11.43% 25.71% 18.57% 41.43% 2.86% 9th 1.33% 48.00% 21.33% 22.67% 6.67% 10th 3.66% 35.37% 19.51% 37.80% 3.66% 11th 5.66% 37.74% 18.87% 33.96% 3.77% 12th 9.52% 33.33% 23.81% 33.33% 0.01% Minimum 1.33% 25.71% 15.94% 22.67% 0.01% Maximum 11.43% 48.00% 24.29% 42.03% 6.67% Mean Percentage 6.40% 34.58% 20.33% 35.07% 3.62% FINAL: November 16, 2010 42 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 94 of 117 8-5) Community Program Numbers by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% - Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent% 6th 5.80% 36.23% 18.84% 31.88% 7.25% 7th 8.57% 22.86% 35.71% 28.57% 4.29% 8th 11.43% 20.00% 28.57% 37.14% 2.86% 9th 2.67% 45.33% 26.67% 17.33% 8.00% 10th 4.88% 30.49% 19.51% 41.46% 3.66% 11th 9.43% 37.74% 18.87% 30.19% 3.77% 12th 9.52% 23.81% 28.57% 38.10% 0.00% Minimum 2.67% 20.00% 18.84% 17.33% 0.00% Maximum 11.43% 45.33% 35.71% 41.46% 8.00% Mean Percentage 7.47% 30.92% 25.25% 32.10% 4.26% FINAL: November 16, 2010 43 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 95 of 117 8-6) Tutoring Numbers by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% AML 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent % 6th 4.35% 23.19% 24.64% 43.48% 4.34% 7th 7.14% 18.57% 25.71% 45.71% 2.87% 8th 7.14% 21.43% 15.71% 54.29% 1.43% 9th 0.00% 30.67% 22.67% 38.67% 7.99% 10th 4.88% 30.49% 21.95% 40.24% 2.44% 11th 3.77% 41.51% 20.75% 32.08% 1.89% 12th 4.76% 23.81% 28.57% 42.86% 0.00% Minimum 0.00% 18.57% 15.71% 32.08% 0.00% Maximum 7.14% 41.51% 28.57% 54.29% 7.99% Mean Percentage 4.58% 27.10% 22.86% 42.48% 2.99% FINAL: November 16, 2010 44 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 96 of 117 8-7) Volunteering Numbers by Grade 100.00% 80.00°i° 7o.00°i° ■ 6o.00°i° ■ 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent 6th 5.80% 34.78% 25.64% 30.43% 3.35% 7th 7.14% 28.57% 25.71% 32.86% 5.72% 8th 11.43% 22.86% 24.29% 37.14% 4.28% 9th 1.33% 37.33% 32.00% 22.67% 6.67% 10th 4.88% 30.48% 35.37% 26.83% 2.44% 11th 3.77% 42.17% 13.21% 32.08% 8.77% 12th 0.00% 42.86% 28.57% 28.57% 0.00% Minimum 0.00% 22.86% 13.21% 22.67% 0.00% Maximum 11.43% 42.86% 35.37% 37.14% 8.77% Mean Percentage 4.91% 34.15% 26.40% 30.08% 4.46% FINAL: November 16, 2010 45 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 97 of 117 8-8) Leadership Opportunities Numbers by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00�io Raft 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th I1fh 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent 6th 5.80% 27.54% 26.09% 34.78% 5.79% 7th 4.29% 21.43% 27.14% 40.00% 7.14% 8th 7.14% 25.71% 15.71% 48.57% 2.87% 9th 0.00% 41.33% 24.00% 26.67% 8.00% 10th 2.44% 36.59% 26.83% 31.71% 2.43% 11th 5.66% 41.51% 13.21% 35.85% 3.77% 12th 0.00% 28.57% 33.33% 33.33% 4.77% Minimum 0.00% 21.43% 13.21% 26.67% 2.43% Maximum 7.14% 41.51% 33.33% 48.57% 8.00% Mean Percentage 3.62% 31.81% 23.76% 35.84% 4.97% FINAL: November 16, 2010 46 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 98 of 117 8-9) Church Group Numbers by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% AL 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent% 6th 13.04% 28.99% 14.49% 37.68% 5.80% 7th 21.43% 37.14% 12.86% 25.71% 2.86% 8th 21.43% 21.43% 5.71% 48.57% 2.86% 9th 20.00% 40.00% 4.00% 28.00% 8.00% 10th 21.95% 23.17% 7.32% 45.12% 2.44% 11th 22.64% 32.08% 9.43% 28.30% 7.55% 12th 19.04% 23.81% 14.29% 38.10% 4.76% Minimum 13.04% 21.43% 4.00% 25.71% 2.44% Maximum 22.64% 40.00% 14.49% 48.57% 8.00% Mean Percentage 19.93% 29.52% 9.73% 35.93% 4.90% FINAL: November 16, 2010 47 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 99 of 117 8-10)A large percentage of 12th graders believe more military programs are needed. Most 12th graders say they have never participated in a military program. Military Program Numbers by Grade 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% ' 70.00% i 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% - 10.00% 0.00% Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Too Many Just Right Need More Don't Know Non-Respondent% 6th 7.25% 11.59% 17.39% 60.87% 2.90% 7th 11.43% 10.00% 15.71% 57.14% 5.72% 8th 12.86% 8.57% 14.29% 60.00% 4.28% 9th 4.00% 21.33% 17.33% 48.00% 9.34% - 10th 4.88% 13.41% 14.63% 64.63% 2.45% 11th 9.43% 15.09% 7.55% 58.49% 9.44% 12th 4.76% 4.76% 38.10% 47.62% 4.76% Minimum 4.00% 4.76% 7.55% 47.62% 2.45% Maximum 12.86% 21.33% 38.10% 64.63% 9.44% Mean Percentage 7.80% 12.11% 17.86% 56.68% 5.56% 9) 8th graders want the most activities overall, averaging at 5.2, well above the other years which generally average between 4 and 4.5. 11th graders want the fewest, with an average of 3.5. In all cases, a twenty-four hour internet cafe is most wanted, but the second most wanted varies between grades. For 6th graders, it is an arts and crafts shop, and for 7th graders, it is a youth advertising section in the newspaper. 8th graders would like another bookshop, 9th graders are also in favor of an arts and crafts shop, 10th and 11th graders support an Ultimate Frisbee team and 12th graders prefer the youth newspaper section FINAL: November 16, 2010 48 Ordinance 3105 Ex hibitB -Appendices Page 100 m 117 / z 0 _ \ Cn \ j J - _ } \ - _ _ g m ® o 0 ƒ f \ 0 0 o m o { W / { / $ $ q / ƒ \ _ . \ G Cn G CD CL ° D 0 / \ < / A CD CO) c t ° CL a m Cn C� | \ FINAL: November 16 2010 49 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 101 of 117 6th Number Percent of Grade 7th Number Percent of Grade Caf6 39 56.52% Caf6 38 54.29% Arts and Crafts Shops 39 56.52% Newspaper Section 37 52.86% Bookshop 29 42.03% Arts and Crafts Shops 32 45.71% Newspaper Section 28 40.58% Other 32 45.71% Bike Club 27 39.13% Bookshop 26 37.14% Kayak Club 23 33.33% Kayak Club 24 34.29% Ultimate Frisbee Team 22 31.88% Bike Club 22 31.43% Other 22 31.88% Community Center 22 31.43% Youth Co-op Garden 20 28.99% Ultimate Frisbee Team 20 28.57% Community Center 18 26.09% Youth Co-op Garden 19 27.14% Tutoring Center 14 20.29% Tutoring Center 11 15.71% Total 281 283 Mean#of Activities 4.07 4.04 8th Number Percent of Grade 9th Number Percent of Grade Caf6 57 81.43% Caf6 47 62.67% Bookshop 43 61.43% Arts and Crafts Shops 34 45.33% Ultimate Frisbee Team 34 48.57% Bookshop 29 38.67% Newspaper Section 34 48.57% Tutoring Center 29 38.67% Community Center 33 47.14% Ultimate Frisbee Team 29 38.67% Arts and Crafts Shops 33 47.14% Kayak Club 28 37.33% Kayak Club 32 45.71% Newspaper Section 28 37.33% Bike Club 31 44.29% Youth Co-op Garden 27 36.00% Youth Co-op Garden 28 40.00% Community Center 24 32.00% Tutoring Center 24 34.29% Bike Club 23 30.67% Other 16 22.86% Other 8 10.67% Total 365 306 Mean#of Activities 5.21 4.08 10th Number Percent of Grade 11th Number Percent of Grade Caf6 52 63.41% Caf6 29 54.72 Ultimate Frisbee Team 37 45.12% Ultimate Frisbee Team 24 45.28 Newspaper Section 37 45.12% Newspaper Section 19 35.85 Arts and Crafts Shops 34 41.46% Bookshop 17 32.08 Bookshop 33 40.24% Arts and Crafts Shops 16 30.19 Youth Co-op Garden 28 34.15% Bike Club 14 26.42 Bike Club 27 32.93% Youth Co-op Garden 14 26.42 Kayak Club 27 32.93% Tutoring Center 13 24.53 Tutoring Center 21 25.61% Kayak Club 13 24.53 Community Center 17 20.73% Community Center 13 24.53 Other 15 18.29% Other 12 22.64 Total 328 184 Mean#of Activities 4.00 3.47 12th Number Percent of Grade Caf6 15 71.43% Newspaper Section 11 52.38% Other 10 47.62% Bike Club 8 38.10% Kayak Club 8 38.10% FINAL: November 16, 2010 50 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 102 of 117 Tutoring Center 7 33.33% Ultimate Frisbee Team 7 33.33% Youth Co-op Garden 7 33.33% Bookshop 6 28.57% Community Center 6 28.57% Arts and Crafts Shops 6 28.57% Total 91 Mean#of Activities 4.33 FINAL: November 16, 2010 51 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 103 of 117 APPENDIX Full Text of Survey Youth Programs & Services in the City of Port Townsend: Opinion Survey What do you think? We'd really like to know... Please Note: There are several surveys already distributed/soon to be distributed: The Healthy Youth Survey and the Parks and Recreation Survey are DIFFERENT from this survey. So please take this one, OK? Why are we doing this??? WE NEED YOUR HELP! The city of Port Townsend would really like to know your ANONYMOUS opinion on the best way to provide programs and activities that people your age would use and enjoy. When you fill out the survey, you will help shape future activities, programs and service offerings for our town. Who can take this survey??? Only students currently in grade 6 through 12 can take the survey....and you can only take it once! OK, I'm in....how long will it take? ...and what's in it for me? It will take approximately ten to fifteen minutes to complete the survey. Thank you for participating! Remember, your ANONYMOUS opinion is very important! Please circle your answer for each of the following questions: 1) Which grade are you in? 6 th 7 th 8 th 9th 1 oth 11 th 12 th 2) Are you: Male Female 3) At present do you attend: Public Jefferson Home Private School ICE School Community School School FINAL: November 16, 2010 52 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 104 of 117 4) In the following table please indicate how often you participate in OR have participated in the following activities. If not much or never, please use the last column to explain why? Activity Examples How often? (circle one) If not much or never, why not? Team sports All athletics A. Not interested (including A. Often (weekly) B. Cost too much B. Some (once a month) C. Can't et there school & select C. Not much (few times/year) g teams) D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other Individual Dance, A. Often (weekly) A. Not interested Sports Gymnastics, B. Some (once a month) B. Cost too much Skate park C. Not much (few times/year) C. Can't get there D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other School NHS, ASB, Key A. Oft A. Not interested Clubs Club, en (weekly) B. Cost too much e Knowled B. Some (once a month) C. Can't get there Knowledge C. Not much (few times/year) D. Not sure what it is Bowl, Drama, D. Never E. Other etc. Other clubs 4H, A. Often (weekly) A. Not interested Scouts(Boys/ B. Some (once a month) B. Cost too much Girls/Sea)etc. C. Not much (few times/year) C. Can't get there D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other Community Rotary, Kiwanis A. Often (weekly) A. Not interested Program Club etc. B. Some (once a month) B. Cost too much C. Not much (few times/year) C. Can't get there D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other Tutoring National Honor A. Often (weekly) A. Not interested Society B. Some (once a month) B. Cost too much C. Not much (few times/year) C. Can't get there D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other Volunteering Community, A. Often (weekly) A. Not interested Expedition Club B. Some (once a month) B. Cost too much etc. C. Not much (few times/year) C. Can't get there D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other FINAL: November 16, 2010 53 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 105 of 117 Activity Examples How often? (circle one) If not much or never, why not? Leadership Interact A. Often (weekly) A. Not interested opportunity B. Some (once a month) B. Cost too much C. Not much (few times/year) C. Can't get there D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other Church A. Often (weekly) A. Not interested group B. Some (once a month) B. Cost too much C. Not much (few times/year) C. Can't get there D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other Military A. Often (weekly) A. Not interested Program B. Some (once a month) B. Cost too much C. Not much (few times/year) C. Can't get there D. Never D. Not sure what it is E. Other 5) Did we miss any? Please list any other activities that you participate in or have participated in that are not in the table above. How often you do them? 6) Do you spend time at any of the following places? Why or why not? Circle one Why or Why not? Boiler Room A. Often (weekly) B. Some (once a month) C. Not much (few times/year) D. Never Community A. Often (weekly) Center B. Some (once a month) C. Not much (few times/year) D. Never Pool A. Often (weekly) B. Some (once a month) C. Not much (few times/year) D. Never Wooden Boat A. Often (weekly) Foundation/ B. Some (once a month) Northwest C. Not much (few times/year) Maritime Center D. Never Skate Park A. Often (weekly) B. Some (once a month) C. Not much (few times/year) D. Never Circle one Why or Why not? FINAL: November 16, 2010 54 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 106 of 117 Other Parks (like A. Often (weekly) Chetzemoka or B. Some (once a month) Fort Worden) C. Not much (few times/year) D. Never YMCA A. Often (weekly) B. Some (once a month) C. Not much (few times/year) D. Never 7) When is a good time to offer programs and services? Good Okay Bad After-School Before-School Weekends During the Summer 8) We are interested to know your thoughts about the number of programs in your community. Check (�) one for each category. Too Just Need Don't Comments Many Right More Know Team Sports Individual Sports (Dance, gymnastics, boating etc. School Clubs Other Clubs Community programs Tutoring Volunteering Leadership opportunity Church group Military program FINAL: November 16, 2010 55 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 107 of 117 9) Are there any programs or services not mentioned that you would like offered in your community? From the following list, mark all that apply. Check Comments M 24 hr. coffee shops or internet cafes Bookshops and independent businesses Tutoring centers An ultimate frisbee team A bike club A kayak club Community centers A youth-run co-op or community garden A section in the newspaper dedicated to advertising upcoming youth activities etc. Arts and crafts shops Other please explain): FINAL: November 16, 2010 56 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 108 of 117 10) Check the two (2) best ways to provide information to you: Newspaper School announcement Website Flyers/posters Email Facebook/Myspace Twitter Other (please explain): 11) Additional comments and suggestions: Thank you for completing the survey! Your time and consideration is valued. FINAL: November 16, 2010 57 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 109 of 117 APPENDIXD.- Full Text of • Comments Please note: Original spelling and grammar in these comments have been preserved to the best of the transcriber's ability. ■ Sometimes kids just want to have fun in ways other than the ones adults come up with ■ expand orgs in town that already offer activities ■ used to participate, don't anymore due to college ■ I feel like I'm doing it wrong ■ We need more fun places to go have fun ■ good survey ■ Dance places need more dance options ■ we need the Rec Center ■ WE NEED A MALL ■ Make things available for kids 8-13 where adults don't treat them like 2 yr old idiots. ■ help old people ■ OPEN REC CENTER ■ open the Recreation Center ■ I don't think kids read websites or newspapers or flyers but the rest is cool ■ I think it would be nice if we had a place to practice volleyball or at least had a place where volleyball activities could be held ■ I REALLY think the horse park would help the town a lot! PLEASE don't take away the coffee shops. And make more places for people to hang out! There isn't anywhere to go with friends sometimes... ■ I think the should have a free class of baking ■ Add Forever 21, this town is not just for turistist ■ I think this survey was a good idea, there's not that many fun things in this town for children, and there's a lot of kids ■ you should add more fun things to this town so we have places to hang out and will not get in trouble so much if we have things to do. P.S. I don't get in trouble ■ Please make more hang out places for teenagers. ■ Port Townsend is a very boring place. We need more activities for kids to do. I think we should get a teenager club for something to do ages 13-18, have dance parties! DO IT!!!! ■ Just to think of stuff for older kids so they'll be more interested and not doing drugs, ultimate frisbee's lame!! ■ More for the younger kids, ESPECIALLY teenagers. ■ Port Townsend is full of hippie people ■ Having a pool is a huge value for many people in our community ■ This town is basically meant for old people.Nothing fun. All the $ goes to roadwork(roundabout) Why care for kids! Make the kids HAPPY=)NOT the roadwork=(Why,why, why? WHY ROUNDABOUTS? HELP US Get FUN PLEASE! Why weird art in the park? Why not a local artist?Not one from Seattle. WE NEED YOUR HELP!! FINAL: November 16, 2010 58 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 110 of 117 • This is an old people town. There are absolutely NO fun things to do. NONE! If they want us to stay here in PT and grow and make a family here, we need a good town. Everyone I know, and especially in the class discustion,wants to move away from PT when they were older. I mean maybe opening up the rec center would help, but that's not even appealing. You have to drive all the way to SILVERDALE to do fun stuff. And WHY IN THE WORLD DID WE NEED THOSE ROUNDABOUTS!? We could have actually spent the $ on usefull things like a new pool. And a stupid piece of art that is a twin to a nut? Why is PT getting this way? It's a beautiful town but it needs to get more appealing. PLEASE, PLEASE,we need PT to change. You aren't supporting our town right. • We need more stuff for the kids like bowling, skating, and other things that appeal to the teens and not the todlers! This is An Old People Town, because all this money on the roads. I would have never been at the rec center much more,but it was NOT appealing because there was nothing good to do. Why didn't you pay a local artist to make our nut?? Because they don't support our town because they don't live HERE! This is BY • This town is for the old people! We need something for the kids. We are spending all the money on roadwork and stuff we don't need. ■ bring the Rec BACK ■ I think that we should open up the Rec Center again becayuse many loved playing there. I know a lot of people who went to Rec Center and now they are bored every day. Also, I really think that their should be something fun to do here like a bowling alley or a place to play mini golf or an equine center Everything here is like all for old people. Their should be more fun things for kids. ■ The schedule of the High School should be changed instead of the middle school! Like, now. Seriously. 1, 2, 3,NOSE! WE NEED A GAMESTOP! ■ more than beter to do carnival, need more cherch programs, more pool programs, no more school and more hospitals and cops that achually care about the community because the cops we have now are tarted and don't do a thaing. Biger scat bord parck ples do all of what I asket I'll kiss you feet. Gut a mall wall mart roller rink, beter bigger ice cream shop, stors, Berger King, Ice skat rink Bigger pool more stors doller store tack out the rownd a Bouts ■ Thanks for the survey ■ Bring the ---- --- --- Rec Center Back Please! It was the only place I could have fun Every Day! Every Single Day! ■ better places for the youth, where smoking and drinking is NOT allowed would be nice! My neice and nephew are trying to learn to swim, they CAN't because last time we went to the pool they were so cold that they got sick for over two weeks it is a AWFUL POOL! We had a roller rink, we had a bowling ally.Now they are wasting money on Dumb round-a-bouts not it's just hard for people to get in and out! People in this town make STUPID CHOICES!!!! ■ Open up the Rec Center!!! ■ This town is full of old stupid people with lots of money. Give something fun for us to do. We don't care about roads and stuff our roads work. But in a bowling alley. Need to open Rec Center! If the rec center was open not as many people would do bad things. Its all your fault. Do fundraisers to save the rec center.. If you do bring it back add a little bit more more stuff. This town is getting more and more less kid friendly. Stop killing people. You are horrible for doing this. FINAL: November 16, 2010 59 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 111 of 117 ■ I suggest that the town stops closing fun places (the bowling alley,rec-center, Hollywood Video, ect.) to make room for stupid community/hippy places such as the Co-op. And we should open our town to change and expansion such as bigger businesses instead of overpriced community shops. ■ the rec senter. It makes me so(bad word) mad that you closed the rec center. Reopen it. ■ our community needs more places for kids to hang out ■ please do reconsider. Open the recreational cetner back up and add more to it. Kids need that place, especially for the summer. ■ The town needs something big for kids to do. Like the roller skating rink there used to be. It would easily be funded by all the skates. Something for all ages, fun, active,not to expensive. ■ please to something about making boy scouts more known and why it's cool and what you can do and stuff like that thx. =) ■ I don't know what I got out of this. My favorite thing to do is to write random things on a survey ■ Bookshops!!! ■ Please think of the visual arts! ■ Unicorn! ■ give us things to do people need fun things to do and not to get into drugs ■ Get a mall PLEASE ■ less school please ■ rollerskating! Get a Mall! ■ I appreciate that you want my input :) thank you! ■ we need bowling, roller skating, other things like this. Not much to do in Port Townsend right now ■ our little towns has a lack of activity for our youth, this is a main reason for the drug problem. We need something to keep us busy • the school should have a myspace or a facebook to post important things. Students are on facebook or myspace much more than the school website • Open up the rec center for the summer. Turn on the water fountain at the courts in front of the courthouse during the spring. • most of all of the programs mentioned we have in our community, but I think that we should have more musical programs for students who are interested. ■ a place for nerds to congregate and do nerd things! See my suggestion above ■ I am glad I don't have to take this survey again ■ dance should be more appreciated in schools. ■ 4:20 ■ We have NOTHING in Port Townsend ■ most extracirricular things I don't have time for. I'm already involved in many ■ who is this? ■ I hope this helped! ■ more musical programs (not gay stuff either) ■ do things kids want to do, like a kid run youth group w/trips to seattle and stuf. Why do a garden? That's not what anyone wants to do. ■ We need more things like bowling alley, skating rink, and more ■ this isn't going to help anything ■ seattle/Port Townsend Ferry FINAL: November 16, 2010 60 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 112 of 117 ■ there is no proper place for hockey. There was much formation of a revolt against ASB. They're on edge ■ round abouts should be destroyed. Round abouts go BOOM! ■ get rid of roundabouts. Give money to schools. Stop smoking so much weed. Waist of my time, ■ SPREAD THE WORD ■ sports and clubs need more support. Pool and community center are important and should be improved ■ get rid of the roundabouts ■ this survey was pointless and retarded! ■ PT is gay ■ more library activities ■ I think we should get more places for teens to go and hang. ■ We need a school choir. We need it.NEED IT. Mark my words. MARK THEM. FINAL: November 16, 2010 61 Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 113 of 117 Appendix D. Acronyms and Glossary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A 1990 federal law designed to bring disabled Americans into the economic mainstream by providing them equal access to jobs, transportation, public facilities, and services. AQ: Acquisition Arterial, minor: A street with signals at important intersections and stop signs on the side streets and that collects and distributes traffic to and from collector streets. Arterial, major: A street with access control, channelized intersections, restricted parking, and that collects and distributes traffic to and from minor arterials. CDBG: Community Development Block Grant census block: the smallest geographic unit used by the United States Census for tabulation of 100-percent data. CIP: Capital Improvement Program: A plan for future capital expenditures which identifies each capital project, its anticipated start and completion, and allocates existing funds and known revenue sources over a six-year period. Comprehensive Plan: A generalized coordinated policy statement of the governing body of a city that is adopted pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW). A document or series of documents prepared by a professional planning staff and planning commission that sets forth guidelines and policies for the future development of a community. Such a plan should be the result of considerable public input, study, and analysis of existing physical, economic, environmental and social conditions, and a projection of likely future conditions. Critical Areas: Wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and rare/endangered plant habitat areas that every county and city in the state are required to classify, designate, and regulate to protect, under the GMA. CT Pipeline: The CT pipeline refers to the City's pipeline project constructed in the late 1980's to increase chlorine contact time thereby bringing the City's water system into compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Agreed Order with the Department of Health.Detention: The process of collecting and holding back stormwater for delayed release to receiving waters. DNR: Department of Natural Resources DOH: Department of Health Easement: A right or privilege that a person may have on another's land, such as a right-of- way. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA): Those areas, designated, mapped and regulated by environmentally sensitive area regulations. These areas have existing site conditions which require development standards to minimize specific on-site and off-site adverse environmental impacts including stream siltation, hill-slides, and reduction of wildlife habitat. ESAs include wetlands, riparian corridors, steep slopes, slide-prone areas, areas subject to liquefaction, known-slide hazard areas, hazardous waste sites, floodplains, and wildlife habitat areas. FTE: Full Time Equivalent Appendix D. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 114 of 117 GMA: Growth Management Act: Washington State House Bill 2929 adopted in 1990, amended by House Bill 1025 in 1991, and codified largely within Chapter 36.70A RCW.HUD: Housing and Urban Development Household: A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. IAC: Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation (former name for RCO) Impact Fee: Charges levied by a city or county against new development for a pro-rata share of the capital costs of facilities necessitated by the development. The Growth Management Act authorizes imposition of impact fees on new development, and sets the conditions under which they may be imposed. LID: Low Impact Development Local Improvement District (LID): A quasi-governmental organization formed by landowners to finance and construct a variety of physical infrastructure improvements beneficial to its members. LOS: Level-of-Service: A qualitative rating of how well some unit of transportation supply or other public facility or service (e.g., street, intersection, sidewalk, bikeway, transit route, water, and sewer) meets current or projected demand. LWCF: Land and Water Conservation Fund MPD: Metropolitan Parks District MR: Major Repairs and Site Improvements NMTAB: Non-motorized Transportation Advisory Board NRPA: National Recreation and Parks Association OFM: State Office of Financial Management OlyCAP: Olympic Community Action Program Open Space: Land or water area with its surface open to the sky or predominantly undeveloped, which is set aside to serve the purposes of providing park and recreation opportunities, conserving valuable resources, and structuring urban development and form. The term 'open space" is often further divided into the following categories: a. Common Open Space: Space that my be used by all occupants of a residential complex (note: parking areas and driveways do not qualify as open space); b. Landscaped Open Space: An outdoor area including natural or planted vegetation in the form of hardy trees, shrubs, grass, evergreen ground cover and/or flowers; c. Private Open Space: Usable outdoor space directly accessible to a unit, with use restricted to the occupants of that unit; and d. Usable Open Space: Usable open space is an outdoor area which is of appropriate size, shape and siting to provide for recreational activity. Usable open space may be occupied by sculpture, fountains or pools, benches or other outdoor furnishings, or by recreational facilities such as playground equipment, swimming pools, and game courts. Overlay Zone: A zoning district that encompasses one or more underlying zones and that imposes additional requirements above that required by the underlying zone. In Port Townsend, examples include, the National Register Historic District, the Gateway Corridor, Appendix D. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 115 of 117 and the Urban Waterfront District. (Comment: Overlay zones deal with special situations in a municipality that are not appropriate to a specific zoning district or apply to several districts. For example, in all business zones, an overlay provision might require impact fees to provide for traffic improvements or an historic district overlay may cover parts of several zones).PD: Park Development PDA: Public Development Authority PRTAB: Parks, Recreation and Trees Advisory Board PUD: Planned Unit Development or Public Utility District Recreation, Active: Leisure-time activities, usually of a formal nature and often performed with others, requiring formal equipment and taking place at prescribed places, sites, or fields. (Comment: The term active recreation is more a word of art than one with a precise definition. It obviously includes swimming, tennis and other court games, baseball and other field sports, track, and playground activities. There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether park use, per se, may be considered active recreation, although obviously some parks contain activity areas that would qualify.) Recreation, Passive: Activities that involve relatively inactive or less energetic activities, such as walking, sitting, picnicking, card games, chess, checkers, and similar table games. (Comment: The reason for the differentiation between active and passive recreation is their potential impacts on surrounding land uses. Passive recreation can also mean space for nature walks and observation.) RCO: Recreation and Conservation Office RCW: Revised Code of Washington Right-of-Way: Land in which the state, county, or city owns the fee simple title or has an easement dedicated or required for a transportation or utility use. The right-of-way is the right to pass over the property of another. It refers to a strip of land legally established for the use of pedestrians, vehicles or utilities.SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): The state law passed in 1971 requiring state and local agencies to consider environmental impacts in the decision-making process (codified at Chapter 43.21C RCW). A Determination of Environmental Significance (DS) must be made for all nonexempt projects or actions which require a permit, license or decision from a government agency. If the action does not have significant adverse environmental impacts, a Declaration of Non Significance (DNS) is issued. If the action or project could have major impacts, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. SEPA requires consideration of alternatives and mitigation of environmental impacts for major public and private projects and programs. Urban Growth Areas (UGAs): Areas where urban growth will be encouraged. Counties and cities cooperatively establish the urban growth areas, and cities must be located inside urban growth areas. Once the UGAs are established, cities cannot annex land outside the urban growth area. Growth outside of urban growth areas must be rural in nature. Watershed: The geographic region within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or body of water. A watershed includes hills, lowlands, and the body of water into which the land drains. WWRP LP: Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program - Local Parks Zoning Map: The official Land Use Map which classifies all land within the city with one of the land uses. Appendix D. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 116 of 117 6(f)(3): Reference to Section 6(f)(3) of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965. Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act contains strong provisions to protect Federal investments and the quality of assisted resources. The Section reads, "No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location." Appendix D. Ordinance 3105 Exhibit B -Appendices Page 117 of 117 Appendix E. References 2012 City Park Facts (2012) The Trust for Public Land (http://tpl.org/cityparkfacts). 345-271 Chronic Disease Profile - Jefferson County (2012) Washington State Department of Health 345-291 Obesity in Washington State (2009) Washington State Department of Health. http://www.ofm.wa.gov. Office of Financial Management http://parkscore.tpl.org/Trust for Public Land Park Score (accessed 22jan14) http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/12_0252.htm http://www.census.gov. US Census data, 1980 - 2010 http://www.tpchd.org/page.php?id=2597. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department page for Research Evidence Linking Areas of Built Environment Intervention in Community Health Outcome (accessed 22Jan14). Blanck, H.M., et al. (2012) Let's Go to the Park Today: The Role of Parks in Obesity Prevention and Improving the Public's Health. Childhood Obesity 12:423-428. City of Dreams: A Guide to Port Townsend (1986) P. Simpson, ed. Bay Press, 330 pp. Fulton, W. (2012) Financing the Future: The Critical Role of Parks in Urban and Metropolitan Infrastructure. NRPA, Urban Institute and National League of Cities. 8 pp. Irvine KN, Warber SL, Devine-Wright P, Gaston KJ (2013) Understanding urban green space as a health resource: a qualitative comparison of visit motivation and derived effects among park users in Sheffield, UK. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Jan 22;10(1):417-42. doi: 10.3390/ijerph 10010417. Krohe, James Jr. "Park Standards Are Up in the Air," Planning. December 1990. National Recreation and Parks Association (1983) Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. Olympic Community Action Program (2013) 2013 Community Needs Assessment - Clallam and Jefferson County, Washington. Port Townsend Non-Motorized Transportation Plan https://weblink.cityofpt.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=61902&&dbid=0 Planning for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space in Your Community (2005) Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development, Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. Recreation and Conservation Office (2011) Manual 2, Planning Policies and Guidelines. Appendix E.