Chapter 31.07
CITY OF FORKS URBAN GROWTH AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Sections:

Article I. Land Use Element

31.07.010    Introduction – Purpose.

31.07.020    Overview.

31.07.030    Inventory and analysis.

31.07.040    Future needs and alternatives.

31.07.050    Belief implementation.

Article II. Transportation Element

31.07.060    Introduction.

31.07.070    Inventory and analysis.

31.07.080    Future needs and alternatives.

31.07.090    Goals, objectives, and policies.

Article III. Affordable Housing Element

31.07.100    Introduction.

31.07.110    Inventory and analysis.

31.07.120    Future needs and alternatives.

31.07.130    Beliefs, objectives, and policies.

Article IV. Economic Development Element

31.07.140    Introduction.

31.07.150    Brief analysis of economic conditions.

31.07.160    Goals and objectives associated with economic development.

Article V. Capital Facilities Element

31.07.170    Introduction – Purpose.

31.07.180    Inventory and analysis.

31.07.190    Summary of City of Forks Capital Improvement Plan.

31.07.200    Future needs and alternatives.

31.07.210    Five (5) year Capital Facilities Plan.

31.07.220    Goals, objectives, and policies.

31.07.230    Plan implementation and monitoring.

Article VI. Utilities Element

31.07.240    Introduction.

31.07.250    Inventory and analysis.

31.07.260    Future needs and alternatives.

31.07.270    Goals, objectives, and policies.

SOURCE:    ADOPTED:

Ord. 605    10/29/96

Ord. 805    12/19/06

Article I. Land Use Element

31.07.010 Introduction – Purpose.

This land use element has been developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070, the Growth Management Act, to address land uses for the City of Forks and the adjacent urban growth area. It represents the community’s policy plan for growth over the next 20 years. The land use element describes how the goals in the other plan elements will be implemented through land use policies and regulations, and is a key element in implementing the Comprehensive Plan.

The land use element has also been developed in accordance with the County-wide Planning Policies, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure consistency throughout the Comprehensive Plan. The land use element specifically considers the general distribution and location of land uses, the appropriate intensity and density of land uses given current development trends, the protection of the quality and quantity of water supply, the provision of public services, and stormwater runoff.

The land use element includes:

•    

Overview

•    

Inventory and Analysis

•    

Future Land Use Needs and Alternatives

•    

Goals, Objectives, and Policies

31.07.020 Overview.

The planning area includes the lands to which Forks may feasibly provide future urban services and those surrounding areas which directly impact conditions within the City limits. This area is designated by the Forks urban growth area boundary (Forks UGA). Discussion in this element will pertain to the entire Forks UGA when possible but much of the information will be limited to the City of Forks due to constraints on the availability of information. The City and County have coordinated their activities in identifying the Forks UGA and in the development of interim management policies for the area within the Forks UGA but outside of the current City limits. The City and County have also agreed to formulate annexation policies for City annexations. This process was conducted according to the County-wide Planning Policies and the contract governing the Clallam County Regional Planning Commission.

The Forks UGA was selected in order to ensure that urban services will be available to all new development. The location of the boundary was based on environmental constraints, the concentrations of existing development, the existing infrastructure and services, the need for flexibility in location of new development and the location of designated commercial forest lands. New development requiring urban services should be located in the Forks UGA. Water, stormwater facilities, utilities, telecommunication lines, and local roads should be extended to development in these areas.

(1) Major Land Use Considerations and Goals. Land that may be developed is available both within and outside the Forks City limits. The City does have constraints on the availability of land, such as owners of large tracts of land, who currently have little interest in developing their land. Therefore, unlike many cities, the allocation of available land among competing uses will not be the sole factor in the City’s decision-making process. Coordination between the land use element and the capital facilities element will be of assistance in producing a plan with accurate projections for economic development. The land use plan in this element will guide decision-making to achieve the community goals as articulated in the vision statement.

31.07.030 Inventory and analysis.

The inventory presented in this element provides information useful to the planning process. It does not include all of the data or information that was gathered, but has presented the relevant information in an organized and useful format. Additional data is located in the appendices and support documentation. The inventory includes:

•    

Physical Description

•    

Types of Land Use

(1) Physical Description.

(a) Topography and Geology. The Forks UGA lies on the Forks Prairie and is relatively flat (slopes usually less than one percent) with elevations ranging from 100 to 400 feet, with the lower elevations and steep slopes primarily occurring along the banks of the Calawah and Bogachiel Rivers and the higher elevations located in some foothills recently incorporated into the City of Forks to facilitate the development of the Olympic Natural Resources Center (ONRC). Surrounding foothills envelop the City except to the west with elevations of up to 1,000 feet. Presently there are several residence structures in addition to the ONRC, as well as several building sites, already established in the foothills overlooking the Forks Prairie. It is anticipated that future growth could occur in this area, as a result this area should be included into the FUGA.

The Forks Prairie had its origin many thousands of years ago as a result of glacial action. It is typical of the many western Washington prairies that exist in a sea of forest. The Prairie is underlaid with a gravelly substrate that has very high permeability. Because of the relatively flat nature and gravelly substrate (glacial outwash) minimal foundation and settling problems can be expected. But the flatness does have one detrimental feature. Parts of the Prairie are low and some winter storms do cause flooding. One example of this is the practice field immediately east of Forks High School. The Russell Road just south of Bogachiel Way is another example. Many other parts within the City suffer from periodic flooding during extreme rain conditions, but improved drainage facilities in these areas to carry away runoff would alleviate much of the problem. Existing culverts which become plugged periodically cause some flooding until they are cleared. The City of Forks and Clallam County have taken a more active role in preventing flooding in the last few years by requiring on-site water retention for new development and implementing flood control ordinances. Other means of flood control still need to be investigated by Forks and Clallam County to resolve the stormwater problem in the Forks Prairie.

(b) Mineral Deposits. Gravel is the only mineral currently extracted from within the FUGA. There are several active rock pits in and near the City of Forks.

In the early part of this century, there was a substantial interest in obtaining fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) from lands within the FUGA. At that time, some individuals sold the mineral rights associated with their properties.

(c) Shorelines. The Calawah River along part of the north boundary of the Forks UGA and the Bogachiel River located at the southwest extreme of the Forks UGA are the only shorelines classified as shorelines of State-wide significance within the Forks UGA. Both rivers serve as major attractions for both local and visiting fisherman because of excellent, although dwindling, runs of steelhead and salmon. Elk Creek and Mill Creek are the only other shorelines within the Forks UGA and are both small streams which provide trout fishing during the fishing season.

(d) Wildlife and Marine Resources. Although the Forks UGA does contain some wildlife the surrounding area abounds with fauna, including protected species such as the spotted owl, the bald eagle and the marbled murrelet. The nearby ocean and rivers harbor abundant marine resources.

(e) Climate. The climate of Forks and its surroundings is cool maritime. The air from over the Pacific influences the climate throughout the year. In the late fall and winter, the low pressure center in the Gulf of Alaska intensifies and is of major importance in controlling weather systems entering the Pacific Northwest. Temperatures in the winter months average between 30 and 40 degrees, sometimes dropping lower and occasionally going into the 40’s. Summer temperatures have had extended periods where temperatures drifted into and above the 90’s. Rainfall in the area amounts to an average of 120 inches per year with the greatest volume occurring between October and April.

(f) Wetlands (see Map 1). Wetlands are fragile ecosystems which assist in the reduction of erosion, flooding, and ground and surface water pollution. Wetlands also provide an important habitat for wildlife, plants, and fisheries. The UGA has relatively few wetlands. The City has wetlands inventory information from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. However, there is some concern about the accuracy of these maps, and whenever possible corrections are being made or areas are being re-evaluated.

In addition, Clallam County commissioned a Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (September 1994) which included an Inventory of Western Clallam County Wetlands prepared by Pesha Klein and Dyanne Sheldon. Unfortunately, this comprehensive inventory failed to inspect all of the wetlands denoted on the NWI. However, two (2) of the more valuable wetlands are located in the southern portion of the UGA. These include a wetland immediately south of SR 101, the current location Timber Museum/Logger Memorial Site and the ONRC (not plotted on Map I), and a wetland located immediately west of Bunker Road.

The Klein Sheldon survey of ONRC/Logger Memorial wetland noted that it consisted of approximately 130 acres and was classified as a palustrine forested area. Vegetation includes western hemlock, Sitka spruce, skunk cabbage, and small fruit bulrush. The buffer associated with this wetland is fifty (50) percent forested. Although not inventoried, the animals associated with this area include Roosevelt elk, deer, and various waterfowl and other birds.

The other inventoried wetland is located immediately west of Bunker Road and was determined to be an emergent wetland consisting of almost three (3) acres. This wetland is classified as being palustrine scrub shrub. The only vegetation noted in this area is willow. Again, this area is associated with Roosevelt elk, deer, and various waterfowl and other birds.

An uninventoried wetland is located in the southern portion of the northeast quarter of Section 8, Township 28N, Range 13W (south of Sherwood Forest Division III and west of the Campbell’s Gravel Pit). This wetland is a combination of palustrine shrub and palustrine forested with broad leafed deciduous plants. The wetland is identified associated with Roosevelt elk, deer and various birds.

Map 1

Map 2

Map 3

(2) Inventory of Land Uses. This inventory includes land uses within the entire UGA, and is not limited to the City limits. The existing types of land uses can be used to gauge the proportion of total land area that the City will need to devote to each land use in the future. In Section III the existing land uses will be adjusted for expected shifts in needs or desires, and projections of future land uses will be derived.

(a) Residential Land Use.

(i) Purpose. To provide space for housing of all types, including single-family dwelling units, duplexes, multifamily dwelling units, mobile homes and mobile home parks.

(ii) Total Residential Land Use. The City of Forks has 31.2 percent (396.6 acres) of the total land area in residential uses. The unincorporated area of the Forks urban growth area has 19 percent (547.6 acres) of its total land area in residential uses. The entire Forks urban growth area, including the City of Forks, has 22.8 percent (944.2 acres) of its total land area in residential uses.

Residences developed at greater than one unit per half acre are located throughout the City, punctuated by housing developments such as Sherwood Forest, Terra Eden, Ford Park and the Mansfield Addition. The most intense land use located outside of the Forks City limits is located adjacent to the northeast of Forks with developments along and proximate to Calawah Way and Merchant Road. There is also significant development along and proximate to Bogachiel Way heading east to the Valley View area. Duplexes are interspersed throughout the Forks UGA, with a concentration in the Thomas Third Addition and Elk Creek Loop.

There are relatively few dwelling units in the City of Forks at a density of less than one unit per half acre. The greatest concentration of these types of homes are located west of Ford Park between Calawah Way and Division Street where a series of subdivisions are composed of lots a little greater than one-half acre in area. The Mansfield Additions, located in the southwest portion of the City, also contain a few lots that fall into this classification. The unincorporated areas of the Forks UGA contain more dwelling units that fall into this classification and they tend to be scattered throughout that area.

(iii) Number of Dwelling Units by Type. The City of Forks has 686 single-family units, thirty (30) multifamily units, ninety-eight (98) manufactured homes outside of a mobile home park and four (4) mobile home parks. The unincorporated portion of the Forks UGA has 253 single-family units, 160 manufactured homes outside of a mobile home park, six (6) multifamily units and three (3) mobile home parks.

(iv) Build-Out Potential. The City has considerable potential for building within the existing incorporated land area. This inventory includes several undeveloped subdivisions. A large build-out potential is encouraged because it allows for flexibility in development and promotes low cost housing by reducing competition for available land.

(b) Commercial Land Use. This category was used to designate land currently being used for commercial purposes of all types, including land used for retail and wholesale trade, offices, hotels, motels, RV parks, restaurants, service outlets, automobile service stations, repair facilities and storage. Guidance for future zoning provisions is given in the discussion of future needs and alternatives below.

(i) Total Commercial Use. The City of Forks has six (6) percent (76.71 acres) of the total land area in commercial uses. The unincorporated UGA has less than one percent (24.81 acres) of its total area in commercial uses. The entire UGA has 2.4 percent (101.52 acres) of its total area in commercial uses.

Since the City of Forks does not have any zoning, commercial uses are scattered throughout the City. The only concentration of commercial uses are in the central business district that runs along both sides of Forks Avenue (SR 101) in the central part of the City of Forks. There are few vacancies in this area. A mini mall was created in the SR 101 corridor which has facilitated the development of new business. There is a need for more parking to provide residents and tourists with easier access to the central business core.

The unincorporated UGA also has commercial uses scattered throughout. A large number of commercial uses are located along Merchant Road on the north side of the City of Forks.

(ii) Economic Trends. Taxable retail sales for the last four (4) years are listed below. Adjusted for inflation, taxable retail sales have remained relatively flat over this time period. (Source: Washington State Department of Revenue)

Table 1 – City of Forks
Total Taxable Retail Sales

Year

Taxable Retail Sales

1990

26,088,233

1991

27,671,517

1994

15,654,151*

1992

28,396,385

1993

31,867,380

* = First and second quarters of 1994 only. Figure does reflect a 7.4% increase over the combined amounts for first and second quarter 1993.

(iii) Market Area. City commercial uses serve the UGA, northwest Jefferson County and to a limited extent Clallam Bay, La Push and Neah Bay. Of growing importance is the tourism industry, as evidenced by the heavy concentration of hotels and restaurants in the central business district.

(c) Industrial Land Use. This category includes land used for manufacturing, mineral resource extraction, processing and warehousing. In the UGA the only industrial uses are comprised of a couple sand and gravel operations, shake mills and lumber yards.

(i) Total Industrial Land Use. The City of Forks has 3.7 percent (47.42 acres) of its land area used for industrial purposes. Less than one percent (25.87 acres) of the unincorporated Forks UGA is industrialized. Lands designated for industrial use accounts for 73.29 acres, or 1.7 percent of the entire UGA.

(ii) Economic Trends. An industrial park has been developed to encourage the development of a timber manufacturing industry within the FUGA. More jobs are expected to be created as a result of the creation of a wood drying operation which is part of the industrial park project. Due to the Endangered Species Act and harvesting restrictions in our commercial forest acreage base, many wood products industries have had to shut down over the last few years.

(iii) Market Area. The market for wood products extends from Clallam County to international trade. Industrial use is thereby facilitated if lands so designated are adjacent to State Road 101.

(d) Public Land Use. This category includes public and semi-public uses such as parks, schools, community recreation centers, public utilities, parking lots, city halls, libraries and fraternal organization facilities.

(i) Total Public Land Use. 11.6 percent (147 acres) of the land in the City of Forks is used for public or semi-public purposes. Less than 0.5 percent (14 acres) of the unincorporated UGA is used for public purposes. 3.5 percent of the entire UGA (161 acres) is used for public purposes.

(ii) Description of Existing Public Uses. The City of Forks has one park, Tillicum Park, located in the north entrance to the City. Tillicum Park serves as a rest stop for tourists and a staging place for community events such as Rainfest and the Forks Old Fashioned Fourth of July. It is the believed that this park will be marginally sufficient for the expected growth over the next twenty (20) years.

The demand for ball fields has been alleviated by the Forks Lions Club, which built ball fields in nearby Beaver, Washington. The ball fields of the Quillayute Valley School District are also open to the public. The Little League Association benefited from the donation of land for use as ball fields by Mr. Ed Duncan.

A landscaped triangle at the intersection of SR 101 and Sol Duc Way serves as a rest area for some people as does some lawn area in front of the Forks Recreation Center.

The Forks Recreation Center is also another important community meeting place in the City of Forks that also serves as a youth and senior center. A bond has been proposed and rejected for the construction of a swimming pool adjacent to the recreation center. Public support for a swimming pool persists and it is included in the capital facilities element of this Comprehensive Plan.

Recently, the State constructed a boat launch along the Calawah River. The launch is located immediately east of SR 101’s Calawah River Bridge. It is expected that this site will be heavily used by both the local and tourist populations.

(e) Open Space. This category is limited to utilitarian open areas (mostly created by buffers) to preserve critical areas, which are identified through performance standards in the Forks Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. While it is a requirement of the GMA to plan for and identify open space, the Regional Planning Commission begrudgingly complied with this mandate. The RPC believes that there is already sufficient open space available to the residents of the FUGA since it surrounded by open space through timber lands and State and National Park lands. Guidance for zoning and planning purposes regarding open space is provided in the future needs and analysis section of this Plan.

(f) Critical Areas. The definition for critical areas is located in the executive summary of the Comprehensive Plan, and the specific critical areas for the City are included in the section on physical description. The location and size of these critical areas is specified through performance standards in the Forks Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. Since most of the Forks UGA is flat and drains well, the amount of land in critical areas is relatively small. (See Maps 1 through 3).

(g) Natural Resource Lands. There are no designated natural resource lands within the Forks UGA. The Forks UGA is surrounded by commercial forest lands and there are numerous areas within the Forks UGA that are heavily wooded.

However, there do exist a few farms of substantial size. These farms raise cattle and hay. Several of these farms are of a historic nature. Efforts should be made by the legislative bodies to ensure the continuation of these farms at current levels, thereby protecting an aspect of the region’s history and culture.

(h) Vacant Land. 50.9 percent (646 acres) of the land in the City of Forks, seventy-nine (79) percent (2,266.89 acres) of the land in the unincorporated UGA and 70.2 percent (2,913 acres) of the entire UGA is vacant.

The following summary of the Acreage in Type of Land Use includes all of the uses described above. This actual acreage corresponds to the existing land use map. Projected acreage is based on a proportionate relationship between projected population growth and actual acreage. The projected population growth is derived from the twenty (20) year linear population growth factor (1.41) used to project population growth for the Forks area (defined by Census statistics) in Table 3 of CCC 31.05.045.

Table 2 – Forks Urban Growth Area
Acreage in Type of Land Use

Type of Land Use

Actual Acreage in 1994/%

Projected Acreage in 2014/%

Residential

944/22.8%

1,334/32.1%

Commercial

102/2.4%

144/3.5%

Industrial

73/1.7%

73/1.7%

Public Facilities

147/3.5%

208/5.0%

Vacant/Underdeveloped Lands

2,892/69.6%

2,399/57.7%

TOTAL

4,157/100.0%

4,157/100.0%

Note that the actual and projected acreage do not include the area used for roads due to the unavailability of data for road area in the unincorporated Forks UGA. Within the incorporated UGA roads used 165 acres in 1994.

31.07.040 Future needs and alternatives.

This section of the land use element explains expected development trends and identifies potential development problems and opportunities. The plan for growth and development in the City of Forks was developed based on the following analyses:

•    

Population and Demographics: An analysis corresponding to the residential land use inventory

•    

Economic Conditions: An analysis corresponding to the commercial and industrial lands inventory

•    

Physical Conditions: An analysis corresponding to the physical description

•    

Amenities: An analysis corresponding to the recreational lands, open spaces, and part of the public facilities inventory

•    

Infrastructure: An analysis corresponding to part of the public facilities inventory which examines overall land use compatibility, and coordinates the land usage with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan (housing, transportation, capital facilities, and utilities)

(1) Analysis of Population and Demographics. The analysis of local population and demographic trends is important for a broad understanding of the community and to anticipate future needs. The analysis of population projections for the next twenty (20) years is based on a linear projection factor derived from historical Census data from the Forks subarea, as defined by the Census Bureau.

(a) Population Changes.

(i) Population Changes Over the Past Fifty (50) Years. Since 1950, the population of Forks has increased from 1,120 residents to 3,280 residents. The population has varied dramatically over the years, with both positive and negative gains and no discernible pattern. In addition, the annexation of new territory by the City of Forks has resulted in an increase in the City’s population base.

Table 3 – City of Forks
Historical Population Growth

Year

Population

Population Change

Annex

Growth

1950

1,120

N/A

1960

1,156

36

1970

1,628

472

364

144

1974

1,867

239

1980

3,060

1,193

978

454

1984

2,849

211

1990

3,280

431

478

-258

Totals

 

 

1,820

340

(ii) Source of Population Changes. The changes in population in Forks tied are to the timber industry. Annexations also account for increases in population as follows: 1960-1970 annexations increased population by 364, 1974-1980 annexations increased population by 978, and 1984-1990 annexations increased population by 478.

(iii) Projected Population Changes. The growth in population over the next twenty (20) years has been estimated using the linear projection growth factor used to determine future land use demand (see Table 4), which is a population growth of 74.9 people per year (59.1 people per year for the City of Forks and 15.8 people per year for unincorporated Forks UGA). For a more detailed discussion of population projections for the Forks area please reference Appendix A, 20-Year Population Forecast and Distribution.

The population projections are also for the Forks urban growth area, as opposed to the City population data, as reflected in Table 4 below. Table 4 does not include historical population data for the unincorporated portion of the Forks urban growth area because only a 1990 figure was available. This number, 1,081 persons, was taken from the table in Page 9 of Clallam County’s “Forks Urban Growth Area Analysis,” dated January, 1993.

Table 4 – Forks Urban Growth Area
Population Estimate

Year

Population Estimate

1990

4,361 actual

2000

5,110

2010

5,859

2015

6,234

Population figures for Forks tend to vary, due to the transient nature of the community. Movement trends are tied to timber harvesting, prison staff making career advancements, prison inmate followers, growth in the Hispanic community and changes in government budgets. Diversification efforts offer the potential of a more stabilized population growth, as well as economy. In addition, the current trend of “urban flight” will result in an increase of new residents in the FUGA as well as the surrounding areas.

Current advances in communication technologies may also result in an increase in population, as more individuals realize that they can live in rural area and conduct their business affairs via telephone and computer. Finally, the region has seen an increase in retirees moving into the FUGA. As the nation’s population continues to age, it is foreseeable that retirees from other areas will move into the FUGA.

(b) Demographics. This section develops a more complete picture of the people expected to reside in Forks. Portions of the demographic analysis are based on County-wide data and are not particular to the City of Forks. However, the level of specificity is adequate to assess the general needs of the population.

(i) Development Patterns. Settlement has occurred around the City, with the density of settlement increasing towards the center of the City. The ownership of large tracts of land by a few individuals has prevented growth and preserved a picturesque, rural setting on the east side of the City. Low interest rates and a high demand for housing have apparently spurred several subdivision applications in the east end of Forks in the early 1990’s creating as many as fifty (50) new lots. Construction of stick homes is relatively rare, since used homes are inexpensive in comparison. Most of the new subdivisions are intended for manufactured housing.

(ii) Age Distribution of Population. The average age in the City of Forks is thirty-two (32) years old, which differs markedly from the average age in Sequim, which is over fifty-five (55). Such a young population indicates a need for affordable housing for first time home buyers.

(iii) Home Ownership. According to 1990 Census data, fifty-one (51) percent of Forks homes are owner occupied, forty-one (41) percent are rentals and eight (8) percent are vacant. Only 3.9 percent of the vacant units are for rent.

(iv) Household Size. The average household size in the City of Forks is 2.68 persons per household, which is higher than the Clallam County average of 2.4 persons per household.

(v) Education. The proportion of Forks with a high school diploma (seventy-two (72) percent) is only slightly lower than the proportion for the State as a whole (seventy-eight (78) percent). This supports the expectation that County public school facilities are adequate. More persons in Forks have an associate degree than a college degree. This is probably influenced by the proximity of Peninsula College and its satellite campus in the City of Forks.

(vi) Per Capita Median Income. According to 1990 Census data the current average income per household in Forks is $29,950. This is an indication of the buying power of the average resident and is important in determining the type of housing, retail business, recreational opportunities, capital improvements, and feasible transit alternatives that will be appropriate for the community.

(c) Residential Land Use Needs. As noted in the housing element of this Comprehensive Plan, there is an identified need for quality affordable housing of all types. See the affordable housing element for further details.

Residential zoning developed by both the City and the County should include, as an option to conventional development and zoning, development regulations to allow flexible lot sizes with the same number of lots. Large residential lots may have farm animals according to City and County zoning ordinances.

(2) Analysis of Economic Conditions. Historically Forks’ major source of revenue came from timber harvesting. Reduction in timber supply has forced the area to seek means of diversifying its economic base. During this transition both the Clearwater Correction Center and the Clallam Bay Correction Center aided in the stability of the Forks economy. In addition, federal money aided in the retraining of displaced timber workers, as well as assisting with the social problems that accompany high unemployment.

(a) Employment Trends by Industry. While timber harvesting is not expected to return to its former 1970’s levels, it is expected that some degree of timber harvesting will occur.

The City is actively seeking ways to diversify its economy to mitigate the losses caused by drastic reductions in timber harvesting. Much effort has been put into creating an industrial park and wood drying operation that will facilitate secondary wood manufacturing. The Industrial Park’s primary tenant, Portac Inc., is expecting to begin operations in the early part of 1995.

While tourism is not identified as a timber industry replacement, it is being viewed as a necessary element of Forks’ effort to diversify its economic base. A three (3) hour drive from the highly populated I-5 corridor positions the Westend of Clallam County as an ideal “get away location.” In 1994, the Forks Visitor’s Information Center assisted over 23,810 visitors, answered over 2,400 telephone inquiries, and mailed over 850 letters in response to requests for information. In addition a Westend Office of the North Olympic Peninsula Visitor & Convention Bureau has been established. Although tourism is growing, there is a concern that its growth may result in low paying jobs.

(b) Unemployment Rate. Gross estimates of unemployment based upon data from the Washington State Employment Security Department show that the City of Forks in 1991 had a nineteen (19) percent unemployment rate compared with eight (8) percent of the rest of Clallam County. This is the most direct indication of the need for economic development and redevelopment.

(c) Regional Employment Conditions. Drastic reductions in timber supply have displaced numerous timber workers. Many of the jobs currently available in the City of Forks are in government. Washington State Department of Corrections, with two (2) facilities located within an hour of Forks, is the largest employer for the region. The Department’s Clallam Bay Correctional Center employs 417 people. The Quillayute Valley School District is the second largest employer with 202 employees. Other major employers include the Forks Community Hospital and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Forks also has several motels and restaurants that capitalize on tourism, as well as two (2) large general merchandise stores.

(d) Industry Growth. The City is expecting an increase in industry related to secondary wood products manufacturing due to the addition of a wood drying operation. Consequently, more land will be needed for industrial uses and this need will be met by the newly created Forks Industrial Park.

The service sector is a growing employer in Forks due to an increase in population and tourism. Since many of the service sector businesses are dependent upon tourism, more commercial land will need to be available along SR 101.

(e) Future Commercial Zoning within the FUGA. The commercial designation used on the Comprehensive Plan Map indicates the areas of future commercial development. The commercial category is for land to be used for commercial purposes of all types, including land used for retail and wholesale trade, offices, hotels, motels, RV parks, restaurants, service outlets, automobile service stations, repair facilities and storage. This category is further divided as follows:

(i) Heavy Commercial. This is high intensity land use including the central business district of the Forks UGA. This designation encourages development along arterials such as SR 101. Some residential capacity, preferably high density, is permitted in this designation.

(ii) Moderate Commercial. This is a moderate intensity land use that is immediately adjacent to the heavy commercial area. It includes commercial nodes and strip commercial areas with sufficient roadways to immediately connect this area with arterials. Residential zoning is permitted in this designation, preferably medium to high density units.

(iii) Light Commercial. This is a light intensity land use designation that incorporates neighborhood small businesses and home based businesses/offices. This designation should be used to provide transition between commercial zones and residential zones. This designation may overlap with low to medium residential zoning designations.

The use of the intensity in the above commercial zoning designations incorporates numerous factors to be considered by the City and County zoning bodies. In determining the level of intensity associated with a commercial zone, the zoning body should at minimum consider the issues of traffic, parking, noise, sewage, lighting, and pollutants.

(3) Analysis of Physical Conditions. Planning that considers the environmental limitations of the area avoids relatively expensive site modifications for development of certain lands. Furthermore, this type of planning is essential in order to preserve critical areas and natural resource lands. Fortunately, the Forks UGA is relatively flat with few critical areas. According to the 1993 Clallam County Forks Urban Growth Area Analysis, eighty-two (82) acres in the City of Forks and 400 acres in the unincorporated portion of the UGA has development limitations due to the presence of critical areas. (See Maps 1 – 3) These 482 acres only represent 11.6 percent of the 4,157 acres in the Forks UGA. Consequently, physical conditions do not create any significant constraints on land use planning.

(a) Geographic Constraints.

(i) Stormwater Constraints. Stormwater drainage is a problem throughout Forks, but is mostly alleviated by City and County development standards mandating on-site water retention. Some undeveloped ITT property just south of the Campbell’s Gravel pit is subject to flooding during intense rains, as is the practice field immediately east of the Forks High School. Development in these areas should be of low intensity.

(ii) Geologically Hazardous Areas. The foothills to the east and south of Forks constitute steep slopes, as are some banks of the Calawah River and the banks at the mouth of Elk Creek.

(iii) Aquifer Recharge Areas. Protection of recharge zones is important because the Forks water system and many local residents depend on wells for drinking water. The only high aquifer recharge areas in Forks are along the Calawah River.

(iv) Frequently Flooded Areas. The areas of the City of Forks within a floodplain are along the rivers and along a ditching system on G Street and Russell Road.

(v) Wetlands. The City and the County have wetlands inventory information from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, and the Klein Sheldon inventory discussed above. As this inventory is not of sufficient accuracy, it is possible that other wetlands will be identified through future studies and through site-specific development evaluations. See the above discussion of wetlands.

(vi) Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. These areas are identified through the performance standards of the Forks Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. The only probable conservation area that is within the City of Forks is the Calawah River, which as a shoreline of State-wide significance under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act qualifies as an aquatic habitat conservation area.

(4) Analysis of Amenities. The quality of life in a community is greatly enhanced by the amenities the City has to offer. These amenities include the availability of schools, churches, community facilities, cemeteries and traditional social services, as well as the aesthetic quality of the city, and the cultural and recreational opportunities.

(a) Open Space. As a result of the GMA mandate, the RPC devised a method of designating certain lands as open space based upon either the association of the land with wildlife or critical areas, or the access to the lands by the general public. The use of this category is:

•    

Limited to utilitarian open areas (mostly buffer areas) to preserve critical areas, which are identified through performance standards in the Forks Interim Critical Areas Ordinance; or

•    

Used to designate lands associated with fish and wildlife habitats that the community would like to see protected wherever possible and with little or no interference with private ownership; or

•    

Used to designate lands within the Forks UGA available to the public for recreational purposes.

The definitions of open space to be used in any subsequent zoning should read as follows:

(i) Open Space – Public Access. Lands designated as open space public shall include City parks and other real property designated for recreational uses by the citizens of the UGA. Public access is the primary indicator of areas designated as open space public.

(ii) Open Space – Limited Access. Lands designated as open space private are lands associated with a critical area, fish, or wildlife habitat. These lands are not to be zoned whereby the public is permitted absolute access for recreational purposes, unless owned by the City or the County and such access is provided by said body. These lands will not be restricted from being used for forest management purposes, unless (1) there is a City or County ownership interest in these lands; and (2) affirmative action is taken by the City or County by passage of an ordinance to limit such practices on such lands. These lands may, as permitted by law, be harvested, used as staging areas for emergency services to include firefighting activities, used in connection with sewer treatment, used for research purposes, and used for other purposes permitted by law. These lands, regardless of ownership, may be restricted with regard to access by the general public.

Additionally, subsequent zoning ordinances should be written in such a manner that incentives (such as increases in density) be made for developers who incorporate open space public lands into their developments.

(b) Condition of Parks and Recreational Land Uses. As discussed in the inventory of public land use, the City has a large tract of land dedicated park and recreational uses. The City of Forks has approximately 17.1 acres of developed park land. Although this is far below the National Parks and Recreation Standard of ten (10) acres per thousand population, the park lands surrounding the Forks UGA should more than compensate for this deficiency. However, further study should be done to determine if the current availability of park land for public use could be expanded by development of land currently owned by the City or the County, or through future land acquisition.

The capital facilities element of this plan does call for the construction of a swimming pool in 1999 and land adjacent to the Forks Recreation Center should be zoned to permit this use.

(c) Information about Social Services. The inventory conducted in this element does not include information about the quality of the social services provided through the local government, educational facilities, churches, cemeteries, emergency services, and the library. However, the City recognizes that changes in the population will effect these services and will require the planning of appropriate facilities. The agents managing each of these facilities need to work with the City to incorporate their future plans with this Comprehensive Plan.

(5) Analysis and Capacity of Infrastructure.

(a) City Hall. The facilities for public administration were expanded and remodeled in 1993 and are currently in good condition. More parking space is necessary but it is anticipated that there is enough vacant land surrounding Forks City Hall to accommodate this need. No significant expansion is anticipated in the next twenty (20) years.

(b) Water System. The quality of the water provided by Forks is good and the service meets present needs and those projected for the next twenty (20) years. The maximum capacity for the Forks Water System is 1,390 gallons per minute, as determined on page 9 of the City of Forks Comprehensive Water System Plan Update, dated February, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Water Plan). According to 1987 statistics cited in the Water Plan, there are 2.75 persons per connection. The Water Plan also references a Washington State Department of Social and Health Services recommended daily connection usage rate of 800 gallons per day. Utilizing this data and the projected population for 2015 of this plan of 6,234 persons in the Forks UGA, the water usage for 2015 would be 1,259 gallons per minute, which is below the 1,390 gallon per minute capacity. Note that the Forks water service area conforms relatively closely to the Forks UGA since it was one of the primary factors used in delineating the UGA.

(c) Wastewater Disposal Facilities. The Forks sewer service area only comprise the central portion of the City of Forks. In 1994 the sewage treatment plant was at sixty-seven (67) percent capacity and could reach 100 percent capacity if the vacant lots within the sewer service area were developed. As of 1995, there are no plans to increase the capacity of the sewage treatment plant. However, additional land in the area to the west and southwest of the current facility has been designated as open space limited access, providing the City, upon acquiring ownership, with the ability to expand the current facility if required. A bond was proposed about ten (10) years ago for added sewage treatment capacity and was rejected by the voters.

(d) Solid Waste Disposal. Solid waste collection is provided by a private company currently under contract with the City of Forks for the Forks area and regulated by the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission for the unincorporated Forks UGA. Residents of the UGA can also deposit their solid waste at the Lake Creek transfer station which is situated a few minutes north of town. Solid waste from the private companies is transported to the Port Angeles Landfill, which is nearing capacity. Forks is requiring its garbage company to initiate a recycling program and this garbage company has plans to open a solid waste transfer station in the Forks Industrial Park.

(e) Medical and Emergency Facilities. The Forks Community Hospital serves the FUGA and Westend of Clallam County. In 1993, the hospital completed an $8,000,000 expansion that will satisfy the needs of the community for the next twenty (20) years. In addition a well trained volunteer ambulance corps provides twenty-four (24) hour service.

(f) Police and Fire Protection. The provision of safe residential and commercial areas improves the quality of life for current residents, and makes the City more attractive for new residents and businesses. The City is able to provide twenty-four (24) hour police protection and has an excellent volunteer fire crew composed of forty-five (45) members who have a proven response time unmatched by many paid fire departments.

(g) Public Education Facilities. The City anticipates that the current educational facilities may not be sufficient to meet the anticipated growth in student populations in the next twenty (20) years. Currently, the Quillayute Valley School District is studying the feasibility of expanding the Forks High School. Sufficient real property is available for such an expansion, assuming that State funding can be obtained.

(h) Library. The Forks Branch of the North Olympic Library System occupies a large building on Main Street which should adequately serve the western portion of Clallam County for the next twenty (20) years. The Library’s circulation exceeds 7,000 items per month. Services include children’s and adult programs, homebound patron services, meeting facilities, and much more. In addition, the Library has pursued technological advances resulting in its patrons being able to access the world’s “information highway.”

(i) Transportation Facilities. Various types of land uses will need different types of transportation, and will place different demands on the transportation system. Residential areas need access to employment and commercial centers, industrial enterprises need access to supplier and consumer markets, and transportation corridors are often used to extend public services and utilities. The plan projects future transportation needs according to the Future Land Use Plan.

(j) Stormwater Facilities. The City’s stormwater system is composed of a network of public and private facilities. These include wetlands and drainage ways, publicly owned ditches, culverts, and swales. Current facilities are inadequate to handle substantial increases in stormwater drainage associated with increased development. Efforts should be made by both the City and the County to study and implement improvements to the stormwater drainage system.

(k) Process for Siting Essential Public Facilities. Essential public facilities which are determined by the State Office of Financial Management will be subject to the following siting process. When essential public facilities are proposed the City will appoint an advisory City-Wide Site Evaluation Committee composed of citizen members selected to represent a broad range of interest groups and expertise. The committee is also required to include one individual with technical expertise relating to the particular type of facility. The committee will develop specific siting criteria for the proposed project and identify, analyze, and rank potential project sites. The Committee will establish a reasonable work schedule for completion of this task.

(i) Considerations in Evaluating Project Sites. The City-Wide Site Evaluation Committee will at a minimum consider the following:

•    

Existing city standards for siting such facilities.

•    

Existing public facilities and their effect on the community.

•    

The relative potential for reshaping the economy, environment, and the community character.

•    

The location of resource lands or critical areas.

•    

Essential public facilities should not be located beyond the urban growth area unless they are self-contained and do not require the extension of urban governmental services.

(ii) Community Involvement. The City will use timely press releases, newspaper notices, public information meetings, and public hearings to notify citizens in all relevant jurisdictions.

The City will notify adjacent jurisdictions of the proposed project and will solicit review and comment on the recommendations of the City-Wide Site Evaluation Committee.

(iii) Consistency with Existing Plans and Regulations. Although the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations will not preclude the siting of essential public facilities, the City will adopt a process including standards in order to ensure reasonable compatibility and consistency.

31.07.050 Belief implementation.

This section discusses the plan for future land uses in the City of Forks. The timing of development and provision of services are key components of this planning process. In addition to the discussion below, a future land use map has been developed to illustrate the various land uses and growth management strategies.

An analysis of existing conditions and projected needs in the previous section highlighted the areas of concern and opportunities for the Forks UGA. The vision statement for the City was used, along with the inventory and analysis contained in this element, to create a plan. The plan contains a strategy for achievement of the City’s goals in light of the existing conditions in the City. The goals, objectives, and policies within the plan provide guidelines and positive actions.

The plan and policies for land use issues in the City of Forks are organized as follows:

•    

Vision Statement Beliefs. These beliefs are essential to the quality of life in the Forks UGA and will remain unchanged for long-term planning.

•    

Plan Concept. This is a discussion relating the findings of the inventory and analysis to the beliefs of the vision statement. This should outline the strategies that will guide future growth and development in the community.

•    

Policies. The policies specify what should be accomplished to implement. These policies either provide clear guidance for decision-making when a situation arises, or provide clear responsibilities that will be implemented.

(1) BELIEF: Independence, private property rights and freedom from government intrusion are strongly valued within the RPC Planning Area. Land use regulation should incorporate these values and only compromise them when (1) highly significant objectives essential to the public health, safety or welfare cannot be attained in any other manner, or (2) the other beliefs expressed herein cannot be furthered in any other manner.

CONCEPT: This goal strikes at the heart of the land use philosophy of Western Clallam County. To this end land use regulation should be as minimal and flexible as possible. To promote flexibility; Comprehensive Plan and zoning classifications should be generally described and incorporate significantly more land than is necessary to accommodate anticipated growth. This principle is consistent with the abundance of vacant land identified in the inventory of this element.

Policy 1: Comprehensive Plan and zoning map designations should allow for significantly more land than is necessary to accommodate projected development.

Policy 2: Ample space should be provided for commercial development along SR 101 to allow for development of tourism.

Policy 3: Comprehensive Plan map designations and amendments should allow for maximum flexibility in development standards.

(2) BELIEF: Development should be encouraged and facilitated by land use regulation that is simple, user friendly, and inexpensive in application for both government and property owners.

CONCEPT: The importance of development is highlighted by the high unemployment discussed in this element. Permitting processes that reduce the costs of development should attract more development for the area and in turn more employment.

Policy 4: All land use permitting process should be consolidated as much as possible.

Policy 5: Brochures in easy to understand language should be prepared to explain the permitting process to permit applicants.

Policy 6: Unnecessary public hearings and public notification requirements should not be incorporated into land use regulation.

(3) BELIEF: The rural character of the RPC planning areas should be encouraged, but not mandated by legislative bodies.

CONCEPT: Large lots and open spaces provide a rural setting that is prized by the residents. In addition, the legislative bodies should encourage, but not mandate, the use of natural areas, landscape buffers and small landscaped areas of all sizes.

Policy 7: Zoning and permitting legislation should continue to permit current levels of agriculture within the FUGA in order to protect substantial, as well as historic farms.

(4) BELIEF: Regulations that reduce the value or use of private property should be minimized. All land owners should be fully compensated for any such regulation.

Policy 8: If a landowner’s property value or use is reduced by virtue of land use regulation, the City of Forks and Clallam County shall endorse any efforts by Forks UGA residents to obtain compensation from State or federal agencies that require such regulation.

(5) BELIEF: Planning should promote the efficient construction and use of capital facilities.

Policy 9: Impacts on capital facilities should be considered and mitigated when consistent with the other policies herein when land use regulation is formulated and implemented.

(6) BELIEF: Large ($7,000,000 or 100 people) development projects can place a strain on municipal services to the detriment of other users. Large developments should mitigate these impacts.

Policy 10: Efforts should be made to identify legal mechanisms whereby large developments can be held responsible for impact fees without placing a similar burden on more moderate ($1,000,000 or 30 people) development.

(7) BELIEF: Segregation of land uses into generally defined and flexible residential, commercial and industrial zoning classifications is a desirable means of preventing incompatible adjacent land uses and stabilizing property values.

Policy 11: Land uses should be segregated by Comprehensive Plan and zoning classifications into generally defined and flexible residential, commercial and industrial areas.

(8) BELIEF: Home based industries are an essential part of the economic vitality of the planning area and should be permitted in all zoning classifications to the extent compatible with surrounding land uses.

CONCEPT: The high unemployment for the area necessitates the creation of opportunities for the development of business.

Policy 12: Home based industries should be allowed in all zoning classifications and at a minimum should be permitted if they do not create any significant disruption to adjoining uses.

(9) BELIEF: Land use regulation should not impose burdens upon land uses that have been established in undeveloped areas due to the subsequent development of adjacent, incompatible land uses.

Policy 13: When assigning zoning classifications to areas within the planning area, priority should be given to land uses that preexisted adjacent land uses.

(10) BELIEF: The City of Forks and Clallam County that historical and archaeological sites have intrinsic educational, cultural, heritage, and economic value.

Policy 14: The City of Forks and Clallam County, with the assistance of local citizens, should develop a method of identifying historical resources that can be plotted and recorded in a comprehensive inventory of buildings, structures and sites within the FUGA.

Policy 15: The City of Forks and Clallam County should develop incentives, without imposing penalties, for property owners who maintain their stewardship of historical lands, sites, and structures.

Map 4

Article II. Transportation Element

31.07.060 Introduction.

(1) Purpose of the Transportation Element. This transportation element has been developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act to address the motorized and nonmotorized transportation needs of the City of Forks. It represents the community’s policy plan for the next twenty (20) years.

The transportation element has been developed in accordance with the County-wide Planning Policies, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure consistency throughout the Comprehensive Plan. The transportation element specifically considers the location and condition of the existing traffic circulation system; the cause, scope, and nature of transportation problems; the projected transportation needs; and plans for the addressing all transportation needs while maintaining established level of service standards.

•    

Inventory and Analysis of Existing Transportation System Conditions

•    

Future Needs and Alternatives of Future Transportation Needs

•    

Goals, Objectives, and Policies for Future Transportation

(2) Concurrence. This element contains the City of Forks’ plan to provide specified levels of transportation service in a timely manner. The levels of service standards that are adopted in this plan will be maintained through upkeep of the existing circulation system and expansion of transportation services where needed. The City has adopted level of service standards for the arterials that handle the most significant volume of local traffic in the City. Design standards have been adopted for all other collectors and arterials in the City. The level of service standards for transit facilities have been linked to the level of service standards for the arterials. These standards provide a measurable criteria to judge the adequacy of roadway service provision.

The process of establishing level of service standards requires the City to make quality of service decisions explicit. As specified in the Growth Management Act, new developments will be prohibited unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. Such improvements and strategies must be in place or financially planned for within six (6) years of development use.

The City of Forks is an active participant in two (2) larger transportation planning organizations – Regional Transportation Planning Organization and the Coastal Corridor planning body. The Regional Transportation Planning Organization consists of representatives from four (4) counties (Clallam, Mason, Kitsap, and Jefferson), nine (9) cities, four (4) transit agencies, fifty-seven (57) port districts, ten (10) Indian nations, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and members of the private sector. Regional Transportation Plan Draft #1, Chapter 1, pg. 1. The Coastal Corridor planning body includes representatives from the various governments and agencies associated with SR 101. While the Coastal Corridor group is primarily focused upon planning for means to enhance economic development along SR 101, the Regional Transportation Planning Organization is working on efforts to improve the regional transportation system.

(3) Major Transportation Consideration and Goals. The type and availability of transportation resources are major factors in the development of land use patterns, while conversely, the way land is used greatly influences the need and location for new transportation. The relationship between transportation and land use is one of continuous interaction and their planning must be coordinated. The future land use map, the Land Use Plan, and the Transportation Plan are highly dependent on each other and need to be carefully coordinated. The Transportation Plan in this element will guide decision-making to achieve the community goals as articulated in the vision statement.

31.07.070 Inventory and analysis.

The inventory presented in this element provides information useful to the planning process. This Transportation Element addresses all roads located within the City, including those which are the responsibility of the Washington State Department of Transportation (State highway system), the County, or the City itself (all roads not privately owned, or included in the above). Information on existing roadway functional classifications, the most recently available traffic volume counts, and accident frequency data was collected from the Washington State Department of Transportation, the County, and the City. The analysis of this information is in CCC 31.07.080. The inventory includes:

•    

Location and Integration of Existing Transportation

•    

Method for Assessing Capacity of the Transportation System

•    

Capacity of the Existing Transportation System

(1) Location and Integration of Existing Transportation

(a) Traffic Circulation within the City. The City examined the general traffic flow along the roadways to gain an understanding of the traffic circulation system as a whole. This description is not comprehensive, but highlights major east-west roadways and north-south roadways. In addition, this inventory includes unique roadway links, such as roadways crossing natural barriers, links to commercial or industrial centers, important trucking routes, or links to highways. The City of Forks lies on the relatively flat Quillayute Prairie running general to the west and east of State Highway 101, which is called Second Avenue within the City limits. Highway 101 links Forks to other towns and cities. The traffic circulation system within downtown Forks can generally be described as a grid system. In 1992, the City had 15.3 miles of roadway, with 2.8 miles classified as arterial streets.

The major west-east arterials are Bogachiel Way, Calawah Way and Division Street. Portions of all three streets are County roads. Bogachiel Way, via the County road portion, provides the primary method of accessing the southwestern portion of the FUGA. This is a highly traveled and is classified as an collector to SR 101 and the downtown core of Forks. Bogachiel Way is 2.76 miles in length, with an average pavement width of 23 feet, and rights-of-way being a total of 60 feet wide.

Division Street is predominately a City road serving the downtown core of Forks and the public facilities located in the southeastern quadrant of the urban growth area. The easternmost portion of Division Street, starting at the Peterson Road, is a County roadway with relatively minimal usage at the present time. Division Street is classified as a collector due to the potential increase in residential traffic.

Calawah Way is predominately a City road serving the northeastern sector of the FUGA. Almost all of Calawah Way is City roadway, except for the portion providing access to the Elk Creek area. This is the only means of accessing the most eastern portion of the FUGA, and is heavily traveled. This road is a collector linking to SR 101 and the downtown core of Forks. Calawah Way is three miles in length, with an average pavement width of 27 feet, and rights-of-way varying from 40 to 60 feet in total width.

Other important links include Sol Duc Way and Russell Road, which are primarily residential streets. However, Russell Road has a federal function class designation as a minor collector.

(b) Influence of Regional Traffic. Regional traffic has a considerable influence on traffic volumes within the City, therefore the inventory of the transportation system includes a review of the transportation plans for nearby cities and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization. No immediate changes in regional traffic flow through the City are expected. In the long term, however, improvements to State Highway 101 are being considered in WSDOT Transportation Improvement Program, and in the Regional Transportation Plan.

(c) Natural Traffic Barriers. Surface water, geological hazards, or other critical areas create natural barriers to the traffic circulation system requiring special consideration when determining traffic volumes and an important tool for planning for the City’s transportation needs (see maps 1 to 3).

(d) Adequacy of Parking Facilities. Parking facilities include on- and off-street parking, and this inventory includes their adequacy, location, and the influence they have on the transportation system. In addition, because private entities are often involved in provision of parking facilities, the ownership and construction of parking facilities is also relevant. Commercial development has increased the need for off-street parking facilities in the downtown area. The increased parking demand is currently being satisfied by on-street parking on collector and arterial roadways. This tends to aggravate traffic congestion on collector roadways in the central business district.

(e) Mass Transit. Transit is an important alternative to automobile travel for either regional or local trips. Transit is not only useful in reducing traffic volumes and pollution, but is often the only means of transportation available to certain members of the community.

In Forks, most individuals use automobiles to travel to work, therefore, mass transit is most important for the elderly, low-income individuals, or youth, who do not have an alternative means of transportation. Regional bus service is provided daily to the east and to the north by Clallam Transit. Connections can be made from Port Angeles to private carrier services, and to the privately owned and operated Black Ball Ferry to Victoria, British Columbia.

Recently, a test operation was initiated as a result of a coordinated effort of Clallam, Jefferson and Grays Harbor Transit to provide transit services from Forks to the Grays Harbor area. Already in just the first few months of operation, this route has exceeded expectations. It also expected that this route will become a popular tourist route in the spring and summer months.

One problem area, also noted by the PRTPO, is the lack of seven days-a-week service on all of the routes. Most routes currently run Monday through Saturday, thereby making transit usage somewhat unfavorable for tourists.

(f) Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails. The current roadway development in the City is not conducive to pedestrian and bicycle access for residents and visitors. The Forks Urban Growth Area (FUGA) lacks a network of official trails and paths and is not linked to other major trail systems or community points of interest. The City is striving to find the funds and means to provide sidewalk areas and wider shoulders along US 101 in the commercial sector and along the collectors described above. Currently, there are only six bicycle racks available to cyclists. These are located at Pay n’ Save Restaurant, Forks Memorial Library, Quillayute Valley School District, Forks Aquatic Center, Transit Center, and the In Place.

(g) Curbs, Sidewalks, Landscaping, and Lighting. The City may provide curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting directly, or may regulate their provision and upkeep. These features contribute to the safety and quality of neighborhood and downtown streets. A thorough inventory includes not only the condition of these amenities, but also a review of the regulations and responsibilities associated with their provision.

Most of the streets in the City of Forks do not have sidewalks, and the responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks is unclear. The City is working with the Department of Transportation to extend sidewalk coverage in the City along SR 101. In addition, the 1995-2000 Comprehensive Street Plan adopted by the City has scheduled sidewalk placement along Bogachiel Way and Calawah Way. (See Attachment A).

(h) Past Transportation Problems. Many transportation improvements are designed to alleviate problems identified through traffic accident reports, street maintenance staff reports of poor conditions on roadways, identified areas with heavy traffic congestion, and citizen complaints regarding safety or roadway conditions.

(2) Method for Assessing Capacity of the Traffic Circulation System.

(a) Roadway Classification. The Clallam County Department of Community Development conducted an analysis of the FUGA’s roadway system. Roadways were analyzed via a collection of road infrastructure information for County and other federal functional class roads. The origin of the spatial information is the DNR TRANS layer at 1:24,000 scale produced with USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles. Classifications were determined via a link with the Clallam County Roads Information System (CRIS). CRIS provides such information as daily traffic counts, speed limits, federal functions, etc. The CRIS information was used in determining the information associated with level of service. The spreadsheets containing this information are attached as Appendix A to the ordinance codified in this chapter.

(b) Mapping the Existing Circulation System. Maps were prepared to identify the locations of the existing roadway functional types. While Forks does possess an airport, current usage is limited to small private plans. A plan is underway to determine the feasibility of expanding the airport to permit usage by light commuter planes.

In addition, traffic accidents were mapped. This map shows were accidents occurred in general. It does not necessarily reflect the exact locations of such accidents.

Traffic Accidents with the FUGA 1989 – 1993

(c) Level of Service Standards. The City and the County have agreed to utilize the Highway Capacity Manual methodology for determining level of service. This methodology incorporates land use, speed limits, number of turnbays and the average daily traffic volume. This methodology divides land use into three (3) categories: urban, transitional, and rural. The City of Forks, as with other cities within the County, is not considered urban in nature under this methodology. Rather, the City of Forks, and the unincorporated areas, are considered transitional and the transitional category of level of service (LOS). Table 5 provides the thresholds used in determining LOS categories based upon the speed associated with a given roadway.

Table 5 – Highway Capacity Manual –
Transitional Category Level of Service Categories

Speed

LOS A

LOS B

LOS C

LOS D

LOS E

55 mph

7,500 ADT

11,700 ADT

15,800 ADT

19,800 ADT

27,700 ADT

45-50 mph

5,500 ADT

9,700 ADT

13,900 ADT

19,400 ADT

27,700 ADT

40 mph

800 ADT

8,600 ADT

12,800 ADT

18,600 ADT

27,700 ADT

35 & less

600 ADT

2,200 ADT

12,200 ADT

27,700 ADT

 

The Regional Planning Commission determined that an LOS C standard should be maintained on all roads within the FUGA. Map 8 displays the current LOS ratings for the major roadways within the FUGA. Currently, all major roadways within the FUGA meet this standard, except for a section of SR 101 which has a LOS D rating. While this is below the standard the RPC established, the PRTPO has determined that for State highways, a LOS D rating is acceptable.

Table 6 summarizes the LOS ratings currently in existence, as well as projected for the year 2010. Map 9 provides a visual summary of LOS projections for FUGA roadways in the year 2010. In addition, the build-out LOS was calculated by comparing the number of developed lots to the number of potential lots (based upon a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet). The difference between these two (2) was calculated in a set percentage. This percentage was then used as a potential growth factor and was multiplied by the current ADT to determined build-out LOS. Map 10 illustrates LOS problems if maximized build-out is realized.

Table 6 – LOS Summary for Roads within the FUGA

Name

From MP

To MP

Current LOS

LOS Year 2000

Build-out LOS

Bogachiel Way

0

0.44

B

C

D

Calawah Way

0

0.59

C

C

F

Calawah Way

0.59

0.81

B

C

D

Calawah Way

0.81

1.64

C

C

E

Division St.

0

0.05

B

C

E

Highway 101

5.37

7.51

D

D

E

Highway 101

7.51

8.49

B

C

D

Sol Duc Way

0

0.17

B

C

D

Map 5

Map 6

Map 7

Map 8

Map 9

Map 10

(d) Road Width Deficiencies. Road width deficiencies were determined by subtracting pavement width from pre-determined standards set by the Washington State Board of Transportation. The pre-determined standards are based upon an ADT, with a higher volume of travel requiring a greater road width. Table 7 provides these standards.

Table 7 – Road Width and Lane Width Standards

Average Daily Traffic

Less than 150

151 400

401 750

751 1,000

1,001 2,000

Greater than 2,000

Road Width (ft.)

20 – 24

24

26

28

34

40

Lane Width (ft.)

10

10

10

10

11

12

The Regional Planning Commission determined that, as a standard, roadways with a road width deficiency greater than twelve (12) feet would be substandard. Table 8 summarizes those sections of roadway that are substandard, while Map 14 illustrates were such substandard roadways are located:

Table 8 – Road Width Deficiencies Greater than Twelve (12) Feet

Name

From MP

To MP

Deficiency

Bogachiel Way

0

0.44

18

Calawah Way

0

0.59

22

Calawah Way

1.64

1.79

14

Cook Rd.

0

0.15

15

Division St.

0.05

0.49

14

Femhill Rd.

0

0.35

14

Page Rd.

0.30

0.32

15

Sol Duc Rd.

0

0.17

12

Map 11

(e) Transit Level of Service Standards. The transit level of service standards must be carefully designed to ensure that they do not work at cross-purposes with the arterial level of service standard. It is also important to ensure that the transit level of service standards would be achievable since the City itself does not directly provide transit service. Therefore, the City has not adopted a level of service standard for transit, yet as the regional transit system becomes operational the City will coordinate with the County to establish and adopt a Level of Service standard for that system.

(3) Application of the Concurrence Test. Before the City can project future transportation needs, it must determine where in the development process it will test for concurrency. Because the City receives relatively few development permit applications and a single development may have a significant impact on the City as a whole, the City has decided to review each permit for concurrency at the time of permit application. This does not mean the applicant must be concurrent at the time of permitting; this is simply when the City will assess transportation capacity. The City will apply the concurrency test to any permit for more than a single dwelling unit or more than 1,500 feet commercial space. The plan outlined in CCC 31.07.090 addresses the City’s concurrency management system.

31.07.080 Future needs and alternatives.

This section of the Transportation Element explains expected increases in traffic volumes and identifies potential traffic problems. The Transportation Plan for improvements and expansion will be based on the following analyses:

•    

Analysis of Roadway Capacity Improvements

•    

Analysis of Roadway Safety Improvements

•    

Analysis of Projected Transportation Needs

(1) Analysis of Needed Capacity Improvements. After completing the inventory of existing capacity, the City of Forks has decided that LOS C at peak hour is a reasonable and achievable standard for the major arterial roadways. Design standards as described above will be used to evaluate all other roadways in the City’s planning area. Many of the roadways currently provide this level of service or better. However, if maximum build-out potential was to occur, many of the roadways within the FUGA would be at a substandard level of service (see Table 6). The County and the City must coordinate planning efforts to ensure that necessary roadway improvements occur to these areas.

The following analysis addresses those improvements identified by the Regional Planning Commission as having a direct impact upon the transportation network of the FUGA. These areas and projects should be considered in the development of future transportation improvement plans by both the County and the City of Forks. In addition, funding for such projects should be reviewed as part of any long-term planning done by either the City or the County.

(a) Construction and expansion of sidewalks outward from the central core of the FUGA towards the major residential population centers.

(b) Widening and paving of the following roads (as identified on Map 14):

•    

East Division Street.

•    

Rankin Road.

•    

Fern Hill Road.

•    

Bogachiel Way between Russell and Cook roads.

•    

Cook Road.

•    

D. Mansfield Road.

(c) Increase circulation by connecting the following streets:

•    

Connect Woodpecker Lane to Big Pine Way.

•    

Connect Chuckhole Way to Big Pine Way.

•    

Connect Big Pine Way to Merchant Road or Big Burn Place.

•    

Connect Merchant Road to East Division, after the improvement and widening of East Division past Peterson Road.

•    

Connect Eden Street to Campbell Street.

•    

Connect E Street with Peterson Street.

•    

Connect Wiley Street with Russell Road.

(d) Identify a means of providing addition ingress/egress to the Terra Eden.

(e) Identify means of relieving congestion within the core business sector of the FUGA.

(2) Analysis of Needed Safety Improvements. Additionally, accident frequency data for the past five years was obtained from the Washington Department of Transportation District Office, County Sheriff’s Office, and from the City’s Police Department records. Map 7 shows a rough plotting of these accident statistics.

The following roadways and intersections were identified as having a high accident frequency:

•    

Bogachiel Way.

•    

Calawah Way.

•    

Russell Road.

•    

Merchant Road and Calawah Way intersection.

The Regional Planning Commission recommends that the City of Forks and the County study these areas to determine what improvements could be made to increase the level of safety for residents and drivers within the FUGA. As part of such a study, the following improvements should be considered to alleviate potential hazards: traffic signal modification, improved roadway maintenance, pedestrian displays at signal installation, lane modification, and segments of bicycle and pedestrian ways. Where the needed improvement is relatively small and requires an expenditure of less than $5,000, high priority should be given to these projects in order to reduce accidents in the near future.

As previously mentioned, only improvements of relatively large scale requiring an expenditure of greater than $10,000 are included in the capital facilities element. Therefore, improvements to this high accident frequency location will be included in the County and the City of Forks annual budget.

(3) Analysis of Projected Transportation Needs.

(a) Future Roadway Needs. The City is a member of the Olympic Regional Transportation Planning Organization jurisdiction, and future traffic conditions were predicted with the aid of regional transportation studies, the established level of service standards, and the designated land uses that are in the land use element. These projections were used to determine the needed improvements and new roadway facilities for the next 10 years.

In determining projected roadway needs, the City attempted to plan for the projected transportation volumes in a cost effective manner that would not leave the City with underutilized capacity. In the past, roadways have been over-built for the use they receive. These roads are costly to build and maintain. Narrower roads could provide routine and emergency access in most residential neighborhoods and will use less paving materials, have lower maintenance costs, and reduce surface water runoff.

The land use element projects the City’s growth to occur evenly, without any new major trip generators or attractors. Future land use trends were expressed in terms of number of dwelling units, auto ownership, total employment, and traffic volume. A number of alternative transportation plans were considered as the City went through an iterative process to balance transportation, land use, and fiscal planning goals.

(b) Future Transit Needs. The City relies on a regional bus system for transit service. Improvement of the transit system is a priority for the City. The City will examine the opportunities for expanding regional transportation through cooperation with the County transit system. One priority should be the expansion of main line routes (SR 101) to seven days a week, in order to provide an alternative method of tourist travel.

(c) Future Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Needs. As identified in the inventory, there is a need for sidewalks and bicycle trails throughout the FUGA. Providing trails from new residential developments to recreational areas should be a priority for the City in assessing development trends. The City should work with trail organizations and government agencies to encourage the development of a Cape Alva to LaPush Trail, the Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT), the Olympic Discovery Trail (ODT) to the coast (via the Goodman Creek mainline along the Bogachiel River, from the mainline to the Rayonier mainline, then to the Third Beach Trail), and other regional trail systems; i.e., a headlands connector from Third Beach to First Beach, when trail routes are chosen. Where trails travel in proximity to the urban growth area, the City should encourage feeder trails. In addition, providing additional bicycle racks in the commercial center will be encouraged.

In addition to encouraging development of the PNT, ODT, and other related trails, the City should encourage development of the 20-mile Elk Creek Mountain Bike Loop connecting Forks to the Bogachiel River via the Klahane Campground.

(4) Coordination of Transportation Facilities and LOS Standards. Intergovernmental coordination is essential for the most cost-effective provision of transportation services. The City does not possess the resources nor is it fiscally responsible for addressing all of the traffic circulation system needs that might be identified through transportation planning. The City has reviewed the plans of nearby cities, the County, and the Regional Transportation Planning Organization, and has assessed the impact of their plans on the transportation facilities in Forks. The City is confident that the level of service standards and Transportation Plan adopted in this element are not inconsistent with the level of service standards or plans of other jurisdictions. The City is also confident that the financial resources necessary to achieve the goals of the Transportation Plan will be available. The identification of funding sources for transportation improvements is in the capital facilities element.

(5) Six-Year Financing Plan. The Six-Year Financing Plan for transportation is the result of an iterative process that balances the goals of all Comprehensive Plan elements. In addition, the objectives and policies in the Transportation Plan have been modified to reflect their financial feasibility. Financial planning for transportation used the same process as financial planning for capital facilities. However, the timing and funding for transportation are restricted by the concurrency requirement and the binding nature of level of service standards. The City is required to create a six-year financing plan for both transportation and capital facilities, however, for transportation the City is also required to provide such services concurrently with new development.

In addition, existing and new transportation facilities must meet the adopted level of service standards. Therefore, as new development occurs, expenditures on maintenance of existing facilities must be adequate to continue provision of the adopted levels of service. Although not required in capital facilities planning, the operating costs of transportation facilities become important factors in ensuring that a moratorium on new development will not be needed. The funding mechanisms and funding sources that will be used for transportation improvements are described in the capital facilities element. The capital facilities element also indicates the financial mechanisms that will be used to address funding shortfalls.

31.07.090 Goals, objectives, and policies.

This section discusses the plan for future transportation in the City. The timing of development and provision of services are key components of this planning process. In addition to the discussion below, a future land use map has been developed to illustrate the various land uses and growth management strategies.

The analysis of existing conditions and projected needs in the previous section highlighted the areas of concern and opportunities for Forks. The vision statement for the City of Forks was used, along with the inventory and analysis contained in this element to create a plan. The plan contains a strategy for achievement of the City’s goals in light of the existing conditions in the City. The goals and policies within the plan provide guidelines and positive actions.

The plan and policies for transportation issues in the City of Forks are organized as follows:

•    

Vision Statement Goals: These goals are essential to the quality of life in the City of Forks.

•    

Transportation Goals: These goals describe concepts to be used in decision-making. These goals are based on the existing conditions and projected changes in the City, and will be revised as the City changes.

•    

Plan Concept: A discussion relating the findings of the inventory and analysis to the goals and vision of the community. This should outline the strategies that will guide future growth and development in the community.

•    

Policies: The policies specify what should be accomplished to reach the goals. These policies either provide clear guidance for decision-making when a situation arises, or provide clear responsibilities that will be implemented. The accomplishments under these policies can be used to measure progress toward the goals.

(1) GOAL I: To provide an effective roadway network with adequate capacity to meet, at the adopted level of service (LOS) standard, the demand for travel in the City.

(a) Objective A: The City will provide safe, convenient, and efficient transportation for all residents and visitors to the City. This will include improvements to existing facilities as well as extensions of transportation to new developments.

Policy 1: The City and the County will continue to require appropriate signage for designation of streets, and for providing protection to pedestrian, bicycle and driving populations.

Policy 2: The City will continue to work with County and State agencies for the purposes of expanding regional transportation to the FUGA and destinations in the westend of Clallam and Jefferson Counties.

Policy 3: By 1998, the City will develop a long-term plan for sidewalk construction and expansion from the central business core of the FUGA to outlying population centers.

Policy 4: The City will continue to require the usage of City approved signs for new roadways created by developers of new housing developments.

Policy 5: The City and County will continue to review development proposals for impacts upon surface water runoff, and where necessary to ensure safety of road conditions, require additional drainage requirements.

Policy 6: By 1998, the City will conduct a parking study for the central business district to determine what means are available to provide additional safe parking in the FUGA’s business core.

Policy 7: By 2000, the City will develop and begin implementing means of reducing congestion within the central business core of the FUGA.

(b) Objective B: By 2012, increase the mileage of avenues for non-motorized travel by at least 15 percent over the 1995 base condition.

Policy 1: Within one year of plan adoption, the City will formulate and adopt regulations requiring developers of new housing projects to incorporate road width, sidewalks, and drainage requirements into such developments.

Policy 2: By 1998, the City will coordinate the development of the long-term sidewalk construction plan with businesses, residential communities and the school district within two years of identification.

Policy 3: The City will continue to incorporate regular and routine consideration of bicycles in accordance with the Washington Department of Transportation, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards into future transportation improvements.

Policy 4: The City will develop a non-motorized transportation and recreation trails plan.

(c) Objective C: By 2012, the City will reduce the accident rate at representative locations on the roadway system within the City by at least 15 percent.

Policy 1: The City will identify specific high accident intersections on both the collector and arterial system within two years of plan adoption.

Policy 2: Within one year of identification, the City will include into its transportation improvement plan efforts to reduce those intersections identified as high accident intersections.

Policy 3: By 1999, the City will perform required and requested maintenance activities related to traffic control devices and roadway material within guidelines established by the Department of Public Works.

Policy 4: The City and the County will maintain needed traffic data such as traffic counts and accident data to support studies, planning and operational activities for the Department of Public Works.

Policy 5: By 1998, the City will conduct a study to identify what standards should be developed which enhance the safety of pedestrians and motorists in regard to sidewalk design and maintenance, lighting requirements, signs, and access to properties.

(d) Objective D: The City will ensure that the transportation system is adequate to serve all existing and future land uses. This will require coordinate with the Land Use Plan and with the transportation plans of adjacent jurisdiction. In addition, to ensure that a consistent level of service is provided, the City will develop a concurrency management system, will explore alternative for demand management, and will secure adequate financing for transportation.

 

Policy 1: The City will review all development proposals, rezoning and vacating petitions, variance request, subdivision plats, and commercial construction site plans to ensure coordination with the transportation element.

Policy 2: The City will require that future developments incorporating new streets will be paved.

(e) Objective E: By 1995, the City will review all future proposed roadway corridors with respect to safety, stormwater management and critical areas so as to minimize any problems.

Policy 1: New roads constructed by the City or County, or constructed as part of an approved development, will be designed to encourage safety and welfare of residents. In addition, new roads will be routed so as to avoid transversing publicly owned natural preserves, parks and recreation areas, and areas identified as critical wildlife habitat.

Policy 2: All road construction projects will meet or exceed the minimum requirements for road width, stormwater runoff, and accessibility and usage by emergency services.

Policy 3: Within three (3) years of plan adoption, the City will adopt an official right-of-way map identifying future right-of-way needs based on this transportation element.

(f) Objective F: By 2012, provide a cost affordable level of service for the roadway network of the City of Forks.

Policy 1: The City and the County will maintain an annually updated listing of analyzed and prioritized road improvement needs based on the transportation element.

Policy 2: By 1998, the City will develop a long range plan for the further development of a FUGA roadway network associated with the level of service standards discussed in this Plan.

Policy 3: Upon the annual date of adoption, the City’s concurrency management system will be revised as part of the annual review and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policy 4: The City and the County will adopt and enforce ordinances which ensure that future development will not cause the level of service on transportation facilities to decline below the standards adopted in this element.

Policy 5: The City will coordinate with the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization to ensure that consistency and compatibility between transportation plans.

(g) Objective G: By 1999, the City should develop and expand mechanisms to reduce the demand for transportation facilities through the use of transportation demand strategies, such as car/van pool.

Policy 1: By 1998, the City and the County will develop a plan to designate “park-and-ride” areas that encourage the usage of car pools, van pools, and public transit.

Policy 2: The City and the County will work to further expand the current transit system so that it provides seven (7) days-a-week coverage of major tourist routes, as a means of reducing tourist related traffic congestion. In furtherance of this policy, the transit provider will develop a method of marketing the transit as a viable option to travel in Clallam County.

Article III. Affordable Housing Element

31.07.100 Introduction.

This housing element has been developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(2) of the Growth Management Act to address the housing needs of the City of Forks. It represents the community’s policy plan for the next twenty (20) years.

RCW 36.70A.070(2) requires comprehensive plans prepared under the Growth Management Act to contain a housing element:

... recognizing the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that: (a) includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs; (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, and objectives for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing; (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities; and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.

The housing element has also been developed in accordance with the County-wide Planning Policies and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure consistency throughout the Comprehensive Plan. The housing element specifically considers the condition of the existing housing stock; the cause, scope, and nature of any housing problems; and the provision of a variety of housing types to match the lifestyle and economic needs of the community. This element examines special housing needs, such as low and moderate income family housing, group homes, manufactured homes, and government-supported housing. The housing element includes:

•    

Introduction

•    

Inventory and Analysis

•    

Future Needs and Alternatives

•    

Beliefs, Objectives, and Policies

As a preliminary matter it should be noted that affordable housing in the context of this chapter is not exclusively subsidized housing. Unless noted otherwise, affordable housing also includes nonsubsidized housing that can be purchased by people who do not qualify for typical subsidized housing programs but nonetheless do not have the income to buy an adequate home.

31.07.110 Inventory and analysis.

This inventory is based upon 1990 Census data unless otherwise noted. This inventory does not include all of the data or information that was gathered, but has presented the relevant information in an organized and useful format. The Census data is also either limited to the City of Forks or the City of Forks Census area (an area somewhat larger than the Forks urban growth area), unless otherwise noted.

There have been significant changes in the housing market between the tabulation of the 1990 Census data and 1994, the date of this report. Vacancy rates have diminished considerably and housing costs have concurrently soared. Unfortunately, there is no data more current than the 1990 Census available for this housing analysis. However, since the data will be primarily used for twenty (20) year forecasting, it may be more accurate to use the 1990 housing situation as a base as opposed to 1994, due to the unusually extreme housing conditions in 1994.

Another factor that detracts from the accuracy of the data used in this analysis is the large migrant population in the City of Forks. A large number of Forks low income single-family dwellings are occupied by multiple families of the migrant population. Consequently, the Census data for lower income housing probably does not accurately reflect the severity of the current housing situation or the situation in 1990.

The inventory includes:

•    

Characteristics of the Existing Housing Stock

•    

Residential Housing Patterns

•    

Demographics

•    

Housing Resources

•    

Housing Costs

(1) Housing Stock Characteristics.

(a) New Construction. Building permit applications were reviewed for the period 1989 through 1993. Table 9 lists the results.

Table 9 – Building Permit Results

Year

House

Mobile

Multifamily

Apartment

1988

 

5

 

 

1989

 

5

 

 

1990

 

8

 

 

1991

1

18

 

1

1992

6

22

 

 

1993

1

17

2

1

Average

1.6

15

0.4

0.4

Total Average = 17.4 dwelling units per year

Note that multifamily and apartment amounts are in terms of dwelling units, not complexes.

(b) Owner and Renter Units. In 1990, owner-occupied units comprised fifty-one (51) percent of the dwelling units in the City of Forks. Approximately forty-one (41) percent of the units are renter occupied and eight (8) percent are vacant. Of the 427 renter units in Forks, 270 are in multifamily complexes and the remainder are provided by single-family homes and mobile homes.

(c) Vacancy Rates. The 1990 U.S. Census reported that in the Forks Census area 1.6 percent (eighty-five (85) units) of the owned units were vacant and 9.1 percent of the rental units were vacant. It is the opinion of the real estate community that the vacancy rate is actually much lower and that it decreased substantially between 1990 and 1994.

(d) Type of Dwelling Units. The Washington State Office of Financial Management determined in 1993 that the total number of dwelling units in the City of Forks in 1990 was 1,139, with fifty-eight (58) percent (658) of these units as single-family dwelling units, nineteen (19) percent (217) as multifamily complexes and the remainder (264) as mobile homes or trailers. In 1993 the total number of units had increased to 1,330 with fifty-six (56) percent (743) as single-family dwelling units, seventeen (17) percent (221) as multifamily units and the remainder (366) as mobile homes or trailers. Many of the mobile homes are in the four (4) mobile home parks in Forks. Forks has no group housing of any kind, although it does have a long-term care facility in its community hospital that provides long-term health care for the elderly.

(e) Condition of the Housing Stock. In 1991 the Clallam County Assessor’s Office determined that twenty-seven (27) percent of the housing stock in the City of Forks is in poor or fair condition. These are the lowest of five categories used by the Assessor’s Office to classify the adequacy of housing.

(2) Residential Housing Patterns. The urban residential housing in the city center is at a density that allows residents to walk to major commercial and public employment centers. However, most new development appears to be occurring in the east end of the City away from commercial and employment centers. In the new housing areas there is very little pedestrian access and the major arterials (Calawah Way and eventually Division Street) that lead to the developments do not have adequate shoulder space for pedestrian or bicycle traffic.

(3) Demographics. This section develops a more complete picture of the people expected to reside in Forks. Portions of the demographic analysis are based on the Forks Census subarea, which comprises an area much larger than Forks. However, the level of specificity is adequate to assess the general needs of the population. The population and demographic projections will be used to estimate the need for additional housing for the next twenty years.

This analysis includes information provided on the development patterns in the City, the age structure of the population, and the projected number and size of households. These projections are needed to measure the “fit” of the existing housing stock with the future population and to determine future housing needs.

(a) Development Patterns. Settlement has occurred uniformly around the city center, with the density of settlement increasing towards the center of the City. In 1991 and 1992 subdivision applications to create a total of more than fifty (50) lots had been made for parcels of property in the east side of Forks, just west of Ford Park. This subdivision activity is not an entirely reliable indicator of the location of future development, since there are numerous subdivisions in Forks that have remained undeveloped for several years. Many homes are on large lots and this may be construed as undesirable under the Growth Management Act because large lots contribute to urban sprawl. Despite this manufactured concern, the people of Forks wish to retain the rural character of their community and large lots are an essential component of this character.

(b) Senior Citizen Population. Seven (7) percent of the population in the City of Forks is over sixty-five (65) years of age compared to twelve (12) percent for the rest of the State of Washington. This age difference may reflect a lack of nursing homes and other facilities for the elderly in Forks. It also may reflect the fact that forest jobs tend to attract young people who only stay long enough in Forks to perform one or more jobs. It is anticipated that the elderly population will increase due to the inexpensive housing in the Forks area.

(c) Household Size. According to the 1992 Clallam County Profile, which is based upon 1990 Census data, the average household size in the City of Forks was 2.68 persons per dwelling unit compared to 2.54 for Clallam County. The average household size shown in Table 10 below is 2.5 persons per household. The profile average, based on the U.S. Census, is higher because the U.S. Census reported a lower number of dwellings for the City of Forks than that reported by the Washington State Office of Financial Management for 1993, which was used for Table 10: Note that under both sets of data the average number of persons per household is higher in Forks than in Clallam County as a whole. Under both the OFM statistics and the 1990 Census, the average Clallam County household size is 2.4.

(d) Income of Households. Currently the average yearly household income in the City of Forks is $29,908 according to the 1990 Census. This compares to $34,866 for Clallam County as a whole. According to the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, in 1990 approximately 9.4 percent of Forks households are on public assistance, compared to 7.4 percent for Clallam County and 6.7 percent for the State of Washington. The number of persons on public assistance since 1990 has increased between 1990 and 1994.

(4) Housing Resources. As a municipal entity, the City of Forks has access to federal and State funds that can be used for purposes of subsidizing affordable housing. Forks has not taken advantage of these opportunities.

Forks also has various ordinances relating to the construction and upkeep of housing. For example, the Forks Housing Abatement Ordinance was adopted from the International Conference of Building Officials Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.

(5) Housing Costs.

(a) Rental Costs. The 1990 Census reported that for the Forks Census area the median rent in 1990 was $272 per month and the average rent was $246 per month.

The average rent in 1990 for the City of Forks per type of two bedroom rental unit is as follows:

Single-family house    $350

Duplex/fourplex    $325

Apartment    $275

Mobile home lot    $ 75 (single-wide)

Mobile home lot    $100 (double-wide)

Rents have probably increased significantly since 1990 but there is no current available data on this subject.

(b) Home Values. The 1990 U.S. Census recorded an average single-family home value of $56,479 and an average mobile home value of $18,784 for Forks. The average home value includes the value of the house lot. The average value of all types of housing units was $47,757, a ten (10) percent decrease over the 1980 mean home value. The average sales price for a used single-family home in Forks recorded in 1990 was $45,175.

31.07.120 Future needs and alternatives.

This section of the housing element explains expected development trends and identifies potential development problems and opportunities. The plan for rehabilitation and development will be based on the following analyses:

•    

Projected Population

•    

Projected Housing Construction Demand

•    

Public Facilities and Services Needs Analysis

•    

Land Availability Analysis

•    

Affordable Housing Needs Analysis

(1) Projected Population. Please see the population analysis in the Land Use Element.

(2) Projected Housing Construction Demand. The average number of dwelling units constructed per year according to Table 9 is 17.1 for the years 1988 to 1993, inclusive. This average is not an entirely appropriate for projected construction because of the inclusion of mobile home set-ups. Although there are several mobile home set-ups done every year, there are also several mobile homes that are moved out of their space as well. There is no available data to indicate how many homes are moved per year. However, due to the significant amount of subdividing occurring within the last couple years and the availability of low interest mortgages it is anticipated that dwelling units will be created in the next few years at an accelerated pace. This increase, as clearly reflected in the years 1991 through 1993, more than offsets the artificially high rate of dwelling creation caused by mobile home set-ups. For purposes of projecting future housing, therefore, the total amount of dwelling units created per year will be taken as seventeen (17), the average number of homes constructed or set up per year from 1988 to 1993, inclusive.

Table 10 below serves as a statistical projection for overall housing needs. The table incorporates the population projection of the land use element (59.1 people per year) and the projected housing construction rate of seventeen (17) dwellings per year. These two (2) factors can be used to determine if future housing construction will keep pace with demand. As shown in Table 10, average household size would have to increase at the rate of 0.1 per year for future housing needs to be met. The trend at the County level has been a decrease of 0.1 persons per household from 1980 to 1990. However, household size in the City of Forks is subject to different influences than that in the rest of Clallam County. Influences in the City of Forks that mitigate towards an increase in household size are a relatively young population that is starting families and a large low income population on public assistance and/or employed in low paying forest jobs that must share housing to reduce living expenses. Influences that mitigate towards a decrease in household size include an aging population, an increase in prosperity, an influx in retirees drawn by inexpensive housing and low crime, and the emigration of high school graduates who cannot find jobs in Forks. On balance, the RPC believes that household size will continue to increase at a slight rate over the next twenty (20) years. The increase in household size reflected in Table 10 reflects such an increase. Consequently, housing construction should meet the projected need for housing. Although there does have to be a slight increase in housing to compensate for the unacceptably low vacancy rate for owner-occupied housing, the amount of housing to make up for this difference is statistically insignificant in the foregoing analysis.

Table 10 – City of Forks Population and Household Size 1993 – 2013

 

1993 actual

2003

2013

City Population

3,330

3,921

4,512

Number of Households

1,330

1,500

1,670

Average Household Size

2.5

2.6

2.7

(3) Public Facilities and Services Needs Analysis. New residential units will need to be connected to water, sanitary disposal, solid waste disposal, transportation, electric, gas and telecommunications services. In addition, existing facilities such as schools, fire protection, and police protection will need to be evaluated to ensure that they can handle the additional demand. The analysis of the capacity of public facilities and services has been adjusted to reflect the anticipated changes in the housing pattern. The condition and capacity of public facilities and services is detailed in the transportation element and the land use element. The schedule for financing such services is in the capital facilities element.

(4) Land Availability Analysis. This analysis examines all of the land that is available for residential land uses under the current zoning and development ordinances. This provides an initial estimate of the City’s ability to meet its housing needs. It also clarifies the ability under the current regulations to develop a pattern with a sense of community, safety, and access to commercial and employment centers. The data in this analysis was acquired from Clallam County, which did an inventory of Forks land uses in 1992 for purposes of its urban growth area studies.

(a) Available Residential Land. As of 1992, Forks had 646 acres of vacant land. Residential development encompasses seventy-six (76) percent of the developed land in the City of Forks. Consequently, seventy-six (76) percent of the vacant land (490 acres) could be characterized as available for residential development.

(b) Residential Land Build-out Potential. There are currently only two (2) regulatory density limitations on housing construction. The first is that those homes outside of the sewer service area must have sufficient area for a septic system. Currently, Clallam County requires approximately a half acre per system. The other limitation is in the Forks Subdivision Ordinance, which has a minimum lot size requirement of 7,000 square feet. The subdivision ordinance, however, does grandfather preexisting lots so that there are numerous lots within Forks in which smaller lots would be permissible. Available data does not differentiate vacant land within the sewer service area from that without, so it is not possible to determine a precise build-out potential. However, since most vacant land within the City of Forks is outside the sewer service area, an average housing density of 2.2 homes per acre is roughly accurate. At this potential there is available space for 1,078 additional dwellings, which is 1.7 times more dwellings than are necessary, as projected above. Furthermore, the unincorporated Forks urban growth area, which has more than 2,266 acres of vacant land, can also accommodate residential development. Also, the construction of any significant multifamily complex would further reduce the need for vacant land. A countervailing factor, however, is that a significant amount of land is owned by persons not interested in development at this time.

(5) Affordable Housing Needs Analysis. A family is paying an unacceptable amount of their income for housing if their cost for housing exceeds thirty (30) percent of their income. Financing an average family home in the City of Forks requires a yearly income of $19,500, however only $6,721 per year needs to be earned to afford an average mobile home in Forks. Less than ten (10) percent of Forks households could not afford to purchase an average priced mobile home. It is unclear how many of these households could afford a less than average priced mobile home.

Rentals are less affordable for Forks residents. The median rent according to the 1990 U.S. Census for the Forks area was $272 per month, which would require a $10,880 per year household income if thirty (30) percent of income is used for rent. The households that cannot afford this type of rent constitute about twenty (20) percent (about 185 households) of City of Forks households. Available data does not indicate if there are enough rentals that are within the budget of these 185 households, however there are sixty-four (64) subsidized housing units in the City of Forks which would account for a third of these households.

Even though 9.5 percent of Forks’ population is on public assistance and Forks has an almost twenty (20) percent unemployment rate (this statistic was determined by the Washington State Employment Security Department – it does not include persons whose employment benefits have expired or persons who are self-employed), it is clear that affordable housing is not a great problem for the City of Forks due to the abundance of relatively inexpensive housing at this time. Affordability may decline, however, as the rate of new construction increases over the next twenty (20) years. Although affordable housing is not currently a major problem, quality of housing clearly is. With twenty-seven (27) percent of its housing in poor or fair condition, the City of Forks should focus its housing activities upon the rehabilitation of its current housing stock while at the same time monitoring the affordability of its housing as housing construction accelerates.

31.07.130 Beliefs, objectives, and policies.

(1) BELIEF: Independence, private property rights and freedom from government intrusion are strongly valued within the RPC Planning Area. Land use regulation should incorporate these values and only compromise them when (1) highly significant objectives essential to the public health, safety or welfare cannot be attained in any other manner, or (2) the other beliefs expressed herein cannot be furthered in any other manner.

Segregation of land uses into generally defined and flexible residential, commercial and industrial zoning classifications is a desirable means of preventing incompatible adjacent land uses and stabilizing property values.

JUSTIFICATION: In the last five (5) years almost all new housing construction has consisted of setting up mobile homes. No multifamily dwellings were created in that five (5) years. At the same time there is a growing housing deficit that will increase dramatically over the next two (2) decades. Broadly defined residential zoning classifications will help prevent land use regulation as serving a hindrance to the development of new housing. With ample available land to buffer different types of residential developments, concerns over conflicts between different types of housing is not as great in the Forks community as it may be in other areas.

Objective A: New residential development should continue to occur in the east section of the City between Ford Park and the Thomas Additions. The area is well suited for development because it is surrounded by residential development and it has been subject to a high degree of subdivision activity in the last couple years.

Policy 1: The City will zone this area to ensure that various types and densities of housing are permitted in this location. This will be accomplished by a residential zoning designation that will provide for maximum flexibility in permitted types of housing.

Objective B: The City of Forks will undertake actions to promote residential development that will allow pedestrian access to commercial areas, employment, schools, and park or recreational areas.

Policy 1: The City of Forks will ensure that residential zones are placed near the downtown core area of Forks to ensure that there will be residential areas that are pedestrian accessible.

Objective C: The City of Forks will encourage the development of multifamily housing, single-family units, and other types of housing and will take steps to ensure that these developments are incorporated with the existing commercial and community structures within the City.

Policy 1: The City of Forks will implement flexible residential zones that will allow for multifamily housing, single-family units, and other housing types throughout the City.

Policy 2: The City should encourage guest houses and auxiliary apartments in residential zones as long as the unit maintains an appropriate residential character and quality living environment.

(2) BELIEF: Home-based industries are an essential part of the economic vitality of the planning area and should be permitted in all zoning classifications to the extent compatible with surrounding land uses.

JUSTIFICATION: With a twenty (20) percent unemployment rate and a relatively large proportion of the population on public assistance, it is clear that all efforts possible must be made to encourage economic development. Home-based industries can accomplish this goal by increasing the feasibility of starting new businesses.

Policy 1: Residential zoning classifications will allow for home-based industries. These classifications shall permit home occupations or professions which are incidental to or carried on in a dwelling place and do not change its residential character in a manner that is disruptive to adjoining property owners.

(3) BELIEF: Local government should encourage affordable and special housing and the rehabilitation of substandard housing.

JUSTIFICATION: Rehabilitation of substandard housing, lack of variety in affordable housing and shortages in special housing are areas that local government could improve upon through coordination of local resources or acquisition of funds and grants. Although mobile homes are in plentiful supply at affordable rates, there is almost no other form of affordable housing available for low income persons. Furthermore, as the rate of new construction increases, the percentage of affordable housing may decrease and efforts should be made to mitigate this trend. Special housing for the elderly, such as assisted living communities, is not widely available and may be one reason why Forks does not have a large elderly population. Substandard housing is a major problem in the City of Forks as evidenced by common experience and a finding of the Clallam County Assessor’s Office that twenty-seven (27) percent of the housing stock in the City of Forks is in poor or fair condition, the lowest of five (5) categories used by the Assessor’s Office to classify the adequacy of housing. At the same time government funds are available for subsidized multifamily housing and other special housing which have not yet been fully utilized.

Objective A: The opportunity for all residents to purchase or rent affordable, safe and sanitary housing should be increased. The needs of the current residents should be carefully examined in order to direct new housing development, rehabilitated housing, and assisted housing to where it is most needed.

Policy 1: State and federal housing programs should be reviewed and recommendations made regarding future grant applications, especially in the areas of multifamily housing and housing for the elderly.

Objective B: The City shall increase the opportunities for residents with special housing needs.

Policy 1: The City of Forks shall have flexible residential zones that allow for different classes of group homes.

Policy 2: Funding opportunities for the development of group homes and facilities for the elderly should be studied.

Objective C: The City shall focus on the rehabilitation of substandard housing and the redevelopment of deteriorated housing.

Policy 1: The City of Forks should facilitate rehabilitation efforts for its substandard housing stock by a combination of public and private investment. One manner in so doing would be the creation of a revolving fund for private rehabilitation efforts. Another potential project could be the provision of information services for people who wish to know how to rehabilitate their homes.

Policy 2: The City of Forks shall facilitate coordination with neighborhood-based groups or other volunteer organizations to promote rehabilitation and community revitalization efforts.

Policy 3: The City of Forks shall continue to implement its code enforcement program for dangerous buildings and shall consider incentives to motivate owners to repair and improve maintenance of their structures.

Article IV. Economic Development Element

31.07.140 Introduction.

As a result of judicial and executive intervention, the traditional economic base of timber harvesting was seriously undermined in the late 1980s. The Forks Economic Development Steering Committee pushed forward with an innovative idea, the creation of industrial park centered around timber products. Today, the industrial park is a reality, and when operation begins in early 1995 forty-two (42) new jobs will be created by Portac in the FUGA. In addition, FEDSC is actively marketing the industrial park to other manufacturers.

Another sector that has direct economic impact upon the FUGA is that of the public sector. The U.S. Forest Service, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Quillayute School District, and the Clallam Bay Correctional Facilities are major employers, employing people from the FUGA. As both State and federal government budgets decline, the Forest Service, Quillayute School District and the Department of Natural Resources have seen a decline in new hires, as well as the number of staff employed in the westend of Clallam County. However, the Clallam Bay Correctional Facilities has seen an increase in staff, and it is believed that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

Additional efforts have been sought to diversify the economic base of the Forks urban growth area (FUGA). One area of increased revenue is tourism. While tourism revenues have increased every year, and the number of visitors has grown by astronomical amounts, there is a significant concern that a tourist based economy may result in lower wage jobs and cyclical employment.

Thus, the FUGA is keenly aware of the need to diversify its economic base. This element of the Comprehensive Plan for the FUGA lays out the goals associated with economic development. Attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter as Attachment A is the FEDSC 1995 Action Plan, which was used to develop the goals within this element. In addition, Clallam County’s 2020 Vision Task Force had developed a twenty-eight (28) year strategic plan. This Clallam County Economic Development Strategic Plan: for year’s 1992-2020 has also been used in drafting this element.

31.07.150 Brief analysis of economic conditions.

As discussed in the land use element of FUGA Comprehensive Plan, the FUGA has faced a radical challenge to the traditional economic base timber harvesting. The basis for this challenge included increased federal controls over timber resources, State legislation and administrative regulations, and judicial actions at the federal level in interpreting the Endangered Species Act.

In addition, the economic base for the community has rapidly shifted from a natural resource based economy to one that is retail and service oriented. Thus a concentrated effort has been made by FEDSC to further develop the manufacturing aspect of the local economy. City and County governments and agencies need to continue to augment the work of FEDSC in this area.

31.07.160 Goals and objectives associated with economic development.

The plan and policies for land use issues in the City of Forks are organized as follows:

•    

Mission Statement Belief. This belief is essential to the quality of life in the Forks UGA and will remain unchanged for long-term planning.

•    

Goals. These are relating the findings of the inventory and analysis to the beliefs of the vision statement, and outline the strategies that will guide future growth and development in the community.

•    

Projects. These projects specify what should be accomplished to implement the goals. They either provide clear guidance for decision-making when a situation arises, or provide clear responsibilities for implementation.

BELIEF: The mission of the Forks Economic Development Steering Committee is to act in an advisory capacity, assisting residents of the Greater Forks area in improving its economic environment by facilitating and encouraging development of industrial, commercial and public sector operations and creating a stable, healthy and diversified employment base.

(1) GOAL: Industrial/Forest Base Enhancement.

Project 1. Develop and implement a business plan for the Forks Industrial Park to include financials, construction, marketing and management.

Project 2. Develop and implement plan to maximize air service availability.

Project 3. Develop and implement education, training and employment opportunities with the Olympic Natural Resources Center.

Project 4. Support and encourage the maintenance of the land base necessary to sustain a continuing supply of resources.

(2) GOAL: Commercial/Tourism Enhancement.

Project 1. Integrate infrastructure improvements into beautification efforts.

Project 2: Enhance linkages with community organizations.

Project 3. Encourage public/private recreational/cultural facilities.

Project 4. Work with and support CCEDC/NOPVCB marketing efforts.

(3) GOAL: Image and Marketing.

Project 1. Support downtown revitalization efforts both technically and financially.

Project 2. Enhance public relations effort.

Project 3. Market Forks’ business opportunities through the planning and implementation of marketing strategies.

Project 4. Solicit support from areas of high urban growth and State and federal agencies to steer new business to the Forks area.

(4) GOAL: Business Assistance.

Project 1. Develop and maintain comprehensive business assistance program/service for business start-up, expansion and retention.

Project 2. Work with State agencies and universities to identify potentially successful business enterprises in the areas of wood products, minor forest products, tourism and other businesses.

Article V. Capital Facilities Element

31.07.170 Introduction – Purpose.

(1) This capital facilities element has been developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act to address the financing of capital facilities in the City of Forks. It represents the community’s policy plan for the financing of the public facilities for the next twenty (20) years, and includes a six (6) year financing plan for capital facilities from 1994 to 1999. The policies and objectives in this plan will be used to guide public decisions on the use of capital funds. They will also indirectly guide private development decisions by providing a strategy of planned public capital expenditures. The element has also been developed in accordance with the County-wide Planning Policies, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure consistency throughout the Comprehensive Plan. The element specifically evaluates the City’s fiscal capability to provide the public facilities necessary to support the other Comprehensive Plan elements. The capital facilities element includes:

•    

Introduction

•    

Inventory and Analysis

•    

Future Needs and Alternatives

•    

Six (6) Year Capital Improvement Plan

•    

Goals, Objectives, and Policies

•    

Plan Implementation and Monitoring

(2) Level of Service Standards. Due to the small size of the City of Forks, level of services standards will not be used to assess capital facility needs, except for transportation facilities, as required by the Growth Management Act.

(3) Major Capital Facilities Considerations and Goals. The capital facilities element is the mechanism the City uses to coordinate its physical and fiscal planning. This planning effort required ongoing communication and cooperation between various disciplines, including the Planning Director, Utilities Director and Clerk/Treasurer. The Comprehensive Plan is realistic and achievable as a result of integrating the concerns of various local administrators and coordinating all of the Comprehensive Plan elements.

The capital facilities element promotes efficiency by requiring the local government to prioritize capital improvements for a longer period of time than the single budget year. Long-range financial planning presents the opportunity to schedule projects so that the various steps in development logically follow one another, with regard to relative urgency, economic desirability, and community benefit. In addition, the identification of adequate funding sources results in the prioritization of needs, and allows the trade-offs between projects to be evaluated explicitly. The Capital Facilities Plan in the element will guide decision-making to achieve the community goals as articulated in the vision statement.

31.07.180 Inventory and analysis.

The inventory presented in this element provides information useful to the planning process. It also summarizes new capital improvement projects for the existing population, new capital improvement projects necessary for the growth projected through 1999, and major repair, renovation, or replacement of existing facilities. The analysis of this information is in CCC 31.07.210. The inventory and analysis includes:

•    

Capital Facilities Program

•    

Definition of Capital Improvement

•    

Projection of Capital Facility Needs

•    

Prioritization of Projected Needs

(1) Capital Facilities Program. The Capital Facilities Program within this element is a six (6) year financing plan for capital expenditures to be incurred each year. It sets forth each capital project which the jurisdiction plans to undertake and presents estimates of the resources needed to finance the project. The Capital Facilities Program will reflect the goals, policies, and implementation strategy of the capital facilities element. The first year of the Capital Facilities Program will be converted to the annual capital budget, while the remaining five (5) year program will provide long-term planning. Only the expenditures and appropriations in the annual budget are binding financial commitments. The projections for the remaining five (5) years are not binding, and the capital projects recommended for future development may be altered or not developed due to cost or changing circumstances. The Capital Facilities Program is a six (6) year rolling plan that will be revised and extended annually to reflect changing circumstances.

(2) Definition of Capital Improvement. This capital facilities element is concerned with needed improvements which are of relatively large scale, are generally nonrecurring high cost, and may require multiyear financing. The list of improvements has been limited to major components in order to analyze development trends and impacts at a level of detail which is both manageable and reasonably accurate.

Smaller scale improvements of less than $10,000 in cost will usually be addressed in the annual capital budget as they occur over time.

For the purposes of capital facility planning, “capital improvements” are major projects, activities, or maintenance, generally costing over $10,000, requiring the expenditure of public funds over and above annual operating expenses. They have a life expectancy of more than ten (10) years and result in an addition to the City’s fixed assets and/or extend the life of the existing capital infrastructure.

They do not include capital outlay items such as equipment or the City’s rolling stock, nor do they include the capital expenditures of private or nonpublic organizations. Minor projects, activities, or maintenance costing less than $10,000, are considered minor maintenance and are not a part of capital improvements.

Capital projects may include design, engineering efforts, permitting, environmental analysis, land acquisition, construction, major maintenance, site improvements, energy conservation projects, landscaping, initial furnishings, and equipment.

(3) Projection of Capital Facility Needs Identified in Adoption of Capital Improvement Plan. A major source of information for the projection of capital facility needs was the City of Forks Capital Improvement Plan, adopted in March, 1993. This document served as a five (5) year projection of capital facility needs for water, sewer, parks, streets, drainage, airport and buildings and grounds. It was developed in collaboration with city department heads and the Forks City Council.

31.07.190 Summary of City of Forks Capital Improvement Plan.

(1) Description of Table 11. Appendix “B” is the City of Forks Capital Improvements Plan. This provides a brief description of each of the capital improvement projects agreed upon in the March 1993 capital facility plan, provides the justification for the project, and provides an estimate of the total project costs. Table 11 is a summary of the Capital Improvement Plan, divided by department or area of concern.

Table 11 – Summary of City of Forks Capital Improvement Plan

Water Systems

 

Fund Source

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Water Line Extension

5

 

700,000

 

 

 

 

Thomas Addition Extension

3

 

 

 

55,000

 

 

Water Tanks

3

 

 

10,000

 

 

 

Subtotals

 

 

700,000

10,000

55,000

 

 

Sewer

 

Fund Source

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Sewer Plan Update

3

 

 

10,000

 

 

 

Subtotals

 

 

 

10,000

 

 

 

Streets/Drainage

 

Fund Source

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Comprehensive Drainage Plan

3 & 5

 

 

 

50,000

 

 

Forks Industrial Park Roadway

5

 

210,000

 

 

 

 

Bogachiel Way /Calawah Way

2

 

1,560,000

 

 

 

 

SR 101

2 & 4

 

 

420,000

 

 

 

Sixth Ave.

2

 

 

 

5,000

 

 

3rd Ave. S.E.

2

 

 

 

 

5,000

 

Russell Rd.

2

 

 

 

 

 

3,000

Gateway Landscaping

5

 

20,000

 

 

 

 

Subtotals

 

 

1,790,000

470,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

Building/Grounds

 

Fund Source

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

City Hall

2

20,000

 

 

 

 

 

Water Compound

3

 

 

20,000

 

 

 

Forks Industrial Park Site Development and Buildings

5 & 1

 

1,414,200

 

 

 

 

Subtotals

 

20,000

1,414,200

20,000

 

 

 

Parks and Recreation

 

Fund Source

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Calawah River Access

3 & 5

 

300,000

 

 

 

 

Aquatic Center

5 & 6

 

 

 

 

4,000,000

 

Subtotals

 

 

300,000

 

 

4,000,000

 

Airport

 

Fund Source

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Airport Plan Update

5

 

30,000

 

 

 

 

Subtotals

 

 

30,000

 

 

 

 

Grand Totals

 

 

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Annual Totals

 

20,000

4,234,200

510,000

60,000

4,005,000

3,000

Funding Sources:

1. General Fund

2. Dedicated Funds

3. Enterprise Funds

4. Improvement District

5. Grants

6. Bonds

7. Other

(2) Prioritization of Projected Needs. The identified capital improvement needs listed in Appendix “B” were developed by the City department heads. The following criteria were applied informally in developing the final listing of proposed projects.

Economic Considerations:

•    

Potential for Financing

•    

Timeliness of Opportunity

•    

Benefit to Economy and Tax Base

Service Considerations:

•    

Safety, Health, and Welfare Factors

•    

Effect on Quality of Service

Feasibility Considerations:

•    

Legal Mandates

•    

Citizen Support

Consistency Considerations:

•    

Linkage to Other Planned Projects

Cost Estimates for Projected Needs: Cost estimates in this element are presented in 1993 dollars and were derived from past experience in constructing capital projects.

31.07.200 Future needs and alternatives.

The Capital Facility Plan for the City of Forks will be developed based on the following analyses:

•    

Current Revenue Sources

•    

Financial Resources

•    

Capital Facilities Policies

•    

Method for Addressing Shortfalls

(1) Current Revenue Sources. The City’s current expense fund has increased from $500,000 in 1983 to $834,000 in 1993, representing a sixty-six (66) percent increase over an eleven (11) year period. City revenues have significantly increased in the last couple years largely due to a newly imposed utilities tax in 1991. It has been a goal of the City to realize a cash flow balance (cash reserve) of $225,000 and the City will probably reach this goal in 1994 or 1995. Table I, in Appendix “B,” contains a summary of revenues versus expense for the last five years.

To ensure that the City is using the most effective means of collecting revenue, the City inventoried the various sources of funding currently available. Financial regulations and available mechanisms are subject to change, furthermore, changing market conditions influence the City’s choice of financial mechanism. Therefore, the City should periodically review the impact and appropriateness of their financing system. The following list of sources includes all major financial resources available and is not limited to those sources which are currently in use or will be used in the six-year schedule of improvements. The list includes the following categories:

•    

Debt Financing

•    

Local Multi-Purpose Levies

•    

Local Single-Purpose Levies

•    

Local Non-Levy Financing Mechanisms

•    

State Grants and Loans

•    

Federal Grants and Loans

(a) Debt Financing (method of financing, not a source of revenue).

(i) Short-Term Borrowing. The extremely high cost of many capital improvements requires local governments to occasionally utilize short-term financing through local banks. The City of Forks typically does not borrow funds from banks.

(ii) Revenue Bonds. Bonds financed directly by those benefiting from the capital improvement. Revenue obtained from these bonds is used to finance publicly owned facilities, such as parking garages or electric power plants. The debt is retired using charges collected from the users of these facilities. In this respect, the capital project is self-supporting. Interest rates tend to be higher than for general obligation bonds, and issuance of the bonds may be approved without the voter referendum. The City of Forks in as of 1993 owes about $780,000 in revenue bonds for water and sewer projects.

(iii) Industrial Revenue Bonds. Bonds issued by a local government, but actually assumed by companies or industries who use the revenue for construction of plants or facilities. The attractiveness of these bonds to industry is that they carry comparatively low interest rates due to their tax-exempt status. The advantage to the jurisdiction is that the private sector is responsible for retirement of the debt. Forks typically does not use these bonds and had none in 1993.

(iv) General Obligation Bonds. Bonds backed by the value of the property within the jurisdiction. Voter-approved bonds increase property tax rate and dedicate the increased revenue to repay bondholders. Councilmanic bonds do not increase taxes and are repaid with general revenues. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities. These bonds should be used for projects that benefit the City as a whole. Forks typically does not use these bonds and had none in 1993.

(b) Local Multi-Purpose Levies.

(i) Ad Valorem Property Taxes. Tax rate in mills (1/10 cent per dollar of taxable value). The maximum rate is $3.60 per $1,000 assessed valuation. The City is prohibited from raising its levy more than six (6) percent of the highest amount levied in the last three (3) years, before adjustments for new construction and annexation. A temporary or permanent excess levy may be assessed with voter approval. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities. The maximum rate Forks can charge is $3.10 per $1,000 because it is part of a library district which gets $0.50 per $1,000.

(ii) Business and Occupation Tax. Tax of no more than 0.2 percent of gross value of business activity on the gross or net income of businesses. Assessment or increase of the tax requires voter approval. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities. As of 1993 Forks has not imposed such a tax.

(iii) Local Option Sales. Tax: Retail sales and use tax of up to one percent. The local governments that level the second 0.5 percent may participate in a sales tax equalization fund. Assessment of this option tax requires voter approval. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities. As of 1993 Forks imposes the full one percent and does participate in the sales tax equalization fund.

(iv) Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. Annual excise tax divided between City, County, and State. The City receives seventeen (17) percent of the allocation. The City is required to spend funds for police protection, fire protection, and the preservation of public health.

(v) Utility Tax. Tax on the gross receipts of electric, gas, telephone, cable TV, water/sewer, and stormwater utilities. Local discretion up to six (6) percent of gross receipts. Voter approval required for an increase above this maximum. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities. In 1991 the City of Forks enacted a utility tax that imposes a six (6) percent tax upon cable television and telephone services and a four (4) percent tax upon electricity, sewer and water.

(vi) Real Estate Excise Tax. The original one-half percent was authorized as an option to the sales tax for general purposes. An additional one-quarter percent was authorized for capital facilities, and the Growth Management Act authorized another one-quarter percent for capital facilities. For counties and cities within those counties that chose to plan, i.e., those which “opt in” under the Growth Management Act, the additional tax requires voter approval. Revenues must be used solely to finance new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities, as specified in the capital facilities plan. An additional option is available under RCW 82.46.070 for the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas if approved by a majority of the voters of the County. As of 1993 Forks only receives the one-quarter percent for capital facilities.

(c) Local Single-Purpose Levies.

(i) Emergency Medical Services Tax. Property tax levy of $0.25 for emergency medical services. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities. Not imposed in Forks as of 1993.

(ii) Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax. Tax paid by gasoline distributors. The City receives 11.53 percent of total tax receipts. State shared revenue is distributed by the Department of Licensing. Revenues must be spent for highway (City streets, County roads, and State highways) construction, maintenance, or operation; policing of local roads; or related activities.

(iii) Local Option Fuel Tax. A County-wide voter approved tax equivalent to ten (10) percent of State-wide Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and a special fuel tax of $0.023 per gallon. Revenue is distributed to the City on a weighed per capita basis. Revenues must be spent for highway (City streets, County roads, and State highways) construction, maintenance, or operation; policing of local roads; or highway related activities. Not imposed in Clallam County as of 1993.

(iv) Commercial Parking Tax. Tax on commercial parking businesses based on gross proceeds or the number of parking stalls, or on the customer rates. The tax is imposed by local referendum. Revenues must be spent for general transportation purposes including highway (City streets, County roads and State highways) construction, maintenance, or operation; policing of local roads; highway related activities; public transportation planning and design; and other transportation related activities. Not imposed in Forks as of 1993.

(d) Local Non-Levy Financing Mechanisms.

(i) Reserve Funds. Revenue that is accumulated in advance and earmarked for capital improvements. Sources of funds can be surplus revenues, funds in depreciation reserves, or funds resulting from the sale of capital assets.

(ii) Fines, Forfeitures, and Charges for Services. This includes various administrative fees and user charges for services and facilities operated by the jurisdiction. Examples are franchise fees, sales of public documents, property appraisal fees, fines, forfeitures, licenses, permits, income received as interest from various funds, sale of public property, rental income, and all private contributions to the jurisdiction. Revenue from these sources may be restricted in use.

(iii) User Fees, Program Fees, and Tipping Fees. Fees or charges for using park and recreational facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, sewer services, water services, and surface water drainage facilities. Fee may be based on measure of usage, a flat rate, or design features. Revenues may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities. These fees do not serve as a large source of revenue for the City of Forks. Sources of fees are derived from use of the park, jail facilities by other jurisdictions, dispatch facilities by other jurisdictions, and the intergovernmental contract governing the Clallam County Regional Planning Commission.

(iv) Street Utility Charge. Fee up to fifty (50) percent of actual costs of street construction, maintenance, and operations charged to businesses and households. The tax requires local referendum. The fee charged to businesses is based on the number of employees and cannot exceed $2 per employee per month. Owners or occupants of residential property are charged a fee per household that cannot exceed $2 per month. Both businesses and households must be charged. Revenue may be used for activities such as street lighting, traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking facilities, and drainage facilities.

(v) Special Assessment District. District created to service entities completely or partially outside of the jurisdiction. Special assessments are levied against those who directly benefit from the new service or facility. The districts include local improvement districts, road improvement districts, utility improvement districts, and the collection of development fees. Funds must be used solely to finance the purpose for which the special assessment district was created.

(vi) Special Purpose District. District created to provide a specified service. Often the district will encompass more than one jurisdiction. Included are districts for fire facilities, hospitals, libraries, metropolitan parks, airports, ferries, parks and recreation facilities, cultural arts/stadiums and convention centers, sewers, water flood controls, irrigation, and cemeteries. Voter approval is required for airport, parks and recreation, and cultural arts/stadium and convention districts. The district has authority to impose levies or charges. Funds must be used solely to finance the purpose for which the special purpose district was created. The Forks water and sewer districts are a major source of revenue.

(vii) Lease Agreements. Agreement allowing the procurement of a capital facility through lease payments to the owner of the facility. Several lease packaging methods can be used. Under the lease-purchase method the capital facility is built by the private sector and leased back to the local government. At the end of the lease, the facility may be turned over to the municipality without any future payment. At that point, the lease payments will have paid the construction cost plus interest.

(viii) Privatization. Privatization is generally defined as the provision of a public service by the private sector. Many arrangements are possible under this method ranging from a totally private venture to systems of public/private arrangements, including industrial revenue bonds. Solid waste collection in the City of Forks is handled by a private company.

(ix) Impact Fees. Fees paid by new development based upon its impact to the delivery of services. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed by growth, not for current deficiencies in levels of service, and cannot be used for operating expenses. These fees must be equitably allocated to the specific entities which will directly benefit from the capital improvement, and the assessment levied must fairly reflect the true costs of these improvements. Impact fees may be imposed for public streets and roads, publicly-owned parks, open space, recreational facilities, school facilities, and fire protection facilities (in jurisdictions that are not part of afire district).

(e) State Grants and Loans.

(i) Community Development Block Grant. Grant funds available for public facilities, economic development, housing, and infrastructure projects which benefit low- and moderate-income households. Grants are distributed by the Department of Community Development primarily to applicants who indicate prior commitment to project. Revenue is restricted in type of project and may not be used for maintenance and operations. $420,000 of these funds have been allocated to the Forks Industrial Park.

(ii) Community Economic Revitalization Board. Low interest loans (rate fluctuates with State bond rate) and occasional grants to finance infrastructure projects for a specific private sector development. Funding is available only for projects which will result in specific private developments or expansions in manufacturing and businesses that support the trading of goods and services outside of the State’s borders. Projects must create or retain jobs. Funds are distributed by the Department of Trade and Economic Development primarily to applicants who indicate prior commitment to project. Revenue restricted in type of project and may not be used for maintenance and operations. $500,000 of these funds have been allocated to the Forks Industrial Park.

(iii) Historic Preservation Grants. On an annual basis, the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) makes available grants to local historic preservation programs for four (4) purposes: (1) historic preservation planning; (2) cultural resource survey and inventory; (3) nomination of properties to the National Register of Historic Places; and (4) public education and awareness efforts. To be eligible for grants, communities must be a certified local government (CLG) as approved by OAHP. In addition, when funds are available, OAHP awards grants for acquisition or rehabilitation of National Register listed or eligible properties. Grant awards are predicated on the availability of funds and require a match.

(iv) Public Works Trust Fund. Low interest loans to finance capital facility construction, public works emergency planning, and capital improvement planning. To apply for the loans the City must have a capital facilities plan in place and must be levying the original one-quarter percent real estate excise tax. Funds are distributed by the Department of Community Development. Loans for construction projects require matching funds generated only from local revenues or State shared entitlement revenues. Public works emergency planning loans are at a five percent interest rate, and capital improvement planning loans are no interest loans, with a 25 percent match. Revenue may be used to finance new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities.

(v) State Parks and Recreation Commission Grants. Grants for parks capital facilities acquisition and construction. They are distributed by the Parks and Recreation Commission to applicants with a 50 percent match requirement.

(vi) Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA). Revenue available for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion. Entitlement funds are distributed by the State Transportation Improvement Board subject to UATA guidelines and with a 20 percent local matching requirement. Revenue may be used for capital facility projects to alleviate roads that are structurally deficient, congested with traffic, or have accident problems.

(vii) Repealed by Ord. 805, 2006.

(viii) Transportation Improvement Account. Revenue available for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion caused by economic development or growth. Entitlement funds are distributed by the State Transportation Improvement Board with a 20 percent local match requirement. For cities with a population of less than 500 the entitlement requires only a five percent local match. Revenue may be used for capital facility projects that are multimodal and involve more than one agency.

(ix) Centennial Clean Water Fund. Grants and loans for the design, acquisition, construction, and improvement of water pollution control facilities, and related activities to meet State and federal water pollution control requirements. Grants and loans distributed by the Department of Ecology with a 50 percent to 25 percent matching share. Use of funds is limited to planning, design, and construction of water pollution control facilities, stormwater management, groundwater protection, and related projects.

(x) Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund. Low interest loans and loan guarantees for water pollution control projects. Loans are distributed by the Department of Ecology. The applicant must show water quality need, have a facility plan for treatment works, and show a dedicated source of funding for repayment.

(f) Federal Grants and Loans.

(i) Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program. Funds available with a 20 percent local matching requirement for replacement of structurally deficient or obsolete bridges. Funds are distributed by the Washington State Department of Transportation on a State-wide priority basis. Therefore, the bridge must be on the State of Washington Inventory of Bridges.

(ii) Federal Aid Urban System. Revenue available for construction and reconstruction improvements to arterial and collector roads that are planned for by an MPO and the Federal Highway Administration. Funds may also be used for nonhighway public mass transit projects. Funds are distributed by Washington State Department of Transportation with a 16.87 percent local match requirement.

(iii) Federal Aid Safety Programs. Revenue available for improvements at specific locations which constitute a danger to vehicles or pedestrians as shown by frequency of accidents. Funds are distributed by Washington State Department of Transportation from a State-wide priority formulae and with a 10 percent local match requirement.

(iv) Federal Aid Emergency Relief. Revenue available for restoration of roads and bridges on the federal aid system which are damaged by extraordinary natural disasters or catastrophic failures. Local agency declares an emergency and notifies the Washington State Department of Transportation, upon approval entitlement funds are available with a 16.87 percent local matching requirement.

(v) Farmers Home Administration Water Project Support. Funding through grants, loans, and loan guarantees for water projects serving rural residents. Funds must be used for capital facilities construction and related costs or projects which serve rural residents in cities of less than 10,000 people. Funds are distributed by the Federal Farmers Home Administration with a 45 percent to 25 percent local matching requirement.

(vi) Farmers Home Administration Rural Business Enterprise Grant. Grants for rural business development. As of 1993, $281,320 is being sought from this agency for the Forks Industrial Park.

(vii) Department of Health Water Systems Support. Grants for upgrading existing water systems, ensuring effective management, and achieving maximum conservation of safe drinking water. Grants are distributed by the State Department of Health through intergovernmental review and with a 60 percent local match requirement.

(viii) Economic Development Administration Grant. Grants for the construction of capital facilities in cities. The City of Forks has received $1,200,000 for the Forks Industrial Park.

(ix) Forest Service – Economic Recovery Program. Grants to mitigate timber preservation impacts. $70,000 of these monies have been allocated to the Forks Industrial Park.

(x) Federal transportation enhancement grants will be pursued to fund implementation of CCC 31.07.090.

(2) Capital Facility Strategies. In order to realistically project available revenues and expected expenditures on capital facilities, the City must consider all current policies that influence decisions about the funding mechanisms as well as policies affecting the City’s obligation for public facilities. The most relevant of these are described below. These policies, along with the goals and policies articulated in the other elements, were the basis for the development of various funding scenarios. Any variations from the current policies in the development of the six-year Capital Facilities Program were incorporated into the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan elements.

(a) Mechanisms to Provide Capital Facilities.

(i) Increase Local Government Appropriations. The Forks City Council has generally been strongly opposed to any tax increases. Many of the citizens of Forks are struggling financially due to government protection programs and the citizenry is thus extremely adverse to any further economic losses caused by their local government.

(ii) Use of Uncommitted Resources. The City has developed and adopted its six-year schedule of improvements with committed financial resources.

(iii) Analysis of Debt Capacity. Generally, Washington State law permits a city to ensure a general obligation bonded debt equal to three-quarters of one percent of its property valuation without voter approval. By a 60 percent majority vote of its citizens, a city may assume an additional general obligation bonded debt of 1.7570 percent, bringing the total for general purposes up to 2.5 percent of the value of taxable property. The value of taxable property is defined by law as being equal to 100 percent of the value of assessed valuation. For the purpose of supplying municipally owned electric, water, or sewer service and with voter approval, a city may incur another general obligation bonded debt equal to 2.5 percent of the value of taxable property. With voter approval, cities may also incur an additional general obligation bonded debt equal to 2.5 percent of the value of taxable property for parks and open space. Thus, under State law, the maximum general obligation bonded debt which a city may incur cannot exceed 7.5 percent of the assessed property valuation. As of 1993 the City of Forks has incurred no general obligation bonded debt.

Municipal revenue bonds are not subject to a limitation on the maximum amount of debt which can be incurred. These bonds have no effect on the City’s tax revenues because they are repaid from revenues derived from the sale of service.

The City of Forks has not used general obligation bonds and municipal revenue bonds. Therefore, under State debt limitations, it has ample debt capacity to issue bonds for new capital improvement projects. However, the City does not currently have policies in place regarding the acceptable level of debt and how that debt will be measured. The City may establish such guidelines if it finds this type of funding mechanism necessary.

The “pay as you go” financing method has been easy to administer and is appropriate because the City of Forks is experiencing slow growth and future tax receipts may be uncertain. However, the City may consider using “pay as you use” financing if a significant level of growth occurs. In a sense a “pay as you use” financing method will be used for the Forks Industrial Park, since users of the park and buildings constructed by the City will be paid off by lease payments from private users.

(iv) User Charges and Connection Fees. User charges are designed to recoup the costs of public facilities or services by charging those who benefit from such services. As a tool for affecting the pace and pattern of development, user fees may be designed to vary for the quantity and location of the service provided. Thus, charges could be greater for providing services further distances from urban areas.

(v) Mandatory Dedications or Fees in Lieu of. The jurisdiction may require, as a condition of plat approval, that subdivision developers dedicate a certain portion of the land in the development to be used for public purposes, such as roads, parks, or schools. Dedication may be made to the local government or to a private group. When a subdivision is too small or because of topographical conditions a land dedication cannot reasonably be required, the jurisdiction may require the developer to pay a equivalent fee in lieu of dedication.

The provision of public services through subdivision dedications not only makes it more feasible to serve the subdivision, but may make it more feasible to provide public facilities and services to adjacent areas. This tool may be used to direct growth into certain areas. Forks has traditionally only required dedications for road right-of-way, to ensure that if roads become public there will be adequate space for utilities and other road necessities.

(vi) Negotiated Agreement. An agreement whereby a developer studies the impact of development and proposes mitigation for the City’s approval. These agreements rely on the expertise of the developer to assess the impacts and costs of development. Such agreements are enforceable by the jurisdiction. The negotiated agreement will require lower administrative and enforcement costs than impact fees. As of 1993 this has not been done in Forks, since no developments have been major enough to justify a negotiated agreement.

(vii) Impact Fees. Impact fees may be used to affect the location and timing of infill development. Infill development usually occurs in areas with excess capacity of capital facilities. If the local government chooses not to recoup the costs of capital facilities in underutilized service areas, infill development may be encouraged by the absence of impact fees on development(s) proposed within such service areas.

Impact fees may be particularly useful for a small community that is facing rapid growth and with new residents desiring a higher level of service than the community has traditionally been satisfied with. It is likely that the Forks City Council will be adverse to impact fees because they tend to inhibit development.

(b) Obligation to Provide Capital Facilities.

(i) Coordination with Other Public Service Providers. Local goals and policies as described in the other Comprehensive Plan elements are used to guide the location and timing of development. However, many local decisions are influenced by State agencies, special management districts, and utilities that provide public facilities within the City of Forks. The planned capacity of public facilities operated by other jurisdictions must be considered when making development decisions. Coordination with other entities is essential not only for the location and timing of public services, but also in the financing of such services.

(ii) Urban Growth Area Boundaries. The urban growth area boundary was selected in order to ensure that urban services will be available to all development. The location of the boundary was based on the following: topographical constraints, the Forks planning area, and concentrations of existing development and existing infrastructure and services. New and existing development requiring urban services will be located in the urban growth area. Central water, drainage facilities, utilities, telecommunication lines, and local roads will be extended to development in these areas. The City is committed to serving development within this boundary. Therefore, prior to approval of new development within the urban growth area the City should review the six (6) year Capital Facilities Program and the plan in this element to ensure the financial resources exist to provide the services to support such new development.

(3) Methods for Addressing Shortfalls. The City may not be able to finance all proposed capital facility projects. Therefore, it has clearly identified the options available for addressing shortfalls and how these options will be exercised. The City evaluates capital facility projects on an individual basis rather than a system-wide basis. This method involves lower administrative costs and can be employed in a timely manner. However, this method will not maximize the capital available for the system as a whole. In deciding how to address a particular shortfall the City will balance the equity and efficiency considerations associated with each of these options. When evaluation of a particular project identifies a shortfall the following options are available:

•    

Increase Revenue

•    

Decrease the Cost of the Facility

•    

Decrease the Demand for the Public Service or Facility

31.07.210 Five (5) year Capital Facilities Plan.

The five (5) year Capital Facilities Program for the City of Forks was developed based on the following analyses:

•    

Financial Assumptions

•    

Projected Revenues

•    

Projected Expenditures

•    

Operating Expenses

•    

Future Needs

(1) Financial Assumptions. The following assumptions about future operating conditions in the local government and market conditions were used in the development of the five (5) year Capital Facilities Program:

•    

The City will maintain its current fund accounting system to handle its financial affairs.

•    

The cost of running the local government will continue to increase due to inflation and other factors.

•    

New revenue sources may be necessary to maintain and improve City services and facilities.

•    

Significant capital investment is needed to maintain, repair, and rehabilitate the City’s aging infrastructure and to accommodate future growth.

•    

Public investment in capital facilities is a tool of local government to support and encourage economic growth.

•    

A consistent and reliable revenue source to fund necessary capital expenditures is desirable.

•    

A comprehensive approach to review, consider, and evaluate capital funding requests is needed to aid decision-makers and the citizenry in understanding the capital needs of the City.

(2) Projected Revenue. In accordance with the existing accounting system financial transactions are recorded in individual “fund” accounts. Capital improvements will be financed through the following funds:

•    

Current Expense

•    

Street Fund

•    

Arterial Streets

•    

Stadium Fund

•    

Airport Fund

•    

Water Fund

•    

Sewer Fund

•    

Industrial Park Project

(a) Revenue By Fund.

(i) Current Expense. The largest fund primarily used for daily operations but also available for most City-wide capital improvements. Sources of revenue are the 100 percent of the sales tax available to the City, fifty (50) percent of the real property tax available to the City, license and permit fees, charges for services (such as charges to other law enforcement agencies for housing of prisoners), intergovernmental (mainly grants), and fines and forfeitures.

(ii) Street Fund. Ongoing street fund revenues are derived from fifty (50) percent of the general real estate taxes available to the City, interest income and fuel taxes. Used for daily administration of street related activities, maintenance, and capital improvements.

(iii) Arterial Streets. Ongoing revenues are produced by fuel taxes and interest income. Although primarily designed for arterial activity, can also be used for general streets. Arterials in Forks are considered to be Bogachiel Way, Calawah Way, Division Street, Sol Duc Way and First Avenue.

(iv) Stadium Fund. Revenues generated by taxes on hotels and motels. The funds must be used for capital facilities and activities related to tourism. Examples of projects that are at least in part funded by the stadium fund include the Forks 4th of July float, the Snyder Creek Hatchery, the North Olympic Peninsula Visitor and Convention Bureau, Visitor Funding and Clallam County Economic Development funding.

(v) Airport Fund. Ongoing revenues are derived from mill site and hangar site leases at the airport and interest earnings. This fund is to be used for activities related to the airport.

(vi) Water Fund. Ninety-five (95) percent of the water fund revenues are derived from charges for water service. The remaining balance comes from interest earnings and meter installation charges. All expenditures must be related to operation of the Forks water system. Approximately $55,000 of this fund is expended each year to retire some water bonds acquired in 1968 and 1978. These bonds will be paid off in 2008.

(vii) Sewer Fund. Fund revenues are derived from charges for sewer service, interest income and sewer hook-up charges. All expenditures must be related to operation of the sewer system.

(viii) Industrial Park Project. As of 1993 this project is almost entirely composed of grant money for the construction of the Forks Industrial Park. It is anticipated in 1994 that a bank loan of approximately $215,000 will be acquired to fund the acquisition of the real estate for the industrial park. The loan will be paid off from the rent generated from the park. Rent moneys from the park will also comprise part of this fund.

Table II, located at Appendix C, indicates the expected revenue available to the City to finance capital improvements for the years 1995-2000. Revenue amounts projected are based on past trends.

(3) Projected Expenditures. For the purpose of this fiscal assessment, projected capital expenditures have been aggregated to include:

•    

The direct cost of scheduled capital improvement projects presently underway;

•    

Capital improvement debt service expenditures for outstanding and planned bond issues; and

•    

The direct cost of capital improvements identified in other plan elements. These expenditures represent additional costs to maintain service needs under projected growth conditions.

(4) Operating and Maintenance Costs. In addition to the direct costs of providing new capital facilities, the City will also incur increases in annual operating and maintenance costs. These are the recurring expenses associated with routine operation of capital facilities. The anticipated increase in annual operating and maintenance costs associated with the new capital improvements and operation costs will initiate in the year following completion of the capital improvement.

Not all of the needed capital improvements will result in increased operational costs. Traffic circulation and housing projects, for example, involve improvements to existing facilities which are already included in the maintenance program, and no significant increase in costs is anticipated for operation or maintenance of such improvements. The most significant increases in operational costs are associated with expansion of facilities which require maintenance of mechanical fixtures, personnel costs, and utility costs.

Currently, total general fund revenues and total operating costs financed from the general fund are anticipated to rise proportionately, ensuring the City will have enough revenue to cover these expenses. However, it is important to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of operating future capital projects.

The actual location of public facilities and services is discussed in more detail in the land use element, and the City anticipates that some capital improvements will need to be sited through the process developed for essential public facilities.

The City has made various adjustments to the type and location of land use as well as adjustments in the timing and funding sources for financing capital improvements. The plan contained in this element represents a realistic projection of the City’s funding capabilities, and ensures that public services will be maintained at acceptable levels of service.

31.07.220 Goals, objectives, and policies.

This section discusses the plan for future financing of public facilities and services in the City of Forks. The timing of development and provision of services are key components of this planning process.

The analysis of existing conditions and projected needs in the previous section highlighted the areas of concern and opportunities for Forks. The vision statement for the City of Forks was used, along with the inventory and analysis contained in this element, to create a plan. The plan contains a strategy for achievement of the City’s goals in light of the existing conditions in the City. The goals and policies within the plan provide guidelines and positive actions.

The plan and policies for capital facility financing issues in the City of Forks are organized as follows:

•    

Vision Statement Goals. These goals are essential to the quality of life in the City of Forks and should serve as guidance for long-term planning.

•    

Capital Facility Goals. These goals describe concepts to be used in decision-making. These goals are based on the existing conditions and projected changes in the City, and will be revised as the City changes.

•    

Plan Concept. A discussion relating the findings of the inventory and analysis to the goals and vision of the community. This should outline the strategies that will guide future growth and development in the community.

•    

Policies. The policies specify what should be accomplished to reach the goals. These policies either provide clear guidance for decision-making when a situation arises, or provide clear responsibilities that will be implemented. The accomplishments under these policies can be used to measure progress toward the goals.

(1) GOAL I: The City of Forks will endeavor to adequately provide needed public facilities to all residents within its jurisdiction in a manner which protects investments in existing facilities and maximizes the use of existing facilities.

Objective A: Capital improvements will be provided to correct existing deficiencies, to replace worn out or obsolete facilities and to accommodate desired future growth, as indicated in the five (5) year plan currently in place, and subsequent revisions.

Policy 1: Capital improvement projects identified for implementation in the other elements of this plan and determined to be of relatively large scale and high cost ($10,000) will be included in future revisions of the five (5) year Capital Improvement Plans of both the City and the County.

Policy 2: Proposed capital improvement projects will be evaluated and prioritized using all the following criteria:

a. Whether the project is needed to correct existing deficiencies, replace needed facilities, or to provide facilities needed for future growth;

b. Elimination of public hazards;

c. Elimination of capacity deficits;

d. Financial feasibility;

e. Site needs based on projected growth patterns;

f. New development and redevelopment;

g. Plans of State agencies;

h. Local budget impact; and

i. Location and effect upon natural and cultural resources.

Objective B: Future development will bear a fair share of facility improvement cost necessitated by the development.

Objective C: The City will manage its fiscal resources to support the provision of needed capital improvements for previously issued development orders and for future development and redevelopment.

Policy 1: The City will continue to adopt an annual capital budget. In addition, the City and the County will have in place a five (5) year Capital Improvement Program, that will be used as the guide in drafting and implementing of their capital budgets.

Policy 2: Debt will be managed so that City Charter limits on general obligation debt (fifteen (15) percent of assessed value) will not be exceeded. A similar management of County finances will also be followed. There are no limits placed on revenue bonds.

Policy 3: Efforts will be made to secure grants or private funds whenever available to finance the provision of capital improvements.

Policy 4: Fiscal policies to direct expenditures for capital improvements will be consistent with other Comprehensive Plan elements.

Objective D: The City and the County will coordinate land use decisions and financial resources with a schedule of capital improvements to meet service needs, measurable objectives, and provide existing and future facility needs.

Policy 1: The City and the County will support and encourage the joint development and use of cultural and community facilities with other governmental or community organizations in areas of mutual concern and benefit.

Policy 2: The City and the County will emphasize capital improvement projects which promote the conservation, preservation, or revitalization of commercial, industrial, and residential areas in the Forks urban growth area.

Policy 3: Proposed plan amendments and request for new development or redevelopment shall be evaluated according to the following guidelines as to whether the proposed action would:

a. Contribute to a condition of public hazards;

b. Exacerbate any existing condition of public facility capacity deficits;

c. Generate public facility demands that exceed capacity increase planning in the six (6) year schedule of improvements;

d. Conform with future land uses as shown on the future land use map of the land use element;

e. Accommodate public facility demands;

f. Demonstrate financial feasibility, subject to this element, when public facilities are provided, in part or whole, by the City;

g. Affect State agencies’ facilities plans and siting of essential public facilities.

31.07.230 Plan implementation and monitoring.

(1) Implementation. The Five (5) Year Improvement Plan for the City of Forks (attached as Appendix B – yet summarized as Table 11) is the mechanism by which the City can stage the timing, location, projected cost, and revenue sources for the capital improvements identified for implementation in the other Comprehensive Plan elements. The improvement plan is economically feasible within the target revenues discussed in the preceding sections of this element entitled inventory and analysis.

Appendix B lists the capital improvement project by facility type, indicates which projects are needed to correct existing deficiencies, and provides estimates of project costs by year. Projects identified for public facility projects for implementation within target revenue are all under $10,000 and are not carried forward for the implementation section. The distribution among years matches the years in which capital improvement work is planned in order to meet service needs.

The capital improvement projects listed in Appendix A are not inclusive of all anticipated capital improvement by facilities element departments during this time period. Projects which exceed available target revenues are not included at this time. As additional revenues become available, these projects will be incorporated for implementation. Projects under $10,000 and projects not related to level of service standards or measurable objectives are also excluded from Appendix A.

Top priority is generally given to projects which correct existing deficiencies, followed by those required for facility replacement, and those needed for future growth.

(2) Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation are essential in ensuring the effectiveness of the capital facilities plan element. This element will be annually reviewed and amended to verify that fiscal resources are available to provide public facilities needed to service needs and measurable objectives.

The annual review will the responsibility of the City of Forks’ Planning and Finance Departments, which will work in conjunction with the Clallam County Planning and Finance Departments. The review will include an examination of the following considerations in order to determine their continued appropriateness:

(a) Any corrections, updates, and modification concerning costs; revenue sources; acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedication which are consistent with the element; or the date of construction of any facility enumerated in the element;

(b) The capital facilities element’s continued consistency with the other elements and its support of the land use element;

(c) The priority assignment of existing public facility deficiencies;

(d) The City’s progress in meeting those needs determined to be existing deficiencies;

(e) The criteria used to evaluate capital improvement projects in order to ensure that projects are being ranked in their appropriate order of priority;

(f) The City’s effectiveness in meeting service needs and standards achieving measurable objectives;

(g) The City’s effectiveness in reviewing the impacts of plans and programs of State agencies that provide public facilities within the City’s jurisdiction;

(h) The effectiveness of impact fees, and mandatory dedications or fees in lieu of, for assessing new development the improvement costs which it generates;

(i) The impacts of special districts and any regional facility and service provision upon the City’s ability to maintain service needs or to achieve its measurable objectives;

(j) Efforts made to secure grants or private funds, whenever available, to finance the provision of capital improvements;

(k) The criteria used to evaluate proposed plan amendments and requests for new development or redevelopment;

(l) Capital improvements needed for the latter part of the planning period, for update of the improvement plan; and

(m) Concurrency status.

Article VI. Utilities Element

31.07.240 Introduction.

(1) Purpose of the Utilities Element. This utilities element has been developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act to address utility services in the City of Forks and the adjacent urban growth area. It represents the community’s policy plan for growth over the next twenty (20) years. The utilities element describes how the goals in the other plan elements will be implemented through utility policies and regulations, and is an important element in implementing the Comprehensive Plan.

The utilities element has also been developed in accordance with the County-wide Planning Policies, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure consistency throughout the Comprehensive Plan. The utilities element specifically considers the general location, proposed location, and capacity or all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, water and sewer facilities. This element also identifies general utility corridors.

The utilities element includes:

•    

Introduction

•    

Inventory and Analysis

•    

Future Needs and Alternatives

•    

Goals, Objectives, and Policies

(2) Urban Growth Area. The urban growth area (Forks urban growth area = FUGA) boundary was selected in order to ensure that urban services will be available to all development. This includes the provision of utility facilities. The City and the County recognize that planning for utilities is the primary responsibility of the utility providers. However, the urban growth area incorporates plans prepared by the providers into its comprehensive planning efforts in order to identify ways of improving the quality and delivery of services provided in the City and its designated urban growth area boundary. All development requiring urban services will be located in the urban growth area, and will have these services extended to them in a timely and financially feasible manner. The utility plan in this element will guide decision-making to achieve the community goals as articulated in the vision statement.

31.07.250 Inventory and analysis.

The inventory presented in this element provides information useful to the planning process. Attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter as Appendix “D” are the questionnaires sent out to the various utility providers. Appendix “E” is the 1994-95 Strategic Plan of the Public Utility District No. 1 of Clallam County. This plan may not include all of the data or information that was gathered, but presents the relevant information in an organized and useful format. The inventory summarizes general information pertaining to the existing utility service system in the FUGA. Many public and private agencies are involved in regulating, coordination, production, delivery, and supply of utility services. This section of the element identifies those providers as well as the legislation regulating the utility. The analysis of this information in located in CCC 31.07.040(5). The inventory includes:

•    

Electrical

•    

Telecommunications

•    

Water

•    

Sewer

(1) Federal and State Laws/Regulations.

(a) Revised Code of Washington and Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Utilities and transportation are regulated in Washington by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). The WUTC, composed of three (3) members appointed by the Governor, is empowered to regulate utilities (including, but not limited to, electrical, gas, irrigation, telecommunication, and water companies). State law (Chapter 480-120 WAC) regulates the rates and charges, services, facilities, and practices of utilities. Any change in customer charges or service provision policy requires WUTC approval.

(b) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent five (5) member commission with the U.S. Department of Energy. FERC establishes rates and charges for the interstate transportation and sale of natural gas, for the transmission and sale of electricity, and the licensing of hydroelectric power projects. In addition, the Commission establishes rates or charges for the interstate transportation of oil by pipeline.

(c) Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (1986 amended). This legislation established two (2) classifications of water quality standards. The first, primary contaminants, are those directly related to public health such as bacterial, turbidity, inorganic chemicals, trace organics, or radionuclides. When water sampling determines the presence of primary contaminants exceeds permitted maximum level, immediate corrective action is required. The second class of contaminants, secondary contaminants, are those that impair the aesthetic qualities of the water and do not endanger the public’s health. In 1986, the Act was amended and required in part utilities to test for an additional eighty-three (83) contaminants.

(d) 1991 Clean Air Amendments. The passage of the Washington State Clean Air Act in 1991 indicates a State intent to promote the diversification of fuel sources for motor vehicles. This is in response to a need to both reduce atmospheric emissions and reduce the nation’s reliance on gasoline for strategic reasons. This Act promotes the use of alternative fuels by requiring thirty (30) percent of newly purchased State government vehicle fleets to be fueled by alternative fuel by July 1992, (increasing by five (5) percent each year). It also studies the potential and encourages the development of natural gas vehicle refueling stations.

(2) Electrical Utilities. During the 1940’s, the City of Forks received some electrical power from a locally owned diesel generator. It was not until the mid-1950’s that a transmission line was built to serve the western end of Clallam County. The Public Utilities District No. 1 of Clallam County (District) has been serving the FUGA since then.

The current source of electrical power supplied to the FUGA is from purchases from the Bonne-ville Power Administration (BPA). Electricity is primarily generated from hydroelectrical facilities located along the Columbia River. The power is then delivered through the regional and local transmission system.

There are various facilities located throughout the County and the City (Map 15). According to the electrical utility, there is ample capacity to meet existing demand for the FUGA over the next twenty (20) years. While there currently are no construction plans for the utility’s expansion, the District has a longstanding history of designing and constructing new facilities as required for any new customers. The development of future facilities will be discussed in CCC 31.07.260.

The District’s electrical facilities of less than 69,000 volts (69 kV) are generally referred to as distribution facilities. Facilities of 69,000 volts (69 kV) or more are generally referred to as transmission facilities. The FUGA is serviced by four (4) “distribution” substation facilities located in the area designated as “industrial” on the land use maps in the northern section of the FUGA; at a site on the north side of Calawah Way near the intersection with 5th Avenue NE; and two (2) substations located near the corners of “E” Street SW and 5th Avenue SW. The FUGA is fully served by these substations with distribution lines that extend service to all residential, commercial, and public customers. The District’s 69 kV transmission lines serve the four (4) distribution substations for the FUGA.

Of significant note is the District’s aggressive conservation program that provides funding to customers for cost-effective energy improvements. Such improvements include the addition of insulation, energy-efficient windows, lighting, and heating units.

(3) Telecommunication Utilities.

(a) Telephone. The City of Forks has had telephone services since 1908. Currently PTI Communications is the service provider for the Westend of Clallam County. PTI utilizes a digital microwave signal into Port Angeles, which is then distributed via copper and fiber optic cables throughout the Forks Prairie. It is believed by PTI’s engineering staff that the current method of delivering services is sufficient to meet the project growth of the urban growth area. Therefore, PTI does not expect to need additional land requirements in the next twenty (20) years. Because of the alleged proprietary nature of disclosing the locations of PTI facilities, no map is available for this service.

The telecommunications industry is currently in the midst of tremendous advances in technology. As more and more local residents obtain computers equipped to access information via telephone lines, it is foreseeable that increased usage of telephone services will occur.

Table 13 identifies the customer hook-ups for telecommunication for residential, commercial, and public uses. Since the telecommunications industry is required to provide service upon demand, the provider has indicated to the City that there is capacity for the City and its urban growth area.

(b) Television. Television service has been provided to the City of Forks since at least 1966. Currently, Summit Cablevision is the franchise providing cable television access to the FUGA. This utility is not regulated by the City of Forks, but rather Clallam County.

Summit receives its programming via microwave transmissions through a satellite network that ends in Forks. This system is believed to be sufficient to accommodate the projected growth of the FUGA, and the only expansions foreseen will be in the area of technology rather than space. Currently eighty-one (81) percent of the homes within the FUGA subscribe to cable television services. These services include a basic subscription rate, providing access to twenty-one (21) channels, as well as the ability to subscribe to four (4) premium channels (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, and The Disney Channel).

Like the telecommunications industry, the cable television industry is in the midst of technological changes and regulatory reforms. Numerous newspaper articles, and television broadcasts, have discussed the rise in expansion of cable television. However, this expansion requires expensive technological upgrades that can only be done through increased revenues. Current regulations prevent such revenues from being raised through increased subscription rates, therefore any expansion will be the result of increases in consumer demand for the cable system.

Table 13 provides statistics for Summit’s residential and commercial subscribers.

(4) Water. The ability to provide water via the City of Forks’ water supply system was a critical factor in determining the urban growth area. Prior to 1953, the Forks Prairie was provided with water by the Forks Water Company. This private company obtained water by extraction from Elk Creek. In 1953, the Town of Forks took over the water supply responsibilities. Currently, the City of Forks services all areas within the FUGA.

The FUGA is supplied water through the use of five (5) wells. These five (5) wells are associated with two (2) fields, yet are believed to be supplied by the same aquifer. All of these wells were installed prior to 1980. Waters from these wells are chlorinated and fluoridated, and have continually met or exceeded State and federal water purity standards. The working capacity available to the FUGA is 1,445 gallons per minute. As shown in Table 12, the City’s water supply system is operating at sixty (60) percent capacity. Currently, there is discussion about locating another aquifer in the area near the industrial park that could be used to augment the current system as both residential and industrial demands increase.

Water from these wells is stored in three (3) water tank reservoirs. Two (2) of these three (3) reservoirs, totaling 900,000 gallons, are over twenty-five (25) years old, while the 1,000,000 gallon reservoir is sixteen (16) years old. Recent inspection of the reservoirs has revealed some signs of corrosion, and there is discussion of possibly replacing one of the older reservoirs all together. Sufficient land is available for this expansion.

The current water supply system consists of over twenty-one (21) miles of pipeline, and is illustrated on Map 16. This map is a part of the 1988 City of Forks Comprehensive Water System Plan Update. Since this map was drawn, the City of Forks has extended a ten (10) inch water main out running along SR 101 to the Forks Industrial Park site.

(5) Sewer. Prior to 1985, all houses in the FUGA operated sewer disposal systems through the use of septic tanks. In 1973 and 1977, efforts to create a utility district for the purpose of creating a sewer treatment plant were defeated. However, in 1985, a utility district was created in a smaller section of the FUGA centered around the downtown area. This was prompted by the 1982 State ban of new on-site septic systems. The District through grants and levies commissioned the building of a sewer treatment facility that began operation in 1986.

The $3,800,000 facility design was somewhat controversial because it treats sewage in a process usually reserved for areas with fifteen (15) to twenty (20) inches of rain annually. The facility utilizes a system of “rapid infiltration” through use of a large lagoon to aerate the wastewater and eight (8) earthen basins to absorb the treated effluent into the ground. The system incorporates some unusual and innovative features that include: long-term extended aeration treatment; single sludge nitrification/denitrification; rapid infiltration of wastewater effluent; and permanent on-site land application of waste sludge to second growth timber. Since its operation of the facility, the City of Forks has received numerous awards.

However, looking twenty (20) years into the future as required by the Growth Management Act, the current system will require expansion. As seen in Table 12, the system is currently operating at forty (40) percent of capacity. Only small number of homes and buildings are serviced by the treatment facility, and significant portions of the City of Forks are not connected to the system.

The area designated as open space – limited access to the west and southwest of the current facility is the area designated by the City for future expansion of the system. Future expansion would require the citizens in the unserviced areas to form a utility district, and the City would need to obtain additional outside agency funds. However, the land needs have been addressed by this plan and are reflected in the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan.

Table 12 – City of Forks – Existing Capacity of Utility System

Electrical

50% of Transformer Capacity

Telecommunications

Not Applicable

Water District

60%

Sewer District

67% of Utility District’s Capacity

The table below provides a summary of the current usage of each utility service within the area of the FUGA.

Table 13 – Forks Urban Growth Area – Existing Utility Facility Hook-up

Type

Electric

Cable

Telephone

Water

Sewer

Residential

2,200

1,045

2,105

 

 

Commercial

355

234

848

 

 

Public/Schools

13

52

 

 

 

Total

2,568

1,279

3,005

1,653*

421*

*Figures current as of 12/94 – no distinction made within billings, resulting in only a total number being given

Forks Urban Growth Area
Existing/Proposed Electrical Facilities

Forks Urban Growth Area
Existing/Proposed Water District Facilities

31.07.260 Future needs and alternatives.

(1) Electrical. The delivery of electricity to the City of Forks in order to meet future demands will take a coordinated process between the City and the utility provider. According to P.U.D. No. 1, it is anticipated that there will be enough capacity to meet the projected growth for the community based on the projections from the Office of Financial Management.

The P.U.D. No. 1 has expressed the need for additional public rights-of-way or private easements for future expansion of general distribution facilities. Efforts will be made to ensure a citizen-government-P.U.D coordinated effort to site any needed corridor alignments for specific electrical lines.

(2) Telecommunications. The provision of telecommunication services is driven by the needs of its customers. As the City grows, telecommunication facilities will be upgraded to ensure adequate service levels. It is also feasible that facilities will be upgraded as technology advances. However, PTI has indicated that there will be no future need for additional land requirements for any future changes.

(3) Water. As discussed above, the City is exploring the existence of a second aquifer located to the north of the City near the Forks Industrial Park. This exploration, if successful, could result in the amount of water available to current and future residents of the FUGA have an abundance of quality drinking water.

In addition, discussion has occurred on the replacement or upgrading of at least one of the current water reservoir tanks. This upgrade/replacement would be conditioned upon availability of funding from local, State and federal agencies.

Conservation of water resources is addressed in Objective B, discussed below. The City could, through a process of education, and building requirements reduce the current demand upon the water system. However, such efforts would not overcome the need to augment the current aquifer with additional water resources due to the growing demand for this resource as a result of population growth and industrial development.

(4) Sewer. As discussed above, the current facility will be insufficient to meet an expanding demand for sewer treatment access as State and federal regulations become increasingly stringent in this area. This will require addition citizen demand, resulting in formation or expansion of associated utility districts. Currently, there is no immediate plan to expand this service. However, realizing the twenty (20) year life span of this Plan, the City has requested that land to the west and southwest of the existing facility be designated as a site for expansion via the use of an open space – limited access designation.

31.07.270 Goals, objectives, and policies.

This section discusses the plan for future utilities in the City. The timing of development and provision of services are key components of this planning process. In addition to the discussion below, a future land use map has been developed to illustrate the various land uses and growth management strategies.

The analysis of existing conditions and projected needs in the previous section highlighted the areas of concern and opportunities for Forks. The vision statement for the City of Forks was used, along with the inventory and analysis contained in this element, to create a plan. The plan contains a strategy for achievement of the City’s goals in light of the existing conditions in the City. The goals and policies within the plan provide guidelines and positive actions.

The plan and policies for utility issues in the FUGA are organized as follows:

•    

Vision Statement Goals. These goals are essential to the quality of life in the City of Forks and will remain unchanged for long-term planning.

•    

Utility Goals. These goals describe concepts to be used in decision-making. These goals are based on the existing conditions and projected changes in the City, and will be revised as the City changes.

•    

Plan Concept. A discussion relating the findings of the inventory and analysis to the goals and vision of the community. This should outline the strategies that will guide future growth and development in the community.

•    

Policies. The policies specify what should be accomplished to reach the goals. These policies either provide clear guidance for decision-making when a situation arises, or provide clear responsibilities that will be implemented. The accomplishments under these policies can be used to measure progress toward the goals.

(1) Goals.

A.    To facilitate the development of all utilities at the appropriate levels of service to accommodate growth that is anticipated to occur in the City.

B.    To facilitate the provision of utilities that are environmentally sensitive, safe and reliable, aesthetically compatible with the surrounding land uses, and available at a reasonable economic costs.

C.    To process permits and approvals for utility facilities in a fair and timely manner and in accord with the development regulations which encourage predictability.

(a) Objective A: Implement Timely Processes.

Policy 1: The City shall promote, when reasonably feasible, co-location of new public and private utility distribution facilities in shared trenches and coordination of construction timing to minimize construction-related disruptions and reduce the cost of utility delivery.

Policy 2: The City will provide timely effective notice to utilities to encourage coordination of public and private utility trenching activities for new construction and maintenance and repair of existing roads.

Policy 3: The City shall encourage provision of an efficient, cost effective and reliable utility service by ensuring land will be made available for the location of utility lines, including location within transportation corridors.

Policy 4: The City will promote the extension of distribution lines to and within the Urban Growth Area. Coordinate land use and facility planning to allow eventual siting and construction of natural gas distribution lines within rights-of-way which are being dedicated or within roads which are being constructed or reconstructed.

Policy 5: The City will ensure that all maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement activities by utilities are consistent with the City’s critical areas ordinances.

Policy 6: The City will encourage communication among the WUTC and utilities regulated by the WUTC regarding the requirements of the Growth Management Act, especially the requirement that service be provided concurrently with or in advance of demand.

Policy 7: The City shall encourage system design practices intended to minimize the number and duration of interruptions to customer service.

(b) Objective B: Conservation and Conversion.

Policy 1: The City will facilitate and encourage conservation of resources to delay the need for additional facilities for electrical energy and water resources.

Policy 2: The City will facilitate the conversion to cost-effective technologies and energy sources having limited impacts upon the general environment of the FUGA.

Policy 3: The City should support development of a widespread gaseous fuel infrastructure to provide more options to reduce vehicular pollution (city fleet to cleaner fuels).

Policy 4: By 1999, the City shall achieve a fifteen (15) percent reduction of electric energy in the City’s own facilities.

(c) Objective C: Coordination with the Land Use Element.

Policy 1: The City will coordinate City land use planning with the utility providers’ planning. By 1996, it will also adopt procedures that encourage providers to utilize the land use element and urban growth area in planning future facilities.

Policy 2: The City will utilize maps of the existing and proposed utility facility corridors to determine consistency of such designations with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policy 3: The City will assure that the Comprehensive Plan designates areas available for the location of utility facilities.

Policy 4: The City recognizes that the utilities have an obligation to serve and provide the same level of service to all of its customers.