HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2017 00 Distributed: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Draftwe axe
VaP�u�u�c
comprehensive plan 20,40
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
March 2017
II
� I
� I
� I
� I
We awa
comprehensive plan 2040
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
March 2017
1�
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Arff0M a1L%Nk. Planning Division
- &`_ Joan Davenport, AICP, Director
Pl I ri nin g 129 North Second Street. 2" Floor. Yakima, WA 98901
ask.planntng@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa gov/services/planning
March 17, 2017
Subject. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 update and Draft Supplemental''"��'` '-�1
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) comment period.
We ace `plan 2040aPima
Request for Written Comment. The City of Yakima invites agencies, tribes, and the comprehensive
public to comment on the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) The Draft SEIS includes an update to the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Plan, and Development
Regulations The EIS being supplemented is the City of Yakima's Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued in 2006 All documents listed above can be found in draft format at:
https•//www vakimawa gov/services/planning/comprehensive-plan-update/
Within the range of prior alternatives evaluated in 1997 and 2006, this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft SEIS) tests two alternatives, further described below
■ Alternative 1 No Action — Current Comprehensive Plan: This alternative is required by the State
Environmental Policy Act It assumes the 2006 Comprehensive Plan (as amended through 2016) remains in
place including its policies, land use plan, and codes. Growth would occur based on current plans and zoning at
a level above growth targets
■ Action Alternative 2 — Plan Update — Infill, Mixed Use, and Higher Growth- This alternative updates the
Comprehensive Plan to promote a vision of equity in plans and strategies, growth in already developed areas
where there is infrastructure, and a well-designed compatible land use pattern This alternative implements
the recommended actions by the Planning Commission that promote infill and greater land use compatibility
Growth would occur based on a revised land use plan and zoning at a level higher than growth targets.
Environmental issues evaluated in this Draft SEIS include natural environment, air quality, land use, population,
housing, employment, plans and policies, cultural resource, transportation, parks and recreation, police and fire
services, schools, sewer, water, and utilities
Comment Due Date* Comments are due no later than May 16, 2017, and should be addressed to Joseph Calhoun,
Senior Planner, City of Yakima, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901, ioseph calhoun@vakimawa gov
Additional opportunities to provide comment include.
April 11, 2017 —Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session (10 00 am city Council chambers, 129 N 2nd St )
April 11, 2017 — Public Open House (4 00-8 00 pm, YV Tech Facility, 1120 S. 18`h St)
May 10, 2017 — Yakima Planning Commission Open Public Hearing (3 00 pm City Council Chambers, 129 N 2^d St)
June 6, 2017 — Yakima City Council Public Hearing (6 00 pm, City Council Chambers, 129 N 2nd St )
Your interest in the City of Yakima is greatly appreciated If you would like more information about this proposal,
please contact Joseph Calhoun at 509-575-6042, or Joseph calhoun@vakimawa Roy
Sincerely,
do,-- sza��_
Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director
Yakima
11�
2015
1994
Actualizacion del Plan Integral de la Ciudad de YakimaB ® ,t
17 de marzo 2017 iSoow Oz&na /
pan. integral ce is mmuniaaa :)ACU
Asunto• Actualizacion del Plan Integral 2040 de la Ciudad de Yakima y
periodo de comentarios sobre la declaracion suplementaria de impacto ambiental (SEIS)
Solicitud de Comentarios Escritos. La ciudad de Yakima invita a agencias, tribus y el publico a comentar sobre la
Declaracion Suplementario de Impacto Ambiental (SEIS) de la ActuaAzacion del Plan Integral 2040 EI Proyecto SEIS
incluye una actualization al Plan Integral, Plan de Transporte, y Reglamentos de Desarrollo La Declaracion de
Impacto Ambiental (EIS) que esta supliendo es la que fue emitida en 2006 Los documentos mencionados se
pueden encontrar en
https•//www vakimawa gov/services/planning/comprehensive-plan-update/
Dentro de la gama de alternativas anteriormente evaluadas en 1997 y 2006, esta declaracion de impacto
ambiental Suplementario (Draft SEIS) pone a prueba dos alternativas, explicadas a continuacion
■ Alternativa 1 No Accion — Actual Plan Integral- Esta alternativa es requerida por la Ley Estatal de Politica
Ambiental Se supone que el Plan Integral 2006 (enmendada hasta el 2016) se mantiene en pie incluyendo sus
politicas, plan de ordenamiento territorial y los codigos EI crecimiento ocurrira segun los planes actuales y
zonificacion a un nivel superior al obletivo de crecimiento
• Accion Alternativa 2 — Actualizacion del Plan — Relleno, Uso Mezclado, y Un Mayor Crecimiento• Esta
alternativa actualiza el Plan Integral para promover una vision de equidad en los planes y estrategias,
crecimiento en las areas ya desarrolladas donde hay infraestructura, y una tabla del use terrenal bien disenada
y compatible Esta alternativa implementa las acciones recomendadas por la Comision de Planificacion que
promueven el relleno y una mayor compatibilidad del use terrenal EI crecimiento ocurnra segun un plan de
ordenamiento territorial y zonificacion a un nivel superior al objetivo de crecimiento
Cuestiones ambientales evaluadas en este proyecto SEIS incluyen el ambiente natural, calidad del aire, use
terrenal, poblacion, vivienda, empleo, planes y politicas, recursos culturales, transporte, parques y recreacion,
servicios de policia y bomberos, escuelas, alcantarillado, agua, y utilidades
Fecha de Vencimiento para Comentarios: Comentarios deben ser entregados a no mas tardar el 16 de mayo 2017
y deben ser enviados a. Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner, City of Yakima, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901;
ioseph calhoun@vakimawa gov
Oportunidades adicionales para proporcionar comentarios•
11 de abril 2017 — Sesion Conjunta del Consejo Municipal y Comision de Planificacion
(10 00 am, City Council Chambers, 129 N. 2nd St )
11 de abril, 2017 — Casa Abierta Publica (4 00-8 00 pm, YV Tech Facility, 1120 S 18`h St)
10 de mayo. 2017 —Audiencia Publica de la Comision de Planificacion
(3 00 pm, City Council Chambers, 129 N 2nd St )
6 de iunio, 2017 — Audiencia Publica del Consejo Municipal (6 00 pm, City Council Chambers, 129 N 2nd St )
Su interes en la Ciudad de Yakima es muy apreciada Si desea mas informacion sobre esta propuesta, por favor de
contactar a Joseph Calhoun at 509-575-6042, o ioseph calhoun@vakimawa gov En espanol, Ilame a la Oficina de
Planificacion al (509) 575-6183
Atentamente,
Joan Davenport, AICP, Directora de Desarrollo Comunitano
11
J
1
1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FAR SHEET
Project Title
City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The proposed action is the adoption of the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 and updated
Development Regulations and Critical Areas Ordinance will provide an updated land use plan and policies
to address growth through 2040 The Plan updates all sections of the 2006 plan and introduces new
elements for Historic Preservation and Energy
Within the range of prior alternatives evaluated in 1997 and 2006, this Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft SETS) tests two alternatives, further described in this section
■ Alternative 1 No Action — Current Comprehensive Plan: This alternative is required by the State
Environmental Policy Act It assumes the 2006 Comprehensive Plan (as amended through 2016)
remains in place including its policies, land use plan, and codes Growth would occur based on
current plans and zoning at a level above growth targets
■ Action Alternative 2 — Plan Update — Infill, Mixed Use, and Higher Growth: This alternative updates
the Comprehensive Plan including the vision statement, all elements, the future land use map,
transportation plan, capital facilities plan, and selected implementing zoning and critical areas
regulations in a manner that promotes a vision of equity in plans and strategies, and growth in
already developed areas where there is infrastructure and a well-designed and compatible land use
pattern This alternative would also implement the individual parcel rezone/ Future Land Use
amendments recommended for evaluation by the Planning Commission that promote infill and
greater land use compatibility. Growth would occur based on a revised land use plan and zoning at a
level higher than growth targets A greater emphasis on infill development and mixed uses would
allow an improved jobs -housing balance.
Proponent and Lead Agency
City of Yakima; 129 N 2nd St, Yakima, WA, 98901
Tentative Date of Implementation
June 30, 2017
Responsible SEPA Official
Joan Davenport, AICP; Community Development Director
City of Yakima
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Contact Person
Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
City of Yakima Planning Division
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
509-575-6042
Ioseph calhoun@yakimawa gov
Required Approvals
Recommendation by the Planning Commission and City Council Adoption. State agency review will also
occur in accordance with the Growth Management Act as coordinated by the State of Washington
Department of Commerce
Principal SEIS Authors and Principal Contributors
This document was prepared under the direction of the City of Yakima Planning Division
Principal Authors
BERK Consulting, Inc
2025 First Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98121
(Comprehensive Plan Update Consultant Lead, Existing Conditions Report, Land Capacity Analysis; Plan
Foundation and Vision; Housing Element, Utilities Element, Capital Facilities Plan and Element, SEPA
strategies and evaluation of Natural Environment, Population/Housing/Employment, Plans and Policies,
Cultural Resources, Schools, Infrastructure)
City of Yakima Planning Division
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
(Comprehensive Plan Update Management, GIS and Mapping, SEPA evaluation of Air Quality, Land Use
Patterns, Parks, Police, Fire, Power and Telecommunications, and Citizen Amendment Requests)
Contributing Authors
Artifacts Consulting, Inc
401 Broadway
Tacoma WA 98402
(Historic Preservation Plan)
Makers Architecture and Urban Design
Securities Building, 1904 3rd Ave #725
Seattle, WA 98101
(Land Use Element and Future Land Use Plan Update)
Shannon and Wilson, Inc.
400 N 34th St #100
Seattle, WA 98103
(Natural Environment Element, Critical Areas Ordinance Gap Analysis, Existing Conditions Report and
SEIS addressing Natural Environment)
Transpo Group
12131 113th Ave NE #203
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET iii
J
I
r
r
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Kirkland, WA 98034
(Transportation Element and Plan Update, transportation modeling and analysis)
Tadzo
4609 Scenic Drive
Yakima, WA 98908
(Yakima Economic Development Strategic Plan)
Date of Draft SEIS Issuance
March 17, 2017
Comment Due Date
May 16, 2017
Written comments will be accepted by the Responsible Official through 5 p.m. May 16, 2017. Please send
comments to:
Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
City of Yakima Planning Division
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
509-575-6042
ioseph calhoun@Yakimawa gov
To learn more about the proposal, agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public may consult the
' project website for meetings and hearings regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update
https //www Yakimawa gov/services/planning/comprehensive-plan-update/
' Date and Location of Public Meeting
April 11, 2017: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session. Location. City Hall Council
' Chambers, 129 N 2nd St , Yakima, WA, 98901
April 11, 2017 Public Open House, Yakima Valley Technical Skills Center
' Date of Final Action
June 30, 2017 projected completion
' Prior Environmental Review / EIS Supplemented
This SEIS supplements the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Yakima Urban Area
' Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A, November 2006.
Subsequent Environmental Review
' The City is using phased review in its environmental review of the City Comprehensive Plan update with a
programmatic review of the proposal and alternatives. Examples of proposals that may require more area-
'
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET iv
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
specific or site-specific SEPA review when more details are known include, but are not limited to, capital
improvement projects and private development.
Location of Background Data
See Contact Person above.
Draft SETS Availability
The document is posted at the City's website at
https //www yakimawa gov/services/planning/comprehensive-plan-update/
Compact disks are available at no charge at Yakima City Hall, Planning Division Copies of the document
may be purchased at Yakima City Hall Planning Division A reference copy is available for review at City
Hall Planning Division as well. The address for City Hall, Planning Division is. 129 North Second Street,
Yakima, WA 98901
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET v
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
10
Environmental Summary ........ ............................................1-1
1 1
Purpose of Proposed Action........................................................................................
1-1
1.2
State Environmental Policy Act Process
1-1
1.3
Public Involvement....
.1-2
1.4
Summary of Proposed Alternatives ......................1-2
15
Summary of Impacts of the Proposal and Mitigation Measures ............................................
1-2
1.6
Citizen Amendment Requests ............................................ ......
1-14
1.7
Mayor Conclusions, Areas of Controversy or Uncertainty, and Issues to be Resolved
1-15
2.0
Alternatives ........ ..................................
2-1
2 1
Introduction and Purpose ..................................................................................2-1
2.2
Description of Planning Area ....................... ......
2-1
23
State and Regional Planning Requirements
2-2
24
SEPA Process ....... .............................................2-3
2.5
Objectives and Alternatives........................................................... ...
2-5
2.6
Summary of Alternatives
2-16
27
Future Alternatives ...... ...........2-16
28
Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal ................
2-16
3.0
Concise Analysis of Alternatives ........................................
3-1
3.1
Natural Environment... .......
3-1
32
Air Quality
..3-5
3.3
Land Use Patterns....................................................................................................................3-7
3.4
Population, Housing, and Employment
3-10
35
Plans and Policies
3-13
36
Cultural Resources . ................ ............................................................................
3-22
3.7
Transportation...................................................
3-27
38
Public Services
3-36
39
Infrastructure ............ . ......... .......................................................................................
3-42
3.10
Power and Telecommunications........................................................... .. .... ....
3-50
4.0
Citizen Amendment Requests
4-1
41
Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests ...... .................................... 4-1
50
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References .... ............................................................................... 5-1
5.1
Acronyms and Abbreviations.......................................................... ...
5-1
52
References
5-2
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Table of Contents vi
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
6.0 Distribution List 6-1 '
70 Appendix A Scoping Notice and Comments .... ........................... 7-1
80 Appendix B Critical Areas Ordinance Gap Analysis ......................................... 8-1 '
Exhibit 1-1 Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests
.... ..... 1-15
r
Exhibit 2-1 Yakima Council Districts.............................................................
2-1
Exhibit 2-2 Yakima UGA and City Limits Map
2-2
r
Exhibit 2-3 Yakima Integrated SEPA/GMA Plan and EIS
............2-4
Exhibit 2-4. No Action and Action Alternative Comprehensive Plan Elements ........... ...
2-6
2-7
Exhibit 2-5 Future Land Use Map Current 2016
Exhibit 2-6 Future Land Use and Implementing Zoning by Alternative
... ......2-8
Exhibit 2-7. Action Alternative: Proposed Land Use Designation Area Changes
2-8
,
Exhibit 2-8 Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests
2-9
Exhibit 2-9 Action Alternative Future Land Use Map
2-10
r
Exhibit 2-10. No Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District ...
2-11
Exhibit 2-11 Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District
2-12
Exhibit 2-12 Alternative Growth Comparison
2-14
'
Exhibit 2-13. Share of Growth in Eastern and Western Yakima ..................................................
2-15
Exhibit 2-14 Summary of Alternatives
2-16
'
Exhibit 3-1 Land Use Categories, Properties and Acres
3-7
Exhibit 3-2. Alternative 1 No Action Future Land Use Share ........................................ ... ..
... 3-8
Exhibit 3-3 Alternative 2 Action Future Land Use Share
3-8
Exhibit 3-4 Population, Housing, and Employment Affected Environment (2015 and 2040)
3-11
Exhibit 3-5 Consistency with Growth Management Act Goals ................ ... .. ... ...
3-14
Exhibit 3-6 Western Yakima UGA Land Use Designations
3-19
Exhibit 3-7 City of Yakima Proposed Land Use Plan — Western Yakima UGA
3-20
'
Exhibit 3-8 Predictive Model of Cultural Resources Presence ... ...
3-23
Exhibit 3-9 Properties Listed in Registers
3-24
'
Exhibit 3-10. Potentially Eligible Properties ...
.. ... ...3-25
Exhibit 3-11 Level of Service Criteria
3-28
Exhibit 3-12 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
3-28
'
Exhibit 3-13. Alternative 1 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary .....................................3-31
Exhibit 3-14 Alternative 1 (No Action) LOS Map
3-33
r
Exhibit 3-15 Alternative 2 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
3-34
Exhibit 3-16 Demand for Parks based on Growth 2015-2040 ........ ............... ......
3-37
r
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Table of Exhibits vii r
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-17 Net Population Growth Distribution by School District
3-38
Exhibit 3-18 School District Estimated Student Growth, 2015 — 2040
3-39
Exhibit 3-19 Demand for Officers based on growth, 2015 - 2040..........................................................3-39
Exhibit 3-20. Demand for Fire Facilities, 2015 — 2040............................................................... .......
3-40
Exhibit 3-21 Water Service Area within the Yakima City Limits by Transportation Analysis Zones
3-42
Exhibit 3-22 Yakima Sewer Service Area.................................................................................................3-44
Exhibit 3-23. Sewer -Served Properties in Yakima City Limits .. ................. ....
3-45
Exhibit 3-24 Yakima Service Area Water Demand by Alternative —Growth Rate Impact on ADD and
MDD
.................................................................................................................................................................
3-46
Exhibit 3-25 Nob Hill Water System Growth
3-46
Exhibit 3-26 Irrigation Pipeline Improvement Demand
3-47
Exhibit 3-27. Sewer LOS Analysis.............................................................................................................3-48
Exhibit 3-28 Stormwater Service Area — City Limits — Growth by Alternative
3-49
Exhibit 3-29 Franchise Utilities Service Area — City Limits — Population Growth by Alternative
3-51
Exhibit 3-30. Franchise Utilities Service Area — City Limits — Population Growth by Alternative ............
3-51
Exhibit 4-1 Citizen Amendment Requests — Programmatic Environmental Review
4-2
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Table of Exhibits viii
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
1.1 Purpose of Proposed Action
What is the Proposal? Why is the City updating Its Comprehensive Plan?
The City of Yakima is updating its Comprehensive Plan by June 2017 in accordance with Growth
Management Act (GMA). An updated Comprehensive Plan will mean more housing choices, new
opportunities for commercial and industrial growth, better connected roads and parks, new recreation
opportunities, and improved public services. Elements of the plan to be updated or added include Vision
Statement, Land Use, Economic Development, Housing, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Parks
and Recreation, Natural Environment, Energy (new), and Historic Preservation (new).
Based on 20 -year growth targets, the City is anticipated to add more residents and fobs between now and
2040 To achieve an updated vision and accommodate growth, it is anticipated that the land use (and later
the zoning) map will be amended to reflect alternative land use patterns.
Transportation and Capital Facilities Plans will be amended and support the land use plan Additionally,
the City is evaluating its land use and critical areas regulations for proposed amendments that are
consistent with the goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
1.2 State Environmental Policy Act Process
What is a Programmatic SEIS?
This SEIS provides a qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts appropriate to the
general nature of a comprehensive plan update. The adoption of comprehensive plans or other long-range
planning activities is classified by SEPA as a nonproject (i e , programmatic) action A nonproject action is
defined as an action that is broader than a single site-specific project and involves decisions on policies,
plans, and programs An EIS for a nonproject proposal does not require site-specific analyses, instead, the
EIS discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the nonproject proposal and to the
level of planning for the proposal (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11-442)
What is an Integrated EIS Document?
The City has elected to integrate SEPA and the Washington State GMA in both the process and the
document (see WAC 197-11-235) Integration of the environmental analysis with the planning process
informs the preparation of GMA comprehensive plan amendments and facilitates coordination of public
involvement activities. The information contained in this SEIS will assist the City in refining a preferred
alternative, related comprehensive plan amendments, and implementing regulations This SEIS will
supplement the 2006 EIS, prepared for the current City Comprehensive Plan, and will support the City
Comprehensive Plan as it may be amended through this update process
What is the Public Comment Process?
A 60 -day comment period is proposed with this integrated Draft SEIS. Comments may be provided to the
City orally during open public meetings and workshops or in writing based on the opportunities and
instructions in the Fact Sheet.
The Final SEIS will provide responses to comments on the Draft SEIS
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-1
i
11
f.
�J
Ll
11
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1.3 Public Involvement
Scoping
A Scoping Notice was posted online and sent to SEPA agencies on October 17, 2016 The comment period
ended on November 4, 2016. Four comments were received and are contained in Appendix A
1.4 Summary of Proposed Alternatives
Objectives
Proposed Alternatives
■ Alternative 1 No Action — Current Comprehensive Plan: This alternative is required by the State
Environmental Policy Act. It assumes the 2006 Comprehensive Plan (as amended through 2016)
remains in place including its policies, land use plan, and regulations. Growth would occur based on
current plans and zoning at a level above growth targets
■ Action Alternative 2 — Plan Update — Infill, Mixed Use, and Higher Growth: This alternative updates
the Comprehensive Plan, including the vision statement, all elements, the future land use map,
transportation plan, capital facilities plan, and selected implementing zoning and critical areas
regulations The Plan promotes a vision of equity in plans and strategies, and encourage growth in
already developed areas where there is infrastructure and a well-designed and compatible land use
pattern
This alternative would also implement the individual citizen amendment requests for the Future
Land Use Map that were recommended for inclusion in the 2040 plan by the Planning Commission.
Recommended citizen requests promote infill and greater land use compatibility. Growth would
occur, based on revised land use policies and zoning, at a level higher than growth targets A greater
emphasis on infill development and mixed uses would allow for an improved balance between fobs
and housing.
1.5 Summary of Impacts of the Proposal and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a summary of impacts and mitigation measures more fully described in Chapter 3 of
this SEIS
Natural Environment
How did we analyze the Natural Environment?
Natural environmental features were evaluated based on inventories of critical areas by federal, state,
county and city agencies, regional air quality monitoring results, and City stormwater management
programs
What impacts were identified?
' All alternatives would result in increased urbanization in the City, with a corresponding increase in
impervious surfaces, reduction in vegetative cover, and changes in hydrology. Some potential effects on
critical areas could include.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary
1-2
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
■ Urban development could create greater impervious area resulting in more rapid runoff and
degradation of water quality, reduce vegetation that can filter runoff or recharge, and reduce critical
aquifer recharge
■ Development within floodplains could expose persons or employees to flood hazards
■ Development of vacant or underdeveloped properties could lead to wetland or habitat loss, habitat
fragmentation, and loss of habitat connectivity.
■ New development could occur in areas of geologic hazards and subject persons or employees to
such risks
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
Alternative 1 would have less housing, population, and employment growth than Alternative 2, as
described in Chapter 2 Alternatives. However, about 60% of growth in Alternative 1 is anticipated to occur
on vacant and agricultural land in the western city limits (west of 401h Avenue) where there are smaller
tributary streams and other habitat. Forty percent of development would occur in more developed areas
of eastern Yakima where natural systems are more altered, except along the rivers
There would be less efficient development patterns under Alternative 1 with more single -purpose
commercial areas, less mixed uses, and less multifamily housing, thus, while there may be less nominal
growth, the less focused and less dense pattern could disturb more wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat
than Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 2, impacts to the natural environment would be similar to Alternative 1, but potentially
reduced in intensity if infill policies are more successful in adding more housing, population, and jobs in
eastern Yakima in already developed areas such as downtown About 51% of growth would occur in
western Yakima and 49% in eastern Yakima, which demonstrates a greater infill focus
In already developed areas, implementation of newer stormwater regulations through the City's NPDES
program and recent stormwater management regulations could improve water quality Under both
alternatives, such regulations would be protective, but Alterative 2 promotes a greater infill policy and
could result in more areas redeveloping with improved water quality results over existing water quality
Critical area regulations would be amended under Alternative 2 based on recent advances in best available
science as well as to improve consistency with the SMP (YMC Title 17).
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
Mitigation measures include the new Natural Environment Element Policies and Critical Area Ordinance
amendments based on a best available science gap analysis
Additionally, the City would continue to apply its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) adopted in 2015, recent
Stormwater Management Program, and the Washington Department of Ecology's Stormwater
Management Manual for Eastern Washington.
The City implements the International Building Code in YMC Chapter 1104 This code ensures buildings
are developed in accordance with sound building requirements to prevent or minimize damage in seismic
events and allows the building official to require geotechnical analysis
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-3
11
1
i
Ll
II
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
Water Quality: Direct impacts to water quality such as increased impervious area and increased runoff
' would be reduced through the implementation of federal, state, and City regulations, including critical
area and stormwater regulations
' Flood Hazards: Implementation of the City's flood hazard regulations, SMP, and habitat enhancement and
flood hazard mitigation projects would reduce impacts.
Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Wetlands: Future development would likely have some impact, direct or
' indirect, to local plants, animals, and habitats, including wetlands. Alternative 1 No Action is anticipated
to have a greater impact than Alternative 2 by allowing a lower density dispersed growth pattern in
relatively less altered areas in western Yakima, and generally by continuing critical area regulations that
' do not incorporate more recent scientific information
Geologically Hazardous Areas: Development within geologically hazardous areas poses an increased risk
to structures and the people living or working in them. Implementing building codes and critical areas
regulations will reduce potential risks or allow for notification of potential hazard areas under either
alternative
' Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: Critical aquifer recharge areas would be susceptible to groundwater
contamination under either alternative While both alternatives would apply aquifer protection
' regulations, Alternative 2 would be more protective by filling identified gaps in regulations
Air Quality
' How did we analyze Air Quality?
Regional air quality reports were reviewed (YRCAA, and YVCOG) Common development patterns and
their use of wood heating fuel or their association with different travel modes were considered.
What impacts were identified?
Under both alternatives, current regulations and strategies would be implemented to maintain
attainment status for Carbon Monoxide and PMloand taking necessary steps to stay in attainment status
for PM2 s•
1 What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
Alternative 1 promotes significant growth in western Yakima at current development rates This means
' more single family homes and increases the use of single -occupancy vehicles due to a development
pattern that is not pedestrian oriented and is less supportive of bicycle and transit options
' Alternative 2 promotes more infill and incentivizes higher density residential development. Developing an
efficient transportation network, increasing transit use, and the conversion/redevelopment of older
buildings commercial and industrial to more efficient heating/cooling systems will help maintain air
quality standards. Infill and higher density residential development that locates residents closer to jobs
also supports more pedestrian and bicycle travel, which has a positive impact on air quality.
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
Updated land use plan designations as well as air quality policies promote development types that reduce
air emissions National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Environmental Protection Agency Standards,
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-4
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Washington State Department of Ecology Standards, and Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency laws and
regulations will apply to both alternatives Certain new development projects are required to undergo
further review and permitting with the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
New development through 2040 can potentially impact air quality due to new industries, increased traffic
congestion, and/or increased population density. Mitigation will be required at the project level, when
appropriate.
Land Use Patterns
How did we analyze Land Use Patterns?
The Land Use Patterns analysis considers
■ Current land use based on local field review, as well as County Assessor records and aerial maps,
■ Growth targets developed with Yakima County;
■ A city land capacity analysis for each alternative, and
■ Distribution of future land use by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) for each alternative
What impacts were identified?
■ Both alternatives have sufficient capacity to meet 2040 targets of 17,167 more people and 8,556
more fobs Alternative 2 has greater capacity than Alternative 1
■ As development occurs, undeveloped land and existing land uses may convert to uses consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use (FLU) Map.
■ A greater emphasis on infill development may create rapid growth in certain areas of central and
eastern Yakima that increases the demand for expanded public services.
■ Depending on the scale and design of future projects, there could be compatibility concerns
between new development on undeveloped land and surrounding land uses Similar compatibility
issues may occur between more intensive infill development and existing lower density
development
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
Alternative 1 retains the current FLU designations and provides sufficient capacity for growth targets, but
less overall capacity for future growth than Alternative 2 given no changes in current residential densities
or infill strategies
Under Action Alternative 2, the City would promote more infill, mixed use, and higher growth numbers in
key areas of the city in a manner that promotes a vision of equity in plans and strategies, and growth in
already developed areas where there is infrastructure and a well-designed and compatible land use
pattern This alternative implements and streamlines FLU designations and the implementing zoning
regulations Growth would occur based on this revised land use plan and zoning at a level higher than
growth targets A greater emphasis on infill development and mixed uses would create an improved
balance between jobs and housing within the City
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-S
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
The Land Use Element Update contains revised goals and policies that promote orderly and compatible
' growth throughout the City of Yakima Projects which exceed established environmental thresholds will
undergo a project -specific environmental review.
' With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
As development occurs over time, existing land uses will convert to land uses consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and will meet growth targets. Implementation of the Alternatives could irreversibly
commit vacant, agricultural, partially developed, and redeveloped properties to residential, employment,
and institutional uses
' Some land use(s) may result in a potential for compatibility impacts due to type, scale, or activity levels
Updated goals and policies would promote compatible design, and require implementation of future
design and development standards consistent with policies to improve land use compatibility
Population, Housing, and Employment
' How did we analyze Population, Housing, and Employment?
As with the land use analysis, population, housing, and employment was analyzed based on:
' Growth targets developed with Yakima County,
■ A city land capacity analysis for each alternative, and
' Distribution of future land use by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) for each alternative
What impacts were identified?
t Additional population, housing, and employment growth will occur, with differing distribution
patterns depending on the Alternative.
■ Yakima's residential west will experience additional housing growth in a low density, single-family
pattern under both alternatives (with a greater share of population concentrated here under
Alternative 1 than Alternative 2).
' Job growth will mainly focus Downtown, with some jobs along corridors outside of Downtown.
Additional jobs will concentrate on the currently vacant Mill Site, which will have impacts on
infrastructure needs.
' Housing affordability, age of housing stock, and quality of housing stock are all concerns for each
alternative
' Growth will put pressure on the City's infrastructure and service departments as more residents and
employees require services provided by the City.
' ■ Both alternatives can meet growth targets for the 2017-2037 period
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
' Alternative 1 retains the existing intent for future land use and zoning in the city and would result in lower
density residential development in the west and less downtown infill and redevelopment in the east Jobs
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-6
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
would be located Downtown and along corridors outside of Downtown, with substantial new employment
development on the Mill Site
Alternative 2 would result in a future land use pattern that reinforces downtown infill and redevelopment
with a focus on mixed use and multifamily housing in and around Downtown. More of the population
would live within and close to the Downtown area and other mixed use centers along arterials and cross-
roads There would be more flexible attached housing opportunities with a combined Mixed Residential
designation allowing both R-2 and R-3 densities. Much of the employment growth would also be
concentrated Downtown and on the Mill Site
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
The City's regulations on location, density, design, bulk, and other will help mitigate against the impacts
of added development and growth in the city. In addition, as more residents and employees come to
Yakima, there will be more demands on the services that the City and special districts supply. Level of
service standards and capital planning will help guide the City in providing these services to a growing
population base (which will also result in a growing tax base)
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
Growth will occur under either alternative Under both alternatives, there will be an increased need for
infrastructure investment in roads, transit, utilities, parks, and other public facilities to maintain existing
levels of service for both residents and employers These impacts are present for both alternatives being
pursued.
Yakima will face added affordability challenges due to increasing demands on the housing stock and an
economy that has not supported new residential or employment development in recent years
With mitigation, the City can anticipate the location and development pattern of structures
accommodating the new housing and employment, as well as infrastructure and capital facilities that will
keep pace with the growth.
Plans and Policies
How did we analyze Plans and Policies?
Growth Management Act (GMA) goals, Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs), and City Vision Statements
were evaluated in relation to the studied alternatives
What impacts were identified?
■ Both alternatives meet the Growth Management Act goals, Countywide Planning Policies, and the
vision statement in varying ways
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
Generally, both alternatives meet GMA goals, with Alternative 2 having greater consistency with GMA
goals regarding
■ Sprawl reduction and housing affordability and variety due to the promotion of infill and mixed use
designation changes;
■ Transportation with a transportation plan update and emphasis on multi -modal improvements,
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-7 1
I' YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' ■ Public facilities and services with a capital facility plan update aligning levels of service and revenues
and projects; and
' ■ Open space and recreation goals with the proposed Critical Area Ordinance amendments and parks
plan update
' Generally, both alternatives are consistent with CWPPs. Both alternatives promote development within
the existing UGA, accommodate growth targets, address essential public facilities, and promote housing
and economic development Alternative 2 would further promote CWPPs by:
' ■ Updating housing inventories and strategies to increase housing affordability and variety, such as by
the promotion of infill and mixed use designation changes,
■ Update economic development strategies based on newer trends and outreach to stakeholders;
■ Updating transportation policies and strategies based on a transportation plan update and emphasis
' on multi -modal improvements; and
■ Aligning public facilities levels of service and revenues and projects in a capital facility plan update.
' Under Alternative 2, given a desire for common and consistent development standards, the County's land
use plan, zoning, and existing City -County interlocal agreements may need to be updated as described
above to reflect the City's desired consolidation of land use categories and policies (and future code
amendments) addressing implementing zoning and design standards
Both alternatives address a community vision that guides the preparation of the land use plan and
individual element policies. Alternative 1 No Action has a vision, goals, and policies that represents more
dated trends. Alternative 2 Action updates and elaborates upon the community vision reflecting the
changing community needs for housing, employment, and services in a manner promoting infill
development and reflecting the community's diversity and neighborhood character
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
While still consistent in overall pattern and boundaries, the County's land use plan and existing City -
County interlocal agreements may need to be updated as described above to reflect the City's desired
consolidation of land use categories and policies Likewise, there would need to be an alignment between
the County's and City's implementing zoning and design standards.
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
There is consistency with GMA goals, Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) and the City's vision
statement. Both City and County land use plans are consistent in pattern and location, but there will need
to be amendments of interlocal agreements and potentially plans and regulations under Alternative 2 to
remain consistent with CWPPs that call for point planning and common standards.
Cultural Resources
How did we analyze Cultural Resources?
The Historic Preservation Plan developed in 2016 (Artifacts Inc 2016) and information from the
' Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) were reviewed and
summarized in the SEIS.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-8
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
What impacts were identified?
Under both alternatives, potentially eligible properties for historic register listing identified in Exhibit 3-10
could be altered or redeveloped and no longer be eligible
Archaeological resources may be disturbed due to development activities, particularly in areas of high and
very high risk identified in Exhibit 3-8 This risk is reduced with City regulations regarding identification,
avoidance, and mitigation (YMC 17 05 010)
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
Under Alternative 1, current historic preservation policies and ordinances would be retained to reduce
potential impacts to historic sites (Chapter 11.62 YMC) and archaeological resources (YMC 17 05 010)
Alternative 2 promotes additional infill development and there could be more pressure for redevelopment
in areas of historic character, such as Downtown However, Alternative 2 also proposes the City's first
Historic Preservation Element and Plan with additional policies and strategies to promote the protection
of historic and cultural resources
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
Federal, state, and city regulations protect historic resources and archaeological resources In addition,
under SEPA, non-exempt development is subject to review and evaluation regarding cultural resources,
and mitigation measures may be imposed
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
If cultural resources are found in the future impacts to historic and cultural preservation can be adequately
mitigated by complying with federal, state, and local laws and mitigation measures
Transportation
How did we analyze Transportation?
Transportation impacts were based on volume forecasts from a transportation demand model to get an
estimate of future traffic conditions under each of the alternatives Estimated traffic conditions were
reviewed in relation to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as city and county
criteria for safety, access, and circulation for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians
What impacts were identified?
The anticipated vehicle traffic growth over the next 20 years would likely cause transportation impacts
Under all alternatives several intersections would operate below adopted level of service (LOS) standards
There may also be additional demands for transit facilities
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
Under Alternative 1(No Action) 17 intersections would operate below the adopted LOS standard because
of growth within the City Delays at these intersections would result in congestion on major corridors
throughout the City with the exception of the downtown area which experiences a lesser amount of
intersection delay Under Alternative 2 (Action), 16 intersections would operate below the adopted LOS
standard due to shifts in travel patterns resulting from changes in land use allocations.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-9
d
u
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' What are some solutions or mitigation for the Impacts?
Temporary construction Impacts can be managed to reduce impacts on local traffic flow. LOS
' improvements can be achieved for traffic operations through Intersection Improvements that Increase
capacity or flow of traffic, as well as through level of service policy revisions. See Section 3.7 for more
information
' With mitigation, what Is the anticipated outcome?
' The anticipated vehicle traffic growth over the next 20 years would cause unavoidable increases in traffic
and congestion that are characteristic of an urban area Although there would be an Increase In congestion
associated with urban levels of growth, there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified if
' the identified mitigation measures are implemented
Parks and Recreation
' How did we analyze Parks and Recreation?
Parks and Recreation facilities were examined In-depth in the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan
' 2018-2023 and the City of Yakima Existing Conditions Analysis completed in 2016
What impacts were identified?
' With a 2016 population of 93,410, Yakima is currently deficient in available park land and will
continue to be at a deficit unless new Investments are made. Additional park land is needed in areas
throughout the City to appropriately distribute parks amenities across the seven City Districts.
' ■ Many parks have aging infrastructure and will continue to need investments to maintain, update,
and expand facilities
' ■ Under current parks capital planning, there will be an increase in access to existing trail systems
What does It mean? What Is different between the alternatives?
' Parks distribution in the No Action Alternative will likely mean more parks in west Yakima as the current
population trend grows that way The Action Alternative promotes greater infill in east and central Yakima
which will create a necessity for expanded or new parks in established areas of the city, as well as updates
to the existing facilities.
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
' Implement the Plan's goals and policies to increase the available park land in Yakima as the
population grows to comply with level of service standards.
1
�I
■ Require large projects to provide open space as part of the development plan
■ Ensuring more access to existing trail systems through extending the network and creating multi-
modal connections
■ Identifying and acquiring vacant land that may be suitable for future park development
■ Pursuing local, state, and federal grants and other funding sources to replace aging park
infrastructure.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-10
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
With mitigation, Yakima will build upon and enhance its City-wide park system to meet the recreation
needs of current and future residents and which complies with level of service standards identified in the
Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan
Police and Fire Services
How did we analyze Police and Fire Services?
Police and Fire services were analyzed in the Capital Facilities Element, with a focus on the two
departments' ability to provide an acceptable level of service (LOS) now and in the future The identified
LOS for Police is 18 Officers per 1,000 population The Fire Department has several standards for Fire
Suppression, EMS, Special Operations, Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting, and Wildland, with service
measured based on turnout times
What impacts were identified?
■ There will be pressure on these department's ability to maintain or increase levels of service as
population increases
■ Development patterns will have an impact on the ability of Fire and Police Departments to serve the
City efficiently
■ Additional traffic congestion on City streets will impact the ability of Fire and Police Departments to
serve the City efficiently Station location and accessibility will be important for maintaining and
improving the amount of time it takes for police and emergency services to reach the scene of
response
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
The alternatives differ in the amount of growth, as well as the location and intensity of growth across the
City. The distribution of population increases changes in the alternatives which may require modification
to service areas depending on where higher densities are located In particular, Alternative 2 would see
areas of greater density and infill while Alternative 1 would expect a greater amount of the population to
locate within low-density developments, predominantly in west Yakima
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
■ Involving police and fire early in the development process.
■ Ensuring that police and fire are aware of future planning processes and anticipated land use
distributions
■ Maintaining rigorous capital plans that plan for needed facility investments.
■ Maintain LOS goals and prioritize improvements in service provision when needed
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
With mitigation measures in place, Yakima can expect safe and consistent fire and police services
throughout the City's seven Council Districts.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-11
1
C]
l
fl
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' Schools
I' How did we analyze Schools?
Schools are analyzed based on population growth and expected student generation by 2040
' What impacts were identified?
■ Population growth in the City will result in an increased student population
' There will be a need for expanded school facilities and new staffing to continue providing the
current level of service. Depending on the alternative and the location of residential growth, Yakima
School District and West Valley School District may have different impacts.
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
Impacts on schools will differ for each alternative due to the distribution of new residential growth. The
No Action Alternative continues the predominant westward growth which will increase students in the
West Valley School District similar to current rates The Action Alternative promotes greater infill
development which is anticipated to increase enrollment in the Yakima School District, perhaps greater
than current rates Under each alternative, additional facility space and staffing will be needed.
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
By setting level of service standard policies and participating in intentional capital planning, the school
districts can ensure that the impacts of student growth on the quality of their education is mitigated.
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
With mitigation, it is anticipated that student education quality and experience will not change because
of maintained service standards.
Sewer
How did we analyze Sewer?
Sewer is analyzed based on system capacity for treating wastewater
What impacts were identified?
■ Additional wastewater loads would need to be treated as the population of customers in the district
increases and puts pressure on the system's capacity
■ System expansion and maintenance will require new system investments and capital planning.
• Wastewater line extension for new development, particularly in West Yakima, will need to be sized
appropriately to accommodate future growth patterns
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has existing capacity to accommodate projected
population growth through 2040 under both alternatives, with some surplus capacity Although there will
be capital needs for wastewater treatment, these capital investments will be related to upgrades, system
expansion, and system efficiency.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-12
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
Level of service standards and capital planning will allow the Wastewater Division to maintain acceptable
service as additional population is served by the system This applies for both alternatives
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
With planned upgrades and maintenance, the system will continue to serve the population at acceptable
levels and wastewater will be treated by the existing Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Water
How did we analyze Water?
Water was analyzed based on system capacity for serving customers with potable water
What impacts were identified?
■ New water customers will loin the system as population grows
■ Capital investments will be required to expand and maintain the system
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
For both alternatives, the water system has the capacity to serve the City's new demands for potable
water
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
Level of service standards and capital planning will allow the Water and Irrigation Division to maintain
acceptable water service as additional population is served by the system This applies for both
alternatives
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
With planned upgrades and maintenance, the system will continue to serve the population at acceptable
levels and potable water will be provided to all customers in the water district
Utilities
How did we analyze Utilities?
Service providers for electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications are described in the Utilities
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
What impacts were identified?
■ New development will require upgrades and expansions to the utilities networks to provide added
capacity.
What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives?
Alternative 1 will continue the trend of new development occurring mostly in west Yakima Alternative 2
promotes greater infill densities in east and central Yakima. These different development patterns may
require differences in the location and timing of utilities expansion, but the added capacity needed will
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-13
C'
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
not differ greatly Utilities servers will meet the new demand, according to their business plan and the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission requirements
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
■ Encourage providers to develop new utilities capacity as growth occurs.
■ For the Action Alternative, greater infill densities may mean the need to upgrade existing utility
infrastructure to accommodate new demands on the system.
With mitigation, what is the anticipated outcome?
With mitigation, all utilities will be provided at an acceptable level of service to accommodate future
demands
1.6 Citizen Amendment Requests
What are Citizen Amendment Requests?
The City of Yakima allows citizen amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis. However,
during the update process the normal amendment process was not available for 2016 or 2017 As a
compromise so that citizens didn't have to wait until 2018 to submit a request, a modified process was
put in place where citizens could submit requests during the update process that would be reviewed by
staff and the Planning Commission as part of the overall update. In total, 16 requests were submitted.
After review by staff and the Planning Commission, the following requests in Exhibit 16-1 were
recommended to move forward in the process.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-14
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 1-1. Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests
1 Datal Properties, LLC
Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use
113 & 115 N 56`h Ave
2 Landon Glenn
Industrial to Commercial Mixed Use
203 & 207 Oak St
Vic Of E Nob Hill Blvd &
3 Jeff Baker
Regional Development to Commercial Mixed Use
S 181h St
4 Jay Sentz
Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use
4201 Summitview Ave
Vic Of S 38`h Ave and W
5 TM Rentals
Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential
Logan Ave
408, & 412 S 88`h 410,
6 Gail Buchanan
Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential
Ave
7 Supercold Storage
Large Convenience Center to Industrial
1415 River Rd
Medium Density Residential to Commercial Mixed
1406 S Fair Ave & 909
8 Jerry Hand
Use
LaFollette
9 William and Linda Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use 419 & 4215 16`h Ave,
Beerman 1513 Tieton Dr
10 SOZO Sports of Central Industrial and Low Density Residential to Vic Of S 36`h Ave and
WA Commercial Mixed Use Sorenson Rd
11 Gary Delaney Use
Medium Density Residential to Community Mixed 1414S2 nd Ave
12 Mark Hoffmann Industrial to Low Density Residential 3109 W Washington Ave
How do these requests relate to the Comprehensive Plan?
These requests modify the Future Land Use designations of several parcels throughout the City In most
cases these areas will see either an increase in residential density, an increase in commercial density, or
the change brings the Future Land Use into conformance with existing property use and zoning These
changes are cumulatively addressed in Alternative 2 in terms of overall land use patterns, housing and
employment growth, and utility and transportation needs. At a cumulative level, the requests would be
subject to development and design policies and regulations, and can be accommodated by infrastructure
system plans and public services, provided the mitigation measures in Chapter 3.0 are implemented. The
requests are individually analyzed at a programmatic level in Section 4 0
1.7 Major Conclusions, Areas of Controversy or Uncertainty, and Issues to
be Resolved
Key environmental issues and options facing decision makers include•
■ Alternative land use patterns in relation to 20 -year growth estimates and community vision;
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-15
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
■ Relationship of land use patterns to environmentally sensitive areas and land use compatibility; and
■ Effect of growth on demand for public services, utilities, and parks and transportation capital
improvements.
All Alternatives would allow for expected population, housing and employment growth and increased
urbanization
Prior to preparation of the Final SEIS, the following issues are anticipated to be resolved
■ Selection and refinement of future land use based on the studied alternatives;
■ Refinement of goals, objectives, and policies; and
■ Deliberations on updated Capital Facility Plan and Transportation Plan, and
■ Refinements of proposed code changes, including the critical areas ordinance amendments and
potential zoning changes.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-16
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Introduction and Purpose
The City of Yakima is updating Its Comprehensive Plan by June 2017 in accordance with Growth
Management Act (GMA) An updated Comprehensive Plan will mean more housing choices, new places
to work, better connected roads and parks, new recreation opportunities, and improved public services.
Elements of the plan to be updated or added include: Vision Statement, Land Use, Economic
Development, Housing, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Natural
Environment, Energy (new), and Historic Preservation (new).
Based on 20 -year growth targets, the City is anticipated to add more residents and fobs between now and
2040 To achieve an updated vision and accommodate growth, it is anticipated that the land use and
zoning map will be amended to reflect alternative land use patterns.
Transportation and Capital Facilities Plans will be amended and support the land use plan Additionally,
the City is evaluating its land use and critical areas regulations for proposed amendments
2.2 Description of Planning Area
The Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update applies to the current city limits encompassing 27 16 square
miles or about 17,385 acres (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2016) See Exhibit 2-1.
Exhibit 2-1. Yakima Council Districts
VAKIMA 2040
COMPRF H ENSINIF
PIAN UPDATE
Yakima Council Districts
Count 11 District
1
v
u Yaks. ma GtY limns
Jrpan Growth A-
Source City of Yakima GIS 2016
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The City of Yakima has been assigned an Urban Growth Area (UGA) by Yakima County consisting of
unincorporated land suited for urban development due to present urban patterns or ability to serve urban
development in the future. Willing residents, landowners, and residents may annex to the city if they are
part of the UGA Total acres within the unincorporated UGA equal about 9,660 acres. (Yakima County,
Public Services Department, Planning Division, 2016, July 13)
Exhibit 2-2. Yakima UGA and City Limits Map
Source (Yakima County, Public Services Department, Planning Division, 2016, July 13)
Yakima UGA Analysis 2016
-- 1 urger Grown We. M—,,
Ovbim. GiIY Lim�S
Va—WD—lop.d
�// 0.re�oore
1
-1
Veon�
1
:. P.Mm" yecern
1
Z -0—P
ReWbnbl
t
Comrn•rc-I
YWueb-I
1
Comme.ry P. -6
/ 11/
,.
w �
Date 6182016
1
1
Source (Yakima County, Public Services Department, Planning Division, 2016, July 13)
Yakima UGA Analysis 2016
-- 1 urger Grown We. M—,,
Ovbim. GiIY Lim�S
Va—WD—lop.d
�// 0.re�oore
Veon�
:. P.Mm" yecern
Z -0—P
ReWbnbl
Comrn•rc-I
YWueb-I
Comme.ry P. -6
Enwrpnm•n1111, Ca-tnm•e
h
,.
w �
Date 6182016
The focus of the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations is the Yakima incorporated city limits.
Yakima County is planning for the Yakima UGA in consultation with the City of Yakima However, the SEIS
addresses cumulative growth patterns and demands for services, such as transportation, fire, and water,
within the city limits and UGA for a comprehensive evaluation.
2.3 State and Regional Planning Requirements
' Growth Management Act (GMA)
The City of Yakima is required to update its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations in
compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) every eight years, with the current deadline of June
30, 2017 The plan must have a 20 -year planning horizon and must plan to accommodate future growth
in coordination with Yakima County and neighboring cities
F—
L
1
By GMA requirements, the City must include the following comprehensive plan elements land use,
housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and parks and recreation. The
City has chosen to include the following optional elements historic preservation and energy The City
must also ensure its development regulations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including
critical areas regulations and zoning
Regional Plans
All cities' and the County's Comprehensive Plans are to be consistent with the Yakima County Countywide
Planning Policies, which addresses the following topics
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-2
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' I
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
■ The designation of urban growth areas;
■ Promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such
development,
■ The siting of public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature;
• Countywide transportation facilities and strategies;
■ The need for affordable housing for all segments of the population,
■ Joint city and county planning within urban growth areas,
• County -wide economic development and employment, and
■ Analysis of fiscal impact.
The Countywide Planning Policies also define roles for the County as a regional service provider and
primary planner of unincorporated areas, with responsibilities to enter into urban growth management
agreements to address point issues. Cities are primary providers of urban governmental services, and
primary planners of incorporated areas, and Joint planners with the County on unincorporated areas
through interlocal agreements. The Yakima Valley Conference of Governments serves as the Regional
Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) and performs responsibilities as identified in the most
recent GMA regional strategy.
2.4 SEPA Process
SEPA Scoping Process
The City voluntarily issued a scoping notice, optional for a SEIS (WAC 197-11-620(1)) See Appendix A for
the scoping notice and comments Scoping allows early comment on the scope of the SEIS including topics
and alternatives The scoping period extended from October 13 to November 4, 2016 Comments were
received from the following agencies•
■ Ahtanum Irrigation District: Concerns about traffic congestion on Ahtanum Road, and identification
of traffic improvements
■ Washington State Department of Ecology- Suggestions provided on wetlands mapping, goals of no
net loss of wetland function, avoidance of wetland impacts, and reference to recent wetlands
documents
■ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Recommendations on management of
vegetation on river levees, protecting habitat in parks, open space, and riparian areas, and
recommendations on improving maps in the current Comprehensive Plan
■ Yakama Nation Requests addressing cultural resources in the EIS and Comprehensive Plan policies
and development regulations that protect cultural resources
This SEIS addresses the evaluation of the alternatives in the Transportation Plan including traffic levels of
service The SEIS also addresses natural resources and proposed updates to policies and critical area
regulations. Cultural resources are added as an SEIS topic in response to the scoping comment and
because the City is proposing a Historic Preservation Element
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-3
I I
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Programmatic and Integrated Analysis
This SEIS provides a qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental Impacts appropriate to the
general nature of a comprehensive plan update. The adoption of comprehensive plans or other long-range
planning activities is classified by SEPA as a nonproject (i e , programmatic) action A nonproject action is
defined as an action that is broader than a single site-specific project and involves decisions on policies,
plans, and programs. An EIS for a nonproject proposal does not require site-specific analyses, instead, the
EIS discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the nonproject proposal and to the
level of planning for the proposal (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11-442)
The City has elected to Integrate SEPA and the Washington State GMA in both the process and the
document (see WAC 197-11-235) Integration of the environmental analysis with the planning process
informs the preparation of GMA comprehensive plan amendments and facilitates coordination of public
Involvement activities The Information contained in this SEIS will assist the City in refining a preferred
alternative, related comprehensive plan amendments, and Implementing regulations This SEIS will
supplement the 2006 EIS, prepared for the current City Comprehensive Plan, and will support the City
Comprehensive Plan as it may be amended through this update process
The integrated Draft Comprehensive Plan/Draft SETS document is structured as shown in Exhibit 2-3.
Exhibit 2-3. Yakima Integrated SEPA/GMA Plan and EIS
Volume I Yakima
' Comprehensive Plan—A Policy Contains all policies and plans
Document
Volume 11. Technical Appendices ■
■ Contains required capital inventories, level of service analysis, and revenue
Part A Capital Facility Plan analysis needed to support planned growth as well as the current
community.
Part B Supplemental Analyzes the proposal and alternatives
Environmental Impact Summarizes the comprehensive plan policies and regulations that serve as
Statement mitigation measures
The following documents are part of the record of the Plan Update
process, and summarized in the Plan and EIS As informational
documents, they may be updated overtime by the City without formal
amendment.
Other Supporting Material: Existing Conditions Report An informational document that contains all
inventories required by GMA and SEPA in the "Affected Environment"
discussions This analysis is incorporated by reference in this SEIS.
■ Land Capacity Analysis. Provides a method and results of a land capacity
analysis for the alternatives This analysis is summarized in the Plan
Elements and this SEIS
Source BERK Consulting, 2017
Phased Review
SEPA encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on Issues that are ready for decision
and to exclude from consideration issues that are 1) already decided or 2) not yet ready for decision
making (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Phased review Is appropriate where the sequence of a proposal is from a
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-4
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
programmatic document, such as an EIS addressing a comprehensive plan, to documents that are
narrower in scope, such as those prepared for site-specific, project -level analysis The City is using phased
review in its environmental review of the City Comprehensive Plan update with a programmatic review of
the proposal and alternatives Examples of proposals that may require more area -specific or site-specific
SEPA review when more details are known include, but are not limited to, capital improvement projects
and private development
Supplemental EIS
This SEIS supplements the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A, November 2006
The 2006 EIS reviewed the 2006 Comprehensive Plan to the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and some of the
alternatives developed in 1997 including a Citizen Focus alternative based on comments for less intensive
uses and a Vision Focus alternative with connected transportation, and retail and housing nodes
2.5 Objectives and Alternatives
Within the range of prior alternatives evaluated in 1997 and 2006, this SEIS tests two alternatives, further
described in this section:
■ Alternative 1 No Action — Current Comprehensive Plan: This alternative is required by the State
Environmental Policy Act It assumes the 2006 Comprehensive Plan (as amended through 2016)
remains in place including its policies, land use plan, and codes Growth would occur based on
current plans and zoning at a level above growth targets.
■ Action Alternative 2 — Plan Update — Infill, Mixed Use, and Higher Growth: Updates the
Comprehensive Plan including the vision statement, all elements, the future land use map,
transportation plan, capital facilities plan, and selected implementing zoning and critical areas codes
in a manner that promotes a vision of equity in plans and strategies, and growth in already
developed areas where there is infrastructure and a well-designed and compatible land use pattern
This alternative would also implement the individual parcel rezone/Future Land Use amendments
recommended for evaluation by the Planning Commission that promote infill and greater land use
compatibility. Growth would occur based on a revised land use plan and zoning at a level higher
than growth targets A greater emphasis on infill development and mixed uses would allow an
improved fobs -housing balance.
Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives
As part of describing proposed actions and alternatives, SEPA requires the description of proposal
objectives and features. Agencies are encouraged to describe a proposal in terms of objectives,
particularly for agency actions to allow for consideration of a wider range of alternatives and
measurement of the alternatives alongside the objectives. The City's proposed Vision Statement is the
primary objective for the Comprehensive Plan Update
A Vision for Yakima's Future
The City of Yakima Is the "Heart of Central Washington," bounded by the Yakima River
and the railroad, serving as a center of the Yakima Valley's agricultural prosperity for over
125 years, and growing into a dynamic cultural, recreational, and economic hub of the
region
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-5
1
1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
We celebrate our community of diverse cultures and offer opportunities for our public to
participate in community 11fe. We have created an inclusive city where all feel welcomed
and safe We work, live, and play side by side Yakima has created a flourishing and diverse
economy attracting and retaining businesses with living wage jobs for all our people We
preserve the character of our historic Downtown, residential neighborhoods, and
commercial centers. We encourage well-designed infill and new development, quality
public services, and infrastructure investments Our residents have access to a high-quality
education, affordable housing, and healthy living. We enhance our natural and recreation
spaces We connect our people and neighborhoods offering safe and reliable mobility
options including walking, biking, transit, and cars.
The degree to which each alternative accomplishes the objective is addressed in this Draft SEIS,
particularly in Section 3 6, "Plans and Policies "
Comprehensive Plan Elements
Both the No Action and Action Alternatives have Comprehensive Plan chapters including goals and
policies The Action Alternative would update each chapter to address the revised vision statement,
refresh and amend policies to be consistent with GMA provisions that have changed since the City's last
periodic update in 2006, and to be more streamlined and reader -friendly Two new elements would be
added- historic preservation and energy. See Exhibit 2-4.
Exhibit 2-4. No Action and Action Alternative Comprehensive Plan Elements
Land Use
Land Use
Economic Development
Historic Preservation
Housing
Economic Development
Transportation
Housing
Capital Facilities
Transportation
Utilities
Capital Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Utilities
Natural Environment
Parks and Recreation
Natural Environment
Energy
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
I
The No Action Alternative retains the currently adopted Future Land Use Map and associated
implementing zoning as illustrated on Exhibit 2-5 below.
IDRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-6
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 2-5 Future Land Use Map. Current 2016
YAKINIA 2040
ur COMPREHENSIVE
PIAN UPDATE
-T� Jn•` ` �. Future land Use
•• � J , t F T ' how Demdy RngerW
Medum Density ReaAeniW
,t♦. :�.� ••• Mgl• Dentary tesdent4l
a
Protesagnel Olhce
� ..-,. _ r_ !•� . wegnpoq+opd Gommeaoel
. 4.
G—M C Cpnmeroaw
_ ,.. Gnen�CommwoY
' . CBD con Connnn—
• w.;.. +poldt6 �
IM+,tur<1aM 11+e Map IWaWlaamr<pn4nat,pn ptcnenlluid u.ac ronre arctNure u+e.ot nan pareeor and.nnrtYp CdY of Yakma Tnr mapcatpepy+r.[uauryto pwtr certantY tp tnr
unrty memMn. msgpnt arw t+Womyomen:donvmat type yr land uu wl Ee betted around mom Md. wnere tp expect Mvm uraY<es anddeYNppmem W$Id.rme(rub pdck+antl oGjanrez
ni dim pyn JN 0
Source City of Yakima 2016
The Action Alternative would amend the Future Land Use Map to
1 Combine and rename some designations to streamline the map and provide a clearer land use
pattern.
2 Create a more compatible land use pattern, and recognize updated conditions and trends
3 Respond to public redesignation requests evaluated by the Planning Commission
The combined and renamed categories are illustrated on the table below, but generally result in fewer
land use map categories, and more mixed use residential -commercial districts See Exhibit 2-6
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-7
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 2-6 Future Land Use and Implementing Zoning by Alternative
111F AiLL14111 -
-
Future Land Use Implementing Zones Future Land Use
Implementing Zones
Low Density Residential SR, R-1, R-2 Low Density Residential
SR, R-1
Medium Density
R-1, R-2, R-3
Residential
Mixed Residential
R-2, R-3
High Density Residential
R-2, R-3, B-1, CBD
Neighborhood
B-1, B-2, HB, R-3
Commercial
Community Mixed Use
B-1, B-2, SCC, HB, R-3
Professional Office
B-1, B-2, R-3, GC
Community Commercial
B-1, B-2, SCC
Commercial Mixed Use
LCC, GC, AS
General Commercial
B-1, B-2, SCC, LCC, GC, M-
CBD Core Commercial
CBD
CBD Commercial Core
CBD
Regional Commercial
LCC, CBD
Regional Commercial
RD
Industrial
M-1, M-2
Industrial
M-1, M-2, AS
Source City of Yakima, 2016
Proposed land use designation area changes include several areawide or large property adjustments to
correct mismatches between uses and zoning or to address changing conditions and trends in
neighborhoods See Exhibit 2-7.
Exhibit 2-7. Action Alternative: Proposed Land Use Designation Area Changes
North of Fairgrounds Area
Washington Fruit and Produce Packing Plant
Old Fruitvale Drive -In Site/Area
Change from GC to Neighborhood Mixed Use and
Mixed -Residential
Change from Regional Commercial to Industrial to
match current use.
Change from Industrial to Community Mixed Use
Congdon Area FLU doesn't match the established zoning; align the
current zoning with FLU.
Source- City of Yakima, 2016
The last category of changes addressed public requests for consideration of Future Land Use changes.
Sites or areas carried forward for study include those on Exhibit 2-8.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-8
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 2-8 Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests
1 Datal Properties, LLC low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use 113 & 115 N 56`h Ave
2
Landon Glenn
Industrial to Commercial Mixed Use
203 & 207 Oak St
Vic Of E Nob Hill Blvd & S
3
Jeff Baker
Regional Development to Commercial Mixed Use
18 St
4
Jay Sentz
Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use
4201 Summitview Ave
Vic. Of S 38t1 Ave and W
5
TM Rentals
Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential
Logan Ave
408, 410, & 412 S 881h
6
Gail Buchanan
Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential
Ave
7
Supercold Storage
Large Convenience Center to Industrial
1415 River Rd
Medium Density Residential to Commercial Mixed
1406 S Fair Ave & 909
8
Jerry Hand
Use
La Follette
William and Linda
419 & 421 S 16th Ave,
9
Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use
Beerman
1513 Tieton Dr
SOZO Sports of
Industrial and Low Density Residential to
Vic Of S 36`h Ave and
10
Central WA
Commercial Mixed Use
Sorenson Rd
11
Gary Delaney
Medium Density Residential to Community Mixed
1414S2 n'Ave
Use
12 Mark Hoffmann Industrial to Low Density Residential 3109 W Washington Ave
Source City of Yakima, 2016
With the full list of map designation consolidations, areawide and local changes based on conditions and
trends, and public requests carried forward by the Planning Commission, the proposed land use map
would change as shown in Exhibit 2-9
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-9
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 2-9. Action Alternative Future Land Use Map
—.r
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PIAN UPDATE
Future LarM Use
S . C m, Bu�nea Care Commeran
--••••` A Gammeruei Y�.ra uee
IMu�rNl
law Uensty Reemewlyi
�� Wvp ReuoeMW
I_ Cpmmunly Nl.eo UM
. RpgnaCommertul
f
11 � skims couna, Diana
�W d nn�m> on Limas
urban Growth Area
11'rt 6mciebYO F,M1utt lanc Uu Nap •aur:t<+mc combm:[gn M e+.nMt hnp a+r. r onmR, ro fa[arC +se+Ot o:.r p;mc� d Mo wMm Mc UtY of Y>fim: Mu eeccµonc+naw Mrn corsq�tl>ua to
beth ++suallte muN reRarnbal, rirywbarlwoa oammeraal >M muco cornmemal ales. The map o.•te{ory n n[usi>ry m prover c[m>imY m C,o aommu�My mempen mvomts. >rn property pwrpn pbwt
+'at tysr Y4rE a.a. pili tr Ircxar an.irc �rvm Mo. Mem to •`Wvt lutura sarvkr� and bwbt+w�.m Mww an the hal., poly ia+zntl ab?nne. �A,h�. War M•a
N
A
0 0.5 ! ,.s MhW
Source City of Yakima, 2016 Growth Assumptions
The Comprehensive Plan addresses a 20 -year planning period and must demonstrate an ability to
accommodate future growth targets adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies Based on collaborative
planning with the County, the City of Yakima is due to take 25% of the future growth. The City growth
targets would mean 17,167 new persons and 8,556 jobs between now and 2040 Land capacity analysis
of each alternative illustrates more than adequate citywide capacity for additional population and fobs
under each land use plan (current or proposed) The Action Alternative has a greater capacity for housing
growth and fob growth given the land use map changes and greater emphasis on infill development.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-10
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 2-10. No Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District
NEW HON
District
Capacity Vacant / Agriculture /
Infill
New Homes New Jobs New People
1
401
9,384
1,096
2
1,102
2,808
3,009
3
1,004
2,360
2,740
4
407
1,499
1,110
5
1,312
2,087
3,582
6
2,297
75
6,270
7
8,995
6,624
24,556
Citywide
15,518
24,837
42,364
NEW JOBS
� � 1
38%
6
0-,
8%
4
6% 3 Z
10% 11%
Source City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-11
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 2-11. Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District
NEW HOMES
NEW JOB!
Source City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016
1
34%
2
12%
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-12
Capacity Vacant / Agriculture /
Underutilized
District
New Homes
New Jobs
New People
1
410
9,578
1,119
2
1,450
3,368
3,957
3
1,016
3,384
2,775
4
410
2,039
1,118
5
1,360
2,406
3,713
6
2,485
72
6,785
7
9,282
7,634
25,339
Citywide
16,413
28,481
44,806
NEW HOMES
NEW JOB!
Source City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016
1
34%
2
12%
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-12
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
These targets represent a 20 -year growth allocation, while land capacity considers a future buildout
condition The City must at least plan for its targets but may consider a higher potential growth, such as
based on master plans and permit trends or other bases For the purposes of this SEIS and transportation
and capital facility planning, each alternative is studied at a level greater than targets but less than
capacity Assumptions are compared in Exhibit 2-10.
Generally, the alternatives would study population and housing at about 44-52% of the growth capacity,
and fobs at about 54-60% of capacity The Action Alternative studies slightly higher growth than the No
Action based on the greater emphasis on infill development and changes to land use categories described
above
Considering land use plans, growth capacity, permit activity, and other assumptions, the City has prepared
estimates of growth by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) The TAZ level land use estimates are block -
oriented and do not conform to city limits, this allows the transportation model to analyze growth within
land areas having common road access points regardless of political boundary
Most services are driven by population growth, and more tailored estimates are prepared for population
and housing The SEIS and Capital Facility Plan assumptions are based on the TAZ level growth estimates,
but adjust TAZ estimates based on geographic share of the city limit within the TAZ For example, if 50%
of a TAZ contains land within the city limits then 50% of the growth in the TAZ is considered within the
city limits. This is a simple but more tailored estimate of growth planned in the city limits, and is used to
identify impacts or service demands in the SEIS and Capital Facility Plan
Most employment in the Yakima area is concentrated in the city limits, and TAZs closely resembling city
limits are used for both the Transportation and SEIS assumptions
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-13
F1
F
1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 2-12. Alternative Growth Comparison
Population- Net Growth
■ No Action ■ Action
Growth Target
17,167
17,167
EIS and Capital Facility Plan Assumption City
18,700
Limit Share of TAZ
23,211
22,124
Transportation Assumption By TAZ
26,626
City Limit Growth Capacity 42,364
4,806
Housing. Net Growth
No Action ■ Action
Housing Growth based on Population Target r 6,288
- 6,288
EIS and Capital Facility Plan Assumption City 6,850
Limit Share of TAZ 8,502
Transportation Assumption By TAZ 8,104
9,753
City Lurut Growth Capacity 15, 5186,413
Jobs- Net Growth
■ No Action ■ Action
Growth Target 8,556
8,556
14,783
Transportation and EIS Assumption ByTAZ
15,318
City Limit Growth Capacity
Source. City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-14
24,837
M.481
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The share of growth in western Yakima in relation to eastern Yakima differs among the alternatives. Using
school district boundaries as a reference to compare growth shares, Alternative 1 No Action directs about
40% of planned growth to eastern Yakima and 60% in western Yakima Alternative 2 Action assumes a
nearly equal distribution of 50/50, which means the share of growth is more directed to eastern Yakima
based on a focus of infill development in areas with infrastructure and services
Exhibit 2-13. Share of Growth in Eastern and Western Yakima
Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Action
■ Eastern Yakima ■ Western Yakima
Source- City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017
Transportation and Capital Facilities Plans
The No Action Alternative would retain current transportation and capital facilities plans, whereas the
Action Alternative would amend the plans to address the new land use plan and associated policies,
including those promoting greater infill in downtown and elsewhere in the established areas of the city to
take advantage of existing infrastructure and adaptively reuse sites to increase investment in housing and
fobs
Land Use Regulations
The No Action Alternative would retain the current Future Land Use Map and zoning regulations. The
relationship between Future Land Use and implementing zoning would remain as a nearly 1 1 ratio The
No Action Alternative will retain the historic growth patterns in Yakima, predominantly in districts 6 and
7 The Action Alternative would reduce the Future Land Use designations from ten to seven and revise
implementing zoning districts to be in-line with the most compatible designation This new FLU/Zoning
relationship is intended to promote increased infill development in all districts that is complimentary to
the expected western growth in Districts 6 and 7
Critical Areas Regulations
The No Action Alternative would retain current critical areas regulations The Action Alternative would
amend critical areas regulations based on a gap analysis identifying revisions to comply with the State's
more recently revised critical area classification guidelines and newer scientific and professional studies
such as those published by the Washington Department of Ecology in 2014 See also Appendix B for the
gap analysis and proposed code revisions for consideration.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-15
i
I
1 2.6 Summary of Alternatives
L1
u
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 2-14 summarizes the key elements of the alternatives and how they vary by alternative Generally,
the No Action Alternative retains current plans and regulations, and has a little less growth planned,
whereas the Action Alternative updates plans and regulations to meet the new Vision and GMA
requirements, and focuses on more Infill growth and a slightly higher citywide growth assumption.
Exhibit 2-14. Summary of Alternatives
Comprehensive Plan Elements
Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map
Growth Assumptions SEIS
Transportation and Capital
Investments
Land Use Regulations
Critical Areas Regulations
2.7 Future Alternatives
Current Plan 2006 as annually
amended
Current Plan 2006 as annually
amended
Population 18,700
Housing. 6,850
Jobs- 14,783
Current Capital Facility Plan
including Budget and
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP)
Maintain Current Regulations in
Municipal Code
Maintain Current Regulations in
Municipal Code
Update existing elements and add
two optional elements
Amend map for streamlining,
conditions and trends, and public
request purposes
Population. 23,211
Housing: 8,502
Jobs- 15,318
Update Capital Facility Plan to
address new growth patterns and
proposed policies promoting multi-
modal transportation, which would
be implemented by subsequent
budgets and TIPS
Amend regulations to address gap
analysis
Amend regulations to address gap
analvsis
' The alternatives present a range of policy and growth options. Future alternatives that are consistent with
the range of alternatives studied in this Draft SEIS and that are consistent with the plan objectives may be
identified by decision -makers and would be considered in the Final SEIS.
' 2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the
Proposal
SEPA requires a discussion of the benefits and disadvantages of reserving, for some future time, the
implementation of a proposal compared to possible approval at this time In other words, the City must
consider the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal.
Adopting a Comprehensive Plan that includes new household and employment forecasts and updated
goals and policies has several benefits-
• Provides for a diversified employment base and a greater range of housing choices.
• Prepares the City for the state -mandated 8 -year Comprehensive Plan periodic review with
household and employment forecasts for the planning period
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-16
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
■ Guides development and City resource allocations to meet forecast trends along with the
community vision
■ Allows for growth to be directed in proximity to public services and utilities
Delaying implementation of the proposal could delay natural environment impacts on vacant and
underdeveloped lands This potential growth may instead occur elsewhere in Yakima County, with
unknown potential for related impacts at those other locations Delaying implementation of the proposal
would allow for growth to occur based on the current City Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations,
but would not prepare the City for new growth allocations, local needs such as more attached housing,
and a new horizon year
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-17
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
3.1 Natural Environment
Affected Environment
Water Quality
' In the City of Yakima, impervious surfaces and commercial, residential, and agricultural uses can generate
or convey a variety of pollutants, such as animal wastes, oils, fertilizers and herbicides, and metals, to
Yakima's streams and lakes These substances can damage groundwater, lakes, rivers, and streams;
' disrupt human use of these waters; or interfere with the behavior and reduce the survival of aquatic life
The loss of riparian vegetation and the associated shade that it provides has also had an impact on water
temperatures. Six waterbodies in the City have been documented as exceeding standards for one or more
water quality parameters The City has a Stormwater Management Program for City of Yakima The City
also regulates construction and post -construction stormwater management under Chapters 7.82 and 7.83
of the Yakima Municipal Code These chapters require use of the latest edition of Washington Department
of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manua! for Eastern Washington.
Frequently Flooded Areas
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped the floodplains for the Yakima and
Naches Rivers, as well as Wide Hollow, Bachelor, Spring, and Shaw Creeks (see Existing Conditions Report
and Natural Environment Element for maps). As currently mapped, eight percent of the City is in a
designated floodplain, mostly associated with the Yakima and Naches Rivers on the east and north sides
of the City, which are bounded by a levee system. The City regulates development in or near these areas
to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties, and to prevent an increase in risk to upstream or
downstream neighbors or the natural functions of floodplains.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Although largely urbanized, the City of Yakima still has habitat for fish and wildlife distributed in parks and
other preserved open spaces, on agricultural lands, in underdeveloped or vacant spaces, and in and along
51.4 miles of stream corridors and several lakes (see Existing Conditions Report and Natural Environment
Element for maps) Some of the habitats such as shrub -steppe, wetlands and riparian areas associated
with rivers and streams are considered priority habitats defined by WDFW
Several fish species are protected under the Endangered Species Act, and additional species are also state
priority species. In addition to fish, other priority species in the city include a number of birds, such as bald
eagle, wood duck, common loon, and great blue heron, many of which breed along the Yakima or Naches
Rivers, sharp -tailed snake and ring-necked snake; and Townsend's ground squirrel.
Wetlands
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service has mapped and classified wetlands in the City as part of its National
Wetland Inventory (see Existing Conditions Report and Natural Environment Element for maps); mapping
may underrepresent the area of wetlands due to the date of inventories and the nature of the data that
is not comprehensively collected by federal, state, or local agencies Most of these wetlands are large
complexes associated with the Yakima and Naches Rivers, although smaller wetlands are scattered
throughout the City along the smaller streams and in other localized depressions
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Concise Analysis of Alternatives 3-1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Geologically hazardous areas include areas of erosion hazard, landslide hazard, seismic hazard, and other
hazard, including volcanic In the City, three types of landslide hazards have been mapped: intermediate
risk oversteepened slopes, high risk oversteepened slopes, and channel migration zones that are
associated with shoreline waterbodies (see Existing Conditions Report and Natural Environment Element
for maps) In Yakima, the high risk steep slopes are mainly isolated in the City's north and northwestern
boundaries along West Powerhouse Road, Prospect Way, and Canyon Creek Road Moderate risk steep
slopes are found nearby near Scenic Drive and Englewood Crest Drive
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Critical aquifer recharge areas are lands where surface waters or pollutants can infiltrate into groundwater
that is utilized for drinking water The City's drinking water comes from the Naches River water treatment
facility, but the backup supply comes from four municipal groundwater wells. To date, the City has
identified five discrete areas that have high vulnerability to contamination (see Existing Conditions Report
and Natural Environment Element for maps) that cover about 8 percent of the city limits. The Washington
Department of Health maintains updated maps of wellhead protection zones around drinking water
sources on its website
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
All alternatives would result in an increase in population and employment density in the city limits, with
a corresponding increase in residential and commercial development All alternatives would result in
increased urbanization in the City, with a corresponding increase in impervious surfaces, reduction in
vegetative cover, and changes in hydrology
Earth and Water Quality: New development could occur in seismic and volcanic hazard areas, or within
or abutting landslide or erosion hazard areas, and potentially be vulnerable to a greater risk of damage
Urban development on vacant or agricultural sites can lead to vegetation removal and increased
impervious surfaces, and accordingly increase erosion and landslide hazards in susceptible areas.
Urban development in the form of buildings and paved parking and roads prevents rain from infiltrating
into the soil, generating more rapid runoff from the land into nearby lakes and streams However, in an
urban environment, the effects of redevelopment can result in an improvement of water quality and
increased infiltration as areas come into compliance with applicable stormwater quality standards
Floodplains, Wetlands, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Increased development in floodplains could expose
larger populations to flood hazards New development within the floodplain could increase current flood
elevations through the placement of fill and resulting reduction of flood storage This could increase the
area affected by floods, the height of the flood, and/or the time it takes for flood waters to recede New
development can result in increased impervious areas and worsen runoff, affecting water quality
Development of vacant or underdeveloped properties could lead to wetland or habitat loss, habitat
fragmentation, and loss of habitat connectivity
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: Increased development and impervious surfaces often result in less
vegetation coverage that can naturally filter runoff Critical aquifer recharge areas would be susceptible
to groundwater contamination Potential sources of contamination that can impact groundwater sources
are leaks or releases of petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, and septic systems
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Natural Environment 3-2
' YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IAlternative 1: No Action
Geologic hazards are generally found in northern Yakima, where planned single-family development could
' disturb slopes and erosive soils Critical area regulations would continue as adopted in 2016, and would
help avoid development on unstable slopes.
1 Alternative 1 would have lesser housing, population, and employment growth than Alternative 2 as
described in Chapter 2 Alternatives However, about 60% of growth is anticipated on vacant and
agricultural land in the western city limits (west of 40" Avenue) where there are smaller tributary streams
1
�I
Ll
and other habitat, and 40% in more developed areas of eastern Yakima where natural systems are more
altered except along the rivers.
There would be less efficient development patterns under Alternative 1 with more single -purpose
commercial areas, less mixed uses, and less multifamily housing; thus, while there may be less nominal
growth, the less focused and less dense pattern could disturb more wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat
than Alternative 2
Growth could also occur in eastern Yakima along the Yakima and Naches Rivers where there are mapped
floodplains and habitats that could be further disturbed However, the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
would apply and would promote no -net -loss of shoreline ecological function; SMP shoreline designations
allow less alteration in areas of high ecological function or areas that present health and safety impacts
such as channel migration zones
There would be no change in fish and wildlife or wetland regulations compared to Alternative 2, and while
most impacts could be avoided or mitigated, the results could be less protective as regulations would not
reflect the most recent guidance under best available science
Growth could occur in high vulnerability aquifer areas or within wellhead protection areas. Development
could increase impervious areas and reduce groundwater recharge. Critical area regulations would limit
the types of uses that have a potential to result in groundwater contamination No updates to the critical
aquifer recharge area regulations would be made under Alternative 1, and results would be less consistent
with best available science.
Alternative 2• Action
Impacts to the natural environment would be similar to Alternative 1, but potentially reduced in intensity
if infill policies are more successful in adding more housing, population, and fobs in eastern Yakima in
already developed areas such as downtown About 51% of growth would occur in western Yakima and
49% in eastern Yakima, which demonstrates a greater infill focus.
Critical area regulations would be amended under Alternative 2 based on recent advances in best available
science as well as to improve consistency with the SMP. Key changes include.
■ In the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) section, broaden the application to
more than "hydrologically related critical areas" and update the stream typing and buffer system.
■ In the Wetlands section, implement updates for consistency with the recently modified wetlands
regulations in the SMP and recently issued science -based wetland guidance
■ In the Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) section, extensively revise to fill the risk gap left by
deferring regulation of this resource primarily to state and federal law.
IDRAFT MARCH 2017 1Natural Environment 3-3
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
■ With Alternative 1, the current Natural Environment goals and policies would apply
■ Proposed Natural Environment goals and policies under Alternative 2 refine the City's approach to
protection of the City's water resources and critical areas Some highlighted goals include
0 9 1 Enhance and protect surface, storm, and groundwater quality and quantity
0 9 3 Manage floodplains to protect public health and safety, and to support ecological function.
0 9 4 Preserve and enhance terrestrial and aquatic habitats to maintain viable populations of
plants and animals
0 9 5 Manage use and development in geologically hazardous areas to protect public health and
safety
Applicable Regulations
■ The City regulates frequently flooded areas, FWHCAs, wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, and
CARAs under Chapter 15 27 of the Yakima Municipal Code, which was last updated in 2008.
■ Yakima updated its SMP in 2015, which has been adopted as Title 17 of the Yakima Municipal Code
In the City of Yakima, the waterbodies subject to the SMP are the Yakima River, Naches River,
Cowiche Creek, Willow Lake, Lake Aspen, and Rotary Lake.
■ In 2015, the City continued to meet its obligations under the federal Clean Water Act by developing
the Stormwater Management Program for City of Yakima This local program will ensure that the
City is compliant with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Eastern
Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, and plans and implements performance
measures that reduce pollutants in stormwater to the "maximum extent practicable "
■ The City also regulates construction and post -construction stormwater management under Chapters
7 82 and 7 83 of the Yakima Municipal Code These chapters require use of the latest edition of
Washington Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington
■ The City implements the International Building Code in Chapter 1104 This code ensures buildings
are developed in accordance with sound building requirements to prevent or minimize damage in
seismic events The code also allows the building official to require geotechnical analysis
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
• Consistent with Alternative 2, the City could update its Critical Area Regulations, similar to the gap
analysis requirements included in Appendix B. The changes would include more recent critical area
classifications and protective standards particularly in the areas of fish and wildlife, wetlands, and
aquifers
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
All alternatives would result in increased urbanization in the City, with a corresponding increase in
impervious surfaces, reduction in vegetative cover, and changes in hydrology.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Natural Environment
3-4
11
1
1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Water Quality: Direct impacts to water quality such as increased impervious area and increased runoff
would be reduced through the implementation of federal, state, and City regulations, including critical
area and stormwater regulations. In already developed areas, implementation of newer stormwater
regulations through the City's NPDES program and recent stormwater management regulations could
improve water quality Under both alternatives, such regulations would be protective, but Alterative 2
promotes a greater infill policy and could result in more areas redeveloping with improved water quality
results over existing water quality
Flood Hazard Areas: Under both alternatives there could be more development in western Yakima
compared to already developed areas and potentially more alteration of floodplains westward, though
more pronounced under Alternative 1 No Action. Implementation of the City's flood hazard regulations,
SMP, and habitat enhancement and flood hazard mitigation projects would reduce impacts
Wetlands and Plants and Animals: Future development would likely have some impact, direct or indirect,
to local plants, animals, and habitats, including wetlands. However, most development is likely to occur
within areas that have been previously disturbed by prior development or agricultural activity Critical
area and SMP regulations can help protect the functions and value of wetlands and other habitats.
Alternative 1 No Action is anticipated to have a greater impact than Alternative 2 by allowing a lower
density dispersed growth pattern in relatively less altered areas in western Yakima, and generally by
continuing critical area regulations that do not incorporate more recent scientific information
' Earth: Development within geologically hazardous areas poses an increased risk to structures and the
people living or working in them. Implementing building codes and critical areas regulations will reduce
potential risks or allow for notification of potential hazard areas under either alternative.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: Critical aquifer recharge areas would be susceptible to groundwater
contamination under either alternative While both alternatives would apply aquifer protection
regulations, Alternative 2 would be more protective by filling identified gaps in regulations.
3.2 Air Quality
Affected Environment
The airshed for the City of Yakima, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is the Yakima
Basin. According to the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency, "the air quality in Yakima County is fresh, clean
and healthy most of the year, yet at certain times it faces challenges " Although air quality currently
meets federal and state air quality standards, that has not always been the case. After years of planning
and analysis, coordination between Yakima County and incorporated cities, and implementation of
targeted projects, the urban areas of Yakima County were removed from non -attainment status for
carbon monoxide and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMlo)
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Under both alternatives, current regulations and strategies would be implemented to maintain
attainment status for Carbon Monoxide and PMloand taking necessary steps to stay in attainment status
for PM2 s
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Air Quality 3-5
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN t
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 1 promotes significant growth in western Yakima at current development rates This means
more single family homes and increases the potential for use of single -occupancy vehicles.
Alternative 2 Action
Alternative 2 promotes more infill and incentivizes higher density residential development. Developing an
efficient transportation network, increasing transit use, and the conversion/redevelopment of older
buildings commercial and industrial to more efficient heating/cooling systems will help maintain air
quality standards The development pattern in Alternative 2 would be more supportive of pedestrian and
bicycle transit, which would have a positive impact on air quality
Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
Alternative 1 would continue current air quality goals and policies, while Alternative 2 would streamline
and update them as follows:
GOAL 9 2 PROTECT AND ENHANCE AIR QUALITY.
Policies
9 2 1 Cooperate with local, State and federal air pollution control agencies and comply with
applicable regulations that govern air pollutants during land development, construction
and operation (Update and expansion of Policy 10 3.1)
9 2 2 Develop a land use pattern and associated infrastructure that encourages trip reduction,
minimizes vehicular emissions, and facilitates use of alternate modes of transportation
(Update of Policy 10 3 3)
Alternative 2 would promote an updated Land Use Plan that further promotes development patterns that
reduce emissions as identified in policy 9 2 2
See also discussion of Transportation Element policies and other mitigation to promote use of multi -modal
travel.
Applicable Regulations
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Environmental Protection Agency Standards, Washington State
Department of Ecology Standards, and Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency laws and regulations will apply
to both alternatives Certain new development projects are required to undergo further review and
permitting with the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency.
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
No other measures proposed
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
New development through 2040 can potentially impact air quality due to new industries, increased traffic
congestion, and/or increased population density Mitigation will be required at the project level, when
appropriate
DRAFT MARCH 2017 IAir Quality 3-6
1
1�
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
3.3 Land Use Patterns
Affected Environment
Yakima's current land use pattern is dominated by single family uses, both in the number of properties
(21,836) and the number of acres (5,274) Vacant/underdeveloped/open space is the second most
prominent land use category, followed by agriculture and resource lands. Exhibit 3-1 describes the land
use existing conditions with the number of properties and acres for each category of land use
Exhibit 3-1. Land Use Categories, Properties and Acres
■ Agriculture and Resource 108 1,617
Government / Education 154 522
' Industrial 49 187
Manufacturing 207 544
' Multi -Family Residential 2,485 977
Parks, Recreation and Cultural 139 790
Professional Offices and Services 1,199 1,028
Retail Commercial 801 765
Single Family Residential 21,836 5,274
' Transportation 675 801
Vacant/Underdeveloped/Open Space 1,639 1,857
TOTAL 29,292 14,363
Source City of Yakima, 2016, Yakima County Assessor's Office, 2016
Similarly, the City's future land use is predominantly Low Density Residential, followed by Industrial and
' Medium Density Residential (see Impacts Analysis below) Overall, future land use includes 65%
residential uses and 20% commercial and professional offices
A Buildable Lands Analysis, completed in 2017, indicated that the City has sufficient capacity to
' accommodate future population (17,167 persons) and employment growth (8,556). (See Exhibit 2-12.
Alternative Growth Comparison ) The City of Yakima has a total of 3,577 developable acres This accounts
for a total of 1,639 acres of land identified as vacant land, agricultural land, potential infill, and
underutilized land The analysis accounts for Critical Areas and the restrictions they impose on
development.
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
' Both alternatives have capacity to accommodate the assigned 2040 population target of 17,167 persons
and jobs target of 8,556 Both alternatives will increase in residential, commercial, and industrial
development
1
F]
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Land Use Patterns 3-7
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Alternative 1. No Action
Under Alternative 1 No Action, the focus of land use will continue to be single -purpose zones such as Low
Density Residential.
Exhibit 3-2 Alternative 1 No Action Future Land Use Share
Professional Office Regional Commercial
General Commercial
3% 4% 9%
Neighborhood
/ CBD Core Commercial
Commercial
3%
Community High Density
Commercial _ Residential
04% /� 7%
Medium Density /
Residential
14%
Industrial
15%
Low Density
Residential
44%
Source City of Yakima, 2016, Yakima County Assessor's Office, 2016, BERK, 2016
Alternative 1 continues past trends with the majority of new development occurring in western Yakima
and along Major Arterials, with minimal infill development. Alternative 1 would result in a pattern of
typical neighborhood design consistent with past trends, greater investment in infrastructure in greenfield
areas compared with investments in developed areas of eastern Yakima, and less revitalization and
investment in older neighborhoods where retention and improvement of affordable housing stock is
supportive of housing goals
Alternative 2: Action
Alternative 2 Action combines several future land use designations to provide a streamlined rezoning
process to help spur infill development
Low Density Residential
Exhibit 3-3. Alternative 2 Action Future Land Use Share
7,726
44%
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Land Use Patterns 3-8
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Mixed Residential
3,709
21%
Community Mixed Use
1,082
6%
Commercial Mixed Use
1,902
11%
Regional Commercial
562
3%
Central Business Core Commercial
266
1%
Industrial
2,509
14%
Total Gross Acres
17,756
100%
Alternative 2 has a larger focus on infill development on vacant and/or underutilized sites in the city limits.
The potential for greater infill growth will require expanded or upgraded public services in already
developed areas This update will provide consistent goals and policies for consistent and compatible
development throughout the City of Yakima.
Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
See Land Use Element Chapter 1.4 for Goals and Policies that provide for a broad distribution of
land use types with an emphasis on protection of neighborhoods and residential uses, and the
promotion of design and land use controls to minimize incompatibilities between uses.
Applicable Regulations
The following regulations guide land use in Yakima
■ Title 14 —Subdivision Ordinance
■ Title 15 — Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance.
■ Title 16 — Administration of Development Permit Regulations
■ Chapter 6 88 — Environmental Policy
In addition, project -specific environmental review and processing will occur when future projects are
submitted.
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
The City could adopt design and development standards consistent with updated Land Use Element
policies.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
As development occurs over time, existing land uses will convert to land uses consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and will meet growth targets. The implementation of the Alternatives could
irreversibly commit vacant, agricultural, partially developed, and redeveloped properties to residential,
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Land Use Patterns 3-9
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
employment, and institutional uses Alternative 2 Action would focus more growth in already developed
areas and create a more efficient pattern in vacant and agricultural areas.
Some land use(s) may result in a potential for compatibility impacts due to type, scale, or activity levels
Such impacts can be mitigated by individual project review and appropriate SEPA mitigation measures
and land use permit conditions, zoning standards addressing height and setbacks, and landscaping
standards. Impacts could be reduced with Alternative 2 Action compared to Alternative 1 due to updated
goals and policies that promote compatible design, and creation of future design and development
standards consistent with policies.
3.4 Population, Housing, and Employment
Affected Environment
This section considers the current and forecasted population, housing, and employment under the City's
current plan and zoning (No Action Alternative) and the alternative capacity for growth (Action
Alternative) The City had 93,220 residents in the base year (2015), with 37,411 housing units and 47,578
jobs Additional information about demographics, the housing supply, and employment sectors can be
found in the City of Yakima Existing Conditions Report (BERK Consulting, 2017)
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Under both alternatives, new development would occur in the City, with different areas of focus for
development depending on the Alternative New development in Yakima's western residential areas
would occur in both alternatives Both alternatives also anticipate fob growth in the Downtown area, as
well as development on the Mill Site that would increase the employment activity in that area of the City
Neither Alternative would exceed the City's current land capacity, although the Action Alternative would
anticipate zoning changes that would redirect some of the residential and lobs development towards
mixed use and multifamily centers in and around Downtown and away from low density single-family
development.
Exhibit 3-4 shows the population, housing, and employment in Yakima during the 2015 base year, in
addition to the 2040 growth projections for both the No Action and Action Alternatives Under both
alternatives, capacity for growth is not exceeded. The No Action Alternative would expect about 20%
growth in the population by 2040, while the Action Alternative would expect about 25% growth in the
population by 2040. Housing and employment growth would vary less between the two alternatives, with
18-23% housing growth expected and 31-32% employment growth projected
L
1
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Population, Housing, and Employment 3-10 1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-4. Population, Housing, and Employment Affected Environment (2015 and 2040)
Population
■ Base Year (2015)
ry M
e-1
~ N C
v v
611f
a
M
Housing
■ 2040 No Action Alternative
'-1 ID
tD M
M OD
cc N N
Lr D D
tf1
a
Employment
■ 2040 Action Alternative
Population 93,220 111,920 135,584 116,431 138,026
Housing 37,411 44,261 51,157 45,913 52,052
Employment 47,578 67,721 66,056 62,896 71,365
Source City of Yakima, 2016, OFM, 2015, U S Census Bureau, ACS Five -Year Estimates, 2010 — 2014, BERK Consulting, 2017
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, anticipates population, housing, and employment growth in
Yakima city limits. Population and housing growth would be focused on the undeveloped areas on the
west side of the City The No Action Alternative would introduce around 18,700 new residents, 6,850 new
dwelling units, and 14,783 new employees in Yakima by 2040 (see Exhibit 3-4)
Alternative 2: Action
Alternative 2, the Action Alternative, anticipates infill development of population, housing, and
employment in the Downtown area and areas surrounding Downtown. Employment growth would
include new development on the Mill Site as the underutilized land adjacent to Downtown develops for
employment use. Development on the west side of the city would occur but would in balance with the
development on the east side. Compared to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 2 would implement
zoning that would encourage more infill development downtown through the use of mixed use and Mixed
Residential multifamily development types along arterials and at crossroads
The Action Alternative would introduce around 23,211 new residents, 8,502 new dwelling units, and
15,318 new employees in Yakima by 2040 (see Exhibit 3-4).
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Population, Housing, and Employment 3-11
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
The City of Yakima currently has the available land capacity and regulations in place to absorb
projected future growth for housing and employment for both the Action and No Action
Alternatives As new residents and fobs come to the City, it is expected that private development
will respond to the demand for new housing, office space, and industrial space
In addition, infill development provides the opportunity, under both alternatives, for Downtown
Yakima and the surrounding area to become more accessible and more affordable through mixed
use and pedestrian -oriented development patterns. Alternative 2 further supports this opportunity
with infill policies and a modified land use plan and economic development strategies Assuming the
market allows for redevelopment, Downtown's presence of vacant and older buildings creates
conditions ripe for redevelopment
■ The Action Alternative would incorporate changes to land use and design regulations that would
support the infill goals of the City The City recognizes a need to focus on corridors and areas that
may receive higher intensity development, specifically those outside of the denser Downtown area
City policies identified in the Plans and Policies section and the City's Future Land Use map (see
Exhibit 2-9 Action Alternative Future Land Use Map) will help Yakima mitigate impacts of
population, employment, and housing growth
Applicable Regulations
Zoning regulations help further the City's policies on location, pattern, and character of employment
and residential growth The City's zoning code implements the Comprehensive Plan policies for
housing density, type, and design. These mechanisms would apply for both Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
Housing affordability, as well as the quality and age of the housing stock is a concern for both
alternatives and the City should utilize public funds and regulatory tools to continue to address
these impacts The Districts with the most need should be prioritized for implementation of these
tools to alleviate the impacts of growth. Federal, State, and local funding sources can be pursued to
help target issues related to housing affordability, either through assistance or subsidies.
Capital planning and level of service standards, incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, help
mitigate against the increased pressure that service departments and the City's transportation
network will experience Service standards will help guide the departments on increased service
needs as the city grows, and capital planning will help ensure that the right projects are prioritized
In addition, a growing tax base will help facilitate this capital planning process
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Population and employment in Yakima would increase under both alternatives Growth in residents and
workers could result in secondary impacts on the natural and built environment, as well as significant
impacts on the demand for public services Population and the housing units would increase under both
alternatives, with more impacts on services on the west side of the City anticipated under the No Action
Alternative than the Action Alternative However, more intense housing and employment growth in the
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Population, Housing, and Employment
3-12
u
ll
i
11
n
1
1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Downtown area, through infill, under the Action Alternative, would put pressure on service capacity in
certain areas of the City
Under both alternatives, there will be an increased need for infrastructure investment in roads, transit,
utilities, parks, and other public facilities to maintain existing levels of service for both residents and
employers These impacts are present for both alternatives being pursued
Yakima will face added affordability challenges due to increasing demands on the housing stock and an
economy that has not supported new residential or employment development in recent years
With mitigation, the City can anticipate the location and development pattern of structures
accommodating the new housing and employment, as well as infrastructure and capital facilities that will
keep pace with the growth.
3.5 Plans and Policies
Affected Environment
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) contains 13 planning goals (RCW 36 70A.020) that
guide local jurisdictions as they determine their vision for the future, develop plans, write or amend
regulations, and implement programs and budgets that help realize the community's vision. The 13 goals
are summarized below
• Guide growth in urban areas
• Encourage an efficient multi -modal
transportation system
• Promote economic development
• Ensure timely and fair permit procedures
• Retain and enhance open space, protect
habitat, and develop parks and recreation
facilities
• Ensure adequate public facilities and services
• Foster citizen participation
• Reduce sprawl
• Encourage a variety of housing types including
affordable housing
• Recognize property rights
• Protect agricultural, forest and mineral lands
• Protect the environment
• Encourage historic preservation
A fourteenth goal of GMA consists of the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as
set forth in RCW 90 58 020
In addition to consistency with GMA goals, the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan, along with other
jurisdictions' plans in the County are to be guided by the Yakima County -wide Planning Policy (CWPP)
established in accordance with the GMA. The 2003 CWPPs create a framework that provides an overall
direction for development of jurisdictional comprehensive plans CWPP topics include•
■ The designation of urban growth areas,
■ Promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such
development;
■ The siting of public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature,
■ Countywide transportation facilities and strategies;
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-13
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
■ The need for affordable housing for all segments of the population,
■ Joint city and county planning within urban growth areas,
■ County -wide economic development and employment,
■ Analysis of fiscal impact, and
■ Coordination with special purpose districts, adjacent counties and state, tribal and federal
governments
In addition to consistency with state and regional policies, the Comprehensive Plan should be consistent
with the Vision Statement of the Comprehensive Plan as a measure of overall consistency with the land
use plan and policies The current Alternative 1 No Action vision statement reads in part: The vision of
Yakima as a vital, prosperous community with a healthy economy and quality of life for all citizens depends
upon cooperation and common goals
The City's proposed Vision Statement associated with Alternative 2 Action is the primary objective for the
Comprehensive Plan Update and describes a diverse and inclusive community, providing opportunities for
affordable housing and family wage jobs, enhancement of the natural environment and recreation, and
investing in neighborhoods, infrastructure, and transportation The full statement is listed in is
summarized in Section 2 5 of this SEIS
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Growth Management Act
Each GMA goal is listed below together with a discussion of each alternative's consistency Generally, both
alternatives meet GMA goals, with Alternative 2 having greater consistency with GMA goals regarding•
■ Sprawl reduction and housing affordability and variety due to the promotion of infill and mixed use
designation changes,
■ Transportation with a transportation plan update and emphasis on multi -modal improvements,
• Public facilities and services with a capital facility plan update aligning levels of service and revenues
and projects, and
■ Open space and recreation goals with the proposed critical area ordinance amendments and parks
plan update.
Exhibit 3-5 Consistency with Growth Management Act Goals
(1) Urban growth. Encourage development in Both alternatives focus growth in the city limit and provide for
urban areas where adequate public facilities coordinated planning in the UGA No change to UGA boundaries
and services exist or can be provided in an
efficient manner. are proposed.
Both alternatives provide for urban densities. However, Alternative
(2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate 2 provides for a greater focus on infill development and more
conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development efficient land use patterns such as Mixed Residential and a variety
of mixed commercial -residential areas.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-14
[1
u
u
fl
it
�] J
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies
3-15
Alternative 1 would maintain the current Transportation Plan while
(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient
Alternative 2 updates the plan and provides for greater multimodal
multimodal transportation systems that are
capital proposals to promote pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
based on regional priorities and coordinated
modes of travel as well as address road congestion, airport needs,
with county and city comprehensive plans.
and freight routes, to align with YVCOG regional transportation
planning
Both alternatives provide sufficient housing capacity to meet
expected population growth. Alternative 2 provides for greater
(4) Housing. Encourage the availability of
housing variety and opportunities for affordable renter and owner
affordable housing to all economic segments
housing with the Mixed Residential and mixed use designations.
of the population of this state, promote a
Alternative 2 Housing Element updates policies and addresses
variety of residential densities and housing
recent housing trends including smaller household sizes, increases
types, and encourage preservation of existing
in retirement population, opportunities for affordable ownership
housing stock.
housing (e g. townhomes), and rental housing gaps. A greater focus
on infill under Alternative 2 will allow for greater investment in
existing neighborhoods and housing rehabilitation and retention
(5) Economic development. Encourage
economic development throughout the state
that is consistent with adopted comprehensive
plans, promote economic opportunity for all
citizens of this state, especially for
Both alternatives encourage economic development. Alternative 2
unemployed and for disadvantaged persons,
updates the Economic Development Element and is based on a
promote the retention and expansion of
new Economic Development strategy, and will help advance the
existing businesses and recruitment of new
vision for Downtown revitalization, a diverse employment base,
businesses, recognize regional differences
and attracting and family -wage jobs.
impacting economic development
opportunities, and encourage growth in areas
experiencing insufficient economic growth, all
within the capacities of the state's natural
resources, public services, and public facilities.
(6) Property rights Private property shall not
be taken for public use without just
Both alternatives provide for a reasonable use of private property.
compensation having been made. The
City regulations provide for development standards to promote
property rights of landowners shall be
fair and consistent regulation of property, avenues to request
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory
variances and to grandfather existing legal uses remain
actions.
(7) Permits. Applications for both state and
Both alternatives would retain regulatory procedures that evaluate
local government permits should be processed
permits consistently with permit procedures and criteria
in a timely and fair manner to ensure
Alternative 2 includes policies to adjust land use designations to
predictability.
create a more predictable land use pattern
(8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and
Both alternatives would retain current UGA boundaries and would
enhance natural resource-based industries,
not alter designated resource lands of long-term commercial
including productive timber, agricultural, and
significance. While agricultural activities are present in UGA and
fisheries industries. Encourage the
city territory, they were not designated as lands of long-term
conservation of productive forestlands and
commercial significance and are anticipated to convert to urban
productive agricultural lands, and discourage
uses over the planning period 2017-2040
incompatible uses.
(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open
Both alternatives include parks plans. Alternative 2 updates the
space, enhance recreational opportunities,
Parks and Recreation Element and associated functional plan to
conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase
address more recent park needs and the City's equity analysis.
Alternative 2 also provides for critical areas regulations updates
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies
3-15
access to natural resource lands and water,
and develop parks and recreation facilities
(10) Environment. Protect the environment
and enhance the state's high quality of life,
including air and water quality, and the
availability of water.
(11) Citizen participation and coordination.
Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and ensure coordination
between communities and jurisdictions to
reconcile conflicts
(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that
those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to
serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and
use without decreasing current service levels
below locally established minimum standards.
(13) Historic preservation. Identify and
encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures, that have historical or
archaeological significance
Yakima County Countywide Planning Policies
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
that are more current with best available science to conserve
habitat
Alternatives 1 and 2 allow development that would be subject to
federal, state, and local air quality laws and rules as described in
Section 3 2 Alternative 2 promotes a land use pattern focusing on
infill, more efficient densities, and opportunities for multi -modal
travel, which could further advance the protection of air quality
Under both alternatives, the City would implement stormwater
regulations designed to protect water quality Alternative 2 has a
greater focus on infill and a greater potential to improve water
quality with redevelopment as described in Section 3 1
The current plan was developed with public outreach in 2006 and
2012 with annual amendments also subject to public hearings and
deliberation. Alternative 2 Action has been drafted with•
■ A visioning workshop and survey,
■ A public meeting to evaluate a draft vision and land use plan
amendment concepts,
■ Advertisement of opportunities to apply for citizen amendment
requests regarding the land use plan, and Planning Commission
evaluation of them, and
■ A 21 -day SEIS Scoping notice to submit comments on the alternatives
and scope of the document.
See the Plan Foundation and Vision chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan and SEIS Section 2 4
Both alternatives address capital facilities. Alternative 2 provides a
more comprehensive evaluation of public facilities and services
aligning levels of service and revenues and projects through the
capital facility plan update
Under Alternative 1 No Action, the City would continue a historic
preservation commission and preservation ordinance per Chapter
11.62 "Historic Preservation Ordinance for Special Valuation."
Alternative 2 Action would continue the commission and ordinance
but establish a new Historic Preservation Element and Plan to
further identify eligible properties and incentivize historic
preservation
Generally, both alternatives are consistent with CWPPs Both alternatives promote development within
the existing UGA, accommodate growth targets, address essential public facilities, and promote housing
and economic development Alternative 2 would further promote CWPPs by
■ Updating housing inventories and strategies to increase housing affordability and variety, such as by
the promotion of infill and mixed use designation changes,
■ Update economic development strategies based on newer trends and outreach to stakeholders,
■ Updating transportation policies and strategies based on a transportation plan update and emphasis
on multi -modal Improvements,
fl
i
�1
11
L
L�
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-16 1
u
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' Aligning public facilities levels of service and revenues and projects in a capital facility plan update
Updates to point planning or interlocal agreements may be needed with the City and County
Comprehensive Plan Updates
A summary of CWPPs is presented below as stated in the 2003 document. A discussion of each
' alternative's consistency follows each CWPP summary
Urban Growth Areas (UGAs): CWPPs regarding UGAs are concerned with "encouraging growth in UGAs
' and discouraging urban growth outside of these areas Also, development within UGAs should occur in a
logical fashion outward from the edge of developed land in conjunction with service and infrastructure
provision." The policies also indicate sufficient UGA territory should be included to accommodate a
' minimum 20 -year population forecast UGAs are also to contain greenbelts and open space Infill
development including higher density zoning and small lot sizes are to be encouraged.
Discussion. Both alternatives focus growth in the city limits and provide for coordinated planning in
' the UGA No change to UGA boundaries are proposed. Both alternatives can accommodate allocated
growth targets for population and fobs. Alternative 2 would provide for a more efficient land use
pattern with Mixed Residential and a series of mixed use designations. Alternative also promotes infill
' development in already developed areas, more consistent with CWPPs that promote a logical
progression of development from the edge of developed areas outward
I
Contiguous and orderly development and the provision of services within UGAs: The intent of the CWPPs
is to "minimize differences in urban development regulations and standards between the County and the
cities and to facilitate the economical provision of urban services to development."
Discussion: Both alternatives are designed to promote urban densities supported by infrastructure
without changes to UGA boundaries However, Alternative 2 provides for a greater focus on infill
development and updates transportation and infrastructure plans. The City's focus in the plan update
is the city limits while the County is planning for the UGA, both agencies are reviewing each other's'
plans through regular communication and comment periods. Intergovernmental agreements may
need update based on both jurisdictions' plan updates
Siting public facilities of a county -wide or statewide nature: The CWPPs acknowledge that although
essential public capital facilities such as airports, landfills, fails, and similar examples "are necessary for
the common good, they are seldom welcome into a community or neighborhood Recognizing that public
facilities of a statewide or countywide nature are an essential part of our society, policies for their siting
and construction are necessary to ensure a reasonable approval process Each jurisdiction will utilize an
appropriate public process for siting essential public facilities, as outlined in their respective
comprehensive plans, policies or regulations "
Discussion* Both Alternatives include policies addressing essential public facilities. A refreshment of
these policies in the Draft Land Use Element under Alternative 2 Action
Transportation Facilities and Strategies. The CWPPs promote "the development of an integrated multi-
modal transportation system within Yakima County." The CWPPs acknowledge that in developing
transportation elements, specific linkages will be undertaken to integrate the local and regional plans such
as the regional transportation plan developed by the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments.
Discussion Alternative 1 would maintain the current Transportation Plan while Alternative 2 updates
the plan and provides for greater multimodal capital proposals to promote pedestrian, bicycle, and
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-17
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
transit modes of travel as well as address road congestion, airport needs, and freight routes, to align
with YVCOG regional transportation planning.
Affordable Housing: The CWPPs note that "the marketplace will guarantee adequate housing for those in
the upper economic brackets, but that some combination of appropriately zoned land, regulatory
incentives, financial subsidies, and innovative planning techniques will be necessary to make adequate
provisions for the needs of middle and lower income persons " The CWPPs for affordable housing are
intended to "provide a common ground and some universally acceptable parameters to help guide
decision -makers through the complex topic of affordable housing " Policies guide the development of an
inventory and analysis to meet 20 -year growth forecasts, strategies to provide a mix of housing types and
costs, preservation and rehabilitation of existing neighborhoods, compatible housing design, diverse
housing types such as for special needs populations, promotion of first-time homebuyer housing,
affordable housing incentives, and monitoring housing plans
Discussion Both alternatives provide sufficient housing capacity to meet expected population growth
Alternative 2 provides for greater housing variety and opportunities for affordable renter and owner
housing with the Mixed Residential and mixed use designations Alternative 2 Housing Element
updates policies and addresses recent housing trends including smaller household sizes, increases in
retirement population, opportunities for affordable ownership housing (e g townhomes), and
providing more opportunities for rental housing to fill gaps between household incomes and available
units A greater focus on infill under Alternative 2 will allow for greater investment in existing
neighborhoods and housing rehabilitation and retention
Joint Planning: The CWPPs describe that: "Because the UGA defines where the city is financially capable
of providing urban services and may ultimately annex, land use decisions need to respect the desires of
the community Agreement on land use planning within the UGA is as important as designating the
boundary itself " The policies relate to
1
1
I
• Coordinated planning for land use, capital facilities and infrastructure within urban growth areas, I
• The process for comprehensive plan amendments, zone changes and development review and
approval within UGAs; and
■ The establishment of common and consistent development and construction standards
Discussion The City has provided for mutual consultation on proposed comprehensive land use plan
policies for lands within urban growth areas with the County and special districts by inviting staff to
early coordination meetings such as regarding capital facilities and providing notice of public meetings
such as the visioning events and Planning Commission meetings
Alternative 1 No Action provides a 1 1 match in land use and zoning with the County's plan and zoning
within the unified Yakima Urban Area Plan The City's proposed land use plan under Alternative 2
includes a similar growth pattern of residential and commercial uses with similar boundaries as the
County's land use plan However, it consolidates land use categories and would allow for more zones
underneath the designations (see Exhibit 2-6) For example, Mixed Residential allows for both R-2 and
R-3 zones with moderate and higher densities Therefore, some rezones could occur from R-2 to R-3
or vice versa over time
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-18 1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' Exhibit 3-6. Western Yakima UGA Land Use Designations
t'
11ttorl ur Tiefikpr Tieton Dr
• �s 1 a
low Rd ` >
`Wldw Rd v
nM
q 7
n D
a� to m
Source Yakima County GIS, 2017
In
•
i
Yakima County
Zoning
YCC Title 19
Agriculture
a
L
Remote/Extremely
Limited (R/ELDP)
z
G
a
L W Nob Hill Blvd
0
a
N
�
�
m
7
D
Suburban
Residential(SR)
Single Family
Y
Residential (R-1)
Two Family
Residential (R-2)
Multi -Family
Residential (R-3)
Professional
Business (B-1)
Local Business (B-2)
Small Convenience
Center (SCC)
General Commercial
(GC)
Yakama Nation~
Closed Area
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-19
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-7. City of Yakima Proposed Land Use Plan — Western Yakima UGA
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PIAN UPDAI'h
Future Land Use
Cggiorin
■ cenvei Bu.n Core Commeroai
Gommeroal M-d Use
Intlu}nal
LUN Densly ReutltMpl
Musa R—ilentiai
■ C—niu My M-o Use
Regmal Commercial
�akime GounGl District
Yakima City Limits
f Urban Growth Area
N
A
0 0.5 1 t 5 Miles
1-1-1 i i
Source City of Yakima, 2016
Under Alternative 2, given a desire for common and consistent development standards, the County's
land use plan, zoning, and existing City -County interlocal agreements may need update as described
above to reflect the City's desired consolidation of land use categories and policies (and future code
amendments) addressing implementing zoning and design standards
Economic Development: The CWPPs describe that "Countywide economic development policies should
promote a regional economic development program consistent with local community preferences The
rural and urban economies within the county are inextricably connected, and economic development
opportunities should strengthen linkages between population centers and outlying areas." The CWPPs
"policies relate to a general strategy to help ensure future economic vitality, broaden employment
opportunities to meet the needs of projected future growth while maintaining a high-quality
environment "
Discussion Both alternatives encourage economic development Alternative 2 updates the Economic
Development Element and is based on a new Economic Development strategy, and will help advance
the vision for Downtown revitalization, a diverse employment base, and attracting and family -wage
fobs As the center of an agricultural economy many fobs in the City's industrial and manufacturing
areas will still be associated with agricultural processing and other activities
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-20
' YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' Fiscal Impact: CWPPs promote the "provision of cost-effective urban infrastructure " Policies address the
preparation of a capital facilities plan, coordinating with capital facilities providers, consideration of
' impact fees, and annexation transition agreements from county to city
Discussion. Both alternatives address capital facilities Alternative 2 provides a more comprehensive
' evaluation of public facilities and services aligning levels of service and revenues and projects through
the capital facility plan update
Coordination with special purpose districts, adjacent counties and state, tribal and federal
' governments: CWPPs relate to coordination among jurisdictions including the county, cities, special
purpose districts, adjacent counties, state agencies, Yakama Nation and the federal government.
' Discussion. See discussion under Joint Planning
Yakima Comprehensive Plan
Both alternatives address a community vision that guides the preparation of the land use plan and
individual element policies
The current Alternative 1 No Action vision statement reads:
' The vision of Yakima as a vital, prosperous community with a healthy economy and quality
of life for all citizens depends upon cooperation and common goals. This plan identifies
' the strategies and challenges to guide future development in the Yakima Urban Growth
Area This plan identifies current trends, choices and preferred alternatives to achieve our
common vision This vision will serve as a foundation for all subsequent planning efforts
' in the Yakima urban area
Discussion The current vision reflected public engagement and trends through 2006. Prosperity and
quality of life are continuing goals for the community. However, the diversity of the community, and
a more complete vision regarding housing, transportation, parks, and other topics are not as well
represented as the proposed vision below. The Alternative 1 No Action elements and policies, while
still relevant in many cases would not be updated to reflect more current trends and community
needs
The Proposed Vision associated with Alternative 2 Comprehensive Plan Update reads
A Vision for Yakima's Future
The City of Yakima is the "Heart of Central Washington," bounded by the Yakima River
' and the railroad, serving as a center of the Yakima Valley's agricultural prosperity for over
125 years, and growing into a dynamic cultural, recreational, and economic hub of the
region.
' We celebrate our community of diverse cultures and offer opportunities for our public to
participate in community life. We have created an inclusive city where all feel welcomed
and safe We work, live, and play side by side Yakima has created a flourishing and diverse
' economy attracting and retaining businesses with living wage jobs for all our people We
preserve the character of our historic Downtown, residential neighborhoods, and
commercial centers We encourage well-designed Infill and new development, quality
public services, and Infrastructure investments Our residents have access to a high-quality
education, affordable housing, and healthy living. We enhance our natural and recreation
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies
3-21
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
spaces. We connect our people and neighborhoods offering safe and reliable mobility
options Including walking, biking, transit, and cars
Discussion Alternative 2 Action updates and elaborates upon the community vision reflecting the
changing community needs for housing, employment, and services in a manner promoting infill
development and reflecting the community's diversity and neighborhood character
Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
■ Both alternatives address GMA and CWPP goals. Alternative 2 updates the Comprehensive Plan for
greater support of goals on efficient development patterns, and updated levels of service and
transportation and capital plans
Applicable Regulations and Commitments
■ The Countywide Planning Policies, 2003, guide each jurisdiction's plans and ensure general
consistency between City and County Plans
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
■ While still consistent in overall pattern and boundaries, the County's land use plan and existing City -
County interlocal agreements may need update under Alternative 2 to reflect the City's desired
consolidation of land use categories and policies. Likewise, there would need to be an alignment
between the County's and City's implementing zoning and design standards
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified There is consistency with GMA goals,
Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) and the City's vision statement Alternative 2 would further
support these documents given a greater attention to efficient land use patterns and infill development
as well as updated transportation and capital facility plans. Both City and County land use plans are
consistent in pattern and location, but there will need to be amendments of interlocal agreements and
potentially plans and regulations to remain consistent with CWPPs that call forjoint planning and common
standards
3.6 Cultural Resources
Affected Environment
Yakima began as a Euro -American agricultural community on lands historically used by Native Americans
The Yakama Nation is most closely associated with this city, both because of the shared name and the
adjacent tribal reservation (created in 1855). The Yakamas and other regional tribes have a long history
of making seasonal camps, fishing, gathering and hunting in the area Evidence of Native American
presence prior to Euro -American arrival is generally restricted to archaeological sites.
Exhibit presents the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive
model regarding cultural resources Areas along the Yakima and Naches rivers and other waterbodies are
particular areas of sensitivity regarding the potential presence of archaeological resources
DRAFT MARCH 2017 (Cultural Resources 3-22
1
L
11
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-8. Predictive Model of Cultural Resources Presence
3
M ,
t
February 11, 2017 197,653
0 076 16 3m
. Survey contingent Upon Project Parameters Low Risk L] Survey Highty Advised High Risk i t 1 , .. . i
0 126 2.6 3 km
■ Survey contingent Upon Project Parameters Moderately Low Risk I] Survey Highty Advised very High Risk era ne6e, a.•., kukap. b__ r cep. ooco.
Survey Recommended Moderate RYsk woc.rro.«re..rxr.. o•ow.. c..laas.+a.ouwn e.w�.
Source Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2017
Resources related to Native American history after the 1850s may also include a wide variety of
residential, industrial and agricultural resources, since Yakima's farms, factories and canneries reportedly
employed Indian workers. In addition to Native American heritage, the presence and contributions of
other ethnic groups may be observed in the community, including but not limited to Spanish Basques,
Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and Latino.
Besides farming and agriculture -related industries, the city has been most significantly shaped by the
introduction of railroads, irrigation, significant roads, and mostly single-family residential neighborhoods.
Most of the city's development happened between the late 1880s and 1930, although the post -World
War II decades brought changes and modernization.
Yakima is one of the oldest communities in Washington Its downtown and surrounding neighborhoods
contain dozens of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), the Yakima Valley
Museum is one of the premier history museums in the state.
There are 12 properties listed in the Yakima, and National registers of Historic Places There is one
property listed in the Yakima and National registers of Historic Places and the Washington Heritage
Register, including a historic district There are three properties listed to the Washington Heritage Barn
Register. There are four properties listed only to the Yakima Register of Historic Places, including a historic
district See Exhibit 3-9
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Cultural Resources 3-23
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-9. Properties Listed in Registers
Legend
Listed historic properties (tr listed) ♦ —tage b rns(3) 7noe1 Wo rmnes
YRHPand NaeanNMR anda1 haReg :1 nonei Regster2) (te, BaryeNRMP Ct1e5Mtd Neipft �ornaod arcto1K datn G City I-mts
NMR 2Imsted sites R)
NMR only (5) II- Old N. M YO— H.Wrc Drslnd
Removed from Llwt g (t) -+— Ranroad survey P - M.,
courtesy of
ESRI
f-flD
W '
Source Artifacts Consulting Inc 2016
One of the responsibilities for a certified local government Is to survey historic properties within the
community Properties change over time, necessitating periodic updates to previously inventoried
properties. Additionally, every year, more properties become 50 years old, the standard minimum age for
properties to reach to be considered historic, as established by the National Park Service Potentially
eligible properties based on a predictive model are shown In Exhibit 3-10.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Cultural Resources 3-24
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-10. Potentially Eligible Properties
%•• � {�,,�j �.! `•({._l. ��fr�N�.I y� } rt�• - •• }}� r 1 1.r� RA,
t'�.
�•• :�, � .may _ •' � :� • :�,
1 � � �-' ��,.' _!� i �-• is p: +: �1.�..r_.ir•
Legend Base map
Tribal boundarn• Modeled values showing ellgibllty potential courtesy of
ESRI
Gty 1_9s to
Eligibility findings from previous surveys is
♦ NRHP md.vtdually eligible (52 propel—t 1c
NRHP ebq.ble. ndrvd"l and p.1-tia1 d.IW—1,bulo (20 PtoPed—) - 11)
A F
NRHP p(Aenlral dntrcl C Inbulo• (213 piopenL ) 2A
2B
Legend
e 1A potentially individually eligible to the National Register of Historic Places
e 18 potentially contributing to a National Register of Historic Places eligible historic district
e 1C potentially eligible for local designation, but not to the National Register
e 1D- potentially contributing to a local historic district
e 2A not eligible, with conditions
e 213 not eligible
Source Artifacts Consulting Inc. 2016
As highlighted on the map, there are 11 properties determined eligible by the Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation (DAHP) for listing to the NRHP, but are not currently listed In any historic
register.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Cultural Resources 3-25
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' I
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Under both alternatives, potentially eligible properties for historic register listing identified in Exhibit 3-10
could be altered or redeveloped and no longer be eligible
Archaeological resources may be disturbed due to development activities, particularly in areas of high and
very high risk identified in Exhibit 3-8, though the risk reduced with City regulations regarding
identification, avoidance, and mitigation (YMC 17.05.010).
Alternative 1: No Action
Impacts would be consistent with Impacts Common to All Alternatives Under Alternative 1 No Action,
current historic preservation policies and ordinances would be retained to reduce potential impacts to
historic sites (Chapter 1162 YMC) and archaeological resources (YMC 17.05 010) These include the local
historic register and associated tax incentives as well as requirements for surveys in areas of high and very
high risk of archaeological resources as noted on Exhibit 3-8. Stop work orders, evaluations, and mitigation
are possible actions should potential archaeological resources be uncovered
Alternative 2: Action
Impacts would be consistent with Impacts Common to All Alternatives and Alternative 1 No Action
Alternative 2 Action promotes additional infill development and there could be more pressure for
redevelopment in areas of historic character However, Alternative 2 Action also proposes the City's first
Historic Preservation Element and Plan with additional policies and strategies to promote the protection
of historic and cultural resources
Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
■ Alternative 2 includes a Historic Preservation Element and Plan.
Applicable Regulations
The following City codes protect historic and archaeological resource
■ Chapter 1162 YMC, Historic Preservation Ordinance for Special Valuation
■ YMC 17 05 010 Archaeological and Historic Resources Requires evaluation in high and very high risk
areas for archaeological resource Stop work is required if resources are found, followed by
evaluation, consultation, and mitigation as appropriate
In addition, under SEPA, non-exempt development is subject to review and evaluation regarding cultural
resources, and mitigation measures may be imposed
Future Projects will adhere to and comply with all State and federal laws including those summarized
below.
■ Washington State has a number of laws that oversee the protection and proper excavation of
archaeological sites (RCW 27 53, WAC 25-48), human remains (RCW 27 44), and historic cemeteries
or graves (RCW 68 60) Under RCW 27 53, DAHP regulates the treatment of archaeological sites on
both public and private lands and has the authority to require specific treatment of archaeological
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Cultural Resources 3-26
LSI
11
' YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' resources All precontact resources or sites are protected, regardless of their significance or
eligibility for local, state, or national registers. Historic archaeological resources or sites are
protected unless DAHP has made a determination of "not -eligible" for listing on the WHR and the
NRHP.
■ The Governor's Executive Order 05-05 requires state agencies to integrate DAHP, the Governor's
Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned tribes into their capital project planning process This
executive order affects any capital construction projects and any land acquisitions for purposes of
' capital construction not undergoing Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966.
' Other Potential Mitigation Measures
■ No additional mitigation is proposed
t Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
If cultural resources are found in the future impacts to historic and cultural preservation can be adequately
mitigated by complying with federal, state, and local laws and mitigation measures
' 3.7 Transportation
' Affected Environment
This section describes the existing system and traffic conditions in the study area, including traffic
' volumes, intersection level of service, public transportation services, and non -motorized transportation
facilities A complete existing conditions analysis is found in Chapter 2 of the City of Yakima 2040
Transportation Plan.
' Study Area Intersections
The study area intersections encompass locations on arterial roadways throughout the study area The
' study area and study intersections of the transportation analysis were established based on input from
city staff as well as review of travel patterns within the city The study area intersections are found in
Exhibit 3-12in the following Traffic Operations section.
Roadway System
The study area is served by a network of roadways consisting of highways, principal arterial roadways,
minor arterial roadways, collector streets, and local streets. Additional discussion on the roadway system
serving the study area can be found in Chapter 2 of the City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan
Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts were collected on City roadways in 2015 at mid -block locations to determine average daily
t traffic (ADT) volumes to represent existing traffic conditions. In addition to ADT volumes, PM peak hour
turning movement volumes were also collected at study intersections for use in a level of service analysis.
PM peak hour volumes typically represent the worst travel conditions experienced during the day
Chapter 2 of the 2040 Transportation Plan provides additional detail regarding traffic counts used in
analysis.
1-i
DRAFT MARCH 2017 ITransportation 3-27
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Traffic Operations
Level of service (LOS) was used to rate traffic operations in the study area LOS is measured on a scale
ranging from A to F, In which A represents freely flowing traffic and F represents severe congestion LOS
ratings are based on the amount of delay a vehicle experiences at the intersection being studied. At
signalized intersections, LOS is calculated based on the delay of all vehicles entering the intersection At
unsignalized intersections, the LOS is calculated based on the worst stop -controlled approach
The City of Yakima has adopted LOS D as the standard for all city intersections within the city and UGA,
and LOS D on WSDOT facilities. Exhibit 3-11 summarizes the intersection LOS delay thresholds for
signalized and unsignallzed Intersections
Fyh1hit 3-11. 1 t1. rI ^f cervirP Crrteria
Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Level of Service
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
0-10 0-10
>10-20 >10-15
C >20 - 35 >15 - 25
D >35 - 55 >25 - 35
E >55 - 80 >35 - 50
F >80 >50
Note The LOS criteria is based on control delay, which includes initial deceleration
delay, final deceleration delay, stopped delay, and queue move -up time
Source Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (2010)
As shown in Exhibit 3-12, three locations exceed the LOS D standard in existing conditions — S 64th Ave &
Tieton Dr (LOS F), N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr (LOS E), and S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd (LOS E) All of the
Intersections are signalized with the exception of S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr which Is two-way stop controlled
Exhibit 3-12 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
2016 Existing Conditions PM Peak Houx
Delay (seconds)
31
27
25
30
58
17
26
22
22
37
34
DRAFT MARCH 2017 ITransportation 3-28
11
Ll
raffic of
LOS
1
N 72nd Ave & Summitview Ave
Signal
C
2
S 72nd Ave & Tieton Dr
Signal
C
3
S 72nd Ave & W Nob HIII Blvd
Signal
C
4
S 72nd Ave & W Washington Ave
TWSC
D
5
S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr
TWSC
F
6
W Washington Ave & S 64th Ave
Signal
B
7
N 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
C
8
N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave
Signal
C
9
N 40th AVE & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
C
10
N 40th Ave & W Summitview Ave
Signal
D
11
S 40th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
C
Delay (seconds)
31
27
25
30
58
17
26
22
22
37
34
DRAFT MARCH 2017 ITransportation 3-28
11
Ll
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
P, ng Conditions PM Peak Hour
rol LOS
12
S 40th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
54
13
W Washington Ave & S 40th Ave
Signal
B
14
14
S 24th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
C
35
15
N 16th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
C
26
16
N 16th Ave & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
D
39
17
N 16th Ave & Summitview Ave
Signal
C
26
18
N 16th Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
B
18
19
N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
E
63
20
N 16th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
39
21
N 16th Ave & W Washington Blvd
Signal
C
27
22
S 3rd Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
A
10
23
S 3rd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
C
34
24
N 1st St & W I St
Signal
B
18
25
N 1st St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
C
21
26
E Nob Hill Blvd & S 1st St
Signal
D
37
27
W Washington Ave & S 1st ST
Signal
C
26
28
N 3rd St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
A
9
29
S Fair Ave & E Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
39
30
S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
58
Note. The average delay for all vehicles is reported for signalized intersections The delay of the worst
stop -controlled approach is reported for signalized intersections. Cells LOS and Delay in bold
exceed the City's LOS D standard
Source Transpo Group, 2016
Transit
Yakima Transit serves the cities of Yakima and Selah with fixed route, paratransit, and vanpool services.
In addition to these core services, Yakima Transit also provides the Yakima -Ellensburg Commuter service
during morning and evening commute periods Yakima Transit provides connections to rail, air, and other
fixed -route services. Information in this section is coordinated and consistent with the Transit
Development Plan (Yakima Transit, 2014)
■ Non -Motorized Facilities
The most complete system of sidewalks is located within the central business district and downtown area.
' Sidewalks are generally provided on both sides of the street in these areas, but may not have standard
curb ramps or other ADA facilities Many of the older residential neighborhoods east of 16th Avenue also
' have sidewalks, along with the east -west arterial and collector roadways extending to the western
sections of the City.
Yakima has several important shared -use trails that provide critical connections and enhance pedestrian
' travel These off-street facilities include pathways and unpaved trails that are used by all types of non -
motorized users. The Powerhouse Canal Pathway, Yakima Greenway, and several unnamed neighborhood
connector paths support pedestrian travel in Yakima
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-29
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Bicycling is an important and growing mode of travel for people in cities across the country Existing bicycle
facilities are found in the Draft Bicycle Master Plan (City of Yakima, 2015) The City of Yakima has three
types of bicycle treatments shared lanes, bicycle lanes, and shared -use trails.
■ While not formal bicycle facilities, roadways with shared lane markings, or sharrows, are important
components of the non -motorized network Shared lane markings are an important tool that can
assist bicyclists and motorists by indicating appropriate bicycle positioning on a roadway, increasing
safety and visibility.
■ Yakima has approximately 5 miles of bike lanes currently installed Bicycle lanes are present in the
central business district on W Lincoln Avenue, W MLK Jr. Boulevard, S 3rd Street, and S 6th Street
There are also a few segments of bike lanes on the east end of town on Tieton Drive, W Nob Hill
Boulevard, and W Washington Avenue
■ The shared -use trails that are part of the pedestrian network are important for bicycle travel Paved
trails are preferred by many cyclists who also travel on streets, but finely crushed gravel surfaces
may be suitable alternatives
Impacts
This section describes the transportation systems and conditions that are expected to exist in the long
term (2040) within the study area for the City of Yakima forecast land use Alternatives 1 and 2. The action
Alternative 2, is compared to the No Action alternative (Alternative 1) to identify project and policy related
impacts on transportation and potential mitigation measures
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Construction
Under all alternatives, construction for new development would result in temporary impacts on roadways
Construction activities could affect local vehicle access. These impacts would include increased
congestion, traffic diversions caused by temporary road closures and detours, increased truck traffic
associated with construction activity, and temporary changes in roadside characteristics that could affect
safety Impacts could also result from the intrusion of non -local traffic into residential areas because of
temporary street closures and traffic detours, as well as disruptions to vehicular and pedestrian access
As part of normal construction planning and permitting, project developers, the City of Yakima,
WSDOT, Yakima County, and Yakima Transit would work to minimize the duration and impact of lane
closures and reductions by (a) maintaining through traffic, where practical, except for short -duration
closures that would generally occur on nights and weekends, (b) establishing detour routes on
nearby arterials for short -duration closures; and (c) maintaining traffic management systems A
Traffic Control Plan that addresses all travel modes would be prepared at final design of new
developments for approval and implementation during construction Operation
As a conservative assumption, analysts assumed the same roadway network in 2040 as existing
conditions However, analysts assumed that signal timing would be updated at signalized intersections to
best serve future conditions This process involved optimizing signal timing independently at signalized
locations Intersection traffic control is consistent with those found in existing conditions.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Transportation 3-30
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Alternative 1: No Action
Construction
Construction activity impacts in Alternative 1 are consistent with the impacts common to all alternatives.
Higher density development in the downtown core is not assumed in this scenario.
Operation
Roadway System
The roadway configuration and intersection channelization in the study area for the No Action Alternative
is unchanged.
Traffic Volumes and Operations
The project team obtained year 2040 vehicle volumes for the study intersections under Alternative 1 (No
Action) conditions from the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments' Travel Demand Model. This model
used 2040 household and employment estimates to generate vehicle trips and assigned those trips to
roadways within the region and the City of Yakima and its UGA.
Traffic volumes for the study area intersections are generally expected to increase between 2016 and
2040 due to regional population and employment growth (see Exhibit 3-13) Seventeen intersections are
expected to operate at and E or F level of service by 2040 under Alternative 1. All other intersections in
the study area would operate at LOS D or better
Exhibit 3-13. Alternative 1 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
1
N 72nd Ave & Summitview Ave
Signal
2
S 72nd Ave & Tieton Dr
Signal
3
S 72nd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
4
S 72nd Ave & W Washington Ave
TWSC
5
S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr
TWSC
6
W Washington Ave & S 64th Ave
Signal
7
N 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
8
N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave
Signal
9
N 40th AVE & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
10
N 40th Ave & W Summitview Ave
Signal
11
S 40th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
12
S 40th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
13
W Washington Ave & S 40th Ave
Signal
14
S 24th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
15
N 16th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
16
N 16th Ave & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
17
N 16th Ave & Summitview Ave
Signal
18
N 16th Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
19
N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
20
N 16th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
DRAFT MARCH 2017 ITransportation 3-31
19
2016 Existing Conditions
PM Peak
LOS
Delay (seconds)
D
50
E
61
52
F
130
16
28
E
59
E
56
D
44
E
61
E
65
F
94
E
61
D
44
D
52
F
84
D
39
C
23
F
120
E
65
DRAFT MARCH 2017 ITransportation 3-31
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
2016 Existing Conditions PM Peak Houp
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Transportation 3-32
Traffic Control
LOS
s)
21
N 16th Ave & W Washington Blvd
Signal
F
97
22
S 3rd Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
11
23
S 3rd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
6S
24
N 1st St & W I St
Signal
E
59
25
N 1st St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
C
27
26
E Nob Hill Blvd & S 1st St
Signal
E
62
27
W Washington Ave & S 1st ST
Signal
D
46
28
N 3rd St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
B
13
29
S Fair Ave & E Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
F
86
30
S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E --
65
.__------------
Note The average delay for all vehicles is reported for signalized
-
intersections The delay of the worst
---
stop -controlled approach is reported for signalized
intersections Cells LOS and Delay in bold
exceed the City's LOS D standard
Source
Transpo Group, 2016
Exhibit 3-14 shows the LOS for intersections studied,
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Transportation 3-32
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-14. Alternative 1 (No Action) LOS Map
Legend
Signal
O LOS A- C
j
LOS D
'�
Q LOS E F
1 �'
12-
Two -Way Stop
_ LOS D
Li
t —' i�
O LOS F
i \�`=``j�!
Q
City Unnts
'�•`_� f ?.r
+
82
UGA Boundary
Park / Open Space
j
O_-
r]--
J ��
O
i
`'I
------------
1 1
2040 No Action Level of Service
Uty o1 Yakima 2010 Transportation Plan —
m
i
DRAFT FIGURE
transpo 'tr
Transit
Public transportation services under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the existing conditions.
With increased population and employment growth, demand for public transit would likely increase,
which could result in the need for service expansion in the study area All of the study intersections are
located on a coordidor served by public transit
Non -Motorized Facilities
Under Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), non -motorized facilities would remain the same as under
2016 existing conditions Other non -motorized facilities may be constructed between 2016 and 2040 as
proposed in the City of Yakima's Transportation Master Plan.
Alternative 2: Action
Construction
Construction activity impacts in Alternative 2 are consistent with the impacts common to all alternatives
Construction impacts may be intensified or prolonged in the vicinity of the downtown core where
concentrations of new development are planned However, with implementation of measures described
under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, there would be no significant construction impacts under
Alternative 2
DRAFT MARCH 2017 (Transportation 3-33
82
i
DRAFT FIGURE
transpo 'tr
Transit
Public transportation services under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the existing conditions.
With increased population and employment growth, demand for public transit would likely increase,
which could result in the need for service expansion in the study area All of the study intersections are
located on a coordidor served by public transit
Non -Motorized Facilities
Under Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), non -motorized facilities would remain the same as under
2016 existing conditions Other non -motorized facilities may be constructed between 2016 and 2040 as
proposed in the City of Yakima's Transportation Master Plan.
Alternative 2: Action
Construction
Construction activity impacts in Alternative 2 are consistent with the impacts common to all alternatives
Construction impacts may be intensified or prolonged in the vicinity of the downtown core where
concentrations of new development are planned However, with implementation of measures described
under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, there would be no significant construction impacts under
Alternative 2
DRAFT MARCH 2017 (Transportation 3-33
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Operation
Roadway System
The roadway configuration and the study are intersections for Alternative 2 would be consistent with the
Alternative 1 The roadway system improvements assumed for 2040 were discussed in the previous
section
Traffic Volumes and Operations
To analyze conditions under Alternative 2, the population, households, and fobs assumed for Alternative
2 were used in the travel demand model to generate vehicle trips entering study locations Traffic volumes
at study intersections for Alternative 2 had generally minor differences compared to Alternative 1
Traffic impacts were determined by using the same methodology used in Alternative 1 analysis Signal
timing and entering volumes were updated at study intersections to determine level of service Analysis
finds that 16 intersections fall below the City's LOS D standard (see Exhibit 3-15) Each of these locations
are consistent with results found in Alternative 1, with the exception of the N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave
changing from LOS E to LOS D in Alternative 2. The change in level of service can be attributed to a
decrease in northbound and southbound vehicles entering the intersection, decreasing overall
intersection delay. Other than the intersection at N 40' Ave & Englewood Ave, the map in Exhibit 3-14
also applies for Alternative 2
Exhibit 3-15. Alternative 2 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
1
N 72nd Ave & Summitview Ave
Signal
D
50
2
S 72nd Ave & Tieton Dr
Signal
E
61
3
S 72nd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
52
4
S 72nd Ave & W Washington Ave
TWSC
F
104
5
S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr
TWSC
C
16
6
W Washington Ave & S 64th Ave
Signal
C
28
7
N 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
E
63
8
N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave
Signal
D
47
9
N 40th AVE & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
D
44
10
N 40th Ave & W Summitview Ave
Signal
E
65
11
S 40th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
E
67
12
S 40th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
F
92
13
W Washington Ave & S 40th Ave
Signal
E
59
14
S 24th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
44
15
N 16th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
D
54
16
N 16th Ave & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
F
84
17
N 16th Ave & Summitview Ave
Signal
D
41
18
N 16th Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
C
23
19
N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
F
123
20
N 16th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
63
21
N 16th Ave & W Washington Blvd
Signal
F
96
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Transportation 3-34
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
22
S 3rd Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
B
it
23
S 3rd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
64
24
N 1st St & W I St
Signal
E
59
25
N 1st St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
C
28
26
E Nob Hill Blvd & S 1st St
Signal
E
62
27
W Washington Ave & S 1st ST
Signal
D
46
28
N 3rd St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
B
14
29
S Fair Ave & E Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
76
30
S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
63
Note The average delay for all vehicles is reported for signalized intersections The delay of the worst
stop -controlled approach is reported for signalized intersections. Cells LOS and Delay in bold
exceed the City's LOS D standard
Source Transpo Group, 2016
Mitigation Measures
' Incorporated Plan Features
■ Alternative 2 will implement proposed policies in the Transportation Element in the City of Yakima
Comprehensive Plan update The Transportation Element sets forth policies that address circulation
and design and support the reduction of vehicle trips through the creation of pedestrian -friendly
environments and increasing opportunities for transit and ride sharing
■ Alternative 2 (Action) encourages a dense, mixed-use neighborhood core that encourages walking,
' biking, and transit.
' Applicable Plans and Regulations
■ Title 9 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) addresses traffic control including adoption of the
Washington State Model Traffic Ordinance and a street designation system.
' Title 8 of the YMC includes rules and regulations for street and sidewalk construction and right-of-
way use
■ The Yakima City Council is currently discussing the potential adoption of a Transportation Benefit
District.
■ Plans for the Mill Site include potential improved access from 1-82 to the Mill Site
' Other Potential Mitigation Measures
' This section describes the potential traffic mitigation measures for transportation mobility impacts caused
by the Yakima Comprehensive Plan Project action Alternatives 2 For assessing potential traffic mitigation
measures, impacts were determined by comparing intersection LOS for the 2040 Alternative 1(No Action)
and Alternative 2 (Action) during the PM peak hour. The following criteria were used to identify traffic
impacts caused by the implementation of the action alternatives:
IDRAFT MARCH 2017 ITransportation 3-35
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
■ Increase in traffic demand that results in unacceptable intersection operations according to the City
of Yakima (LOS E or F) at an intersection that operates acceptably (LOS D or better) under
Alternative 1 (No Action) in 2040.
■ Increase in traffic demand at an intersection that increases delay by more than 10 seconds at an
intersection that operates unacceptably (LOS E or F) under Alternative 1 (No Action) in 2040.
With planned improvements in the Transportation Systems Plan Update all study intersections satisfy the
criteria listed above to meet operations standards.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Vehicle traffic growth over 20 years will cause unavoidable increases in traffic and congestion,
characteristic of an urban area Under all of the alternatives adverse impacts can be mitigated to ensure
that adopted City of Yakima LOS standards are met. Significant unavoidable adverse transportation and
traffic impacts are not anticipated with Alternatives 1 or 2, if identified mitigation measures are
implemented.
3.8 Public Services
Affected Environment
Parks and Rerreation
Yakima has around 40182 acres of parks and recreation facilities, in addition to some public buildings,
such as the Harman Center and the Henry Beauchamp, Jr Community Center. Also available to the public
are the Yakima Greenway, with about 10 miles of trails, the Sportsman State Park, and the Yakima Area
Arboretum The City of Yakima Parks & Recreation Division also offers activities for adults, youth, and
seniors through sports programs, the senior center, summer day camps and other special events.
Only the Neighborhood and Community Parks are assigned levels of service standards Based on a 2 -acre
per 1,000 population standard for Neighborhood/Mini Parks, the City of Yakima has a current deficit of
park lands of 127.4 acres Based on a 5 -acre per 1,000 population standard for Community Parks, the City
has a current deficit of 217 8 acres
The City of Yakima is primarily served by the Yakima School District and the West Valley School District. In
May of 2015, Yakima School District had 15,768 students and 881 teachers East Valley School District had
3,107 students and 179 teachers (OSPI, 2015).
The current student -teacher ratio is 18.3 in the Yakima School District, and serves as a level of service
standard The level of service for the West Valley School District is based on maintaining a similar facility
ratio per student, presently 167 square feet per student served.
The Yakima Police Department (YPD) has 185 employees, about 80% of which are commissioned officers
and 20% of which are civilian personnel (YPD, 2016). The department has four divisions: Criminal
Investigation, Uniformed, Special Ops, and Administrative Services The City is divided into 9 patrol
districts with each squad having an assigned officer to patrol the district
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-36
1
1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The current LOS policy for YPD Is 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents Using the LOS of 18 officers per 1,000
residents, the department currently has a deficit of 20 officers
Fire & Emergency Services
The Yakima Fire Department (YFD) had 104 full time equivalent (FTE) positions and about 115 personnel,
Including 1 Fire Chief, 2 Deputy Chiefs, 2 Admin Staff, 8 Day Positions, 90 firefighters, and 12 reserve
positions (2016) In 2015, there were a total of 8,987 Incidents, of which 66% were categorized Rescue
and Emergency Medical Service. Only 5.03% of the calls (452 calls) were for responses to Incidents
categorized as Fires YFD also contracts with Union Gap and Yakima County to provide fire service in the
City of Union Gap and Fire Protection District 11. Normal staffing conditions call for 6 stations with 7
response units.
Fire facilities have capital needs based on facility location and staffing. These two factors feed Into a unit's
response time, which is how LOS is generally measured The current adopted level of service for response
time Is 8 minutes In 2016, the department was able to meet this level of service 69% of the time, with an
average response time of dust over 8 minutes. However, the 2016 Annual Report indicated that there has
been an Increase in number of calls and type of responses, which has changed the scope of service needed
by YFD (YFD, 2016)
Impacts
General Impacts
Under both alternatives, growth will occur in the 20 -year planning period, and increase the demand for
public services including parks and recreation, schools, law enforcement, and fire and emergency services
Parks & Recreation Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Future growth will put further demand onto the parks system, which currently does not meet the standard
for most LOS metrics Many established parks have aging infrastructure that are In need of repair or
replacement.
Exhibit 3-16 Demand for Parks based on Growth 2015-2040
Parks No Action Action
Population Growth 2015-2040 18,700 23,211
' Neighborhood/Mini Parks 3740 4642
Community Parks 9350 11605
1 Source BERK, 2017
Alternative 1 No Action
' Alternative 1 No Action would require an additional 37 4 acres of Neighborhood/Mini Parks and 93.5 acres
of Community Parks, exacerbating the current deficit In both park types in 2016.
' The No Action Alternative will continue the predominant westward trend of expansion This means the
majority of the new population will be in west Yakima. The need for new parks in the west will be in
1
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-37
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
greater conflict with the need to redevelop existing parks and/or create new parks in central and east
Yakima
Alternative 2: Action
Alternative 2 Action would have a greater demand for parks than Alternative 1 with an additional 46 42
Neighborhood Parks and 116.05 acres of Community Parks, and would increase the current deficit
identified in 2016
The Action Alternative promotes greater infill densities in central and east Yakima, while lessening
somewhat the western expansion More infill projects will further highlight the need to rehabilitate
existing parks and explore opportunities for new park land in central and east Yakima. Westward
expansion will require new parks as well, but greater infill densities will help promote park equity
throughout the city
Sc;;:,k;;,
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Future population growth with result in added student generation. The share of population projected is
illustrated in the table below Generally, the Action Alternative assumes higher population growth than
No Action, but would distribute the population more equally between the two districts, whereas the
proportion of students expected in West Valley is higher than the Yakima School District under the No
Action Alternative See Exhibit 3-17
Exhibit 3-17. Net Population Growth Distribution by School District
Yakima School District
7,502
40%
11,378
49%
West Valley School District
11,376
60%
12,010
51%
Both the Yakima School District and the West Valley School District will have additional needs for facilities
and staffing as the City's residential population grows under both alternatives and there are more
students Exhibit 3-18 shows the base year students, No Action 2040 students projected, and Action
2040 students for the Yakima School District and the West Valley School District. District population is
greater in the Action Alternative than the No Action Alternative for both Districts
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-38
' YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' Exhibit 3-18. School District Estimated Student Growth, 2015 — 2040
' 14,977
16,126 16,849
' 7,414 7,551
5,034
■
' Yakima School District Students West Valley School District Students
■ 2016 ■ 2040 No Action' , 2040 Action*
' *School district student counts for 2040 are based on 2014 ACS household size estimates and 2016 student per household
ratios, using OSPI student counts.
Source. City of Yakima, 2016, CISPI, 2016, BERK, 2017
Alternative 1: No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, Yakima School District could expect around 16,126 students to enroll,
' which is an increase of around 1,150 students from 2016 (see Exhibit 3-18). The West Valley School District
could expect around 7,414 students, which is an increase of around 2,380 from 2016 (see Exhibit 3-18)
' Alternative 2. Action
Under the Action Alternative, Yakima School District could expect around 16,849 students to enroll, which
' is an increase of around 1,870 students from 2016 (see Exhibit 3-18). The West Valley School District could
expect around 7,551 students, which is an increase of over 2,500 from 2016 (see Exhibit 3-18)
Police
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Future growth will in turn increase the need for an adequate police force to meet the public safety needs
of Yakima's residents. The availability of adequate police resources in all zones will be a primary goal
Exhibit 3-19. Demand for Officers based on growth, 2015 - 2040
Population Growth 2015 - 2040 18,700 23,211
Officers to meet LOS standard of 1.8 Officers per 1,000 201 210
Officers to meet existing LOS of 1.6 Officers per 1,000 179 186
Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-39
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Alternative 1: No Action
The No Action Alternative will likely see the most increase in new residents in western Yakima and would
likely see little change to the current patrol districts. There would need to be at least 201 officers to meet
LOS standards, or 179 officers to maintain existing levels of service (see Exhibit 3-19) Although Alternative
1 would require less officers than the Action Alternative, which anticipates higher growth, the lower
density development pattern may put unique pressure on patrol service
Alternative 2: Action
The Action Alternative will promote higher infill densities which could require redistribution of the current
patrol districts to meet the needs of greater densities in central and eastern Yakima There would need to
be at least 210 officers to meet LOS standards, or 186 officers to maintain existing levels of service (see
Exhibit 3-19).
F:: e R, F- ri, , , . I- Pr% �F5
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Future growth in population and development density will increase the need for adequate fire
department personnel to meet the public safety needs of Yakima's residents In addition, there may be
added facility needs to ensure that fire personnel and apparatus are able to reach all areas of the city at
an appropriate turnout time Exhibit 3-20 shows the potential facility needs for fire service in 2040 for
both alternatives. Around 3,000 more square feet of space would be needed for the Action Alternative,
not taking into account locational needs because of population distribution differences The current
facility inventory includes over 67,000 square feet of space.
Exhibit 3-20. Demand for Fire Facilities, 2015 — 2040
Fire No Action Action
Population Growth 2015 - 2040 18,700 23,211
Facility Needs (SgFt)*
80,583 83,830
* Assumes 720 square feet per 1,000 served, based on the current facility level of
service for fire,
Source City of Yakima, 2016, Yakima Fire Department, 2016, BERK, 2017
Accessibility issues are important as population and employment growth impacts fire service as the
current level of service policies are related to the ability to meet turnout time goals. Added traffic
congestion on the road network would also put pressure on the Department's ability to achieve turnout
time goals
Alternative 1. No Action
The No Action Alternative will likely see the most increase in new residents in western Yakima and would
likely see little change to the current distribution of fire resources Fire service provision in the lower
density west would be less efficient, and may require siting new facilities as more residents come move
into the west
Around 13,360 additional square feet of facility space would be needed under the No Action Alternative
(see Exhibit 3-20) It is possible that additional facilities would need to be sited to meet turnout time goals
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-40
11
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
given the distribution of population, combined with added congestion on the road network (which would
slow down travel time from the fire facility to the response site) See Section 3 7 (Transportation) for
additional analysis on traffic impacts by alternative
Alternative 2: Action
The Action Alternative will promote higher infill densities which could require redistribution of the current
fire resources to meet the needs of greater densities in central and eastern Yakima Furthermore, the
potential for new development in areas of the downtown (taller buildings) could require additional aerial
ladder trucks. Higher density development also allows for more efficiency in locating stations than in lower
density areas, which could help increase levels of service for some areas of the City
Around 16,600 additional square feet of facility space would be needed under the Action Alternative (see
Exhibit 3-20). It is possible that additional facilities would need to be sited to meet turnout time goals
given the distribution of population, combined with added congestion on the road network (which would
slow down travel time from the fire facility to the response site)
See Section 3 7 (Transportation) for additional analysis on traffic impacts by alternative
Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
The Parks and Recreation Element and Capital Facilities Element and Plan discuss levels of service for
Parks, Police, Fire and Schools Short and long range project lists are also included, with probable funding
sources and timelines
Applicable Regulations
■ YMC Title 13 — Parks and Playgrounds
■ YMC Title 10 — Fire
■ YMC Title 6 — Public Safety and Morals
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
■ Project specific environmental and land use review will be required based upon the scope of future
redevelopment or new projects for parks, police, fire, and school facilities
' Capital facility plans and functional plans such as for Parks and Recreation are generally updated
every six years consistent with GMA.
■ The City's budget and capital improvement program implement the Capital Facilities Plan as well as
functional plans for Parks and Recreation.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Demand for services will increase under all studied alternatives No significant unavoidable adverse public
service impacts are anticipated with implementation of either alternative with regular capital facility
planning and functional plan updates, generally every six years
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-41
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
3.9 Infrastructure
Affected Environment
Water and Irrigation
Water
Water services in Yakima are principally provided by the Yakima Water Division in eastern Yakima, and
the non-profit Nob Hill Water Association serving western Yakima (Nob Hill Water, 2016) Some areas are
under served in both eastern and western Yakima, water service is extended on request and new
development pays for the extension of infrastructure
The service areas of each water provider are identified below overlaid on Transportation Analysis Zones
within the city limits
Exhibit 3-21. Water Service Area within the Yakima City Limits by Transportation Analysis Zones
Nob Hill
Other �
- Unan Gap
'
Sources Esn HERE Decor InNrnap mcnment P Corp GE BGO USGS FAO NRS NRCAN)Ge, -base
IGN KWaWl NL Oran— Some, Ewe Japan METI EW ChM (HOnp Kongs *Wpe Map/n�lM.
OO
CbnSt,w*A*p rerM n — M GIS User Co—nrry –
Source City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2017
The City of Yakima Water Division is serving over 73,000 customers with 1,590,619 miles of water pipe
The Nob Hill Water Association served over 28,000 customers in 2016, with some of the customers located
within the City of Yakima The Association has over 870,000 feet of water main lines (Nob Hill Water
Association, 2015)
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-42
11
11
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Irrigation
The City of Yakima was originally developed on irrigated farmland, with irrigation provided by several
private irrigation systems. Eventually, urban development replaced farmland. The irrigation systems were
left and suitably modified to irrigate lawns, gardens and small farms To date, the City of Yakima maintains
two water delivery systems, one for potable water and one for irrigation water (City of Yakima, 2012).
The separate, non -potable irrigation system is composed of more than 60 systems and sub -systems, and
serves approximately 2,100 acres of developed land and 11,000 customers It serves almost 50% of the
total potable water service area A map showing irrigation -served areas appears below overlaid on
transportation analysis zones within the city limits.
Irrigation -Served Areas in Yakima City Limits
Sources Esn.HERE. DeLorme. mtemsp. Increment P Corp GEBOO USGS. FAO NPS NRCAN4 Geo13 v
IGN. Kedesw NL Ordnance Survey. Esn Japan MET]. Esn rhew iHonp Kong) —..wpo Mapm�lnda
OpenStmoAep comnbutom and"GIS User Communrly I
Source City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2017
' The City of Yakima currently serves the irrigation district with a total of 85 miles of pipe for over 50,000
customers The City has invested over $15 million in the irrigation system, which went toward refurbishing
32 miles of pipe line to bring the system up to an acceptable level of service. The level of service standard
' provides for minimum design pressure of 20 psi Service is provided by a staff of seven and one-half (7 8)
employees which amounts to 0.709 FTE per 1,000 accounts.
1
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure
3-43
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Wastewatc
The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) processes wastewater from homes and
businesses in Yakima, as well as Union Gap, Terrace Heights, and Moxee The plant currently receives a
monthly flow of around 13 MGD on average, with peak flows during irrigation season when infiltration
adds around 4 MGD to the warm weather flows Current plant capacity is rated near 22 MGD Future
projects include an industrial waste bioreactor that treats food processing waste, the removal and use of
phosphorous as fertilizer, recovery of methane biogas to operate WWTP systems, and conversion of
biosolids into quality fertilizer (City of Yakima, 2016)
The City's sewer service area includes the Yakima Urban Area including both the city limits and UGA
Exhibit 3-22. Yakima Sewer Service Area
• �e I ------I oulNeo cb't;r.ra Figure 1 7
.. oull,* LObw G—tn Ama Yakima Four Party
Sewer Service Agreement
Source City of Yakima, Water System Plan, 2011
Parcels currently served by Yakima within the city limits are illustrated in the map below
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-44
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-23. Sewer -Served Properties in Yakima City Limits
i
es Esn riGRE beLorme. In4m
rmfp. Increcrn PCorp. (taE90G. USGS. FAO,NR9', NROA
iGN Kadaater NL Ordnance S"y Earl Japan. METI Ead Chine jHonp Kong). fw4wpo. Map
OpenStraetMap contnoutom. and" GIS Ufar Community � ,
Source City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2017
There are pockets of land in the City that are not served by sewers due to the land being vacant, or
challenging physical conditions, or past development allowed on septic systems. The City lacks a system-
wide sewer plan to identify the specific locations of new trunk lines, the engineering, and cost of new
lines
The City conducted a sewer system plan update in 2016, which considers future land use and growth
Stormwater
Yakima's stormwater collection area includes the City of Yakima, as well as some of the West Valley area
outside of city limits. With hot, dry summer weather and cold, dry winters, the majority of the annual
precipitation occurs between October and March Runoff typically occurs during rapid warming events
and is tied closely to the snowfall conditions in the Cascades. In accordance with the NPDES Western
Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit the City requires development to provide on-site
stormwater management to mitigate these impacts. Level of service standards require stormwater
quantity and quality treatment to be consistent with the City stormwater manual
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-45
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' I
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Impacts
Water and Irrigation
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Water
The Draft Water System Plan update assumes 0 33% growth rate similar to Alternative 1, but with a
pattern of land use more consistent with Alternative 2
Under both alternatives, the demand for water will Increase as growth increases. Both alternatives will
result in average day demands (ADD) and maximum day demands (MDD) that are well within the
wastewater treatment plant capacity
Exhibit 3-24. Yakima Service Area Water Demand by Alternative
—Growth Rate Impact on ADD and MDD
ADD (0.33%) 10.5 10.7 10.9 11.0 11.2 11.3
ADD (0.51%) 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.3 116 118
Difference 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 04 05
MDD (0.33%) 18.4 188 191 194 196 199
MDD(051`Yo) 184 189 193 198 203 208
Difference 00 01 03 04 06 09
Treatment Capacity 216 mgd
Legend Average Day Demand (ADD) and Maximum Day Demand (MDD)
Source (Nob Hill Water Association, 2015)
The Nob Hill 2015 Water System Plans assumes a growth rate of over 2% Based on the growth, the Nob
Hill Water System Plan addresses an average day demand is expected to increase from 4,434,000 gallons
per day In 2015 to 6,873,000 gallons per day In 2035 Its maximum day requirement is expected to Increase
from 6,160 gpm in 2015 to 9,550 gpm in 2035
Both alternatives will see an increase in demand As the Action Alternative has higher growth overall than
the No Action Alternative, it has a higher growth rate However, both alternatives are well under the
growth rate assumed in the Nob Hill Water System Plan
Exhibit 3-25. Nob Hill Water System Growth
2015 31,000 28,151 28,151
2040 51,536 40,248 41,066
Difference 20,536 12,097 12,916
Growth Rate 206% 144% 152%
Source (Gray & Osborne, Inc , May 2015) and BERK Consulting 2017
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-46
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Irrigation
Both alternatives will Increase the demand for Irrigation services. The capital facilities Improvements may
include extension or improvement of existing pipes by 3 81 to 6 24 miles.
Exhibit 3-26. Irrigation Pipeline Improvement Demand
LOS Standard = 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 served
2016 53,297 8527 8535 008
Alternative 1: 2014 55,727 8916 8535 (3 81)
Alternative 2. 2040 57,246 9159 8535 (6 24)
Source- City of Yakima, 2016, David Brown, City of Yakima Irrigation, 2016; BERK, 2017
' Alternative 1: No Action
Water
Within the Yakima Water Service Area, generally in eastern Yakima, the Alternative 1 No Action population
' growth rate is 0 33% while the Action Alternative growth rate is 0 51% By 2040 under Alternative 1, there
will be a net reserve of 1.7 MGD at MDD scenario. This is a greater net reserve compared to Alternative
2
Alternative 1 has a projected growth rate less than the Nob Hill Water System Plan, and the Plan
improvements can accommodate the projected growth In western Yakima.
Irrigation
Alternative 1 focuses more growth in western Yakima proportionally to eastern Yakima A greater need
for irrigation services will occur requiring over 3.81 miles of Irrigation pipeline within eastern Yakima.
Alternative 2. Action
Within the City of Yakima water service area, Alternative 2 will increase the water demand to a level
slightly higher than the Draft Water System assumptions However, the difference In demand Is less than
0.5 millions of gallons per day (MGD) at 2040 considering average day demand (ADD). The higher ADD is
still within the lower maximum day demand (MDD) (I a captures the additional population average
demand). Overall, the additional population does not drastically change demand (especially within the 10 -
year WSP planning period) In addition, the capacity of the City's Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Is 216
MGD, and the increase in projected MDD still does not exceed the WTP capacity for the planning horizon.
This leaves a net reserve of 0 9 MGD at 2040 under MDD conditions. (HDR, 2017)
Alternative 1 has a projected growth rate less than the Nob Hill Water System Plan, and the Plan
Improvements can accommodate the projected growth in western Yakima.
Irrlp,ation
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-47
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Alternative 2 focuses less growth in western Yakima proportionally to eastern Yakima. A greater need for
irrigation services will occur beyond Alternative 1 requiring over 6.24 miles of irrigation pipeline extension
or improvements within eastern Yakima
Wastewater
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (YRWWTP) has long-term capacity to serve at current
levels A 2014 evaluation of loading and capacity done by the Water and Irrigation Division indicated that
there is capacity for hydraulic loading through 2074, organic loading through 2043, and solids loading
through 2052 See the Draft Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) for a summary analysis.
Exhibit 3-27 provides the LOS analysis for wastewater treatment, identifying the conservative analysis of
population in the 2015 Waste Load Assessment (growth rate of 124% over a 60 -year period) greater than
both Alternatives 1 and 2, and focusing on the capacity for treating pounds of organic materials
Exhibit 3-27. Sewer LOS Analysis
L LOS Standard = 342.8 pounds of maximum monthly organic loading per 1,000 population
2016 111,696 38,175 53,400 15,225
2040 147,379 50,371 53,400 3,029
*The Wastewater service area population includes the City of Yakima, Union Gap, and Terrace Heights
Source Source City of Yakima, 2016, Mike Price, Wastewater/Stormwater Manager, City of Yakima, 2016
The YRWWTP has capacity to treat up to 53,400 pounds of organic material. With current load levels of
342 8 pounds of maximum monthly organic loading per 1,000 population, the facility will have surplus
treatment capacity of over 3,000 pounds in 2040
Both alternatives have lower growth rates than that assumed in the Waste Load Assessment 0 33% and
0 51% respectively for Alternatives 1 and 2, while 1 16% is the rate assumed in the Waste Load
Assessment.
Alternative 1 No Action
Alternative 1 supports greater growth proportionally in western Yakima, which will require greater service
extension to serve greenfield development
Alternative 2 Action
Alternative 2 supports an infill policy with a more balanced level of growth between eastern and western
Yakima Improvements to existing infrastructure in already developed areas will be needed as well as
extension in western Yakima While in western Yakima, higher total growth is projected under Alternative
2 compared to Alternative 1, the density pattern is more efficient to serve
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-48
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IStormwater
' Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Level of service Is regulated by the city's code and design standards that comply with state regulation All
new development must meet water quality, runoff, and erosion control requirements of the local and
' state regulations. In 2005, Yakima County and the Cities of Yakima, Union Gap, and Sunnyside entered an
Interlocal Governmental Agreement for compliance under the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit The Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington provides the design
' and management practices for facilities in compliance with federal, state, and local jurisdictional
requirements
' As the City grows, developments will be required to Install new conveyance and stormwater management
systems Maintaining level of service through 2040 will require maintaining the existing system and
ensuring new facilities are constructed In accordance with the Municipal Stormwater Permit.
' Greater growth is anticipated under all studied alternatives, and such residential and employment
development to accommodate growth will be subject to the stormwater management plans and
regulations prepared by the City.
Exhibit 3-28. Stormwater Service Area — City Limits — Growth by Alternative
2015 Population: City Limits
93,220
93,220
Population Growth. City Limits 2017-2040
18,700
23,211
Western Yakima Proportion of Growth
400
49%
Eastern Yakima Proportion of Growth
60%
51%
Total Population City Limits
111,920
116,431
Source OFM 2015 and BERK Consulting, 2017
Alternative 1• No Action
Alternative 1 No Action has lower growth than Alternative 2 Action overall, but with a greater proportion
of growth in a lower density pattern in western Yakima Therefore, a greater level of growth will require
Implementation of new stormwater systems in areas of greenfield development on vacant and
agricultural land
Alternative 2• Action
Alternative 2 has a greater proportion of growth allocated to eastern Yakima with existing stormwater
systems built prior to newer stormwater standards There is an opportunity for redevelopment in eastern
Yakima to Improve systems and water quality as noted in Section 3.1.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Infrastructure 3-09
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 11
Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
■ Alternative 1 is subject to current Comprehensive Plan capital facility policies, the existing Capital
Facility Plan, and more recent functional plans prepared for water, irrigation, wastewater, and
stormwater which have not yet been incorporated into the current Capital Facility Plan.
■ Alternative 2 updates the Capital Facility Plan and integrates analysis of water, irrigation,
wastewater, and stormwater from the City's functional plans Information is presented by Council
district Refreshed policies address the City's equity principles and fiscal policies.
Applicable Regulations and Commitments
■ Title 7 Public Services and Utilities regulates Irrigation System, Water System, Wastewater, and
Stormwater system connections and rates
• City of Yakima Water System Plans (2011, pending update in 2017), Wastewater Treatment Plan and
System Plans (2013, 2015 and 2016), and Stormwater Management Programs and Plans (2015)
guide long-range and strategic actions to ensure sufficient water supply, water treatment,
wastewater collection and treatment, and stormwater quality.
■ Special Districts including the Nob Hill Water Association provide water services in accordance with
a Water System Plan (2015)
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
■ None proposed
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Demand for water, irrigation, wastewater, and stormwater will increase under all studied alternatives
Current plans address projected growth under either alternative No significant unavoidable adverse
public service impacts are anticipated with implementation of either alternative with regular capital
facility planning and functional plan updates, generally every six years
3.10 Power and Telecommunications
Affected Environment
Electricity
The City of Yakima is served by Pacific Power and Light Company Demand for electrical service is
determined by the use The broad distribution of land uses provided by the Future Land Use Map will help
determine where upgraded facilities may be necessary
The City of Yakima is served Cascade Natural Gas Corporation Not all residences and businesses are
served, however. Future demand and growth patterns may require extended or upgraded facilities
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Power and Telecommunications 3-50
n
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Telecommunications
Several telecommunications providers are within the City of Yakima There are several options available
for when new construction occurs The extension and upgrade of telecommunication facilities will likely
follow growth patterns.
Impacts
Electricity, Natural Gas, Telecommunications
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Population growth is compared below by Alternative The addition of people under either alternative will
require a significant amount of new construction, and with new construction comes upgraded and new
utility infrastructure.
Exhibit 3-29 Franchise Utilities Service Area - City Limits - Population Growth by Alternative
2015 Population. City Limits 93,220
93,220
Population Growth. City Limits 2017-2040 18,700
23,211
Western Yakima Proportion of Growth 40%
49%
Eastern Yakima Proportion of Growth 60%
51%
Total Population City Limits 111,920
116,431
Source OFM 2015, City of Yakima and BERK Consulting, 2017
Employment growth is compared by alternative below. Likewise, to population,
new infrastructure for
power and telecommunications will be needed to meet employment demands.
Exhibit 3-30. Franchise Utilities Service Area - City Limits - Population Growth by Alternative
Employment 2015• By TAZ City Limit Approximation 47,578 47,578
Transportation and EIS Assumption• By TAZ 14,783 15,318
Total 2040 62,361 62,896
Source. City of Yakima and BERK Consulting, 2017
Alternative 1: No Action
' The No Action Alternative will continue the past trends of the primary residential growth happening in
west Yakima Higher demand for commercial and industrial utilities will occur in similar patterns in those
concentrated areas
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Power and Telecommunications 3-51
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' I
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Alternative 2: Action I
The Action Alternative promotes greater infill in east and central Yakima. The potential for redevelopment
and mixed uses may require existing utility infrastructure to be upgraded to accommodate higher '
densities Through a new Energy Element, this alternative also promotes and encourages the
incorporation of non-traditional energy sources, such as solar, wind and geothermal, into new
development and redevelopment
Mitigation Measures
'
Incorporated Plan Features
■ Under Alternative 1, the current Utility Element will continue to apply with policies addressing utility
service provider coordination and conservation, and less emphasis on alternative energy sources
'
■ With Alternative 2, the Utilities Element and Energy Elements both contain goals and policies for the
adequate distribution of utilities with new development and redevelopment protects. The Energy
Element establishes additional conservation policies and encourages use of alternative energy
sources
Applicable Regulations
Adequate utility service is a condition of development under these codes and ordinances; the zoning code
also addresses allowable utility facilities and permit requirements
,
■ Title 14 Subdivisions
■ Title 15 Zoning
■ Title 11 Buildings
■ Title 12 Development Standards
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
■ New and redeveloped projects will undergo land use and environmental review, as dictated by the
scope of the project and applicable regulations
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Future population growth will increase the demand on utilities and will require extension and, in some
cased, upgraded facilities. Coordination with service providers early in project review will help avoid
'
significant adverse impacts
f�
1
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Power and Telecommunications 3-52 1
' YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' 4.1 Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests
Each citizen amendment request described in Chapter 2.0 has been evaluated in Chapter 3.0 cumulatively.
' In Exhibit 4-1, each request is evaluated individually at a programmatic level regarding potential effects
on the natural environment, land use and growth, and public services and infrastructure The properties
contained in the requests below have been evaluated cumulatively for effects on public services and
infrastructure in Sections 3.7 to 3.10. At the time of any future development, street frontage and system
development changes would likely be required, consistent with the level of development.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Citizen Amendment Requests 4-1
1 Datal Properties, LLC
Low Density
Residential to
Commercial Mixed Use
113&115N56`hAve
2. Landon Glenn
Industrial to
Commercial Mixed Use
203 & 207 Oak St
3. Jeff Baker
Regional Development
to Commercial Mixed
Use
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 4-1. Citizen Amendment Requests — Programmatic Environmental Review
A commercial development may be more
intensive in impervious area than
residential uses. For example, lot coverage
is 60% in low density zones (SR and R-1)
but 80-85% under zones implementing
Community Mixed Use (see Exhibit 2-6 for
zones and YMC Table 5-1 ). An increase in
impervious area may increase stormwater
flow and effect water quality of streams to
which the site drains However, City
stormwater regulations will apply and will
regulate flows and water quality consistent
with the State's most recent manuals
Minimal effect to the natural environment
The existing residential use at 203 Oak St is
completely built out Commercial
development on the vacant 207 Oak
Avenue Parcel would more consistent with
the neighborhood
Changing from Regional Development (RD)
to Commercial Mixed Use will have little
impact on the Natural Environment. The
RD is intended to allow projects at a much
larger scale than most the smaller lots in
this area can accommodate. The
DRAFT MARCH 2017 Citizen Amendment Requests 4-2
The proposal will increase the potential for
mixed uses with higher densities and
greater employment growth
The parcels are located at the cross-roads
of two arterials The location is appropriate
for commercial use, but the size and grade
difference will make development difficult
Based on size and configuration of parcels,
the development potential of the lot for
commercial use is problematic for parking
and setbacks If there is insufficient area
for landscaping and setbacks, the
compatibility with adjacent residential
areas could be insufficient New design
guidelines that fulfil proposed land use
policies could help mitigate the effect
Until such time as design guidelines are
developed a higher permit review standard
may be appropriate to ensure sufficient
development conditions
The size of the vacant parcel at 207 Oak St
is more amenable to commercial
development and is consistent with the
surrounding area No changes are
proposed to the existing use at 203 Oak
Avenue
Most the land use will remain the same
When this area was changed to RD several
years ago there were many uses rendered
to be legally nonconforming as a result
This change will bring long-term historic
uses back into compliance
At higher densities and intensities, the
future commercial and residential uses
allowed by Commercial Mixed Use will
mean greater demand on public services
such as police, fire, schools, and parks
compared with lower density residential
uses
There will be a greater intensity of use,
greater transportation trips, and likely a
higher demand for water, wastewater,
power, and telecommunication facilities
with mixed use employment and
residential uses at higher densities
compared with lower density residential
uses.
Minimal effect Potential new
development on the vacant lot will utilize
existing utilities in the right of way Utility
and transportation demand from a new
commercial use would likely be lower than
a new industrial use.
Minimal effect as most of the area is
already built out New uses are limited
due to necessary utility and roadway
extensions that would be necessary if the
area were to stay as RD.
Vic. Of E Nob Hill Blvd
& S 181h St
4 Jay Sentz
Low Density
Residential to
Community Mixed Use
4201 Summitview Ave
5. TM Rentals
Low Density
Residential to Mixed
Residential
Vic. Of S 3811 Ave and
W Logan Ave
6 Gail Buchanan
Low Density
Residential to Mixed
Residential
408, 410, & 412 S 88th
Ave
7. Supercold Storage
Commercial Mixed Use designation is more
appropriate to the character of the existing
area
Commercial development on this lot is
proposed to be incorporated into the
adjacent commercial node to the east Lot
coverage would increase from the R-1
standard of 60% to an SCC standard of
85% All applicable development standards
will apply to future development
An increase from Low Density Residential
to High Density Residential will increase
the density of these sites Adjacent to the
south is Wide Hollow Creek which is
classified as a Type II water Applicable
Critical Area development standards and
buffers will be observed with future
development The applicant indicates that
of the total 7 55 acres, approximately 4 11
acres is within the floodplain/critical area
of Wide Hollow Creek, leaving 3.44 acres of
developable land.
An increase from Low Density Residential
to High Density Residential will increase
the density of these sites Lot coverage
could increase from 60% to 80% and
building height could increase from 35 -ft to
50 -ft if R-3 zoning is desired. If the zoning
changes to R-2, lot coverage and building
height remains unchanged
None This change simply brings the FLU
designation into conformance with the
existing land use
M M EWA AWREHME PLW
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The proposal will increase the available
uses at the adjacent commercial complex,
along with allowing more space for site
distance at the existing commercial exit
Site design standards will be in place to
protect adjacent residential uses The lot
itself would be difficult to site any
commercial use due to its size. However,
incorporating the lot into the adjacent
commercial complex will allow a site
design that can be scaled to the area
This change will increase the units per acre
from 7 to 8-12 (R-2) or up to 13+ (R-3),
depending on the desired zoning. The on-
site critical area and floodplain further
limit the available area for development on
these parcels, making medium to high
density residential a viable option, if
designed appropriately
This change will increase the units per acre
from 7 to 8-12 (R-2) or up to 13+ (R-3),
depending on the desired zoning.
Increased densities will require additional
site design standards to promote
compatibility with adjacent single family
homes
None. This change simply brings the FLU
designation into conformance with the
existing land use.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-3
Greater demand on public services will be
necessary to accommodate this higher
intensity commercial use The proposed
site plan would remove the driveway on
this lot to incorporate the parcel into the
adjacent commercial development. If
approved, sight distance and grade issues
at the existing ingress/egress point into the
development will be greatly improved.
Medium or High Density development will
generate more traffic and require greater
utility needs than Low Density
development. The development review
process will require frontage
improvements and utility extension
consistent with the proposed use.
Medium or High Density development will
generate more traffic and require greater
utility needs than Low Density
development The development review
process will require frontage
improvements and utility extension
consistent with the proposed use.
None. This change simply brings the FLU
designation into conformance with the
existing land use
Large Convenience
Center to Industrial
1415 River Rd
8 Jerry Hand
Medium Density
Residential to
Commercial Mixed Use
1406 S Fair Ave & 909
La Follette
9. William and Linda
Beerman
Low Density
Residential to
Community Mixed Use
419 & 421 S 161h Ave,
1513 Tieton Dr
10 SOZO Sports of
Central WA
A commercial development may be more
intensive in impervious area than
residential uses For example, lot coverage
is 60% in low density zones (SR and R-1)
but 80-85% under zones implementing
Commercial Mixed Use (see Exhibit 2-6 for
zones and YMC Table 5-1 ) An increase in
impervious area may increase stormwater
flow and affect water quality of streams to
which the site drains However, City
stormwater regulations will apply and will
regulate flows and water quality consistent
with the State's most recent manuals.
421S16 th and 1513 Tieton are an existing
commercial business 419 is a single family
home The proposal would remove the
single family home to expand the parking
are for the business. A commercial
development may be more intensive in
impervious area than residential uses For
example, lot coverage is 60% in low density
zones (SR and R-1) but 80-85% under zones
implementing Community Mixed Use (see
Exhibit 2-6 for zones and YMC Table 5-1 )
An increase in impervious area may
increase stormwater flow and effect water
quality of streams to which the site drains
However, City stormwater regulations will
apply and will regulate flows and water
quality consistent with the State's most
recent manuals.
This area is currently being constructed as
a soccer complex and public park
(currently Low Density Residential).
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This neighborhood has a broad mixture of
residential and commercial uses Adjacent
uses to these sites are commercial to the
north and east, residential to the south
and west The total acreage of both parcels
is only 0 33 acres, which will dramatically
limit the intensity of any proposed future
commercial development. With careful
site design and consideration of setbacks
and landscaping, the impacts on adjacent
residential uses can be minimized
The only land use change would be at 419
S16 1h Avenue which would remove the
single-family home and incorporate the
property into the adjacent commercial
development Careful site design and
appropriate site screening and setbacks
will be necessary to promote compatibility
with the neighborhood
The soccer complex and park area
comprises the majority of this request,
which was approved by the City of Yakima
DRAFT MARCH 2017 Pro rammatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-4
Due to the limited area of the site, future
development will not likely put a burden
on the street or utility infrastructure
More intense development will likely
require new water and sewer connections
that can handle more capacity than the
current residential uses
Depending on future site design, this
change could minimize traffic conflicts by
relocating the existing driveway along 16`h
which is less than 100 -feet from the
intersection Stormwater management
will be important if the parking lot is
expanded
The 6 -year TIP includes a project to widen
S 36" Avenue from Spring Creek Road to
Sorenson Road, and classify 36" as a
S = = NWIA COREHIME PL�
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Industrial and Low
Environmental considerations for the
Density Residential to
complex were reviewed in SEPA#035-15
Commercial Mixed Use
Other parcels outside of the complex are
Vic. Of S 36`h Ave and
changing from Industrial to Commercial
Sorenson Rd
Mixed Use Future development will
12. Mark Hoffmann
undergo environmental review as
Industrial to Low
appropriate Commercial uses will likely
Density Residential
have less environmental impact than
3109 W Washington
Industrial
11. Gary Delaney
Medium Density
None This change simply brings the FLU
Residential to
designation into conformance with the
Community Mixed Use
existing land use
1414S2 nd Ave
12. Mark Hoffmann
Industrial to Low
None This change simply brings the FLU
Density Residential
designation into conformance with the
3109 W Washington
existing land use
Ave
by CL2#014-15. Parcels outside of the Collector Utility connections and other
complex that are changing from Industrial considerations will be required for future
to Commercial will be able to provide development.
support facilities to the park Furthermore,
these parcels are within the Airport Safety
Overlay which dramatically limits the
development potential Small-scale
commercial development is more viable
than industrial
None This change simply brings the FLU
designation into conformance with the
existing land use.
None This change simply brings the FLU
designation into conformance with the
existing land use.
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-5
None. This change simply brings the FLU
designation into conformance with the
existing land use
None. This change simply brings the FLU
designation into conformance with the
existing land use
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' I
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
5.1 Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADD —Average Day Demand
ADT —Average Dally Traffic
BAS — Best Available Science
BMPs — Best Management Practices
CARA — Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
CFP—Capital Facilities Plan
CPPB — Countywide Planning Policies
DAHP — Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
DEIS — Draft Environmental Impact Statement
EIS — Environmental Impact Statement
FEIS — Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA — Federal Emergency Management Agency
FLU — Future Land Use
FTE — Full Time Employees
FWHCA — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
GMA — the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36 70A)
GPM — Gallons per Minute
LOS — Level of Service
MDD — Maximum Day Demand
MGD — Million Gallons per Day
NPDES — National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRHP — National Register of Historic Places
OFM —Washington State Office of Financial Management
PHD — Peak Hour Demand
PHF — Peak Hour Flow
RCW — Revised Code of Washington
RTPO — Regional Transportation Planning Organization
SEPA — Washington State Environmental Policy Act (WAC 174-11)
TAZ — Transportation Analysis Zones
UGA — Urban Growth Area
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-1
I I
I I
1
C
1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WAC — Washington Administrative Code
WDFW — Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WSDOT — Washington State Department of Transportation
WSP —Washington State Patrol
WWTP —Wastewater Treatment Plant
YMC —Yakima Municipal Code
YRCAA —Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency
YRWWTP —Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
YVCOG — Yakima Valley Council of Governments
5.2 References
ACS (2014) 2014 5 -Year ACS U S Census Bureau.
AKEL Engineering Group. (August 2013). 2013 Draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Fresno,
California Prepared for the City of Yakima
City of Yakima (2012) Water/irrigation Division Retrieved from City of Yakima:
https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/water-irrigation/files/2012/05/Irrigation-history pdf
City of Yakima (2015) Yakima, WA Consolidated Plan 2015-2019, Draft Yakima: City of Yakima.
City of Yakima (2016) Wastewater Operations/Maintenance Retrieved from City of Yakima:
https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/wastewater-treatment-plant/operations-maintenance/
Decennial Census. (2010). U.S. Census Bureau
Gray & Osborne, Inc (May 2015) Nob Hill Water Association Draft Water System Plan. Yakima,
Washington: Nob Hill Water Association.
HDR. (2017, January 26). Sarah Pistorese (B C. Lisa Grueter, Interviewer)
neighborhoodscout com (2016, May 9) Yakima housing market information. Retrieved from
' neigh borhoodscout.com: http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/wa/yakima/rates/#description
Nob Hill Water. (2016). History. Retrieved from Nob Hill Water https //www nobhillwater org/history
' Nob Hill Water Association (2015) The Water Line Edition 65
OSPI (2015) Washington State Report Card. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
' Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies/ University of Washington. (spring 2016) Washington Apartment
Market Seattle Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies
' The Homeless Network of Yakima County. (2015). Homelessness in Yakima County. Yakima The Homeless
Network of Yakima County
U S Dpeartment of Housing and Urban Development (2016, May 9) Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data.
' Retrieved from CHAS Data Download Page
https //www huduser gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/data—download—chas html
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-2
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2016, June). Population density Retrieved from
ofm wa gov http //ofm wa gov/pop/popden/default asp
Yakima County (2016) Yakima County Community Indicators Report Yakima, Washington.
Yakima County, Public Services Department, Planning Division. (2016, July 13). Yakima County's 2017
Review of its UGAs and Permitted Densities Urban Growth Area for City of Yakima Staff Report
Yakima Yakima County
YFD (2016) 2015 Annual Report City of Yakima Fire Department.
Zillow. (2016, May 9). Local Market Overviews. Retrieved from zillow com
http //www zillow com/research/local-market-reports/
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-3
1 . 1 DISTRIBUTION
' The following agencies and interested parties have received a notice of availability of this Draft SEIS
Tribes
' Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs, Yakama Nation Environmental Management Program, Yakama-Klickitat
Fisheries
' Federal Agencies
US Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource Conservation Service, NOAA Fisheries, US Environmental
Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aviation Administration
' State Agencies
Department of Commerce, Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Office of Rural and Farmworker Housing, Department
' of Transportation
Regional Agencies
Yakima County Commissioners, Yakima County Planning, Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency, Yakima Valley
Conference of Governments, Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency, Conservation District
' Local Agencies
Ahtanum Irrigation District, Nob Hill Water, Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce of Yakima, Nob Hill Water, West Valley School District, Yakima School District, Yakima Valley
Museum, Yakima Waste Systems, Yakima Library, City of Union Gap
' Newspapers and Radio
Newspapers Yakima Herald, EI Sol de Yakima, Yakima Valley Business Times, Sunnyside Daily Sun News,
EI Mundo, La Voz, Associated Press
' TV Stations: KIMA, KNDO, KAPP, KCJT, KNDU, KEPR, KVEW, YCTC, Y -PAC
Radio Stations Radio Yakima (KXDD, KHHK, KARY, KRSE, KBBO, KTCR), Townsquare Media Yakima (KMGW,
' KIT, KUTI, KFFM, KDBL, KATS), Casa Media Group (KMNA, KLES), Bustos Media (KZTA, KDYK), La Marketa
Radio, Northwest Public Radio, KDNA
' Interested PartiesCentral WA Homebuilders Association, Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood Association,
Yakima Association of Realtors, Associated General Contractors of WA, RCDR Additionally, 213
individuals were notified via email who signed up for notification during our various outreach events.
tAll parcels with a future land use change, which may result in a future zoning change, have been notified
that their future land use is changing For additional information, please see the contact information
tprovided on the fact sheet.
1
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1 Distribution List 6-1
Id
t
11
DRAFT MARCH 2017 1Appendix A• Scoping Notice and Comments / 1 'I
II
t CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE
We. ane `akinm PLAN UPDATE
' coirp,cncrs vp pion 2040
Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice
' Proposal and Alternatives
' The City of Yakima is updating its Comprehensive Plan by June 2017 in accordance with Growth
Management Act (GMA). An updated Comprehensive Plan will mean more housing choices, new places
to work, better connected roads and parks, new recreation opportunities, and improved public services.
Elements of the plan to be updated or added include: Vision Statement, Land Use, Economic
Development, Housing, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Natural
Environment, Energy (new), and Historic Preservation (new).
' Based on 20 -year growth targets, the City is anticipated to add more than 17,000 people and 8,500 jobs
between now and 2040 To achieve an updated vision and accommodate growth, it is anticipated that the
land use and subsequent changes to the zoning map will be amended to reflect alternative land use
' patterns Some of these changes may include:
• Consolidated plan designations with few categories and greater allowance to change underlying
zoning designations if appropriate,
' • New policies or map changes to ensure neighborhoods have appropriately defined mixed use
commercial centers and a range of housing types, and
' • Potentially some zoning changes to better match current land use patterns or alternatively advance
the refreshed Comprehensive Plan vision
Transportation and Capital Facilities Plans will be amended and support the land use plan. Additionally,
' the City is evaluating its critical areas policies and regulations for updated best available science and may
propose amendments accordingly,
' The City's integrated Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) will
evaluate alternatives. The range of alternatives is likely to be similar to the following:
• Alternative 1 No Action —Current Compr+khepsive Plan: This alternative is required by the State
' Environmental Policy Act. It assumes current policies, land use plans, and codes remain in place
Growth would occur based on current plans and zonlnq at a level above growth targets.
a Action Alternative 2 — Plan Update -- Infill, Mixed Use, and Higher Growth: Updates the
' Comprehensive Plan including the vision statement, all elements, the future land use map,
transportation plan, capital facilities plan, and selected Implementing zoning and critical areas codes
' in a manner that promotes a vision of equity in plans and strategies, and growth in already
developed areas where there is infrastructure and a well-designed and compatible land use pattern.
This alternative would also implement the individual parcel rezone/ Future Land Use amendments
recommended for evaluation by the Planning Commission that promote infill and greater land use
compatibility. Growth would occur based on a revised land use plan and zoning at a level higher
than growth targets. A greater emphasis on infill development and mixed uses would allow an
improved jobs -housing balance. The City may review a sub -alternative of growth closer to target
' levels.
October 2016
1
CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE& SCOPING NOTICE
Study Area
The study area for the Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update is the current city limits for the City of Yakima
Yakima County is planning for unincorporated Yakima Urban Growth Area lands
Proponent and Lead Agency
The City of Yakima — Department of Community Development
EIS Required
The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the
environment. A supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is required under RCW 43 21C 030
(2)(c) and will be prepared
The SEIS will supplement the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A, November 2006 The SEIS will also consider other recent SEPA
documents for Comprehensive Plan amendments over time.
An Integrated Plan/SEIS will be prepared for the Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update Alternatives will be
analyzed in the SEIS portion of the integrated Plan/SEIS along with analysis of impacts to the built and
natural environment. An integrated Plan and SEIS is allowed by SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-210 to 235).
The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the SEIS: Natural environment (plants
and animals, water resources, air quality), land use patterns, population/housing/employment,
relationship to plans and policies, transportation, parks and recreation, police and fire services, schools,
sewer, water, and utilities (electricity, natural gas, telecommunications) The analysis will be
programmatic in nature and will rely on available studies and information where appropriate.
Scoping and Comment Deadline
Agencies, tribes, and the public are invited to comment on the scope of the SEIS, potential alternatives,
potential significant adverse environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and potential approvals The
scoping comment period begins October 14, 2016 and ends 5:00 pm on November 4, 2016 The method
and deadline for giving us your comments is
Submit comments in writing to Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner, 129 North 21d Street, Yakima, WA 98901,
or ioseph.calhoun@yakimawa.Rov by 5:00 pm on November 4, 2016.
Please visit https-//www.vakimawa.Aov/services/planning/Jcomprehgnsive-Alan-update/ to review draft
plan documents
Following the scoping comment period, The City of Yakima will evaluate the comments and determine the
scope of environmental review. At that time, the alternatives and the integrated Plan/SEIS will be
developed.
Responsible Official
Joan Davenport, Director of Community Development
City of Yakima
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Date LO " 13' / 6 Signature:
October 2016
L
C!
i
IJ
11
' CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE& SCOPING NOTICE
Appeals
You may appeal this determination of significance in accordance with YMC 6.88.170 Appeals. You should
' be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the SEPA Responsible Official above to read or
ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals.
3
Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
City of Yakima Planning
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Dear Mr. Calhoun:
I represent the Ahtanum Irrigation District and have been asked by the Board to
respond to your request for comments about the proposed 2040 Comprehensive
Plan.
Later we will have some comments about the water situation in the Ahtanum area
but understand that now is the time to comment on other issues
Traffic has become a major concern for the Ahtanum area. In the mid afternoon,
eastbound traffic is problematic on Ahtanum Road from approximately South
801h to South 6e avenues. School buses and fruit trucks seem to congregate and
back up traffic for considerable stretches, at times up to a mile or more
Westbound traffic from Union gap also tends to back up.
Several large City housing developments are currently underway in the vicinity of
South 64th Avenue and Ahtanum Road (Ahtanum Crossings to the West and
Anderson Estates to the East) and will undoubtedly further compound an already
challenging traffic issue. Traffic lights and other improvements on Occidental
Road and Ahtanum Road are essential to mitigate the problems caused by the
increased traffic when these developments are completed.
We appreciate your attention to our concerns.
Very Truly Yours,
Jerry D Talbott,
Attorney for Ahtanum Irrigation District.
RECEIVED
NOV 0 7 2016
L'il Y OF YAKIMA
PLANNii'A DIV
P
�1
1
1
1
STATE Of WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
1150 W Aldcr S1 • Union Gap, WA 98903-0009 • (509) 57.5-2490
November 1, 2016
Joseph Calhoun
City of Yakima
Dept. of Community Development
128 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Re: City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
Dear Mr. Calhoun:
' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement
for City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update. We have reviewed the documents and
have the following comments.
' SHORELANDS/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE
' Natural Enviroiunent/'bVetlands/page 6: NWI maps are only one tool to use to identify
wetlands within City boundaries. Because NWI mapped wetlands are generally only 60 percent
accurate (due to the scale at which maps are drawn, age of maps, vegetation cover, and changes
' in hydrologic inputs over time, to name just a few reasons why maps might be inaccurate) the
City may want to consider additional mapping at a more detailed scale during this update
process.
The City Comprehensive Plan should include a goal of "no net loss" of wetland fiinction (WAC -
365 -196-830). The plan should include infra -structure development which avoids wetland losses
' as much as possible. Wetlands should be protected in a variety of ways, including placement of
wetlands within protected natural open space areas, inclusion of wetlands in parks or other
recreational areas, and requiring adequate buffers from development that take the varying levels
' of impact fi•om new development into account when determining appropriate buffer
requirements. In addition, the City may want to consider seeking funding to set aside areas
where City-wide wetland mitigation banks or advance mitigation areas for City projects could be
' built.
Ecology has updated some of its documents regarding wetland protection, and put some of that
' information into a power -point presentation that was given to the October 26, 2016 Eastern
Washington Planners Forum in Moses Lake That power -point presentation is available via the
WA State Department of Commerce website. (Or you can contact Donna Bunten at Ecology,
Mr. Calhoun
November 1, 2016
Page 2
(360) 407-7172 or dbun461 c,ecy.wa.gov, if you cannot find the presentation at the Commerce
site )
Ecology would be happy to review updated draft CAO language regarding wetlands before it
goes out to public review. We would also be happy to provide other wetland technical
assistance, including wetland technical report review(s) or attend pre -application meetings with
wetland issues as needed. Call Cathy Reed at (509) 575-2616 for wetland technical assistance.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these Shorelands/Environmental
Assistance comments, please contact Catherine Reed at (509) 575-2616 of email at
catherine reedQecy wa gov
Sincerely,
Gwen Clear
Environmental Review Coordinator
Central Regional Office
(509) 575-2012
crosepacoordinatoi-@ecy.wa.gov
5935
1
1
1
1
STATLo- O�
c f
J,
yy .a0y:
)889
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
South Central Region 3 — 1701 S 24th Ave, Yakima WA 98902-5720
Phone (509) 575-2740, Fax (509) 575-2474
November 04, 2016
' City of Yakima Planning Division
Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
' 129 N 2nd St
Yakima, WA 98901
Subject. State Environmental Policy Act Document, Comments on
Determination of Significance and Notice of Scoping, Comprehensive
Plan 2040 Update, City of Yakima, Yakima County
' Dear Joseph -
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above -
referenced State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document for a Determination of
Significance Notice on the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update, received via the City
website on October 28, 2016, and offers the following comments at this time Other
' comments may be offered as the project progresses.
' We recommend that the City immediately suspends its current management of vegetation
on the levee system and adopt a policy under Goal 9.4 of sustaining that vegetation and
approaching levees as fully part of the Riparian - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
' Area. Pierce County, Washington makes available their document related to maximizing
habitat while minimizing negative effects of vegetation on levees. This document "Levee
Vegetation Management Strategy" is available on the Internet at
' https //www.co.pierce wa us/ArchrveCenterNiewFile/Item/4622
In urban environments where wildlife presence is encouraged it is vital that small patches
of habitat be preserved and enhanced. In this environment, wildlife habitat; particularly
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
'
Management and Removal of Vegetation on Yakima River Levees.
The City practices the removal of vegetation on the Federal flood -control levee system
within city limits Active management of levee vegetation is no longer required for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers - PL 84-99 levee certification The near -stream and sometimes
overhanging vegetation, which has been severely cropped for many years, can provide
'
significant cover and shade for fish and a food source in the form of insects, which fall or
land on the water from it Active removal of levee vegetation impairs the recruitment to
the river of woody debris organic detritus Barren levees reduce channel roughness,
'
which is a negative characteristic in terms of providing for levee stability and longevity
Thus, keeping levees have benefits.
vegetation on can many positive
' We recommend that the City immediately suspends its current management of vegetation
on the levee system and adopt a policy under Goal 9.4 of sustaining that vegetation and
approaching levees as fully part of the Riparian - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
' Area. Pierce County, Washington makes available their document related to maximizing
habitat while minimizing negative effects of vegetation on levees. This document "Levee
Vegetation Management Strategy" is available on the Internet at
' https //www.co.pierce wa us/ArchrveCenterNiewFile/Item/4622
In urban environments where wildlife presence is encouraged it is vital that small patches
of habitat be preserved and enhanced. In this environment, wildlife habitat; particularly
Joseph Calhoun
Notice of Scoping, Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
November 4, 2016
Page 2
for birds and small mammals, is limited in urban areas. When looking to develop parks
and new development in general, habitat should be preserved. Attempts to make
everything clean and "park -like" should be discouraged
--Examples of how this can be done is to keep riparian vegetation intact and enhance it in
areas, such as along the greenway and local lakes and ponds Birds typically use these
areas both for nesting and as important migration corridors.
--In our parks and open spaces, native vegetation should be planted as landscaping when
possible. We should find opportunities to encourage brushy habitat areas in our parks, not
just clean landscaping and lawns
--Wetlands, and floodplain areas, even degraded ones, are often used by urban wildlife
Attempts to fill them in or further degrade them should be discouraged
Thus, a new policy might be adopted, such as. "Conserve, protect and enhance native
vegetation in open spaces, parks and riparian areas Consider using native vegetation for
planting in these areas and look for opportunities to enhance habitat for fish and wildlife"
Goal 9 3 5 does not convey a clear meaning and its intentions are not well understood
However, we do support certain land uses (parks, athletic venues) where important
hydrological functions exist, provided those natural functions continue to be fully
maintained following implementation
Natural Environment Maps -
1 The wetlands/stream maps seem to be missing many/most of the smaller wetlands that
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows. Our recommendation is to use all the
information displayed on the NWI layer
2. Areas listed as "Urban Natural Environment Open Space" are mapped as Shrub -steppe
(also listed as Urban Natural Environment Open Space" in the attributes) The term
"Shrub -steppe" carries much more clarity and provides a contextual tie-in to both
"Natural Environment" and "Open Space". Thus, "Shrub -steppe" is consistent across the
landscape and our is preferred term
Zoning Maps.
Some of the floodplain is designated as "Vacant/Under developed/Open Space" We also
see that some of the Naches River floodplain is designated as "Agriculture and
Resource". The background on these groupings is unknown, but some of this verbiage
may be counterproductive in designating floodplain and riparian habitat
1
'
Joseph Calhoun
'
Notice of Scoping, Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
November 4, 2016
Page 3
'
Please feel free to contact me with an questions or clarifications you may require. M
any Y Y q Y
'
phone number is 45 7-93 10
'
Sincerely,
'
Eric Bartrand
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Area Habitat Biologist
'
1701 S 24th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
EB,SD.eb
1
1
1
1
Joseph Calhoun
Notice of Scoping, Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
November 4, 2016
Page 4
�1
Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation
� v
November 4, 2016
Sent via Email
1
Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
City of Yakima
129 North 2"d Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Email. joseph.calhoun@yakimawa.gov
Established by the
Treaty- of June 9, 18 5 5
Re: COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF SEIS FOR YAKIMA CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Dear Mr Calhoun•
I write on behalf of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation ("Yakama Nation") to provide
comments on the proposed scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS") for the
City's Comprehensive Plan Update (the "Update").
' Specifically, the Yakama Nation requests that the SEIS review and address the Update's treatment of
cultural, archaeological, and historic resources (collectively, "cultural resources"). As you know, the City
of Yakima is within the Yakama Nation's ceded territory, and has been home to Yakama People since time
' immemorial. In preparing the SEIS, it is important that the City understands and assesses the cultural
nature of the lands that the Update will apply to. To do this, the City should use and consider the best
available information regarding cultural resources, including information obtained through consultation
' with the Yakama Nation and from the Washington State Department of Archaeological and Historic
Preservation ("DAHP")
' Ultimately, the City should adopt a Comprehensive Plan (and associated critical area ordinance) that
includes specific goals, policies, and regulations to protect cultural resources Having clear cultural
resource goals, policies, and regulations will prevent damage and destruction of Yakama cultural resources,
' and will also protect development project proponents by promoting the early identification of cultural
resources, and preventing costly mid -construction issues
' The Yakama Nation looks forward to the opportunity to work cooperatively with the City in its
Comprehensive Plan Update process Please contact Ya -ama Nation Archaeologist Jessica Lally at
Jessica_Lally@yakama.com with questions
' Respectfully,
' PHILIP RIGDON
DNR SUPERINTENDENT, YAKAMA NATION
' Yakama Nation, Post Office Box 151, Topperush, WA 98948 (509) 865-5121
1
I�
L
1�I
i✓
DRAFT Yakima Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 8 1
INTRODUCTION
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS UPDATE
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
With passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA), local jurisdictions throughout Washington State (State), including the City of Yakima (City), were
required to develop policies and regulations to designate and protect critical areas. The GMA directs jurisdictions to periodically conduct a thorough
review and update their Comprehensive Plan and regulations (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.130) The City originally developed its first
critical areas regulations in 1998 as Chapter 15 27 of its Yakima Municipal Code (YMC), and adopted revisions in 2008 and 2009 based on the then -
current best available science (BAS).
The City is currently undergoing a comprehensive review and update of its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations When updating critical
areas policies and regulations, jurisdictions must revisit the standards to establish that they are based on the most recent BAS and "give special
consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries" (RCW 36 70A 172)
Critical areas, as defined by the GMA (RCW 36.70A.030(5)), include
1) Frequently flooded areas (Part Four of YMC 15.27),
2) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Part Five),
3) Wetlands (Part Six),
4) Geologically hazardous areas (Part Seven), and
5) Critical aquifer recharge areas (Part Eight).
The following table provides recommendations for revisions to the 2009 critical areas regulations based on recent advances in BAS, as well as
improvements to support clarity, ease of use, and general consistency with the RCW and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), and to eliminate
redundancy and conflict with Title 17 (Shoreline Master Program [SMP] Regulations) YMC Key areas of recommended change are as follows:
1) In the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas section, broaden the application to more than "hydrologically related critical areas" and
update the stream typing and buffer system
2) In the Wetlands section, implement updates for consistency with the recently modified wetlands regulations in the SMP and recently issued
science -based wetland guidance
DRAFT, September 2016 1
M N'AKIWWOMMWNSIAWN <IPME
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
3) In the Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas section, extensively revise to fill the risk gap left by deferring regulation of this resource primarily to state
and federal law.
The scientific information reviewed during development of these recommendations is included in the last column of the table and listed in the
References section at the end of this document
ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS (YMC 15.27)
Part One. General Provisions
DRAFT, September 2016 2
Amend as follows "The purpose of this chapter is to establish a single, uniform system of procedures and
Clarifies that these
standards for development within designated critical areas outside of shoreline iunsdiction within the
regulations are not
incorporated city of Yakima and ItS blFbaR gF9Wth aFea."
applicable in
shoreline
jurisdiction;
15.27.120 Purpose
shoreline critical
of chapter
areas regulations are
separately addressed
in Chapter 17.09
Yakima Municipal
Code (YMC)
Amend as follows "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any new development, construction, or use
Change to avoid
15.27.140.A
within the incorporated portion of the city of Yakima and its wFbaR gFewth aF@a outside of shoreline
confusion with
Applicability
iurisdiction designated as a critical area .."
shoreline regulations
in Title 17.
15.27.140.6
Update as needed.
Applicability
Part Two. Definitions
Amend as follows: "..The physical structure of a shere bank stabilization structure shall not be considered
Change to avoid
fill.. "
confusion with
Fill
shoreline regulations
in Title 17
DRAFT, September 2016 2
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
/"TUU 11113 uCI II I I UV[I. f 1311 Qllu "I IV fl I IIOU I LOO l.uIgCI VQiIuII II ICOI I-1 10 11 U I I ICIHOr'CI I IC I It IVI 1110 II I LCIII III Ir,
populations of species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that the habitat
Fish and wildlife available is sufficient to support viable populations over the long term and isolated subpopulations are not
habitat created. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but it does mean not
conservation degrading or reducing populations or habitats so that they are no longer viable over the long term. Counties
and cities should engage in cooperative planning and coordination to help assure long term population
viability
Add this definition- "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" are areas that serve a critical role in
sustaining needed habitats and species for the functional integrity of the ecosystem, and which, if altered, may
reduce the likelihood that the species will persist over the long term These areas may include, but are not
Fish and wildlife limited to, rare or vulnerable ecological systems, communities, and habitat or habitat elements including
habitat seasonal ranges, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors, and areas with high relative
conservation areas population density or species richness Counties and cities may also designate locally important habitats and
species Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas does not include such artificial features or constructs as
irrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation canals, or drainage ditches that lie within the
boundaries of, and are maintained by, a port district or an irrigation district or company.
ucInnuUii iancii
from Washington
Administrative Code
(WAC) 365-190-
130(1)
Definition taken
from WAC 365-190-
030(6)(a and c).
Habitats of local Add this definition: "Habitats of local importance" are designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation Definition adapted
importance
areas based on a finding by the city that they are locally important from WAC 36S -190-
030(6)(b)
Hydrologically
Delete this definition as it's no longer in use.
related critical area
(HRCA)
Add the following definitions:
These definitions
"Priority habitat" means a habitat type with unique or significant value to one or more species An area
were taken from
classified and mapped as priority habitat must have one or more of the following attributes comparatively
Washington
high fish or wildlife density, comparatively high fish or wildlife species diversity, fish spawning habitat,
Department of Fish
Priority habitat and
important wildlife habitat, important fish or wildlife seasonal range, important fish or wildlife movement
and Wildlife's
species
corridor, rearing and foraging habitat, refuge, limited availability, high vulnerability to habitat alteration,
(WDFW's) Priority
unique or dependent species, or shellfish bed A priority habitat may be described by a unique vegetation type
Habitat and Species
or by a dominant plant species that is of primary importance to fish and wildlife A priority habitat may also be
List (2008) WDFW's
described by a successional stage Alternatively, a priority habitat may consist of a specific habitat element
system for
DRAFT, September 2016 3
M 006KIRMOMIRMNSIMN LOWE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
(such as talus slopes, caves, or snags) of key value to fish and wildlife A priority habitat may contain priority
designating Priority
and/or nonpnority fish and wildlife
Habitats and Species
(PHS), and providing
"Priority species" means species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their
recommendations
persistence at genetically viable population levels Priority species are those that meet any of the criteria
for management of
listed below:
those habitats and
A. Washington State (State) Listed or State Proposed Species. State -listed species are those native fish and
species, is an
wildlife species legally designated as endangered (WAC 232-12-014), threatened (WAC 232-12-011), or
important element
sensitive (WAC 232-12-011). State proposed species are those fish and wildlife species that will be
of best available
reviewed by WDFW (POL-M-6001) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive according
science that guides
to the process and criteria defined in WAC 232-12-297.
protection of the full
B. Vulnerable Aggregations. Vulnerable aggregations include those species or groups of animals susceptible
range of fish and
to significant population declines, within a specific area or statewide, by virtue of their inclination to
wildlife habitat
congregate
conservation areas
C. Species of Recreational, Commercial, and/or Tribal Importance Native and nonnative fish, shellfish, and
The current
wildlife species of recreational or commercial importance and recognized species used for tribal
regulations
ceremonial and subsistence purposes that are vulnerable to habitat loss or degradation.
thoroughly address
D Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as either proposed, threatened, or endangered
aquatic species and
habitats, but other
habitats and species
are not covered
Replace with the following (adapted from the definition used in YMC 17 01090): "Restore," "restoration" or
Consistency with
"ecological restoration" means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired functions, such as those listed in
definition in Title 17.
YMC 15 27.504, that have been lost or destroyed through natural events or human activity. This may be
This definition
accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive structures,
includes the
Restore and and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the site
appropriate
Restoration to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions.
acknowledgment
that "restoration" is
a continuum from
any upgrade to full
reestablishment
DRAFT, September 2016 4
Species of local
importance
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Add this definition: "Species of local importance" are those species that are of local concern due to their
population status or their sensitivity to habitat alteration or that are game species.
Taken from WAC
365-190-030(19)
Add this definition: "Waters of the state" are all lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground Taken from Revised
Waters of the state waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Code of Washington
Washington (RCW) 90 48 020.
15.27.305
Documented
exemptions for
hydrologically
related critical
areas and wetlands
15.27.307.A
Mitigation
requirements
15.27 315
Supplemental
report
requirements for
specific critical
areas
Part Three. Application and Review Procedures
Update section title to Documented exemptions for fish and wildlife habitat conservation eleg+GalP1'
r^'a*^d cr-t-ca' areas and wetlands
Modify as follows: If an alteration to a critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to that critical area and
its buffers shall be mitigated for in accordance with an approved mitigation plan
Modify as follows
A Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas-StrPa � Corr-d-^�� When a critical areas report is required for a
fish and wildlife habitat conservation area it shall include
the following
Add a new 3 A discussion of any federal, state or local management recommendations which have been
developed for the species or habitats in the area, and how they will be incorporated into the project
Part Four. Flood Hazard Areas
Greater consistency
with WAC
classification of
critical areas.
Critical area -specific
mitigation guidance
should be located
within that critical
area's regulations
section for ease of
staff and public use
Greater consistency
with RCW and WAC
classification of
critical areas
15.27.401
Modify as follows Part Four recognizes the right and need of toe river and stream channels to periodically This sentence's
-
carry more than the normal flow of water reference to "the
Principles river" implies that
DRAFT, September 2016 S
IWAKINNOMMMNSIWN LIME
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
DRAFT, September 2016 6
mapped floodway
and/or floodplain_
• Consider curtailing certain permitted uses (particularly new development) in the floodway fringe and
RCW 36 70A.172
expanding the list of prohibited uses in the floodway fringe so that treatment is more similar to floodway
requires that the City
regulations
"give special
• Consider prohibiting new dikes in the floodway.
consideration to
conservation or
j
protection measures
necessary to
preserve or enhance
anadromous
j 15.27.409-15.27.412
fisheries." WDFW
(Knight, 2009) and
Floodway fringe
many other sources
and floodway
emphasize the
permitted and
p
importance of
prohibited uses
j
floodplains in
providing physical
habitat for
salmonids, as well as
supporting
watershed -/basin -
level processes that
help form and
maintain physical
DRAFT, September 2016 6
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Part Five. Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System
Replace use of "hydrologically related critical area" to the more encompassing "fish and wildlife habitat
General conservation area" in this section. Retitle this Part Five as "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas."
Revise the Purpose and Intent section as shown below
vegetation,"The Soream— r-p-ME19F SySteFA 1AGIUdes hydFolegically Felated eritic-al -Ar-ear— StFeams, lakes, peRds, and wetlands
and wildlife Policies
and standards to help conserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are designed to
15 27 500 Purpose accomplish the following
and intent A. Meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36 70A 172) regarding best available science,
habitat. New uses in
floodplains can
degrade aquatic
habitat and have an
adverse effect on
salmonids and other
aquatic or terrestrial
species if they
increase stormwater
runoff/reduce
infiltration, reduce
sources of large
woody debris, alter
the size and volume
of sediment inputs,
or interfere with
channel migration,
among others
See comment below
This Purpose and
Intent section and
the regulations that
follow target only
hydrologically
related critical areas,
which eliminates the
potential to provide
appropriate levels of
protection of upland
DRAFT, September 2016 7
_ =kAKINWMAMNSIPWN LIME _
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
B8 RreyWe pestle Require consideration of alternatives for necessary development, construction, and uses
habitats and species
within fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
that require those
ofatoa c -.,tie -.I a
upland habitats to
C€ Prevent decline in the quantity and quality of surface and subsurface waters,
support some part of
D€ Conserve, restore, and protect fish and wildlife habitats, vegetation, and ecological relationships,
their life cycle
—
Accordingly,
E� Protect sensitive aFeas ^'the stre-am r-^r•'dor fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas from the
-
language is
potential negative effects of development through coordinated land use planning, and
recommended to
Fkl. Protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas Tthrough voluntary agreements or government
address the full
incentives.,
range of potential
fish and wildlife
iand , plan. ,.,. ,,
habitats in the City,
outside of shoreline
jurisdiction, and to
be consistent with
updated definitions
of this critical area
type that were
promulgated by
WDFW and included
in the WAC.
Revise the Protection Approach section as shown below
Modified A for
To maintain fish and wildlife habitat, there must be adequate environmental conditions for reproduction,
technical accuracy
foraging, resting, eeveir, and dispersal of animals Factors affecting both habitat and its quality include
and to provide
the presence of essential resources such as food, water, and cover nest huddiRg materials, and lack of
greater clarity of
15.27.501
disturbance and diseases The city of Yakima protects fish and wildlife habitat through:
protection
I
Protection
1 Designation of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
mechanisms
approach and
2 Application of development standards based on best available science to proposed activity and
development in or near fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
19 ate d Rea. . the water.
DRAFT, September 2016 8
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Replace/modify existing language in 502 and 503 with the following, and retitle section as 15 27 502
Derived from WAC
Designation*
365-190-130(2)
A Designation Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are those habitat areas outside of shoreline
Recommend
jurisdiction that meet any of the criteria listed below
reorganization of
1. Areas with which state and federal endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary
these code sections
association,
to provide more
2. Habitats and species of local importance,
consistency with the
States classification
3. Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or
of critical areas, and
wildlife habitat,
better balance the
4. Waters of the state, including any required buffers and associated Federal Emergency Management
emphasis on aquatic
15.27.502 and Agency -mapped floodplains and floodways,
and terrestrial
15.27.503 5. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity, and
species
Hydrologically
related critical area 6 State natural area preserves, natural resource conservation areas, and state wildlife areas
Although the City's
features and B Habitats and species of local importance
code currently
Habitat andcontains
1 All species and habitats identified by WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species program that may be
a process
for designating
habitats of local found in the city of Yakima are designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and
species and habitats
importance afforded protection under this chapter
of local importance,
2 [Retain existing 15.27 503 B here]
this section of code
3 [Modify existing 15 27.503 C as shown] "Development Standards Projects located within habitats of
has not been used.
local importance or within 200 feet of species of local importance, as designated in subsection A B 1
Instead, it is
and B 2 of this section, shall comply with the applicable
recommended,
development standards in YMC 15 27 508 through 15 27 521, unless reviev.; .s -a's^ Rooaoa for -a
consistent with
In addition, Izproiects shall be designated using management
WDFW guidance,
recommendations established for the species or habitat by federal and state agencies, or those
that habitats and
adopted for species and habitats of local importance by the city of Yakima The department shall
species of local
consider the extent such recommendations are used in its decision on the proposal, and may
importance be
consider recommendations and advice from agencies with expertise "
specifically named to
DRAFT, September 2016 9
M 11WAKIMOMIMNSAMN LIWE M
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
DRAFT, September 2016 10
Ild Ulld U.
The current water -typing system does not provide a clear, scientific bans to distinguish the different water
RCW 36 70A 172
types The City should consider switching to either WAC 222-16-030 (Water typing system) or WAC 222-16-
requires that the City
031 (Interim water typing system). Either of these systems would support application of the buffer scale in a
"give special
way that more closely matches the actual functions and values of a given waterbody.
consideration to
conservation or
protection measures
necessary to
preserve or enhance
anadromous
fisheries." Although
the current typing
Streams, Lake and
system's linkage to a
Ponds Typing
suite of specific
System
functions (in the case
15.27.505
of Type 2) is science-
based, the
application of it is
too subjective, and
there could be
situations where
anadromous fish or
other salmonids may
be using a lower -
functioning stream,
and thus be assigned
DRAFT, September 2016 10
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
�IIId IICI UUIICI
Amend as follows: Type 1 waters are those waters, within their ordinary high water mark (OHWM), If the City elects to
15 27 505meeting the criteria as "shorelines of the state" and "shorelines of statewide significance" under RCW Chapter switch to the system
Streams, lakess and 9058 Other Wwaters-associated with Type 1 waters in WAC 222-16-030,
ponds typing mare not considered Type 1 waters Type 1 waters are regulated exclusively under Title 17 of the Type 1 would be re -
system Yakima Municipal Code. named Type S
DRAFT, September 2016 11
The delineation of perennial streams into Type 2 (listed in current Appendix B) and Type 3 waters as currently
WAC 222-16-030 or -
defined seems particularly vague and subjective. If the City does not wish to switch water typing systems
031; WDFW, 2016
altogether, then it is recommended that Type 2 be defined as perennial, salmonid -bearing and Type 3 be
defined as perennial, non -salmonid -bearing. Type 4 should then be limited to non -fish -bearing. Appendix B
15.27.505.8
could either be eliminated, or updated based on the best available information. In the latter case, Cowiche
Streams, lakes and
Creek (that portion which is not Type 1 or Type S) and Spring Creek, as well as any accessible tributaries,
ponds typing
should at the very least be added to Appendix B as a Type 2 water
system
If Appendix B is retained, with further modifications to the list, amend as follows: "Type 2 streams are those
surface water features listed in Appendix B of this title which require protection due to the nature of their
contributions to the functional properties listed in YMC 15 27 504 and are EensEdered "strew_ s lakes "„di^.•
Delete this provision
Title 17 provides all
of the necessary
15.27.505 F.3
detail regarding
Streams, lakes and
ponds typing
which waters may or
may not be
system
considered a
shoreline (Type 1)
Remove this section regarding the wetland rating system
Recommendation for
clarity. This
15.27.506 Wetland
I important regulation
rating system
should be in the
wetlands regulations
section.
DRAFT, September 2016 11
is.zi.sui maps
the updated map sets
Delete these provisions.
15.27.510-.513
Use classifications
etc.
M 11WAKMOMIMNSIOAN LME M
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
................ ..
Amend as follows
The establishment of a vegetative buffer system is necessary to protect the functions and values of eek
streams, lakes, and ponds
y0eflandS aloe hr Pd in ITables 27 5-1 a^d-24-5i-4j Buffers associated with wetlands are listed in YMC
15.27.514
Vegetative buffers
Table 27.5-1
Steam Water
Buffer Width—standard/(minimum
Buffer Width (if City chooses to
Type
adjustmeRtwidth)1
switch to one of the WAC rating
systems)
Type 1e
See Table 09 030-1 in YMC 17 09.030 P
Type 1 / Type S See Table 09 030-1
in YMC 17 09 030.13
sti:eams lal(e&,-a-n4
POA4&
1 The buffer modifications suggested below are recommended if the City does not change its current rating system definitions
DRAFT, September 2016
The concept of use
classifications
surrounding water
orientation is only
appropriate for
shoreline (Type 1)
waterbodies, which
are solely regulated
via Title 17. These
provisions are not
suitable or necessary
for Types 2-5 waters.
These buffer
recommendations
are based on review
of Final Draft Semi -
and Riparian
Functions and
Associated
Regulatory
Protections to
Support Shoreline
Master Program
Updates (Anchor
QEA, LLC, 2013) and
aerial photographs
Note that as
12
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
A Vegetative buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark for streams, lakes, and ponds;
aAd- fire -M. the od-Ro of the wet! . The width of the buffer shall be determined according to the Weam
erwetland water type. Buffer width may be reduced through an adjustment permit process (YMC
15 27 317)
yAdths, for ;.A.Pefl-and-s th-At SGGFe medium (tWE?Rty thFOUgh tW@Rty eight P911214) OF high (tWeRty Rill -
wildlife .nth-.. the h''ffP- be M @t With a SiA R"PIC h-.ffp
B Type 1 waters streams, lakes, and peRds are protected by the shoreline master program Title 17 and are
not part of this title
C The minimum buffer widths listed in Tables 27 5-1 aAd X7 5-z are the lowest possible buffer widths
allowed by means of the adjustment process Adjustments below the minimum buffer width must meet
additional approval criteria as provided in YMC 15 27 317(C)(4)
D The adequacy of these standard buffer widths presumes the existence of a relatively intact native
vegetative community within the buffer zone that is deemed adequate to protect the identified critical
area
1. If the vegetation is degraded, then revegetation may be considered with any adjustment to the buffer
width
currently defined,
the City's Type 4
stream could be fish -
bearing
Removed wetland -
specific language,
and relocated to the
appropriate
wetlands section
Added detailed
regulations for
mechanisms to
modify stream
buffers, consistent
with the updated
wetland regulation
buffer modification
tools
DRAFT, September 2016 13
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ' M M
Recommendation
Type 2 meams,
lakes a R d per4s
75'/(2-556 25')
Type 2 or 3 / Type F = 75'
Type 3 s4eams
af4*eeds ,
X965'/(2548 75')
Type 3 or 4 / Type Np = 50'
Type 4 seams
lakes ,and-pe+4s
-550'/(4-537 5')
Type 5 / Type Ns = 25'
Type 5StFeams
(ephemeral)
No buffer standards Type 5 streams are not
regulated as streams, but may be protected
under geologically hazardous area,
floodplain, stormwater, construction, grading
or other development regulations
Not Applicable
A Vegetative buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark for streams, lakes, and ponds;
aAd- fire -M. the od-Ro of the wet! . The width of the buffer shall be determined according to the Weam
erwetland water type. Buffer width may be reduced through an adjustment permit process (YMC
15 27 317)
yAdths, for ;.A.Pefl-and-s th-At SGGFe medium (tWE?Rty thFOUgh tW@Rty eight P911214) OF high (tWeRty Rill -
wildlife .nth-.. the h''ffP- be M @t With a SiA R"PIC h-.ffp
B Type 1 waters streams, lakes, and peRds are protected by the shoreline master program Title 17 and are
not part of this title
C The minimum buffer widths listed in Tables 27 5-1 aAd X7 5-z are the lowest possible buffer widths
allowed by means of the adjustment process Adjustments below the minimum buffer width must meet
additional approval criteria as provided in YMC 15 27 317(C)(4)
D The adequacy of these standard buffer widths presumes the existence of a relatively intact native
vegetative community within the buffer zone that is deemed adequate to protect the identified critical
area
1. If the vegetation is degraded, then revegetation may be considered with any adjustment to the buffer
width
currently defined,
the City's Type 4
stream could be fish -
bearing
Removed wetland -
specific language,
and relocated to the
appropriate
wetlands section
Added detailed
regulations for
mechanisms to
modify stream
buffers, consistent
with the updated
wetland regulation
buffer modification
tools
DRAFT, September 2016 13
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ' M M
_ M M M � M M M M M M M M _YAKMOMIMNSIAWN L�E M
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
width.
E Where a legally established road or railway crosses a buffer, the administrative official may approve a
modification of the minimum required buffer width to the waterward edge of the improved road or
railway if a study submitted by the applicant and prepared by a qualified professional demonstrates that
the part of the buffer on the upland side of the road or railway sought to be reduced:
1 Does not provide additional protection of the waterbody; and
2 Provides insignificant biological, geological or hydrological buffer functions relating to the waterward
portion of the buffer adjacent to the waterbody
If the improved roadway corridor is wider than 20 feet, a study is not required
F Buffer averaging to improve habitat protection may be permitted when all of the following conditions are
met:
r or its riparian corridor has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat
ftinrtinns
2 The buffer is increased adiacent to the higher -functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of
the habitat, and decreased adjacent to the lower -functioning or less sensitive portion as
demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified professional.
3 The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging
4 The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three-quarters of the required width
G Buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following
conditions are met
1. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer
averaging.
The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the waterbody or riparian corridor's functions
and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified Drofessional.
3. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.
4. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three-quarters of the required width
DRAFT, September 2016 14
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
DRAFT, September 2016 15
Consider developing a Public Agency and Utility Exception (PAUE), regulations for which could be located
Suggestions will
within Article VI, Permit Review Criteria, and consolidating the applicable provisions from 515 and 516 into
support flexibility for
more general criteria that could apply to more critical area types. Alternatively, could consolidate these two
I modifications that
15.27.515 Roads,
sections into one section governing linear and/or public facilities, or even more generally be part of a
often have minimal
railroads, and
regulations section describing modifications allowed in non -shoreline waters and/or their buffers
feasible or
parking AND
appropriate
15.27.516 Utility
alternatives
transmission lines
Whitman County
and facilities
Code 9.05.110
provides a good
example of PAUE
language
15 27.517 Share
Most of the activities in 517 - 519 are most likely to be proposed or undertaken in shoreline jurisdiction, and
Change would
Bank stabilization
thus not subject to these regulations Many of these provisions could be removed outright As suggested
eliminate
AND
immediately above, these sections could also fall underneath a more general set of regulations describing
redundancy and
15.27.518 Dredging
modifications allowed in non -shoreline waters and/or their buffers
minimize
and excavation
unnecessary
AND
language
15.27.519 Filling
This activity seems likely to be only pursued in shoreline jurisdiction. If that's the case, this section could be
Change would
deleted.
eliminate
15.27.520
redundancy and
Commercial mining
of gravel
minimize
unnecessary
language
DRAFT, September 2016 15
a ' IWAKWOMIMNSAWN L�E M
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
15.27.521
Reclamation
General
17.09.040.13.1
17.09.040.D.2
Retitle this section to "Restoration," as Reclamation is a term more commonly associated with post -mining Consistency with
activities. current terminology
Part Six. Wetlands Replace 15.27.601-.605 with 17.09.040.8-.G, with the following exceptions:
Update to remove
1 Substitute appropriate cross-references in 15 27 XX for the equivalent references in Title 17 (e.g., in
As part of the recent
17 09 040 B 2, substitute 17 25 200 for the reference to 17.01.090)
SMP update, the
2 Replace "shoreline administrator" with "administrative official "
wetland regulations
3 Replace references to shoreline permits with the equivalent non -shoreline permit
section was
4 Replace "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is
incorporated into
applicable to the issues of concern" with "best available science "
the SMP, but
updated to reflect
the most current
scientific
information Much
of the SMP version
of these regulations
can then be used
wholesale, except
where there were
shoreline -specific
modifications.
Revise 17.09.040.6.1 as follows "Censistem y•.;*h In,nr J_:7342 935 ...Wetlands shall
Update to remove
be delineated.."
inapplicable
shoreline reference
Revise 17.09.040.D 2 as follows "Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington, revised
Ecology's most
October 20104arrh 997 (Ecology Publication Number 14-06-03094-06 15, or as revised) . "
recent wetland
rating system
represents the best
available science
(Hruby, 2014).
DRAFT, September 2016
16
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Replace 17.09 040.1) 2 a -d with the following:
Descriptions of the
a. Category I wetlands are those that 1) represent a unique or rare wetland type, or 2) are more sensitive to
different wetland
disturbance than most wetlands, or 3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are
!, categories are from
impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or 4) provide a high level of functions. Risk of any
I Washington State
degradation to these wetlands must be avoided because their functions and values are too difficult to
Wetland Rating
replace. Generally, these wetlands are not common and make up a small percentage of the wetlands in
System For Eastern
the region.
Washington (Hruby,
b. Category II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some
2014).
functions These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands, but still need a relatively high
17.09.040.D.2.a-d level of protection.
c. Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions and can often be adequately
replaced with a well-planned mitigation project These wetlands generally have been disturbed in some
ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than
Category II wetlands.
d. Category IV wetlands have the lowest level of functions and are often heavily disturbed. These are
wetlands that should be able to be replaced and, in some cases, improved However, experience has
shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some
important functions and also need to be protected.
Replace Sub -section E with XX 050 from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Eastern Washington Version
Wetland Guidance
(Bunten and others, 2016).
for CAO Updates
17.09.040 E
Eastern Washington
Wetland Buffers
Version (Bunten and
others, 2016)
Replace Sub -sections F and G with Section XX.070 from Wetland Guldonce for CAO Updates Eastern
Wetland Guidance
Washington Version (Bunten and others, 2016).
for CAO Updates
Eastern Washington
Version (Bunten and
17.09.040.1' and G
others, 2016) While
lengthier than the
current language,
this more detailed
section will provide
DRAFT, September 2016 17
Ml = � M M � M M 1=1 ' � M M M M M M M 1
r M M SYAKMOMARNSIRWN LURE M
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Part Seven Geologically Hazardous Areas
Modify A.2 d as shown: Channel migration zones and stream undercutting.
15.27.701 Mapping Modify C as shown: The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the
city's critical area map titled "Geologically Hazardous Areas of the City of Yakima." The following geologically
and designation hazardous areas have been mapped and classified using the criteria found in WAC 365-190-120080{4{
t:
Modify as shown . YMC Title 11 requirements can be met by the application of the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) in the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington SterpAwater Manual
(01DOFEcology publication number 04-10-076, or most recent version),
15.27.702.A
Modify as shown- ...Protection measures for stream undercutting hazard areas will be accomplished by critical
15.27.702.D areas review for flood hazards, and streams,
better consistency
with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA) Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses
of Aquatic Resources;
Final Rule (Corps,
2008).
Updated WAC
language and
references.
Change clarifies
manual title, and
ensures that the
most current and
scientifically based
version would
continue to be used
in the future
Update to remove
inapplicable
shoreline reference.
DRAFT, September 2016 18
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
15.27.703.B.2
Modify as shown: The administrative official is authorized to waive further geologic hazard review for
oversteepened slopes on the basis that the hazards identified by the geologic hazard report will be adequately
mitigated through conditions applied to the issdanceAfa-grading or construction permit
Part Eight. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA)
The map referenced in this section does not clearly illustrate all of the features named in the regulations The
referenced critical aquifer recharge area guidance document has also been updated since 1997 The most
recent version (Morgan, 2005) stresses the importance of mapping public water supply wells, private wells,
aquifer boundaries, and areas that have been rated for susceptibility In the absence of good maps, the 2005
guidance document emphasizes more strongly the important of performance standards. At this time, the
section should be edited to reflect what is available, and require use of the latest guidance for future mapping
efforts
Suggest renaming this section to "Maps and Reference Documents" or something similar
At a minimum, the following maps and reference documents could be listed
• U S Department of Agriculture Soil Survey
15.27.810 Mapping http //websoilsurvey sc egov usda gov/App/WebS0dSUrvey aspx
• Washington Department of Health Group A and B Maps
https //fortress wa gov/doh/eh/maps/SWAP/index html
• Soil Survey of Yakima County Area, Washington (report only)
http //www nres usda gov/Internet/FSE MAN USCRIPTS/washington/yakimaWA1985/yakimaWA1985-
I pdf
• City of Yakima Wellhead Protection Plan http //www yakimacounty us/669/City-of-Yakima-Wellhead-
Protection-Plan
• Hydrogeologic Framework of Sedimentary Deposits in Six Structural Basins, Yakima River Basin,
Washington http //pubs usgs gov/sir/2006/5116/pdf/sir20065116 pdf and Yakima Basin plate
http //pubs usgs gov/sir/2006/5116/pdf/sir20065116 plate4 pdf
Change for clarity
(the issuance of a
permit doesn't
mitigate hazards,
unless that permit
contains appropriate
conditions).
Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas
Guidance Document
(Morgan, 2005)
DRAFT, September 2016 19
M M M M M � M M M M M M M SWAKIIIINOMAWNSIAWN JIME M
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
15.27.820
Protection
Approach
Existing .820 B essentially relies on property owner/applicant compliance with a variety of existing local, state
and federal laws Given the lack of good maps at this time and the gaps in appropriate protection that can
result from reliance on state and federal regulations (see Morgan, 2005), complete revision of the regulations
is recommended as shown below.
These regulations were adapted from the City of Redmond's and City of Ellensburg's regulations, both of which
were last updated in 2013, customized to the City of Yakima After reviewing a number of examples of CARA
regulations from other cities and counties, Redmond/Ellensburg was chosen based on their content and level
of detail, which were a good fit considering the City of Yakima's available information. Ellensburg has a similar
landscape position to Yakima. Where applicable, language from Yakima County's code was also integrated
During review of other CARA regulation examples, it was noted that there seemed to be three primary
approaches
1) High level of detail and specificity based on more extensive groundwater/aquifer mapping and analysis
(e.g , Cowlitz County). This specificity can significantly reduce the burden on staff and applicants.
2) Low level of detail and specificity, with the regulations deferring primarily to state and federal regulations.
In several cases, additional reporting or other performance standards could be required by the Director when
a development "has potential to impact an aquifer," but the regulations do not identify reliable, science -based
indicators to help a Director make that determination (e g , Benton County).
3) Moderate level of detail, with tiered submittal requirements and more specific standards, but limited
supporting map analysis. (e g., Redmond and Ellensburg).
The following set of recommended regulations takes the moderate approach With a budget commitment by
the City (e g , either now or as part of a future work program by the City or a joint effort of the County -City if
appropriate), maps could be generated and these regulations could be refined to further minimize staff and
applicant reporting and analysis
RECOMMENDED CARA REGULATIONS
15.27.820 Protection approach.
Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas
Guidance Document
(Morgan, 2005)
DRAFT, September 2016 20
A
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Classification and Rating of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas To promote consistent application of the standards and requirements of this section, Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas within the City shall be rated or classified according to their characteristics, function and value, and/or their sensitivity to
disturbance.
1 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Classification Critical aquifer recharge areas are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for
potable water Wellhead protection involves the management of activities that have a potential to degrade the quality of groundwater produced by a
supply well The City is classified into four wellhead protection zones that are based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to Group A and
Group B water source wells within the City limits, and are designated using guidance from the Washington Department of Health Wellhead Protection
Program pursuant to Chapter 246-290 WAC
a Wellhead Protection Zone 1 represents the land area overlying the six-month time -of -travel zone of any Group A water source well and/or land
area overlying any Group B wellhead protection area
b Wellhead Protection Zone 2 represents the land area that overlies the one-year time -of -travel zone of any Group A water source well, excluding
the land area contained within Wellhead Protection Zone 1
c. Wellhead Protection Zone 3 represents the land area that overlies the five-year and ten-year time -of -travel zones of any Group A water source
well, excluding the land area contained within Wellhead Protection Zones 1 or 2
d Wellhead Protection Zone 4 represents all the remaining land area in the City not included in Wellhead Protection Zones 1, 2, or 3
2 Classification of wellhead protection zones shall be determined in accordance with the City's Wellhead Protection Plan and the Washington State
Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water, Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) Mapping Application, which designates time of travel and
wellhead protection zones that correspond to Zones 1 through 4, noted in subsection 1 above
Prohibited Activities in Wellhead Protection Zones
Land uses or activities for new development or redevelopment that pose a significant hazard to the City's groundwater resources, resulting from
storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances, shall be prohibited in
Wellhead Protection Zones 1 and 2 These land uses and activities include, but are not limited to
a Large on-site sewage systems, as defined in WAC Chapter 246-272A,
b Hazardous liquid pipelines as defined in RCW Chapter 8188;
c Solid waste landfills or transfer stations, including hazardous or dangerous waste, municipal solid waste, special waste, wood waste, and inert
and demolition waste;
DRAFT, September 2016 21
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ' M M
M IWAKMOOMIWNSIAWN LlOWE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
d Liquid petroleum refining, reprocessing, and storage,
e Bulk storage facilities,
f Hard rock and sand and gravel mining, unless located within the mineral resource designation;
g The storage or distribution of gasoline treated with the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether,
h Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities except those defined under permit by rule for industrial wastewater treatment
processes per WAC 173-303-802(5)(a),
I Chemical manufacturing, including but not limited to, organic and inorganic chemicals, plastics and resins, pharmaceuticals, cleaning compounds,
paints and lacquers, and agricultural chemicals,
Dry cleaning establishments using the solvent perch loroethylene or similarly toxic compounds,
k. Primary and secondary metal industries that manufacture, produce, smelt, or refine ferrous and nonferrous metals from molten materials;
I Wood treatment facilities that allow any portion of the treatment process to occur over permeable surfaces (both natural and manmade),
m Mobile fleet fueling operations,
n Class I, Class III, Class IV, and the following types of Class V wells 5A7, 5F01, 5D03, 5F04, 5W09, 5W10, 5W11, 5W31, 5X13, 5X14, 5X15, 5W20,
5X28, and 5N24 as regulated under RCW Chapter 90 48 and WAC Chapters 173-200 and 173-218, as amended,
o Permanent dewatering of the aquifer for new projects and redevelopment,
p Facilities that store, process, or dispose of radioactive substances, and
q Irrigation with graywater or reclaimed water
2 Other land uses and activities that the City determines would pose a significant groundwater hazard to Group A and Group B groundwater supplies
within the City limits, or would significantly reduce the recharge to aquifers currently or potentially used as a potable water source
C Wellhead Protection Zone Performance Standards
1 Activities may only be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to
enter the aquifer and that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer
DRAFT, September 2016 22
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
2 Any uses or activities which involve storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious
substances shall comply with the following standards that apply to the wellhead protection zone in which they are located Residential uses of
hazardous materials or deleterious substances are exempt from the following standards
3 If a property is located in more than one wellhead protection zone, the Director of [XXX] shall determine which standards shall apply based on an
assessment evaluation of the risk posed by the facility or activity The assessment evaluation shall include, but not be limited to (a) the location,
type, and quantity of the hazardous materials or deleterious substances on the property; (b) the geographic and geologic characteristics of the site,
and (c) the type and location of infiltration on the site
4 Development within Wellhead Protection Zones 1 or 2, and any facility or activity existing as of [XXX], within which hazardous materials or other
deleterious substances are present, shall implement the following relevant performance standards
a Secondary Containment
The owner or operator of any facility or activity shall provide secondary containment for hazardous materials or other deleterious substances
in aggregate quantities equal to or greater than 20 gallons liquid or 200 pounds solid or in quantities specified in the Yakima Fire Code, YMC
Chapter 10 05, whichever is smaller
��. Hazardous materials stored in tanks that are subject to regulation by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) under WAC
Chapter 173-360, Underground Storage Tank Regulations, are exempt from the secondary containment requirements of this section, provided
that documentation is provided to demonstrate compliance with those regulations
b Vehicle Fueling, Maintenance, and Storage Areas Fleet and automotive service station fueling, equipment maintenance, and vehicle washing
areas shall have a containment system for collecting and treating all runoff from such areas and preventing release of fuels, oils, lubricants, and
other automotive fluids into soil, surface water, or groundwater Appropriate emergency response equipment and spill kits shall be kept on-site
during transfer, handling, treatment, use, production, recycling, or disposal of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances.
c Loading and Unloading Areas Secondary containment or equivalent Best Management Practices (BMPs), as approved by the Director of Public
Works, shall be required at loading and unloading areas that store, handle, treat, use, produce, recycle, or dispose of hazardous materials or
other deleterious substances in aggregate quantities equal to or greater than 20 gallons liquid or 200 pounds solid
d Stormwater Infiltration Systems. Design and construction of new stormwater infiltration systems must address site-specific risks of releases
posed by all hazardous materials on-site These risks may be mitigated by physical design means or equivalent BMPs in accordance with an
approved Hazardous Materials Management Plan Design and construction of said stormwater infiltration systems shall also be in accordance
with YMC Chapter 7 83 and the latest edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington, approved local equivalent, or
another technical stormwater manual approved by Ecology, and shall be certified for compliance with the requirements of this section by a
professional engineer or engineering geologist registered in the State of Washington
DRAFT, September 2016 23
S S S S S S S S S S S S S SrAKIMMOMMONSIAWN LOWE S
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
e The record and construction details of any well regulated under Chapter 173-160 WAC, Construction and Maintenance of Wells, and any well
excluded per WAC 173-160-010(2) that is constructed or decommissioned in Zones 1 and 2, shall be provided to the Department of [XXX] within
60 days of well completion or decommissioning.
f. Protection Standards During Construction. The following standards shall apply to construction activities occurring where construction vehicles
will be refueled on-site and/or the quantity of hazardous materials that will be stored, dispensed, used, or handled on the construction site is in
aggregate quantities equal to or greater than 20 gallons liquid or 200 pounds solid, exclusive of the quantity of hazardous materials contained in
fuel or fluid reservoirs of construction vehicles As part of the City's project permitting process, the City may require any or all of the following
items
A development agreement,
Ii Detailed monitoring and construction standards,
III. Designation of a person on-site during operating hours who is responsible for supervising the use, storage, and handling of hazardous
materials and who has appropriate knowledge and training to take mitigating actions necessary in the event of fire or spill,
IV Hazardous material storage, dispensing, refueling areas, and use and handling areas shall be provided with secondary containment adequate
to contain the maximum release from the largest volume container of hazardous substances stored at the construction site,
V Practices and procedures to ensure that hazardous materials left on-site when the site is unsupervised are inaccessible to the public Locked
storage sheds, locked fencing, locked fuel tanks on construction vehicles, or other techniques may be used if they will preclude access;
VI Practices and procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and stationary equipment that are found to be leaking fuel, hydraulic fluid,
and/or other hazardous materials will be removed immediately or repaired on-site immediately The vehicle or equipment maybe repaired
in place, provided the leakage is completely contained;
vii Practices and procedures to ensure that storage and dispensing of flammable and combustible liquids from tanks, containers, and tank trucks
into the fuel and fluid reservoirs of construction vehicles or stationary equipment on the construction site are in accordance with the Yakima
Fire Code, YMC Chapter 10 05, and
viii Practices and procedures, and/or on-site materials adequate to ensure the immediate containment and cleanup of any release of hazardous
substances stored at the construction site On-site cleanup materials may suffice for smaller spills whereas cleanup of larger spills may
require a subcontract with a qualified cleanup contractor. Releases shall immediately be contained, cleaned up, and reported if required
under state or federal law Contaminated soil, water, and other materials shall be disposed of according to state and local requirements
g Fill Materials. Fill material shall comply with the standards in YMC Chapter 7 82 and the following
DRAFT, September 2016 24
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Fill material shall not contain concentrations of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil specified in WAC 173-340-740, Model
Toxics Control Act, regardless of whether all or part of the contamination is due to natural background levels at the fill source site Where
the detection limit (lower limit at which a chemical can be detected by a specified laboratory procedure) for a particular soil contaminant
exceeds the cleanup standard for soil specified in WAC 173-340-740, the detection limit shall be the standard for fill material quality
>> Fill materials in quantities greater than 10 cubic yards placed directly on or in the ground in excess of six months shall meet the following
requirements:
1 A fill material source statement shall be provided to the Department of [XXX] and shall be reviewed and accepted by the Department
prior to stockpiling or grading imported fill materials at the site. The source statement shall be issued by a professional engineer,
geologist, engineering geologist or hydrogeologist licensed in the State of Washington demonstrating the source's compliance with
standards of the Model Toxics Control Act. The source statement shall be required for each different source location from which fill will
be obtained
2 Analytical results demonstrating that fill materials do not exceed cleanup standards specified in WAC 173-340-740 may be used in lieu
of a fill material source statement, provided the regulated facility submits a sampling plan to, and which is approved by, the Director of
[XXX] The regulated facility must then adhere to the approved sampling plan, and maintain analytical data on-site and available for
inspection for a minimum of five years from the date that the fill was accepted
The Department of [XXX] may accept a fill material source statement that does not include results of sampling and analysis of imported fill if it
determines that adequate information is provided indicating that the source location is free of contamination. Such information may include,
but is not limited to
1 Results of field testing of earth materials to be imported to the site with instruments capable of detecting the presence of contaminants,
or
2 Results of previous sampling and analysis of earth materials to be imported to the site
iv A fill material source statement is not required if documents confirm that imported fill will be obtained from a Washington State Department
of Transportation approved source
V The Director of [XXX] shall have the authority to require corrective measures regarding noncompliant fill materials, including independent
sampling and analysis, if the property owner or operator fails to accomplish such measures in a timely manner The property owner or
operator shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the City in the conduct of such activities
h Cathodic Protection Wells Cathodic protection wells shall be constructed such that the following do not occur
Vertical cross -connection of aquifers normally separated by confining units,
DRAFT, September 2016 25
M M M M M M M M M M M M M SrAKAMOMAWNSAWN lJOWE M
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
IL Migration of contaminated surface water along improperly sealed well borings or casings,
M Introduction of electrolytes or related solutions into the subsurface, and
ry Any of the above conditions caused by improperly abandoned cathodic protection wells that are no longer in use
Underground Hydraulic Elevator Cylinders All underground hydraulic elevator pressure cylinders shall be encased in an outer plastic casing
constructed of Schedule 40 or thicker -wall polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride pipe, or equivalent. The plastic casing shall be capped at the
bottom, and all joints shall be solvent- or heat -welded to ensure water tightness. The neck of the plastic casing shall provide a means of
inspection to monitor the annulus between the pressurized hydraulic elevator cylinder and the protective plastic casing
I Best Management Practices (BMPs) All development or redevelopment shall implement BMPs for water quality and quantity, as approved by
the Director of [XXX], such as biofiltration swales and use of oil -water separators, BMPs appropriate to the particular use proposed, clustered
development, and limited impervious surfaces.
5 Development within Wellhead Protection Zone 3 shall implement appropriate BMPs and comply with the performance standards for vehicle fueling,
maintenance, and storage areas, loading and unloading areas, well construction and operation, fill materials, cathodic protection wells; and
underground hydraulic elevator cylinders in applicable subsections in C 4 of this section
6 Development within Wellhead Protection Zone 4 shall implement BMPs for water quality and quantity.
7 An incremental environmental improvement to a system protective of groundwater shall not alter, expand, or intensify an existing legal
nonconformance, but may proceed without having to meet the following City codes:
a. Restrictions associated with critical areas and critical area buffers, if the footprint of the original system protective of groundwater is located
within the same critical area buffer, and it can be demonstrated through BAS that there will be no significant adverse impacts to the critical area
and its buffer,
b Any requirement to bring all or any portion of the facility or the development it serves up to current building, fire, or land use codes that is
triggered by the value or design of the incremental environmental improvement to a system protective of groundwater; and
c. The incremental improvement shall not qualify as a redevelopment that would otherwise be prohibited by Title 15 YMC.
15.27.315 Supplemental report requirements for specific critical areas. (Addition)
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The approach of the City critical area regulations is to require a level of study and analysis commensurate with potential
risks to wellhead protection zones associated with particular sites and particular proposals At a minimum, all applicants shall review the history of the site
and conduct a surface reconnaissance The purpose of a critical aquifer recharge area report is to evaluate the actual geologic conditions and determine
DRAFT, September 2016 26
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
the site's proximity to or location within a wellhead protection zone; evaluate the safety and appropriateness of proposed activities, and recommend
appropriate construction practices, monitoring programs, and other mitigation measures required to ensure achievement of the purpose and intent of
these regulations The information required by this report should be coordinated with the study and reporting requirements for any other critical areas
located on the site A critical aquifer recharge area report shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a hydrogeologist, geologist, or engineer who
is licensed in the State of Washington and who has experience in preparing hydrogeologic assessments
1 Level One Hydrological Assessment At sites located within Wellhead Protection Zones 1 through 3, defined in Section 15 27 820 A 1, a critical aquifer
recharge areas report shall contain a level one hydrological assessment which includes the following site- and proposal -related information at a
minimum:
a Information regarding geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site, including the surface location of all critical aquifer recharge areas
located on-site or immediately adjacent to the site, and permeability of the unsaturated zone based on existing data
b Groundwater depth, flow direction, and gradient based on available information.
c Currently available data on wells and springs within 1,300 feet of the project area
d Location of other critical areas, including surface waters, within 1,300 feet of the project site
e Available historic water quality data for the area to be affected by the proposed activity
f BMPs proposed to be utilized
2 Level Two Hydrogeologic Assessment
a A level two hydrogeologic assessment shall be required for any of the following proposed activities at sites located within Wellhead
Protection Zones 1 through 3
I Activities that result in 5,000 square feet or more impervious site area.
ii Activities that divert, alter, or reduce the flow of surface or groundwaters, including dewatering or otherwise reduce the recharging of
the aquifer
iii The storage, handling, treatment, use, production, recycling, or disposal of deleterious substances or hazardous materials, other than
household chemicals used according to the directions specified on the packaging for domestic applications
IV The use of infection wells, including on-site septic systems, except those domestic septic systems releasing less than 14,500 gallons of
effluent per day and that are limited to a maximum density of one system per one acre.
DRAFT, September 2016 27
M M M M M M M M M M M M M IWAKINWMJMNSIJWN LIME _
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Any other activity determined by the Director of [XXX] likely to have an adverse impact on groundwater quality or quantity, or on the
recharge of the aquifer
b A level two hydrogeologic assessment shall include the following site and proposal -related information at a minimum, in addition to the
requirements for a level one hydrogeological assessment
Historic water quality and elevation data for the area to be affected by the proposed activity compiled for at least the previous five-year
period
ii. Groundwater monitoring plan provisions.
M. Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on the groundwater quality and quantity, including:
Predictive evaluation of groundwater withdrawal effects on nearby wells and surface water features
Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on potential releases to groundwater
iv Identification of the type and quantities of any deleterious substances or hazardous materials that will be stored, handled, treated,
used, produced, recycled, or disposed of on the site, including but not limited to materials, such as elevator lift/hydraulic fluid,
hazardous materials used during construction, materials used by the building occupants, proposed storage and manufacturing uses, etc
v Proposed methods of storing any of the above substances, including containment methods to be used during construction and/or use
of the proposed facility
vi Proposed plan for implementing YMC 15 27 820 C.3 f, Protection Standards During Construction.
vii A spill plan that identifies equipment and/or structures that could fail, resulting in an impact Spill plans shall include provisions for
regular inspection, repair, and replacement of structures and equipment that could fail
viii A complete discussion of past environmental investigations, sampling, spills, or incidents that may have resulted in or contributed to
contaminated soil or groundwater at the site Attach copies of all historical and current reports, and sampling results.
DRAFT, September 2016 28
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
REFERENCES / SOURCES CONSULTED
Anchor QEA, LLC, 2013, Final Draft Semi -arid Riparian Functions and Associated Regulatory Protections to Support Shoreline Master Program Updates
Prepared for Grant County, WA Available: http //www ecy.wa gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/mycomments/grant/DraftRiparianFunctions pdf
Bunten, D , Mraz, R., Driscoll, L, and Yahnke, A., 2016, Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Eastern Washington Version. Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, Wash. Publication No 16-06-002 Available https //fortress wa gov/ecy/publications/documents/1606002 pdf
Ely, D.M , Bachmann, M P., and Vaccaro, J J., 2011, Numerical simulation of groundwater flow for the Yakima River basin aquifer system, Washington
U.S Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5155, 90 p Available: http //pubs usgs gov/sir/2011/5155/
Hruby, T, 2014, Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington 2014 Update (Publication #14-06-030). Olympia, WA: Washington
Department of Ecology
Jones, M A , Vaccaro, J.J , and Watkins, A.M , 2006a, Hydrogeologic framework of sedimentary deposits in six structural basins, Yakima River Basin,
Washington: U S Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5116, 24 p Available
http //pubs usgs gov/sir/2006/5116/pdf/sir20065116 pdf
Jones, M A , Vaccaro, J.J , and Watkins, A.M , 2006b, Maps and Hydrogeologic Sections Showing Surficial Geology, Extent and Thickness of Basin -fill
Deposits, Hydrogeologic Units, and Locations of Selected Wells in the Yakima Basin, Yakima River Basin, Washington Available:
http //pubs uses gov/sir/2006/5116/pdf/sir20065116 plate4 pdf
Knight, K, 2009, Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Olympia, Washington Available
http //wdfw wa gov/publications/00033/wdfw00033 pdf
Lenfesty, C D and Reedy, T E , 1985, Soil Survey of Yakima County Area, Washington U S Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Available http-//www nres usda gov/Internet/FSE MAN USCRIPTS/washington/yakimaWA1985/yakimaWA1985-I.pdf (report only)
Morgan, L., 2005, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance Document. (Publication #05-10-028) Olympia, WA Washington Department of Ecology
Available https //fortress wa gov/ecy/publications/documents/0510028 pdf
U S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2008, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final Rule 73 FR 19594-19705, April 10.
Available https //www epa gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/2008 04 10 wetlands wetlands mitigation final rule 4 10 08 pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2008, Priority Habitat and Species List Updated April 2014 Olympia, Washington 177 p.
Available http //wdfw wa gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165 pdf
DRAFT, September 2016 29
MWAKINNOMIRMNSIMN LME _
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2016, Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) on the Web Available:
http //apps wdfw wa gov/phsontheweb/
Washington Department of Health, no date, Surface Water Assessment Program (SWAP) Maps. https://fortress wa gov/doh/eh/maps/SWAP/index html
Yakima County, no date, City of Yakima Wellhead Protection Plan. http://www vakimacounty.us/669/City-of-Yakima-Wellhead-Protection-Plan
DRAFT, September 2016 30
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS
Amy Summe is a Senior Biologist/Permit Specialist with Shannon & Wilson, Inc She has Bachelor of Science degrees from Washington State University
in Zoology and Environmental Science. She has more than 19 years of experience in environmental consulting, much of it spent developing and updating
critical areas regulations under the Growth Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act. In addition to leading the update of the City's SMP,
she also was the project manager for Benton County and Adams County's SMP update
Chris Allen is a Senior Hydrogeologist for Shannon & Wilson, Inc He is licensed in Washington State as a geologist and hydrogeologist and has a
Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Western Washington University Over the last 18 years, he has focused on hydrogeologic and geotechnical
projects His experience includes drilling, design, construction, development, assessment and maintenance of wells, storm water infiltration studies, and
critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) assessments, all of which require a knowledge of a variety of regulations from the city to the federal level In the
Yakima area, he's been involved in multiple projects requiring hydrogeologic assessments including for the City of Moxee and City of Selah, Costco Union
Gap, and roadway/railway grade separation projects involving dewatering
Katie Walter is the Natural Resources Group Leader at Shannon & Wilson, Inc and has a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Washington
in Botany. She has 26 years of experience conducting wetland delineations, developing mitigation plans, conducting natural resource inventories, and
permitting large complex multi -jurisdictional projects
Jim Bailey is a Senior Hydrogeologist with Shannon & Wilson, Inc He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the University of North Carolina,
and a Master of Science in Hydrogeology from Washington State University. He is a licensed geologist and hydrogeologist with more than 26 years of
experience He specializes in water supply development and groundwater management experience, with a focus on municipal water supply including
water rights, well design/construction, and evaluation of well performance issues
DRAFT, September 2016 31