HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2017 09 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2040; Transportation Systems Plan 2040; Capital Facilities PlanBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDASTATEMENT
Item No. 9.
For Meeting of: June 6, 2017
ITEM TITLE: Public hearing and Resolution to consider Growth Management Act
Updates: Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2040, Yakima
Transportation Systems Plan 2040, and Capital Facilities Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director
Joseph Calhoun, Planning Manager (509) 575-6042
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to review and revise their comprehensive
plan and development regulations on a periodic update cycle. The City of Yakima is required
to complete its update cycle by June 30, 2017. The City of Yakima began its update in early
2015 by adopting a Public Participation Plan (Resolution R-2015-071). Since that time a
significant amount of work has occurred to update the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2040,
Transportation Systems Plan 2040, and Capital Facilities Plan consistent with the provisions of
the GMA.
ITEM BUDGETED: Yes
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Neighborhood and Community Building
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL: City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution.
BOARD/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission held an open record public hearing on 5/10/17 and recommended
approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
2
Description
Upload Date
Type
Resolution
5131/2017
Resolution
YPC Recommendation
5/2612017
Backup Material
Comments Received
5/26/2017
Cowr Memo
CDmprehensiw Plan 2040
5/26/2017
Backup Material
Transportation Systems Plan 2040
5/26/2017
Backup Material
Capital Facilities Plan
5/26/2017
Backup Material
Preliminary Final SETS
5/31/2017
Backup Material
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION adopting the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2040,
Transportation Systems Plan 2040, and Capital Facilities Plan consistent
with the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is required to plan under the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A.040; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A. 130(5)(c) requires the City of Yakima to take legislative action
to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations, including
its policies and regulations designating and conserving natural resource lands and designating
and protecting critical areas to comply with the requirements in Chapter 36.70A RCW by June
30, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima adopted its public participation program, including
multiple opportunities for public participation in the Comprehensive Plan Update, said
opportunities being set forth, and attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit
"A"; and
WHEREAS, notice of all amendments to the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
2040, Transportation Systems Plan 2040, and Capital Facilities Plan, hereinafter "2040 Plan," to
fulfill the requirements of RCW 36.70A.130 was sent to the Washington State Department of
Commerce and received by the same on March 17, 2017, that date being at least sixty days
before the amendments were adopted by City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima sought community -wide participation in the update by
providing specific opportunities to provide comment to an extensive list of local and state
agencies and other parties of record, a complete list of which can be found in the SEIS
appendices; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima established goals and policies within the Plan to facilitate
and guide development of new regulations, based upon "Best Available Science" (as defined by
the GMA, to protect and enhance both critical areas and shorelines, as required; and
WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2017 public hearing, the Yakima Planning Commission heard
the staff presentation regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan documents, considered
public testimony in both written and verbal forms from Joe Walsh, Rob Strader, Shirley Strader,
Phil Hoge, Tony Sandoval, and Bill Hordan, and unanimously recommended approval subject to
incorporation of the suggested changes as discussed in the meeting minutes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima conducted and Integrated GMA/Washington State
Environmental Review (SEPA) process for public comment on the 2040 Plan, as provided in
WAC 197-11-235. The Preliminary Final SEIS regarding this review was issued on May 30,
2017 and will be adopted as the Final SEIS after Council adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Yakima City Council held a public hearing on June 6, 2017 to receive
public comments on the Planning Commission's recommended findings and proposed revisions
to the 2040 Plan; and
WHEREAS, based upon its review of the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the
analysis and proposed revisions prepared by planning staff and consultants, the recommended
findings and proposed revisions forwarded by the Planning Commission, and public comments
received, the Yakima City Council finds and declares that the review and needed revisions have
been prepared in conformance with applicable law, including Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter
43.21 C RCW, and the process set forth in YMC Ch. 16.10 for the provision of public
participation and adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yakima, having considered the record herein
and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, hereby finds and determines that
approval of the 2040 Plan is in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will
promote the general health, safety and welfare; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
Section 1. Findings, Analysis and Conclusions. After reviewing the record and
considering the evidence and testimony in the record and at public meetings, the Yakima City
Council make the following findings, analysis, and conclusions:
Findings and Analysis:
1. An Integrated SEPA/GMA Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the Plan was used on May 30, 2017, and will be made final within seven
days of adoption.
2. The YPC's recommendation for approval was presented to the City Council by staff.
3. The 2040 Plan was reviewed by the Council and approved for adoption.
Council Conclusions:
1. The City Council is authorized to conduct meetings and hearings concerning the Growth
Management Act Updates to the 2040 Plan, and to direct legislation be prepared for a
Resolution to adopt the 2040 Plan.
2. All notice requirements for the adoption of the 2040 Plan have been completed.
3. All matters material to the issuance of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the 2040 Plan have been completed.
4. The City Council has given full consideration to the policy recommendations provided to
Council by the YPC, to the written comments received, to the public testimony that has
been provided, and to the deliberations of the Council, and the above findings set forth
the determinations reached by the council with regard to the recommended amendments
to the 2040 Plan.
Section 2. Amendments to Replace and Supersede. The Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan 2040, Transportation Systems Plan 2040, and Capital Facilities Plan are
amended by these changes and all such changes are intended to replace and supersede
previous versions of the referenced documents.
Section 3. Transmittal to State. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, this Resolution shall
be transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce within ten days of adoption.
Section 4. Preparation of Final Comprehensive Plan Document. City staff are
hereby directed to complete final preparation of the 2040 Plan, correct any typographical edits,
and include appropriate graphics and illustrations.
Section 5. Severability/Validity. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution is declared invalid or unconstitutional for any reason, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.
Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority, and prior to the
effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 6th day of June, 2017.
ATTEST:
Sonya Claar Tee, City Clerk
Kathy Coffey, Mayor
Exhibit "A"
Public Participation and Timeline
April 29, 2015:
Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) reviewed, discussed and
recommended approval of the Public Participation Guide
May 19, 2015:
Public Participation Plan adopted by Resolution R-2015-071
June 25, 2015:
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) made available for consultant selection
for Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Systems Plan Updates
September 15, 2015:
Professional Services Agreement with consultant team from Berk
Consulting, MAKERS Architecture, and Shannon and Wilson to facilitate
and assist in the City's Comprehensive Plan update executed by
Resolution R-2015-115
October 6, 2015:
Professional Services Agreement with consultant team from Transpo
Group to facilitate and assist in the City's Transportation Plan update
executed by Resolution R-2015-119. The scope of work was amended
on November 10, 2016.
February 17, 2016:
Visioning survey made available
February 23, 2016:
Visioning Open House at YV Tech Skills Center
February 23, 2016:
Request for Consideration made available for resident Comp Plan
Amendment requests
March 31, 2016:
Visioning survey closes — 185 responses received
May 25, 2016:
Planning Commission Outreach Workshop
July 27, 2016:
YPC study session on suggested land use changes and resident
amendment requests
August 31, 2016:
YPC study session on land use designations and resident amendment
requests
September 28, 2016:
YPC study session on resident amendment requests
October 12, 2016:
YPC study session on Plan Foundation and Vision
October 26, 2016:
YPC study session on Natural Environment, Housing, and Utilities
elements
November 9, 2016
YPC study session on Parks and Recreation element
December 14, 2016:
YPC study session on Land Use element
January 10, 2017:
Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (YBAPC) study session on
Transportation Systems Plan
January 11, 2017:
YPC study session on Economic Development, Historic Preservation,
and Energy elements
January 25, 2017:
Yakima Historic Preservation Commission study session on Historic
Preservation element
February 15, 2017:
YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan and Bicycle
Master Plan
March 17, 2017: Draft documents (Comp Plan 2040, Transportation Systems Plan,
Capital Facilities Plan, Development Regulations, Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement) made available on website, notice sent
to parties of record and SEPA agencies, display ad in Yakima Herald
Republic and EI Sol newspapers
March 17, 2017:
Draft documents and notice of intent to adopt sent to Department of
Commerce
March 22, 2017:
YPC study session on Development Regulations and Critical Areas Best
Available Science
March 23, 2017:
Yakima Economic Development Committee study session on Economic
Development Element
March 28, 2017:
YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan
March 29, 2017:
Yakima Neighborhood and Community Building Committee study
session on Comprehensive Plan
April 11, 2017:
Joint Yakima City Council and YPC study session on Comprehensive
Plan 2040 and Development Regulations
April 11, 2017:
Public open house at YV Tech Skills Center
April 12, 2017:
YPC study session on Critical Areas Best Available Science
April 12, 2017:
Yakima Parks and Recreation Commission study session on Parks and
Recreation Element
April 13, 2017:
YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan
April 26, 2017:
YPC study session on Transportation Element and Transportation
Systems Plan
May 9, 2017:
YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan
May 10, 2017:
YPC Open Record Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan 2040 and
Development Regulations
May 16, 2017
YPC findings signed by chair
May 30, 2017:
Preliminary Final SEIS issued at least 7 days prior to Council
Consideration.
June 6, 2017:
City Council public hearing on the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan 2040, Transportation Systems Plan 2040, Capital Facilities Plan,
and Development Regulations.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'.; Joan Davenport, AICP, Director
Planning Division
�. Joseph Calhoun, Manager
P, 129 North Second Street, 2"' Floor, Yakima, WA 98901
ask.planning@yaiawa.gov .yakiawa.gov/services/planning
•
RECOMMENDATIONS • THE YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL
•
GROWTH -D.
COMPREHENSIVECITY OF YAKIMA 04TRANSPORTATION0.0 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT
1
The City of Yakima is required to plan under the Washington State Growth Management Act
36.70A.040; a•
-• • •- • • _ # • • - it • • •� • • '• • •'� '•'
attachedWHEREAS
The City of Yakima adopted its public participation program, including multiple opportunities fl
public participation in the Comprehensive Plan Update, said opportunities being set fort
hereto and incorporated herein by - - - as Exhibitand
WHEREAS
Notice of all amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations was sent
the Washington State Department of Commerce and received by the same on March 17, 201
that date being at least sixty days before the amendments are scheduled to be adopted by Ci
Council, in accordance with RCW 36.70A. 106; and I,
WHEREAS
All required public notice for these amendments were provided in accordance with the provisions
of YC Ch. 16.10; and
14AEREAS
WHEREAS
At its May 10, 2017public hearing, the Yakima Planning Commission heard the staff presentati •
regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations, considered publ
testimony in both written and verbal forms from Joe Walsh, Rob Strader, Shirley Strader, P
Hoge, Tony Sandoval, and Bill Hordan, and unanimously recommended approval subject
incorporation • - suggested •-- • ■meeting - r
WHEREAS
These updates are considered to be a non -project application without a specific use or site plan
to be considered; and
SEPA Environmental Review for these updates was considered under a Supplement
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the Final SEIS will be issued at least seven days prii
WHEREAS
The Yakima Planning Commission concluded its consideration of the GA update process on
May 10, 2017.
Now therefore, the Yakima City Planning Commission presents the following findings and
recommendation r the •
Based upon a review of the information contained in the application, staff report, exhibits,
testimony, _ • other evidence presented - an open record public h__ • held on i
Proposed2017, the Planning Commission makes the following:
The purpose of the proposed Growth Management Act updates.
r
a. Update the Land Use, Economic Development, Historic Preservation, Housing,
Transportation (and Transportation Systems Plan), Capital Facilities (and Capital
Facilities Plan), Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Natural Environment, and Energy
Elements of the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan;
b. Guide Yakima's physical development to the year 2040;
c. Maintain consistency with the Growth Management36.70A;
• - •M[OJWffZ-MOMNEK-EVA M73
a. Amend YC 14.20.160 Preliminary Plat -Expiration of approval -Extension -Conditions to
revise the final plat submission timelines, consistent with RCW 58.17.140;
b. Add a new section YMC § 15.06.035 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations to allow electric
vehicle charging stations in the commercial and industrial zoning districts and in public
parking lots/on-street public parking areas;
Yakima
hkas
2015
1994
HE
c. Amend multiple sections of YMC Ch. 15.27 Critical Areas to implement the Best
Available Science (BAS), as contained in Appendix B — Gap Analysis of the SEIS,
including;
d. Amend multiple sections of YMC Title 17 Shoreline Master Program Regulations to
implement the Best Available Science (BAS), as contained in Appendix B — Gap
Analysis of the SEIS.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . On May 19, 2015, the City of Yakima adopted its Public Participation Plan for this GMA
update process.
2. There were multiple opportunes to provide input on the proposed GMA updates, as
contained in Exhibit "A."
3. Public notice was provided in accordance with YMC Ch. 16.10, with a Notice of Public
Hearing and Legal Ad Publication in the Yakima Herald newspaper on March 17, 2017.
4. At its May 10, 2017 public hearing, the Yakima Planning Commission heard the staff
presentation regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations,
considered public testimony in both written and verbal forms from Joe Walsh, Rob Strader,
Shirley Strader, Phil Hoge, Tony Sandoval, and Bill Hordan, and unanimously
recommended approval subject to incorporation of the suggested changes as discussed
in the meeting minutes;
5. The commission found that the Growth Management Act Updates: City of Yakima
Comprehensive Plan 2040, Transportation Systems Plan 2040, Capital Facilities Plan,
and Development Regulations amendments are consistent with RCW 36.70A and Best
Available Science.
YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS
1 . No adverse impacts have been identified;
2. The proposed updates underwent Environmental Review;
3. The proposed Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Transportation Systems Plan 20
supersedes the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2025 and Transportation PI
2025, and subsequent amendments; and,
4. The proposed amendments to YMC Ch. 15.27 and Title 17 are consistent with the Be'.
Available Science.
MOTION
Based on the testimony and evidence presented during this afternoon's public hearing, I move
that the City of Yakima Planning staff modify the findings of fact and draft ordinance, to include
that the Planning Commission approve the modified findings and ordinance, and order that the
modified draft ordinance be forwarded to the Yakima City Council with a recommendation for
approval.
I
m
The Planning Commission of the City of Yakima, having received and considered all evidence
and testimony presented at the public hearing, and having received and reviewed the record
herein, hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Yakima APPROVE the propose(i
Growth Management Act Updates: Comprehensive Plan 2040, Transportation Systems Plan
2040, Capital Facilities Plan, and Development Regulations, and forwards the proposed
ordinance tothe YakimaCouncil. City
RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May 2017,
Sy
Scott Clark, Chairman
Yakima Planning Commission
12
11• - — I P
• Participation and Timeline
P�pril 29, 2015:
Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) reviewed, discussed and
February 23, 2016:
recommended approval of the Public Participation Guide
May 19, 2015:
Public Participation Plan adopted by Resolution R-2015-071
June 25, 2015:
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) made available for consultant selection
March 31, 2016:
for Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Systems Plan Updates
September 15, 2015:
Professional Services Agreement with consultant team from Berk
July 27, 2016:
Consulting, MAKERS Architecture, and Shannon and Wilson to facilitate
• assist in the City's Comprehensive Plan update executed by
Resolution R-2015-115
*ctober 6, 2015, Professional Services Agreement with consultant team from Transpo
Group to facilitate and assist in the City's Transportation Plan update
executed by Resolution R-2015-119. The scope of work was amended
• November 10, 2016.
February 17, 2016:
Visioning survey made available
February 23, 2016:
Visioning Open House at YV Tech Skills Center
February 23, 2016:
Request for Consideration made available for Citizen Comp Plan
Amendment requests
March 31, 2016:
Visioning survey closes — 185 responses recieved
May 25, 2016:
Planning Commission Outreach Workshop
July 27, 2016:
YPC study session on suggested land use changes and citizen
amendment requests
August 31, 2016: YPC study session on land use designations and citizen amendment
requests
September 28, 2016- YPC study session on citizen amendment requests
October 12, 2016: YPC study session • Plan Foundation and Vision
October 26, 2016: YPC study session • Natural Environment, Housing, and Utilities
eleuests
November 9, 2016 YPC study session on Parks and Recreation element
December 14, 2016: YPC study session on Land Use element
January 10, 2017: Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (YBAPC) study session on
Transportation Systems Plan
January 11, 2017: YPC study session on Economic Development, Historic Preservation,
and Energy elements
13
January 25, 2017: Yakima Historic Preservation Commission study session on Historic
Preservation element
February 15, 2017: YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan and Bicycle
Master Plan
April 13, 2017: YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan
April 26, 2017: YPC study session on Transportation Element and Transportation
Systems Plan
May 9, 2017: YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan
May 10, 2017. YPC Open Record Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan 2040 and
Development Regulations
Capital Facilities Plan, Development Regulations, Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement) made available on website, notice sent
to parties of record and SEPA agencies, display ad in Yakima Herald
Republic and EI Sol newspapers
March 17, 2017:
Draft documents and notice of intent to adopt sent to Department of
Commerce
March 22, 2017:
YPC study session on Development Regulations and Critical Areas Best
Available Science
March 23, 2017:
Yakima Economic Development Committee study session on Economic
Development Element
March 28, 20171
YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan
March 29, 2017;
Yakima Neighborhood and Community Building Committee study
session on Comprehensive Plan
April 11, 2017+
Joint Yakima City Council and YPC study session on Comprehensive
Plan 2040 and Development Regulations
April 11, 2017«
Public open house at YV Tech Skills Center
April 12, 2017:
YPC study session on Critical Areas Best Available Science
April 12, 2017:,
Yakima Parks and Recreation Commission study session on Parks and
Recreation Element
April 13, 2017: YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan
April 26, 2017: YPC study session on Transportation Element and Transportation
Systems Plan
May 9, 2017: YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan
May 10, 2017. YPC Open Record Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan 2040 and
Development Regulations
RCW 36.70A.020: Planning goals. Fage I of tn RECEIVED C�
MAY 10 2017 17
RCW 36.70A.020 CITY OF YAKIMA
Planning goals. PLA4%J.".`0" DIV
(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities,
conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase 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
nec8ssai,j,—t# sv.�p*t 4eyelitiAment shall t�e
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.
http://app leg. wa. gov/RCW/default. aspx?c ite=3 )6.70A,020 5/10/2017
tl
E9
The Central Washington Home Builders Association is all about affordable housing. Housing
that is affordable to all wage-earning groups, not just a few. Pointing out the consequences of
governmental regulatory action is one way we hope to keep a damper on unnecessary costs.
In the most recent NAHB study of the cost of regulation, (March 2016), averaged for the entire
country, it was determined that government regulation (federal, state and local) accounted for
24.3% of the total consumer cost in the purchase of a new home. In real dollars, that was $84,671
on top of costs directly related to construction and sales. But because we live in Washington
State, we are saddled with an additional 8.2% in regulatory costs. This brings the total direct cost
of government to over $105,000 for the average homebuyer purchasing a $300,000 home in the
State of Washington. Regulations have consequences - they come with a price!
If we truly expect to safely libuk our community as laid out in the Comp Plan Housing Goals
and Policies, we must be cautious with adding more ropl4tion than absolutely necessary. Thank
you for this opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerply,
Joe"Walsh
Government Affairs Director
rl-
2a
-ue
0)
co
0
0
>
cz
0
o
Co
E
0)
0
0
fu
Cn
0)
as
U)70
-0
Jz
M
'0
(1)
1�
_0
LD
C)
� r
=3
W
ow -
M
E
0
E
Cl.
_0
E
0
0
0
E:
im
=
0
:3
12
M
F0 Fu
U)
LT
in
Cf)
D
m
(D
QD
x
(D
CIA
61)
c
_0
o)
cn
0
0-
U)
cn!
US
to
Q)
(D
'0
co
E
c
0
0
CL
0
"
0
L-
C:
0
ECD
crM
co
Q
Iz
a)
>
CL
0
a)
-
O
0
0
aircm
L--
M
ca
>
c
0-
C'J
E
=
o
a)
-0
a
(D
0
Qa
m
cl
C)
U)
E
U)
E
0
E
0
�;
0ne
lz
0
tn
X
U)
M
>
0
0
(D4i
A
0
_0
0
tJJ
T
4—
I
Q)
-0
Co
d)
E
co
=
CL
>,
U,
(10
:"
0
j=
—
U)
(D
(n
U)
0)
co
-0
(u
C)
0
.2
m
co
G)
70
co
C:
co
03
:3
Ln
0
a)
0 )
CD
_0
-0
D
_0
Q)
611)
J-
E0
c
u)
0
4-a
m
E
0
c
n
a)
-0
-0
1:
0
w
U)
E
0
E
T-
C
M
0
(D
0
-a
"
ni
3
ci
T
ca
N
(D
C:
E
E
CL
C:
Ql
0
c
m
0
a)
0
C:
0
0
m
®
>
0-
70
(noE
<
n
tm
co
i-
01
c
m
o-
04
(h
C
to
—
En
>
cl
E
Z
("�
0
0
a)
C:
'o
0 r%
a)
8
E
•
L-
a)
E
.5
a)
CL
(10
EO
cy)
al
0
o
>
0
C
4—
0)
h1
WV
0
a)
—C4=
a)
cn
rZ
C
0
. (p
i--)
Q)
t7
W
E
0
rye®
CL
C:
(n
0
(L)
a)
0
CL
0
a)
0)
-0
cn
w
0
a)
0
0
LI)
C
a)
co
CL
LL
CD
<
a
=
—
0
C)
=
r—
0
Ul
R
Calhoun, Jose
From: Phil Hoge <phi|hooe@ao|zom>
Sent Tuesday, May 16,201711:25Pk4
To: Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: Comments onComp Plan 204O
Joseph,
When I testified to the Yakima Planning Commission on May 10, 1 said that I might provide written comments by May 16
(the deadline for comments) after seeing the BPAC'a comments. Here are my supplemental vvhden comments:
1. 1 support the BPAC's and the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendations amyou provided inyour email below.
2. | support Yakima Planning Commissioner Peter K8arinaoe'scomments at the YPC' 5/10 meeting regardingZier Road
needing bike lanes and sidewalks due tothe school children "traffic". | urge you bzrevise the Draft 2040 Transl2ortation
System Plan to incorporate the plans of the WVNP, which recognized that the plan for Zier - between the junior/middle
school campus and the Qth/highschool campus - should include bike lanes.
3, N. 88th Ave. — | urge that the section of N. 88th Ave. between Bunnrnib/iexxand Conviche Canyon Rd be designated
appropriately for biking and walking. As indicated in theVVVNP. this section is key leg in the Greenway Master Plan's
"West Side Loop"It is also the only way for connecting west Yakima residents with the Cowiche Canyon Conservancy
trail.
-Phil Hoge
----- Original Message ---
From:Calhoun, Joseph <Joampb.Ca|hmun@YAK|K8AVVA.GOV>
To: phi|hoge<phi|hoge@ooicom>
Sent Thu, May 11, 20178:00ann
Subject: RE: Comp Plan 2O4U
Phil,
The YBPAC's recommendations, and other changes, are contained in the text below. The ADA transition plan is not
oonnp|ebad at this time. | will check with Engineering on the progress.
Page
1.New Section 1.4.2 - talks about the connection tothe Bicycle Master Plan
2. New Section 1.4.3 - talks about the connection to the Airport Master Plan
3. New Section 1.4.4 - talks about the connection to the Transit Development Plan
Page 10
4. Section 1.6.3 - Added language regarding historic transit ridership that can be found in the Transit Development Plan,
Page 13
5. Section 2. 1.1 -C|arified grade separated crossing for Valley Mall Boulevard only,
Page 15
6. Figure 2-1
o.Add aTraffic Signal at64tband Tieton.
b.Add oTraffic Signal at72ndand Mead.
o.Add aTraffic Signal atQGthand Wide Hollow Road.
Page 28
7. In the second paragraph under 2.2. 1, change the number of intersections that don't meet City LOS standards to two
and delete the reference tuthe G. 84th Ave /Tietun Dr intersection.
oo
8. Figure 2-9
o.Change the Stop Fetthe intersection ofM4thand Tietonhoa Signal BorC.
Page 46
8. Figure 4-3
a. Yakima Ave from Interchange to1SthAve - Shared Priority
b. North 1aiStreet from "|" St to |nterohange-Shaned Priority
o. Nob Hill from G4thAve to3rd Ave -Shared Priority
d. Tiebon Drive from 72nd Ave to 5th Ave -Auto Priority
e. Fruitva|e from 4OthAve to 5th Awe- Shared priority
f. New Emsb/WeatCorridor- Future Shared Priority
8. Identify atnaeba outside of city limits as a different color, regardless of priority
Page 50
10. Figure 4-4
a. Remove Yakima Ave esoTruck Route
Page 53
11. Figure 4-6
a.East/West Corridor aafuture Primary Pedestrian Route
b. North 8th Avenue from Fruib/a|ebm City Linnite- Primary Pedestrian Route (same as on Fig 4-8)
Page 54
12. Figure 4-8
o.Add East/West Corridor aofuture Primary Bike Route
Page 61
13. Figure 4-9
d. Add project R-1 (H Street Extension) to the map.
14. Project List:
e. A-13 - Clarificatiou=l=
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:01 PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph <Jd��4oh�ColhoUnCa)YAKIMAWA�GOV>
Subject: Comp Plan 2040
Could I get a look at:
1. BPAC's recommendations,
2. ADA Transition Plan (mentioned on page T-9, policy 6.5.1811
Em
23
.. ...............
From: Joshua Hicks <joshuadavidhicks@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:53 PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: Comprehensive Plan 2040 input
As a whole I am very positive about the plan and the direction it provides for our city over the next 23 years.
Even projects of which I was skeptical, namely the Mill Site development, I now feel more positive about.
Since I largely agree with the content of the plan, my feedback is primarily concerned with prioritization/focus
vnd sustainability. I encourage Yakima to focus on the following:
• Map out the city's revenue streams and expenses by parcel (this presents the city and the public with
hard data on what investments will be most sustainable and have the greatest return; improving what's
already profitable will help us grow and endure as well as provide the funds for improving those areas of
the city that are not profitable) Organizations such as Urban3 specialize in this type of analysis
• Emphasis on maintenance and improvement of existing infrastructure first and foremost
Emphasis on maintenance and improvement of sections of the city older than 75 years
Set a target of 40 to I private to public investment dollars for all future new development (current
projects such as Downtown Plaza exempt; future projects such as Mill Site non-exempt)
Set a minimum of 20 to I private to public investment dollars for all future new development (current
projects such as Downtown Plaza exempt; future projects such as Mill Site non-exempt)
Ensure city finance practices accrual accounting rather than cash accounting
Remove parking minimums city-wide (not just downtown)
• Whenever possible, use permeable pavement
• Reduce posted and non -posted speed of residential streets to 20 mph based on National DOT collision
survival rates
• Encourage reduction of actual automotive speed via reducing lane width on streets designated for
increased pedestrian and bicycle use
• Enforce pedestrian crosswalk laws
With regards to the Bicycle Master Plan, I am very excited about the prospect of actual bicycle infrastructure in
Yakima. I think it is an important step in providing greater accessibility and mobility to lower income segments
of our population or those seeking financial independence, along with health and quality of life improvements
to the rest of the population. It will also help Yakima save money long-term on infrastructure maintenance.
I currently commute to and from work via bicycle as much as possible. The route I have settled on takes me
briefly north across Tieton Dr through residential streets to the intersection of Yakima Ave and 16th Ave in
order to safely and reliable cross 16th Ave. From there I take Yakima Ave all the way to Naches Ave where I
24
turn left to get to Lincoln Ave. I find Yakima Ave provides a very pleasant view of the city, and the posti
automobile speed a better fit for cycling than other routes (although I wish the stretch from 16th Ave to
Summitview/7th Ave was also posted 25 mph),
Going home I must take Lincoln Ave initially, but given the posted and actual automotive speeds I get off of
this thoroughfare as quickly as possible—typically 3rd St or 2nd St. From there I take Sa Pendleton Way to
Front St to Yakima Ave through the intersection with 16th Ave and wend my way through the residential streets
back to the south side of Tieton Dr (the evening crossing being quite a bit more difficult).
Most of the proposed routes and changes look promising. As I am a comparatively inexperienced cyclist, I'm
sure the Toole Design Group can plan better routes and infrastructure for cyclists safety better than 1. As a
resident however. I think cg&,1J-ug infrastructure along Yakima Ave would be at least as desirable if not more so
than the other routes. Lincoln and MLK were originally designed for automotive throughput for those needing
to quickly bypass downtown, and I would personally not choose to bicycle along those routes. Additionally, I'm
very concerned about the Chestnut/16th Ave crossing. ltjust seems dangerous and unreliable to me, and I'm not
sure how that would change without a signal (yet a signal might be odd/difficult so close to another signal).
As a 5th generation native of Yakima descended from the owner of the first building moved to North Yakima, I
love this city. I've lived in Seattle and Los Angeles, and I always planned to return and raise a family here as
well. I am happy to be doing just that, and equally happy to find so many others have realized what a special
place this city is and the potential it has to be even better. It is my aim to help Yakima be a place where my sons
can also grow and thrive and be a part of what makes this one of the best places in the world.
Fro : Carole Skolrud <caroIe.skoIrud@gmaiI.corn>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 7:10 PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS, ETC TO 88TH AVE NE BETWEEN SUMMITVIEW & TIETON
I have actively advocated for the improvements to be made in this location for a number of years. I was
encouraged to see its inclusion • the 2040 plan.
7-041 1 %1 U "VOWNBUROM
111111, 1 111 -14 1 IWO I I P-1 I I 11 47.1 M I J RO# J.0 014 to) 14KII U I I I I N -R 0 1 K u UK" W- N-1 N ill U I a r k 2 1111 &NJ tsi r�
09
Calhoun, Joseph
From: barbsg2@Bmai|zom
Sent: Monday, April 1(l2O173iBPM
To: Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: 2040 plan
of Yakima Valley Transit A&'T for bike/pedestrian transportation.
Aninter-connected system ofpaths/trails isbeneficial for:
-Economic development
-Health ( obesity reduction)
-Car traffic reduction
This system should be coordinated with UGA utilities (laying sewer, water, electrical & broadband lines while
Valley Conference of Governments, Larry Mattson.
ROMEMEMEM
27
From: Landon«handong|mmn@gmai|zom»
Sent: Tuesday, March 28,2O17B:04PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph
-PrUPUSeU-zU"ff%-�T6 �MdUlj
believe is the name.
on
28
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
South Central Region 3 — 1701 S. 24th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902-5720
Telephone, (509) 575-2740 - Fax: (509) 575-2474
am�1
Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
City of Yakima
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, Washington 98901
Subject: State Environmental Policy Act Document, Comments on SEI S for
Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update, City of Yakima, Yakima County
Dear Joseph:
IZIFAI 1[$ -
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
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 an
I
shade for fish and a food source in the form of insects, which fall or land on the water from it.
"Conditions and Trends" in the draft Comprehensive Plan - Natural Environment section state
The loss of riparian vegetation and the associated shade that it provides has also had an impact
on water temperatures. Yakima River is listed "of concern" for elevated temperature.
C L 1C`TeC TegeMion 11TIPaIrS Me recruititien ne river 71 7Toouy MOM organic
detritus. Barren levees reduce channel roughness, which is a negative characteristic in terms of
providing for levee stability and longevity. Thus, keeping vegetation on levees can have many
positive benefits.
We recommend that the City immediately suspends its current management of vegetation on the
levee system and adopt a policy under Goal 10.4 of sustaining that vegetation and approaching
levees as fully part of the Riparianand Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. That policy
would be consistent with Policy 10.4.3 and 10.4.4. Pierce County, Washington makes available
N9
City of Yakima DCED
Comments on SEIS / Plan 2040
May 16,2017
Page 2
fmr.
Rauttat sic y1reserveit a1FL cllflanUCIL. III LIRS crilironment, MUL111C 11dMILM �1drLIULIdI_Iy IOF Oil
an•small mammals, is limited in uran areas. When lking tvelarks an•new
11
d booo deop pd
-fevelopment in general; habitat should be preserved. Attempts to make everything clean,
manicured, and non-complex 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 tel
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.
9E
City of Yakima DCED
Comments on SEIS / Plan 2040
May I6, 2017
Page 3
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions or clarifications you may require. My phone number is 457-93 10.
Nm=
Eric Bartrand
Seyatiment *f Fish aifiri Wilitlife
Area Habitat Biologist
1701 S. 24th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
a
April 18th 2017 00v� Y4 C f- (-
| have noticed imthe 2O4Otransportation plan there are reference tothe General and Safety policy,
1."Multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely through the city."
Other points nfinterest:
2."To encourage enhanced community access and promote healthy life styles"
3."Toberesponsive to the needs ofpassengers (Tronsi8getting towork and schooi"
4.°Thisschedule re -alignment (Trany|t)offered more direct routing and maximize transfer point
connections(?), as well as overall frequency(?)of transit service within the community."
5."Reduce growth invehicle travel demand through TRANSIT, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER
COMMUTE REDUCTION STRATEGIE5."
6."2040 plan indicates NO growth for transit from 2016 — 2021" other than capital acquisitions.
This plan reads in cover letter style with laudable endeavors, generalities and meets the
bureaucratic requirements; however, there are no plan specifics for developing Transit as one of the
multimodal transportation systems. Listed below are questions a developing Transit plan would include
making it a viable part of the comprehensive plan to growth.
How does this plan encourage non-traditional users?
How does this plan make transit service more appealing and convenient for non-traditional users?
How does this plan intend to educate non-traditional users of it health benefits and advantages?
How does this lead non-traditional users into using transit as the gateway to Active Transportation
modes aswell aafor example, the last mile concept.
How does Transit encourage non-traditional users to reduce growth in vehicle travel demands?
The above point #4 appears effective on paper only, customers using the system find it otherwise.
Overall service has been reduced and peak service (to/from work) scaled back, contrary to Table2-1
(2015) giving the appearance of expansive service throughout the week. The trend in ridership is falling
figure 2-7 Historical Transit Ridership.
and general daily destinations?
32
What if improving your physical and mental health was as easy as riding the bus?
Breathing fresh air, driving safely, being physically active, and avoiding excessive stress are a
few of the well-known steps toward living a healthy life style. Actually, using transit supports
all of the above! Zh_e_Kic_l;q_riaef
1licyirk- qfoite The AmeriQjii �Pubji�icT LQr(gt on
and
A-1—isod—aldon explored the health impacts of transit, and here is what thev found:
Individuals who use public transportation get over three times thea o nt of physical activity
per day of those who don't (approximately 19 minutes, rather than six minutes) by walking to
stops and final destinations. The U.S. Center for Disease Control recommends 22 minutes of
moderate physical activity, such as brisk walking, per day (or 1S0 minutes per week). Getting
active helps lower the risk for many serious diseases, such as: heart and vascular diseases,
strokes, diabetes, hypertensive diseases, osteoporosis, joint and back problems, colon and
breast cancers, and depression.
BUS related accidents have on the passenger fatality rates of automobile travel. Car
accidents are responsible for approximately 40,000 deaths (and many more injuries) per year,
making them one of the largest causes of death for people aged 1-44. Traveling on public
transit significantly diminishes this threat. Moreover, areas with high public transit movement
tend to have better overall security and reduced crime rates.
Public transportation improves access to education and emplovmcnt, which in turn leads to
better long -terns economic opportunities. In fact, 12 percent Of transit riders are traveling to
1�
schools and almost 60 percent are going to work. It also provides access to social and
recreational activities, allowing individuals to participate in events they otherwise coulfln't.
Furthermore, public transit benefits cornmunity cohesion by promoting positive interactions
between neighbors,
POJIUtion is estimated to cause as many deaths per year as traffic accidents, However, buses
(especially newer diesel and electrically powered vehicles) produce less pollution than cars per
passenger mile by utilizi-
ng advanced technologies
a' ies and higher standards, In fact, from 1992-
2009, buses using alternative fuels (such as natural gas) jumped from 2 to 30 percent and
electric rail transit increased from 29 to 34 percent of passenger miles,
33
"Affordable transportation" generally means that an individual's total travel expenses make up
less than 20% of their household finances. Car payments, gas prices and parking can be a major
budget drain, but public transportation lessens those financial burdens by alleviating the need
to purchase and operate individual vehicles (saving a household around $6,251 annually) and
helping riders avoid parking fees. This supports public health by leaving riders with more
money for better living arrangements, healthy food, and medical services.
A survey of Americans aged 65 and older found that non -drivers take 15% fewer trips to the
doctor, 59% fewer shopping trips and restaurant visits, and 65% fewer trips for social, farnfly,
and religious activities than those using an individual vehicle. Public transportation is a way for
these non -drivers (particularly low-income seniors and disabled individuals) to gain access to
important services and activities that improve public health such as; healthcare appointments,
basic shopping, banking, education, and employment opportunities.
The benefits of public transportation are expansive, ranging from public health to household
finances, If you'd like to learn more about public transit's positive effec
SIGN -IN SHEET
39IM0=1
Comprehensive Plan 2040 Community Review Open Aouse
Yakima Valley Technical Skills Center - 1120 S 18th Street, Yakima
•. • 11, 2017
11• - 8:00 p.m.
Ads= 1%mi.
PCIFY OF YAKIMA
lanning *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY*_
IF
Ilii
�
c 37
r ' -
f
,
� t
f
x 4-Z * r #
4
#i
r
�
" i
'C.A,
, e) vts
r
, f,:
00
-Fl,occy
_tz�-,
1/1.
JJ
}
r
vacr
Vt
Yle.x'tt 4,: 1 t-.-gym.f {, Fid' y. tj f
Ff
k
Yx
a 6! U.... k. a tv mi a I T.
q 11� pi 1
U16TO910501 9
1MWX7;;--TMW=1
City of Yakima
129 North Second Street
Yakima, Washington, 98901
'f" I IV'
Ldf -4,r 11
E A!:,,, M HNI � U; V I 'SIC)'
APR I J 20V
Fi`�XED L'J
,in F --Al i El
1'11111;1111�� i I Isill-slis mom, M-1 -mom
99
I W I e
e
erial Commercial to Mixed Residential. This letter is being written in OPPOSMON to that
proposal.
This property was purchased in 2007 for the sole purpose of future commercial endeavors that
would be compatible with the Yakima Speedway which abuts this property to the east. The
property was purchased from the owner of Yakima Speedway and is intended to be developed i
conjunctiM n with that property once the current land use ceases and a new land use emerges.
property is currently vacant and is not a good site for residential housing. Specifically, the
intensity of the existing land uses in the surrounding area is incompatible with residential
housing. The noise, dust, light, glare, long hours of operation and high volumes of traffic that
are generated by surrounding land uses are just a few of the adverse impacts that make
residential housing and commercial uses within this neighborhood incompatible with one
another. I
40
Based on all the above, we are requesting that all our property be removed frome above
proposal.
consideration.Thank you for your 509-453-
8937. , '
Sincerely
usey
41
RECEII/eD
JERRY D. TALBOTT
APR 2 G 2017
TALBOTT, SIMPSON & DAVIS
CITY Wt
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
j
308 N. 2ND STREET
Yakima, Wa. 98901
(509) 575 7501
FAX (509) 453 0077
Email: jtqlbott((t?t,,tlb_ottl,,tv�°.coiii
0
I .
126 N. Second Street, 2 d Floor
Yakima, Wa. 98901
0
We represent the Ahtanum Irrigation District and wish to comment on the
proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan in regard to water and utilities.
We want to be sure the Hugh Bowman ditch is correctly labeled on
the City/County maps, George Marshall, our stream patrolman will
be happy to supply maps and information in this regard.
2. When utility trenches, and their associated granular pipe bedding
and backfill materials are placed through areas of surface water
and/or shallow ground water, they can impact surface/groundwater
conditions by providing a higher permeability pathway for
surface/ground water to flow. In some cases, trenches can act as
surface/ground water drains and result in lowered surface/ground
water elevations compared to pre -trench conditions, which in turn
can negatively impact environmental conditions( wetlands, springs,
streams) as well as local surface and ground water users. When
trenching in the vicinity of irrigations ditches, other surface waters, or
through ground water, cutoff trench dams of impermeable material
(clay) will be required to be placed across pipe trenches, as
42
necessary, to prevent the movement of water along the outside of
the pipe within granular bedding and backfill materials. Trench dams
are required to be installed using proper construction specification,
materials and frequencies for the conditions encountered by
particular projects. Utility project planning and design should
consider and address any potential impact on surface and ground
water conditions.
C. All new developments in AID within the City limits are required to -
continue the use of existing irrigation water (where available) rather
than allowing developments to switch to irrigation from potable water
sources. We will be examining this when asked to approved plats
within the District.
4. We continue to be concerned about the automobile traffic in the
Ahtanum area. As new developments are built, the traffic becomes an
increasing problem.
Very truly yours,
JerryD
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 2017
CITYOF YAKIMA
PLA" "
1 :1 1-- 1211V
"- ��
43
Confederated Tribes and Bands
Established by the
of the Yak Nation Treaty of June 9, 1855
351i *:�
NAMM -
City Of Yakima
o/o Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
129 N 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Email: josephxalhoun(41�yakimawa.gov
RE: Comments on the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
rights.
Broadly, YN DNR is concerned that the SEIS fails to use,
i-tic4m,*rate
44
YN IBNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 20410 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS
MAY 16, 2017
of cultural resources, (b) ensuring that adequate water supplies are legally and physically
available for residential development in the UGA,'and (c) the acknowledgement and planning for
climate change. Further, YN DNR is concerned that the probable environmental impacts of the
Draft Plan cannot be adequately assessed as required under the State Environmental Policy Act
("SEPA") in the absence of such information.
Because the Draft SEIS is not based upon sufficient information regarding the above elements of
the environment, YN DNR is concerned that the proposed action alternatives for the Plan do not
sufficiently address or provide clear policies and procedures for:
• The protection of cultural resources through cooperative action with the Yakama Nation.
• The protection and management of groundwater quantity.
• Ensuring adequate water supplies are legally and physically available for residential
development within resource lands and Urban Growth Areas (UGA).
These concerns, and others, are addressed more specifically in the section-by-section analysis
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
YN DNR appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIS, and looks forward to
working with the City of Yakima to ensure that proposed land use plans and regulations promote
sustainable development, and protect the environment the Yakama Nation's Treaty resources.
Please contact YN DN 's John Marvin at jmarvin ':yaka a,com with any questions regarding
these comments.
Sincerely,
PHIL RIGDON, SUPERINTENDENT
YAKAMA NATION DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
45
Y?N DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 20 UPDATE DRAFT SETS
MAY 16, 2017
EXHIBIT
YNDNR Comments, Questions, Concerns. A Section -by -Section Analysis
PAGE 3 OF 12
47
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SEAS
MAY 16, 2017
It is recommended # Yakima County review the excess lands
reserved for residential development within the UGA, and also develop a plan to ensure
adequate water supplies are legally and physically available for residential development
within the UGA.
Cultural Resources — page 1-8. Section 3.6. YN DNR strongly supports the inclusion
of a Historic Element and cultural resources policies in the Comprehensive Plan to
identify and protect cultural resources.However,.associated
plans/regulations woefully#Nation'sand relationshir
tothe lands where the City of # DNR also supports
However,the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive model and
the protection of sites identified in DAHP's database per YMC 17.05.010.
only applies#jurisdiction,
fractionof • policies cannot
limitedserve as a protective strategy for the more comprehensive impacts of development
allowed throughout the City under the proposed Comprehensive Plan update and
associated regulations, whose geographic impact extends well beyond the shoreline
YN DNR recommends a more robust set of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and
CAO or other regulations to identify and protect cultural resources. Risk factors to
consider in the development of specific policies and regulations may include, but are no
to, the am,*un*sL**w-iAv #` {#
in *HP's statewide archaeological# database of i
archeological` presence of high-risktypes
warranted.For high-risk projects, professional cultural resources investigations or surveys may be
# #: by
for projects proposed of # Notification r the opportunity
comment on all professional cultural resource surveys completed should also be provid
to both the Yakama Nation and DAHP to ensure professional survey and reporting
guidelines are followed. YN DNR encourages the city to wo rk with the Yakarna I
Comprehensive Plan, and associated regulations.
Section f Conclusions, 1 a 13 Issues to
be Resolved pg. 1-15. An issue not addressed in the Draft SEIS is climate change a
potential to contribute to or exacerbate the environmental impacts of proposed ncl
devel{•ment. The Yakarna Nation's Climate Adaptation Plan for•'
componentsYakama Nation was published in April, 2016. The Climate Adaptation Plan represents
the first collective effort by the Yakama Nation to identify (1) important resources and
cultural ; impacted are
48
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKI A COSIPREHENSIVE PLAN 20$0 UPDATE DRAFT SED
MAY 16, 2017
(3) specific recommendations for deeper analyses of vulnerabilities and risks to our most
important interests and adaptation actions that we should implement now. The Climate
Adaptation Plan's goal is to be a starting point for the conversation about climate change
and planning for adaptation throughout all of the territories of the Yakama Nation. It is
derived from the experience of the Yakama Nation people, its tribal programs, and
findings from regional experts on these important topics. This document is one way we
can educate ourselves and our neighbors about current vulnerabilities and future risks and
share ideas about actions that we may need to take to build climate resilience. It is a
living document that will be revisited and adjusted over time to reflect new information,
new understandings, and new priorities. YN DNR suggests that the City of Yakima
review and incorporate either text from or a reference to the Yakama Nation's Climate
Adaptation Plan. (Attached).
March 2017
gmmwmw
49
identify and protect cultural resources through the Comprehensive Plan
and throughout the City.
Energy Element— pg. E-.
o Please see The Yakaa Nation's Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of
the Ya ama Nation (2017).
Iloommum
FMOINDIMM
52
53
YN DNR COMMENTS UNC OF YAKINIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATA IRA Fr SEIS
MAY 16, 2017
properly protect known fish bearing streams and associated Treaty
resources.
Section 15.27.507 Maps. This section needs to be updated. The proposal
R111i Its 6 Qi
54
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA CONIPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE RA SEIS
MAY 16, 2017
categories or mitigation that are represented in Granger et. al. 2005
Appendix -D.
■ Part Seven, Geologically Hazardous'Areas.
There appears to be an inconsistency between Section 15.27.701
that designates the geologically hazardous areas, yet the protection
approach in 15.27.702 only protects for erosion and stream
undercutting.
r Part Eight. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The YN DNR generally
supports the proposed CARA edits, based on BAS. Please see the previous
comment above on CARA data availability and individual wells.
■ YMC Title 17 Shorelines, It is assumed that the critical areas edits
proposed are the same as proposed in the SMP. All comments on
proposed edits to the CAO would apply to the SMP as well.
• Table 09.0301 Standard Stream Buffers. This table seems
overly complicated, not consistent BAS, and not consistent with
the known landscape. As previously stated, the minimum buffer
width for fish bearing streams, as established by the EMHB for
Yakima County, is a minimum 100 feet. The controlling provision
for development in the SMP is the designation of the
Floodway"C Z Shoreline environment, with the exception of
Cowiche Creek that does not have a designated Floodway/CMZ.
There should be no non -water oriented development with the
floodway/CMZ designation of the Naches and Yakima Rivers. It
is recommended that a 100 foot buffer from the Floodway/CMZ of
said rivers be established to fully protect that environment. The
Cowiche Creek should, at a minimum, be protected with a
minimum 100 foot buffer. The YN DNR is generally not
concerned with the ecological integrity of gravel pit lakes on the
landward side of Highway 12. However, when Buchanan Lake
does become a Shoreline, it will require a higher level of protection
due to its ecological connectivity with the Yakima River.
plan ree C"C y aft
omp vensi e 2040
A- 'A
k-
j
WeaceaceVaPum4a
comprehensive plan 2040
Contributing Authors
City of Yakima Planning Division
BERK Consulting, Inc.
Artifacts Consulting, Inc.
Makers Architecture and Urban Design
Shannon and Wilson, Inc.
Ta dZo
Transpo Group
:111 BERK -
STRATEGY .- ANALYSIS . COMMUNICATIONS __ ., architecture • planning • urban design
o �tranSpOGROUP
WHAT ITVlWSPCRTATI(IN CAN BE.
The IN roi of Ste Se*con& Ronomir Ilrrtlapment
Kirkland I Seattle I Bolsa
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
ORMILAIII
'We aye V a&ma
1.0
Introduction............................................................................................................................... INTR-1
1.1
Purpose of this Comprehensive Plan.....................................................................................
INTR-1
1.2
Yakima's Planning Area — Past and Future............................................................................
INTR-2
1.3
We are Yakima.......................................................................................................................
INTR-5
1.4
Comprehensive Plan Inclusive Public Outreach and Engagement........................................INTR-7
1.5
Yakima Comprehensive Plan Vision and Values....................................................................INTR-9
1.6
Using this Comprehensive Plan...........................................................................................INTR-13
1.7
Amending the Comprehensive Plan....................................................................................INTR-14
2.0
Land Use.......................................................................................................................................
LU -1
2.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................................
LU -1
2.2
Conditions and Trends..............................................................................................................
LU -2
2.3
Challenges and Opportunities..................................................................................................
LU -5
2.4
Goals & Policies........................................................................................................................
LU -6
2.5
Implementation......................................................................................................................
LU -38
3.0
Historic Preservation....................................................................................................................
HP -1
3.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................................
HP -1
3.2
Archaeological Resources.........................................................................................................
HP -2
3.3
Euro -American Settlement.......................................................................................................
HP -2
3.4
Survey and Listing.....................................................................................................................
HP -2
3.5
Needs and Opportunities.........................................................................................................
HP -3
3.6
Goals and Policies.....................................................................................................................
HP -5
MMM -11"11
'We, ace tfit"na
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
TOC -2
3.7
Implementation........................................................................................................................ HP -8
4.0
Economic Development............................................................................................................... ED -1
4.1
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. ED -1
4.2
Conditions and Trends.............................................................................................................. ED -1
4.3
Challenges and Opportunities.................................................................................................. ED -8
4.4
Goals and Policies...................................................................................................................
ED -11
4.5
Implementation......................................................................................................................
ED -13
5.0
Housing........................................................................................................................................... H-1
5.1
Introduction................................................................................................................................ H-1
5.2
Conditions and Trends................................................................................................................ H-2
5.3
Challenges and Opportunities.................................................................................................. H-10
5.4
Goals and Policies..................................................................................................................... H-11
5.5
Implementation........................................................................................................................ H-14
6.0
Transportation.................................................................................................................................T-1
6.1
Introduction.................................................................................................................................T-1
6.2
Policy Framework........................................................................................................................T-2
6.3
Conditions and Trends.................................................................................................................T-3
6.4
Transportation Systems Plan.......................................................................................................T-7
6.5
Goals and Policies........................................................................................................................T-7
6.6
Implementation.........................................................................................................................T-13
7.0
Capital Facilities.............................................................................................................................CF-1
7.1
Introduction...............................................................................................................................CF-1
7.2
Conditions and Trends...............................................................................................................CF-2
Offl-lorm9fl
'We, ace Va illm
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
TOC -3
7.3
Capital Facilities Plan.................................................................................................................CF-7
7.4
Goals and Policies......................................................................................................................CF-7
7.5
Implementation.......................................................................................................................CF-13
8.0
Utilities............................................................................................................................................ U-1
8.1
Introduction................................................................................................................................ U-1
8.2
Conditions and Trends................................................................................................................ U-2
8.3
Goals and Policies....................................................................................................................... U-4
8.4
Implementation.......................................................................................................................... U-5
9.0
Parks and Recreation.................................................................................................................... PR -1
9.1
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. PR -1
9.2
Conditions and Trends.............................................................................................................. PR -1
9.3
Challenges and Opportunities.................................................................................................. PR -3
9.4
Goals and Policies..................................................................................................................... PR -3
9.5
Implementation........................................................................................................................ PR -6
10.0
Natural Environment.................................................................................................................... NE -1
10.1
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. NE -1
10.2
Conditions and Trends.............................................................................................................. NE -1
10.3
Challenges and Opportunities................................................................................................
NE -12
10.4
Goals and Policies...................................................................................................................
NE -12
10.5
Implementation......................................................................................................................
NE -15
11.0
Shoreline..........................................................................................................................................S-1
11.1
Purpose and Relationship of the Shoreline Management Act to the GMA................................S-1
11.2
Profile of Shoreline Jurisdiction in Yakima..................................................................................S-3
Offl-11FT-a411
'We, aye 2 a&ma
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
TOC -4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
11.3
Development of Goals and Policies.............................................................................................S-3
11.4
Implementation.........................................................................................................................
S-26
12.0
Energy..............................................................................................................................................E-1
12.1
Introduction.................................................................................................................................
E-1
12.2
Conditions and Trends.................................................................................................................E-1
12.3
Challenges and Opportunities.....................................................................................................E-2
12.4
Goals and Policies........................................................................................................................E-3
12.5
Implementation...........................................................................................................................
E-4
MFHM-]"F-;4;111
'We, ame 2 a&Ma
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
1.1 Purpose of this Comprehensive Plan
This Comprehensive Plan guides Yakima's physical development over the 2017-2040 period. It describes
community values, directs municipal activities and services, and provides a statement of policy about
Yakima's desire for growth and character.
This 2017 Comprehensive Plan fulfils the periodic review requirements of the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA; RCW 36.70A) and replaces the 2006 Comprehensive Plan and associated annual
amendments.
4 . INTRODUCTION
A Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
1.2 Yakima's Planning Area — Past and Future
The City of Yakima was incorporated in 1883. About a year later, a dispute between land owners and the
Northern Pacific Railway Company led the railroad to establish a new town about 4 miles north of the
original site. More than 100 buildings were moved. The new town was created by the "Plat of the Town of
North Yakima" in June 1885 by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company (see Exhibit 1-1). These 136 blocks
and streets, alleys, and railroad corridors were officially incorporated in 1886. The old town was then
renamed Union Gap. The Washington State Legislature officially renamed the city "Yakima" in 1918. (City
of Yakima, 2016; Becker, 2016)
Exhibit 1-1. Original Plat of the Town of North Yakima
Source: City of Yakima, 1885
I NTR-2
........ .. ........-._.-....... .... .-...
PI_1'1' 111 TIR: 1111/
.u..«-
'_j.;:�
- -
--
NORTH�YAKIMAw
Source: City of Yakima, 1885
I NTR-2
Yakima has grown substantially from its original 1,221 acres. Today, Yakima's city limits encompass 27.16
square miles or about 17,385 acres. (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2016) See Exhibit
1-2.
Exhibit 1-2. Yakima Council Districts
ti.. >
-.�•; s I
7
2,1 y� ...
E -
��--_ _
i Mw 117111gawlllts s N `• _.._---
m- v n�l'�Ins q..qr_-_.ae-� sA � �- t�.___sl��
nn
uiGlnnuwn
' I - Iwmwl mn
I16n e19mn
7 111111111�' r
I I
i
np I. zmclss
TK Cozndl DlaraRs zM1arn m Me map am tlenzetl ham Nc wtlsq tllrtrcnestabllsMtl thmugM1 Me Yakima Coznry AutlltoYz oMce. The ce[ails whM1in [hc tllrtrlcu pswlec statlalrul day br Ne seunubncmbers.
the {enerel publk, and other pdicY and tlea°an makes. The Oistrims are drain werthe CIN s street system to show cw'eraR and this sotiairal tlap is krinlosmmimal,and planrin{ or prese�rcadon purpwes
only.
Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Yakima Council Obtricts
Council District
■1
■ 2
■ 3
■4
6
T
�J Yakima City Limits
-� Urban Growth Area
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. The focus of the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations is the
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Top: Yakima Town Site 1886
Bottom: Historic Downtown Yakima
0 INTR-3
4=
� A
Yakima incorporated city limits. Yakima County is planning for the Yakima UGA in consultation with the
City of Yakima.
s
Current Urban Growth Area and Yakima City Limit boundary
Source: (City of Yakima, 2017)
Tf t I t /1
0
Exhibit 1-3. Yakima UGA and City Limits Map
m
=
.
y
Current Urban Growth Area and Yakima City Limit boundary
Source: (City of Yakima, 2017)
Tf t I t /1
0
Exhibit 1-3. Yakima UGA and City Limits Map
11l 1 GIS
omary zo"
YAKIMA 2040
3MPREHENSIN
PLAN UPDATE
Yakima Urban Growth Area
and City Limits Map
Yakima City Limits
Urban Growth Area
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Growth Management Act Goals
State goals guide the City's
comprehensive plan and development
regulations. These goals address in
summary:
■ Guide growth in urban areas
■ Reduce sprawl
■ Protect rural character
■ Encourage an efficient multimodal
transportation system
■ Encourage a variety of affordable
housing types
■ Promote economic development
■ Protect property rights
■ Ensure timely and fair permit
procedures
■ Protect agricultural, forest, and
mineral lands
■ Retain and enhance open space
■ Support parks and recreation
■ Protect the environment
■ Ensure adequate public facilities and
services
■ Encourage historic preservation
■ Foster citizen participation
INTRA
m
=
LL..
11l 1 GIS
omary zo"
YAKIMA 2040
3MPREHENSIN
PLAN UPDATE
Yakima Urban Growth Area
and City Limits Map
Yakima City Limits
Urban Growth Area
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Growth Management Act Goals
State goals guide the City's
comprehensive plan and development
regulations. These goals address in
summary:
■ Guide growth in urban areas
■ Reduce sprawl
■ Protect rural character
■ Encourage an efficient multimodal
transportation system
■ Encourage a variety of affordable
housing types
■ Promote economic development
■ Protect property rights
■ Ensure timely and fair permit
procedures
■ Protect agricultural, forest, and
mineral lands
■ Retain and enhance open space
■ Support parks and recreation
■ Protect the environment
■ Ensure adequate public facilities and
services
■ Encourage historic preservation
■ Foster citizen participation
INTRA
4 . INTRODUCTION
A Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
1.3 We are Yakima
Our People
This Comprehensive Plan serves the needs of the Yakima community today and through 2040. The plan is
designed to build on community strengths and assets, and guide growth and public investments that
advance Yakima as an inclusive and prosperous place.
Yakima's people are its strength. The City is ranked 11th in the state in total city population. Yakima is due
to take 25% of the future county growth. Yakima is a leader in the region. See population information in
the next section. Our Land Use Element promotes equitable and sustainable development that brings
housing and job opportunities. These opportunities are supported by our Capital Facilities, Transportation,
and Parks Elements that promote investments in quality parks, multimodal transportation, and
infrastructure.
Yakima is diverse. Yakima has become more diverse, growing from
34 percent Hispanic in 2000 to 41 percent Hispanic in 2010. About
79 percent of Yakima's growth in population between 2010 and
2014 was Hispanic, with overall Hispanic population making up 44
percent of the City in 2014. Based on 2010 Census blocks the figure
at right shows the percent of blocks with Hispanic population.
While found in all parts of Yakima, eastern Yakima has a
concentration of Hispanic residents. The Comprehensive Plan Land
Use and Historic Preservation Elements include policies that
promote the cultural needs of the whole community.
A majority of Yakima households have no children. Over half of
the City's households have single or coupled adults and no children
as of 2014. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Housing
Elements encourage a variety of home sizes and styles to meet the
needs of small households.
P .... M Hispanic
(7010 C—., BI -W
-10%
10.20%
M 20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60.70%
M , 70%
1
IMP' L
li
-1 -
I NTR-5
Yakima is a community for the young and old. The City's population is getting older on average, with more
retirees than any other community in the County. Yet, the City is also seeing an increasing number of
children, particularly in east Yakima. Both seniors and children grew by 5 percent between 2000 and 2010
citywide. The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element addresses housing and services for seniors such as
aging in place, health, and mobility.
The City of Yakima has the most persons with a disability in the county. The City of Yakima has the most
persons with a disability in the county at 13,897, and the second highest share of the population at 15.3
percent, behind Union Gap as of 2014. This characteristic, as with others, is a reflection that Yakima is the
central city in the county and has extensive medical and human services. The Housing Element includes
policies regarding universal design of housing and supportive services to meet the needs of this population;
the Transportation Element addresses multiple modes to promote the mobility of all abilities.
Yakima residents earn lower incomes. Based on 2014 information, Yakima's median household income is
27% lower than the State median income. About 22.8% of the City's population earns incomes below the
federal poverty level, higher than the state as a whole at 13.5%. New opportunities for family wage jobs
through appropriate zoning and capital investments, and partnerships with agencies that provide
workforce training, are part of the Land Use and Economic Development Elements.
Nearly half of Yakima's homeowners are cost burdened and nearly one third of renters are cost
burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing and earning at low and moderate incomes
as of 2012. Considering how family wage jobs can be attracted to the community, and providing a range of
housing opportunities can address some of the hurdles faced by households; see the Economic Development
and Housing Elements.
Yakima residents have a lower rate of achieving higher education. About 17.3 percent residents have a
bachelor's degree or higher compared to the State level at 32.3 percent or the US at 29.3 percent. (ACS,
2014) Coordinating with higher education providers and determining appropriate supportive services is part
of the Economic Development and Capital Facility Plan Elements.
The City's jobs are diverse. The City contains 40,390 jobs as of 2014. Top sectors include health care, retail,
agriculture, and manufacturing. Jobs are concentrated in the Downtown and near US 12. Investing in
redevelopment such as the Cascade Mill Site, supporting a unique retail experience in Downtown,
W FA
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Aged 65 and Older (2014)
Yakima
3.7%
United States
3.7%
Washington
3.2%
Selah
12.5%
Yakima County
12.1%
Union Gap
11.1%
Naches
10.4%
Harrah
9.9%
Grandview
9.6%
Mabton
8.3%
Sunnyside
8.2%
Zillah
8.1%
Tieto n
73%
Wapato
7.5%
Toppenish
7.1%
Moxee
5.3%
Granger
3.7%
Median Household Income
(2011-2015 ACS)
National State City of Yakima
I NTR-6
expanding the Airport, and other activities will be important to catalyzing job opportunities. Planning for
capital facilities and infrastructure and supporting partnerships in workforce training are other important
City activities. See the Land Use, Economic Development, Historic, and Capital Facilities Elements.
Our Future Growth
Yakima is the most populous city in the County, and the County Seat. In
2016, there were 93,410 residents in Yakima, which is a 30 percent increase
in population since 2000 at 71,845 people. (CFM, 2016) Some of the
growth has been due to annexations. The compound annual growth rate
between 2000 and 2010 was 2.4 percent, which slowed to 0.4 percent
between 2010 and 2015.
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.
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Exhibit 1-4. Population and Jobs Capacity and Targets 2016
Jots 2412-2444 &wf-"
ft 28,494
Population 2015-2040 17,167
44,917
10,000 20,000 34,000 40,000 50,000
■Target ■Capacity
The City has more than adequate capacity to meet its growth targets at Source: BERK Consulting 2016
almost double the allocated population and jobs. Exhibit 1-4 shows the
citywide capacity for additional housing units, population, and jobs under 2016 land use designations and
zoning districts. Alternative land use plans are studied in the integrated EIS and similarly show greater
capacity above growth targets. While there is plenty of capacity in the existing city limits, Yakima will
continue to consider annexation requests, where appropriate.
1.4 Comprehensive Plan Inclusive Public Outreach and Engagement
In May 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution endorsing the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Horizon—
Public Participation Plan, in which the City laid out a collaborative effort to engage the public, businesses,
governmental agencies, and other interested groups. The City website, public postings, community events,
I NTR-7
public meetings, and workshops have been used to reach out to interested parties and get them involved
in the process.
In January 2016, the City began to implement the plan with a more specific set of strategies. Outreach
strategies were carried out in four phases. They include:
■ Phase 1 Building Awareness focused on creating a dedicated web page and developing outreach
materials and tools while also spreading the word on upcoming outreach activities and ways to
participate. The City's dedicated website is: https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/
plan ning/comprehensive-plan-update/. "We are Yakima" became the theme of the Update.
■ Phase 2 Visioning focused on public comment and feedback on Yakima's vision statement. A City
Council workshop, public workshop, and online survey were conducted over February and March 2016,
and results posted on the City's website. In May 2016, a Planning Commission hosted public open
house and workshop addressed the Vision Statement and Land Use Plan. The key themes of visioning
are identified in Section 1.5 below.
■ Phase 3 Draft Plan has collected feedback and comments on the draft plan update. The Planning
Commission has held continuous study sessions on the Land Use Plan and various Preliminary Plan
Elements between September 2016 and March 2017. A full release of the Draft Plan was available in
March 2017 with a 60 -day comment period. In April 2017, the City Council and Planning Commission
held a joint study session to review the plan, and a public open -house was held.
■ Phase 4 Proposed Plan involves the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings and
deliberations to help wrap up the update process. This is scheduled for the spring 2017. Plan adoption
is due by June 30, 2017.
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
We aw r
Comprehensive plan 2040
1.5 Yakima Comprehensive Plan Vision and Values
The process of developing a new vision for Yakima involved the engagement of residents and employees
throughout the City over a five-month period in the winter -spring of 2016. Open houses, public meetings,
social media, and surveys, provided opportunities for the community to comment on assets and challenges
and define what they desire for Yakima in 2040.
At the February 23, 2016 Visioning Open House, vision themes included:
■ A thriving and vibrant city.
■ Yakima as a place where tourists and visitors want to stop to wine taste, shop, eat and enjoy
downtown and the City of Yakima as a gateway to the Yakima Valley.
■ A place that is framed by natural beauty and agricultural vistas.
■ A city that is family friendly with good public spaces and quality education for children.
■ A place that provides many ways to be active and healthy as young or old residents, including
walking, biking, entertainment, greenways, fishing, access to healthy food, etc.
■ A city with a more diverse economy with job opportunities in a variety of industries, including tech.
■ A downtown with more retail shops, restaurants, and the Yakima Central Plaza.
■ Streetscapes and public areas that are historic, revitalized, and attractive.
■ A city that is inclusive to all types of residents with different cultures and backgrounds.
An online vision survey with 185 participants elicited the following key goals most important for inclusion
in the 20 -year vision statement: quality of life, a prosperous community, a healthy economy, and safe
neighborhoods.
The Planning Commission reviewed the outreach results and hosted a public workshop on May 25, 2016
and offered direction on the vision statement.
The City of Yakima is growing larger and more diverse. As Yakima progresses, the following vision will help
our community achieve the livability, prosperity, and inclusiveness that it desires.
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
I NTR-9
4 . INTRODUCTION
A Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
A Vision for Yakima's Future
The City of Yakima is the "Heart of Central Washington," bounded by the Yakima River to the east and
rolling orchards in west valley, 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, an excellent transportation
system, 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.
Today and in 2040 we see Yakima as a place that values:
■ Yakima's people — We are inclusive to all people.
Flourishing Yakima
EnbanCeRec reat I O n Healthy
Inclusive H0051ng Businesses
Infrastructure Education • L Y� Designed
Mobility Work Center Biking 1 SpacesFeel
Central
."yn,mcDowntown Life Heart_e ,irr
Diverse Play Retaining• Welcomed
Safe Valley
.ommunity Railroad Well character(NeI .aural
mmercial k
• aeCPanO° wx���no
ConnectServicesJJJ
O
ption .
Prosperityunities Washingtonu i lCccess
Railroad Serving
and Residents Preserve Jib09yC
oe eloPment
Peo lle Drawing ble Quality Live y
Diverse courage et People u n l i t
City CdrSentralamic
iver Heart PublicInfill
Econwtuy Affordable SefV1ng Celebrate Participate Neighborhoods
Created walking
Attracting
Agricultural value
n to rRegion
Residential Transit
Investmen"Eco n o m i c H istoric
We promote quality design in new housing, businesses, and public buildings, and streets to be
accessible to all.
We encourage public engagement and multicultural communication in our planning process.
We invest in and deliver needed public services in a manner inclusive to all types of residents,
businesses, and cultures.
INTR-10
Yakima residents have access to high-quality education, living -wage jobs, safe neighborhoods, a
healthy environment, quality parks and amenities, healthy food, and affordable housing.
■ Youth and Family— Our plan is a roadmap to a high quality of life for our youth and families. We seek
to have:
A strong partnership with our schools.
Places that promote healthy and active lifestyles.
Opportunities for entertainment and recreation for both young and old.
Quality job and housing opportunities to ensure our children can be lifelong residents of Yakima.
■ Being A Unique Destination —Yakima is a unique destination. We strive for:
A vibrant and revitalized historic downtown that retains long-standing businesses and attracts
new businesses and residents.
Maximizing tourism and retail opportunities.
Providing attractive spaces and public art.
■ Neighborhoods—Yakima's neighborhoods are attractive places to live, shop and play, offering:
A hierarchy of commercial and mixed use centers.
Attractive streetscapes and well-designed public and private recreation and open spaces.
Historic character.
Diverse housing choices for owners and renters.
.;.
Preserved homes that have been rehabilitated and maintained.
A spirit of friendliness where neighbors gather for celebrations, clean-up events, and block
watches.
A development pattern that promotes public safety and deters crime through environmental
design.
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
z .f
INTR-11
.0 N
Growth managed with transitions in density and building design, landscaping, and adequate
infrastructure.
■ Natural Beauty — The natural beauty of the river valleys and agricultural vistas frame Yakima. We will
be stewards of our natural resources by:
Protecting the ecological resources of our region.
Maintaining and expand the Yakima Greenway and other trail systems.
Encouraging sustainable design of development.
■ A Prosperous Future —Yakima creates a thriving and vibrant community. We will encourage:
A diverse economy that sustains and attracts a variety of business sectors including agriculture,
health care, manufacturing, tourism, new energy and others.
Small local businesses.
Targeted investments in capital facilities.
Partnerships with higher education providers to support workforce training to attract new
employers.
■ Connectivity — We offer a range of transportation modes, and our community is connected. Our
transportation system will:
Maintain and create a complete street network, including new multimodal connections.
Ensure efficient and balanced movement of freight and goods through the community.
Improve safety throughout the system.
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
INTR-12
1.6 Using this Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Vision and Framework Goals are carried forward into each Plan Element with
topic -specific goals and policies. Since there are complex issues around land use, growth, public
infrastructure investments, and services, this Comprehensive Plan is divided into the following volumes
and elements:
Volume I. Yakima Comprehensive
Plan—A Policy Document
1. Plan Foundation and Vision
2. Land Use 1
3. Historic Preservation 3
4. Economic Development Z
S. Housing 1
6. Transportation 1
7. Capital Facilities 1
8. Utilities 1
9. Parks and Recreation Z
10. Natural Environment 1
11. Shoreline 1
12. Energy 3
Volume II. Technical Appendices
Capital Facilities Plan
2040 Transportation System Plan
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS)
Volume I Comprehensive Plan contains topic -specific elements. Each element summarizes key conditions
and trends that drive policy proposals. Each Element includes goals — or broad aims — and policies —
principle, protocol, or proposal for action — relevant to addressing a condition or trend. Goals and policies
in turn are implemented by specific regulations and programs. The goals, policies, regulations, and
programs are designed to encourage outcomes that meet the City's Vision.
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Terms
■ Vision: A community's best desired
future.
■ Value: A standard or judgment of what
is important for the community.
■ Goal: A broad, general statement of
the desired long-term future state or
outcome, toward which the Plan aims.
Goals indicate what ought to exist in a
community or what is desired to be
achieved in the future.
■ Policy: A principle, protocol, or
proposal for action that implements a
related goal. Decision -oriented
statements that guide the legislative or
administrative body while evaluating a
new project or proposed change in
ordinance.
■ Regulation: A rule or directive found in
City ordinances or the municipal code.
■ Program: Ongoing delivery of
municipal services to the public,
funded with the municipal budget, or
public investments guided by a capital
improvement strategy.
Volume II Technical Appendices contains the Capital Facilities Plan. This Plan identifies levels of service and Notes:
what improvements are needed to support the expected growth accommodated by the Land Use Plan and 1 Required by GMA or other state law.
Element and potential revenue sources. An integrated State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Supplemental 2 Required when the state provides funding, though
funding is not available, these elements help Yakima seek
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is also part of the Technical Appendices and analyzes the grants.
environmental effects of growth alternatives and associated mitigation measures. 3 optional.
INTR-13
An Existing Conditions Report was prepared and is part of the Comprehensive Plan Update record,
providing a base of information to support the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan and is incorporated
by reference into the SEIS. Likewise, a 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 the SEIS.
1.7 Amending the Comprehensive Plan
This Comprehensive Plan will evolve and be reviewed and revised over the next 20 years due to changes
desired by the community, trends, and information. GMA limits annual Comprehensive Plan amendments
to no more than once per calendar year, except for certain exemptions and emergency actions. The next
scheduled update to the Plan is due on or before June 30, 2025 (RCW 36.70A.130(5)(c). Whenever the plan
is amended it is important to verify that it is "internally consistent" and that development regulations are
consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. Annexation and changes to city limits or the
unincorporated growth area may prompt future reviews of the plan. Future amendments will be processed
in accordance with Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 16.10.
INTRODUCTION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
INTR-14
2.1 Introduction
The Land Use Element is central to all other elements by providing for the distribution of land use meeting
Yakima's needs for housing, employment, recreation, public facilities and other land uses in development
patterns that support the City's vision for the future. This element also addresses how land use and
supporting infrastructure and facilities are developed and maintained, particularly the image and character
of Downtown and Yakima's neighborhoods, the quality of its buildings, streets, and public spaces, and the
community's emphasis in honoring of the City's history. The element includes policies that support a
mixture of housing options, preservation, and enhancement of neighborhoods, pedestrian -friendly design,
community gathering spaces, environmental stewardship, healthy living, and annexation.
The requirement for a Land Use Element in comprehensive plans is one of the key components of the
Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires cities to demonstrate the ability to accommodate 20
years of growth through sufficient buildable land that is zoned appropriately. In addition to managing
growth, the Land Use Element also sets goals and policies to shape the design and layout of cities.
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
2.2 Conditions and Trends
Yakima is an urban city with a rural character
With a population of 93,410 (2016 CFM), the City of Yakima is the eleventh largest city in the State of
Washington. However, given this status the city still retains its rural character due to a strong agricultural
base and a vibrant natural setting.
Low density residential is predominant
Low Density Residential accounts for 37% of the existing land use in Yakima, and 44% of the Future Land
Use Map. Since 2010, 585 new single-family homes have been permitted totaling over $131 million in
valuation (Nov 2016). Furthermore, single family housing accounts for around 60 percent of structures —
see Housing Element.
Lan
_T_
J
-
-4-
Land Use Goal- Growth Management
Act
Designate the proposed general distribution
and general location and extent of the uses
of land, where appropriate, for agriculture,
timber production, housing, commerce,
industry, recreation, open spaces, general
aviation airports, public utilities, public
facilities, and other land uses. The land use
element shall include population densities,
building intensities, and estimates of future
population growth. Provide for protection of
the quality and quantity of groundwater
used for public water supplies. Consider
utilizing urban planning approaches that
promote physical activity. Review drainage,
flooding, and storm water run-off in the area
and nearby jurisdictions and provide
guidance for corrective actions to mitigate
or cleanse those discharges that pollute
waters of the state. (RCW 36.70A.020(1))
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Yakima is an increasingly diverse city
About 79 percent of Yakima's growth in population between 2010 and 2014 was Hispanic; with overall
Hispanic population making up 44 percent of the City in 2014. This Comprehensive Plan intends to address
the cultural needs of the whole community.
Yakima's Downtown revitalization is in full swing
Downtown Yakima has suffered from a high retail vacancy rate and competition from other commercial
centers with big box retail formats and strip maps inside and outside the city limits. However, retail
demand is estimated to grow by 200,000 square -feet per year in the city as a whole. Within the past ten
years, streetscape improvements combined with private investments including the Yakima Mall's
redevelopment, several new and renovated building projects and multiple tasking rooms have helped to
improve the character and liveliness of Downtown. The recent Downtown Plan identifies investments in
the "heart of Downtown" and catalyst sites to capture a share of this retail growth. The plan's key actions
intend to spur private investment focused around a multipurpose public plaza that provides a year-round
gathering space. Further, Yakima Avenue enhancements prioritize pedestrians and emphasize intersection
improvements. Additional greenery is proposed to help humanize the street.
Yakima has development potential
Yakima has several areas that contain large tracts of vacant land including the Cascade Mill Site, Congdon
Properties, and North 16th/SR-12. These areas all offer a significant opportunity for Yakima to create new
destination development(s) and create key economic development nodes. Considering new design
standards or incentivizing new development in specific industries will be important for the long-term
success of these areas.
There are also several redevelopment opportunities on smaller sites along key corridors such as North 1St
Street, East Nob Hill Boulevard, and the West Washington/Ahtanum corridors around the Airport.
M
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �l,
Yakima is agriculturally driven
Agricultural processing, packing, and storage is a key industry in the City of Yakima. Since 2010, the city
issued permits for over 4.8 million square -feet of new/renovated structures for the AG industry. Farmers
from all over the Yakima Valley depend on the facilities in the City for their processing, packing and storage
needs. The availability of appropriately zoned land for agricultural uses is paramount to the future growth
of this important industry.
Yakima's east -west arterial corridors are critical
Yakima has largely grown westward from Downtown. As a result, the city's east -west corridors have taken
on an increasing importance over the years. First, they function as essential transportation connections
from residential areas to Downtown, other employment and shopping areas, and to Interstate 82. Second,
they provide a wide array of commercial services. A combination of increasing growth, access management
challenges due to the patterns or commercial development along the corridor, and rights-of-way width
limitations are posing increased traffic challenges. Furthermore, since these corridors are so heavily used,
the design of these corridors are very important. The lack of design standards or guidelines are visible in
the quality and character of development that has occurred along these corridors.
Furn1[ure
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
2.3 Challenges and Opportunities
Yakima is home to a wide variety of land uses, including low to high density residential, office and medical
facilities, restaurants, retail and service establishments, parks and recreation facilities, and large-scale
industrial and agricultural operations. Yakima is a city where all residents' needs can be met. There is
tremendous growth potential in Yakima that spans all sectors: Residential, Commercial, and Industrial.
With opportunities for large-scale development on vacant land and infill development throughout the city,
the future growth potential for Yakima is high.
Promoting additional types of housing to accommodate evolving population needs is a key component of
this plan. As noted previously, the vast majority of residential uses are single family homes. This plan
includes several policies to encourage more multi -family and non-traditional residential development
while stabilizing and enhancing older neighborhoods.
Modern redevelopment and adaptive re -use in downtown, new local breweries and wineries, and
enhanced regional sports facilities have made Yakima a year-round destination for tourists. To keep up
with demand, Yakima needs to promote tourism by implementing an enhanced design character that will
attract investment and retain/attract talent.
Below are some key land use challenges and opportunities facing Yakima in the next twenty -plus years:
■ Providing a greater mix of housing sizes and types to accommodate Yakima's evolving population.
■ Enhancing design character of the City to promote tourism, attract investment and talent.
■ Stabilizing and enhancing older neighborhoods.
■ Mitigating land use incompatibilities.
■ Coordinating land use and transportation efforts to enhance walkability and circulation.
■ Planning for underutilized commercial and industrial lands.
■ Consideration of annexation requests where appropriate.
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Yakima Revenue Development Area (Cascade Mill)
The Yakima Revenue Development Area (YRDA) is adjacent to Interstate 82 from the US 12/North 1St Street
Interchange through the Yakima Avenue/Terrace Heights exit. The YRDA is located entirely within the city
limits and in one of the earliest plats of the City of Yakima. The primary development zone is approximately
211 acres which were formerly used as the Boise Cascade Sawmill and Plywood Plant.
The City supports continued development of the YRDA and on September 23, 2008 was awarded LIFT
financing through a competitive award process which considered sites state-wide. State law requires that
in order for LIFT funding to be applied to the YRDA local governments must ensure that all proposed
projects are identified within their Comprehensive Plans and other supporting documents. City efforts
include environmental clean-up, street and utility construction, and 1-82 freeway access.
2.4 Goals & Policies
GOAL 2.1. ESTABLISH A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S VISION.
Policies
2.1.1. Designate the general distribution, location and extent of the uses of land for housing, commerce,
recreation, open spaces, public utilities and facilities and other land uses.
2.1.2. Establish land use designations, densities and intensities as shown under Goal 2.2.
2.1.3. Review proposed Future Land Use designation changes for consistency with Yakima Municipal
Code Ch. 16.10 and the following criteria:
■ Does the proposal conform to locational criteria set forth for the desired designation?
■ Is the site physically suited for the proposed designation?
■ Is the desired zone one of the implementing zones of the land use designation?
■ Is the proposal a spot zone or a similar change that may create instability with the
surrounding neighborhood?
2.1.4. Manage and maintain the City's Official Zoning Map to ensure continued consistency with the
Future Land Use Map (see Exhibit 2-1).
1
Spot Zone
Illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and
unreasonable zoning action by
which a smaller area is singled out
of a larger area or district and
specially zoned for a use
classification totally different from
and inconsistent with the
classification of the surrounding
land, not in accordance with a
comprehensive plan.
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �l,
2.1.5. Implement land use designations through a clear regulatory process that ensures transparency,
fairness and predictability in the land development process.
2.1.6. Adopt coordinated development regulations that facilitate Yakima's preferred land use pattern
(e.g., allowed density, uses, and site provisions).
■ Refine the land use code on an ongoing basis to make it user-friendly by employing simple
language, easy to read charts, and illustrative graphics.
■ Monitor and refine the land use code as needed to facilitate the preferred land use pattern
and development character.
■ Integrate an appropriate balance of predictability and flexibility when updating development
regulations that allow ease of administration and interpretation and offer optional ways of
meeting requirements when possible.
2.1.7. Allow new development only where adequate public services can be provided.
2.1.8. Work with other jurisdictions and agencies, educational and other organizations, and the business
community to develop and carry out a coordinated, regional approach for meeting the various
needs of Yakima County communities, including housing, human services, economic vitality, public
safety, utilities, infrastructure, parks and recreation, transportation, and environmental
protection.
2.1.9 Consider annexation requests in accordance with review criteria, including, but not limited to:
■ Areas to be annexed are included in the UGA.
■ The annexation boundary, where appropriate, should adjust any impractical or irregular
boundaries created in the past.
■ The annexation boundary should, where appropriate, provide a contiguous and regular
boundary with current City limits.
■ The annexation proposal should create and/or preserve logical service areas. Annexations
generally should not have or create abnormally irregular boundaries that are difficult to
serve.
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
■ The City should give priority consideration to annexation proposals that are financially self-
sufficient or those where the fiscal impact can be improved. The City should develop a
variety of service delivery or revenue enhancement options to increase the feasibility of
annexation. The City will prepare a fiscal analysis of the annexation proposal prior to
annexation.
2.1.10 Require properties to assume zoning consistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan, as adopted
or as amended where appropriate.
2.1.11 Continue to coordinate with Yakima County on future land use, shoreline, critical area, and
infrastructure policies, plans, and permit reviews in the Yakima UGA.
2.1.12 Work in collaboration with Yakima County and cities through regional forums such as the Yakima
Valley Council of Governments and the Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resource Management
Plan.
Exhibit 2-1. Future Land Use Map
223
P
�•n
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Vakima GIS
May, 2017
The Future Land Use Map illustrates the combination of current land use, current zoning, and future uses of each parcel of land within the City of Yakima. The map category is necessary to provide certainty to the
community members, residents, and property owners about what type of land use will be located around them. And, where to expect future services, and development based on the goals, policies and objectives
of this Plan 2040.
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Future Land Use
Ge nera I izedCatego ries
Low Density Residential
Mixed Residential
■ Central Business Core Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
■ Regional Commercial
. Community Mixed Use
■ Industrial
1-3 Yakima City Limits
Urban Growth Area
I
I
c
a
i
I
i
i
e
I
5
c
Lug
Exhibit 2-1. Future Land Use Map
223
P
�•n
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Vakima GIS
May, 2017
The Future Land Use Map illustrates the combination of current land use, current zoning, and future uses of each parcel of land within the City of Yakima. The map category is necessary to provide certainty to the
community members, residents, and property owners about what type of land use will be located around them. And, where to expect future services, and development based on the goals, policies and objectives
of this Plan 2040.
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Future Land Use
Ge nera I izedCatego ries
Low Density Residential
Mixed Residential
■ Central Business Core Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
■ Regional Commercial
. Community Mixed Use
■ Industrial
1-3 Yakima City Limits
Urban Growth Area
I
I
c
a
' I
§ I
xan..mmnv.
uasr�o
Exhibit 2-1. Future Land Use Map
223
P
�•n
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Vakima GIS
May, 2017
The Future Land Use Map illustrates the combination of current land use, current zoning, and future uses of each parcel of land within the City of Yakima. The map category is necessary to provide certainty to the
community members, residents, and property owners about what type of land use will be located around them. And, where to expect future services, and development based on the goals, policies and objectives
of this Plan 2040.
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Future Land Use
Ge nera I izedCatego ries
Low Density Residential
Mixed Residential
■ Central Business Core Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
■ Regional Commercial
. Community Mixed Use
■ Industrial
1-3 Yakima City Limits
Urban Growth Area
GOAL 2.2. PROVIDE A MIX OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S
VISION.
Exhibit 2-2: Land Use Designations and implementing zoning districts
Land Use Designation
Low Mixed Community Commercial CBD Regional
Zoning District Density Residential Mixed -Use Mixed -Use Commercial Commercial Industrial
Residential Core
SR
R-1
R-2
The blue shaded boxes denote the implementing zoning district for the applicable land use designation.
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
LU -10
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Policies
2.2.1. Low Density Residential:
A. Purpose: This designation provides for low density residential development.
B. Locational criteria: Within established low density residential communities and in other parts
of the City that are inappropriate for more intensive urban development due to topography
or other land suitability challenges and/or the desire to create a lower intensity transitional
area between the city and the surrounding unincorporated rural pasture, foothills, and
agricultural land.
C. Principal uses & density: Single-family detached dwellings are the predominant dwelling
type. Other dwelling types may be allowed under certain circumstances, such as accessory
dwellings and cottage housing. The permitted density is up to seven net dwelling units per
acre for infill development. On larger sites (over two acres), more flexibility in lot sizes and
layout are envisioned, provided overall density standards are met. Permitted maximum
densities on large sites is up to seven gross dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses allowing
up to six gross dwelling units may be allowed subject to conformance with traditional
neighborhood design concepts.
D. Implementingzoningdistricts: SR & R-1.
2.2.2. Mixed Residential:
A. Purpose: This designation provides for areas with a mixture of housing types and densities.
B. Locational criteria: Intended for areas now characterized by, and/or appropriate for, a
mixture of housing types with a close proximity to commercial services, transit access, and/or
parks and other public recreational amenities. This designation often creates a transition
from commercial and mixed-use areas to low density residential areas.
Net Dwelling Units/Acre: The number
of dwelling units allowed per acre less
the area for right-of-way, streets, and
access easements.
Gross Dwelling Units/Acre: The
number of dwelling units allowed per
acre including the area for right-of-
way, streets, and access easements.
H
C. Principal uses & density: A mixture of single-family, duplex, and multifamily dwelling units.
The permitted maximum density is up to or above 13 net dwelling units per acre, depending
on the underlying zoning district and neighborhood context. For developments electing to
conform to site and building design standards promoting pedestrian -oriented development,
density is primarily limited by allowable building height, integration of required parking,
market conditions, and conformance with applicable site and building design provisions.
Specifying the maximum number of dwelling units in one building may be appropriate in
some areas to ensure compatibility and to limit building massing and density.
D. Implementing zoningdistricts: R-2 & R-3.
2.2.3. Community Mixed -Use:
A. Purpose: This designation is intended to allow for a mixture of neighborhood scaled retail,
commercial service, office, and high density residential uses.
B. Locational criteria: Existing and planned future neighborhood center areas, sites along key
arterials and collector streets, and transitional areas between residential uses and downtown
or other mixed-use centers.
C. Principal uses & density: A mixture of retail, commercial service, office, and high density
residential uses depending on the area's context. Corridors and neighborhood centers can
accommodate a greater mixture of retail and commercial service uses while some
transitional areas near the edge of residential neighborhoods are more appropriate for a mix
of office and residential uses. The permitted maximum residential density is up to or above
13 net dwelling units per acre, depending on the underlying zoning district and neighborhood
context. For developments electing to conform to site and building design standards
promoting pedestrian -oriented development, density is primarily limited by allowable
building height, integration of required parking, market conditions, and conformance with
applicable site and building design provisions. Specifying the maximum number of dwelling
units in one building may be appropriate in some areas to ensure a neighborhood -friendly
scale of development.
D. Implementingzoningdistricts: B-1, B-2, SCC, HB & R-3
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
t
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
2.2.4. Commercial Mixed -Use:
A. Purpose: This designation promotes the greater integration of mixed uses that offer greater
development choices to property owners, increased housing options, strengthened
commercial retail areas, and lively pedestrian -oriented development.
B. Locational criteria: Existing and planned commercial centers (except for the CBD) and
primary arterial corridors.
C. Principal uses & density: A wide range of retail and general service uses plus residential uses
on upper floors on key retail -focused streets and single purpose residential on other streets.
This includes a mixture of apartments, townhouses, and assisted living facilities. New
residential uses should feature densities supportive to transit use.
D. Implementingzoningdistricts: LCC, GC & AS
2.2.5. CBD Commercial Core:
A. Purpose: This designation is intended to reinforce Yakima's downtown as the center of
commercial, civic, and cultural activities within the city. Downtown is expected to
accommodate new development while reinforcing and enhancing its historic pedestrian -
friendly character and scale.
B. Locational criteria: Intended for Yakima's existing Central Business District and allowing for
growth only when there is a demonstrated need for additional permitted uses in areas
physically capable of accommodating the mix of uses.
C. Principal uses & density: A broad mix of commercial, retail, professional office, civic and
cultural, and multifamily residential uses. Active uses are required on the ground floor along
Yakima Avenue and key side streets. Multi -story buildings and a mixture of uses are
encouraged. New residential uses must feature transit -supportive densities (at least 15 gross
dwelling units/acre).
D. Implementingzoningdistricts: CBD
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
2.2.6. Regional Commercial:
A. Purpose: This designation is intended to promote a medium to large scale mix of retail,
service and business, and tourism/recreational establishments and complementary multi-
family. Coordinated infrastructure development and site and building design standards are
critical elements to emphasize quality development that enhances the character, identity,
and economic vitality of Yakima.
B. Locational criteria: On high visibility sites near Interstate 82 and US Route 12.
C. Principal uses & density: A wide range of retail, service and business, tourism, and
recreational establishments. Multifamily and townhouses are allowed as a secondary use to
complement and support other commercial and recreational uses and promote a healthy
pedestrian friendly environment. New residential uses feature densities supportive to transit
use (at least 15 gross dwelling units/acre).
D. Implementing zoning districts: RD
LU -14
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
2.2.7. Industrial:
A. Purpose: This designation provides for manufacturing, agricultural processing/storage, and
closely related uses.
B. Locational criteria: Existing industrial designated areas with active industrial uses or areas
featuring adequate public utilities and land physically suited to industrial activities that are
buffered from residential or other potentially incompatible uses. New industrial
development should be located in areas that take advantage of access to 1-82, Highway 12,
SR -24, and existing rail and airport facilities. Additional areas may be designated, provided
they are surrounded by and characterized by industrial uses.
C. Principal uses & density: Industrial, agricultural, research and development, repair,
construction business, warehouse, and distribution terminals that minimize external impacts
to adjacent districts, and accessory uses.
D. Implementingzoningdistricts: M1, M2, AS
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
GOAL 2.3. RESIDENTIAL USES. PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY, CHARACTER AND
FUNCTION OF YAKIMA'S RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
Policies
2.3.1. Provide for a wide variety of housing types within the city to meet the full range of housing needs
for Yakima's evolving population.
A. Accessory dwelling units (ADU). Allow for attached and detached ADU's in all residential
districts provided size, design, and other provisions are included to promote compatibility
with surrounding uses. Additional considerations may include:
■ Reduce the minimum lot size for lots qualifying for an ADU.
■ Allow free-standing ADU's provided lots retain usable open space and units minimize
privacy impacts to adjacent properties.
■ Provide an owner occupancy requirement (owner must live in primary home or ADU)
B.StandardStandard single family. Continue to allow for detached single family dwellings in residential
districts.
C. Small lot lot single family. Allow for small lot single family development (lots smaller than 6,000
square feet) in special circumstances, including:
■ Within a master planned development on sites over two acres in size inapplicable zones,
provided the development incorporates traditional neighborhood design concepts and
conformity with district density requirements.
■ On infill sites in R-2 and R-3 district provided they comply with traditional neighborhood
design concepts. Consider reducing the lot size minimum for small lot single family in the
R-2 district to 5,000sf and 4,000sf in the R-3 district.
D. Cottage housing. housing.. Allow the development of cottage housing (a cluster of small homes around
a common open space) in residential zones, provided special design provisions are included
to ensure a pedestrian -oriented design, inclusion of common open space, and strict cottage
size limitations.
Cottage housing is typically a cluster of
4-12 small detached housing units that
surround a common open space.
Cottages are typically no larger than
1,200 sf size range and popular with
singles, couples, empty nesters, and
small families that desire a sense of
community and don't want to
maintain a large yard. They function as
a niche housing type that would be
popular among a smaller percentage
of the population.
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
E. Duplexes. Continue to allow duplexes in appropriate residential zones, provided density
standards are met. Consider incorporating design standards that emphasize a pedestrian -
oriented design and the inclusion of usable open space.
F. Townhouses. Encourage the development of townhouses in the R-2 and R-3 zones and
commercial/mixed-use zones as an efficient form of housing. Design standards should
emphasize pedestrian -oriented design, facade articulation, and usable open space.
G. Senior and assisted housing. Encourage these housing types in the R-2 and R-3 zones and
zones and commercial/mixed-use zones. Design standards should emphasize pedestrian -
oriented design, facade articulation, and usable open space.
H. Walk up apartments and stacked flats. Encourage these housing types in the R-2 and R-3
zones and commercial/mixed-use zones. Design standards should emphasize pedestrian -
oriented design, facade articulation, and usable open space.
I. Live -work units. Promote opportunities to combine live and work spaces in commercial and
mixed-use zones.
2.3.2. Preserve and enhance established residential neighborhoods. Specifically:
A. Ensure that new development is compatible in scale, style, density, and aesthetic quality to
an established neighborhood.
B. Protect the character of single family neighborhoods by focusing higher intensity land uses
close to commercial and community services and transit.
C. Prioritize the upkeep and improvement of streets, sidewalks, landscaping, parks, utilities, and
community facilities in established neighborhoods.
D. Maintain neighborhood upkeep through strict City code compliance.
E. Carefully review proposed land use designation changes to more intensive residential
designations, mixed-use, or industrial. Specifically:
■ Proposals should conform to locational criteria set forth for the desired designation in the
applicable policies under Goal 2.2.
C
� w
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
■ Is the site physically suited for the proposed designation?
■ Is the desired zone one of the implementing zones of the land use designation (per
applicable policies under Goal 2.2)?
■ Avoid spot zones or similar changes that may create instability with the surrounding
neighborhood.
F. Discouraging the conversion of single-family detached structures to multi -family structures
except where they conform to density, design, and parking standards for the applicable
zoning district.
G. Allow home occupations that would not generate excessive traffic, create parking problems,
or degrade the livability or appearance of the neighborhood.
Also see the goals and policies of the Historic Preservation element.
2.3.3. Create walkable residential neighborhoods with safe streets and good connections to schools,
parks, transit, and commercial services.
A. Construct sidewalks along all new residential streets.
B. Provide streetscape standards that create safe and walkable streets within residential
developments.
C. Promote small block sizes to ensure good connectivity and reduced walking distances
between residences and schools, parks, and services. Specifically:
■ Low density residential: Blocks between 400- 800 feet long are appropriate.
■ Mixed residential: Blocks between 300-660 feet long are appropriate.
■ Provide for through public through block connections for large residential blocks.
■ Commercial and mixed-use designations: Configure development to provide pedestrian
connections at 300 to 660 feet intervals. Configure development to provide vehicular
connections at 600 to 1,320 feet intervals. Allow flexibility for private internal streets to
meet connectivity objectives.
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
D. Provide for usable publicly accessible parkland within walking distance (1/2 mile) of all new
residences.
2.3.4. Consider new design standards for small lot single family development to gracefully integrate these
uses into existing neighborhoods in ways that maintain general neighborhood scale and character.
Key concepts to consider in the design standards:
■ A covered entry facing the street.
■ Minimize the impacts of garages and driveways on the streetscape.
■ Provide usable open space on all single family lots.
■ Consider a maximum floor area ratio to better ensure that homes are proportional to lot sizes.
■ Minimum amount of facade transparency to promote more "eyes on the street" for safety and to
create a welcoming streetscape.
2.3.5. Consider new design standards for new multifamily development to promote neighborhood
compatibility, enhance the livability of new housing, and enhance the character of residential and
mixed-use areas.
Key concepts to emphasize in the design standards:
■ Emphasize pedestrian oriented building frontages.
■ Emphasize facade articulation consistent with neighborhood scale.
■ Integrate high quality durable building materials and human scaled detailing.
■ Provide for usable open space for residents.
■ Provide compatible site edges and sensitive service area design.
■ Provide for vehicular access and storage while minimizing visual and safety impacts of vehicles.
■ Integrate landscaping elements to soften building elevations, enhance neighborhood compatibility,
and improve the setting for residents.
2.3.6. Allow some compatible nonresidential uses in residential zones, such as appropriately scaled
schools, churches, parks and other public/community facilities, home occupations, day care
centers, and other uses that provide places for people to gather. Maintain standards in the zoning
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
code for locating and designing these uses in a manner that respects the character and scale of the
neighborhood.
2.3.7. Explore the development of zoning incentives to help meet housing diversity and affordability
goals.
Examples could include residential density bonuses, variations in allowed housing type, or
flexibility in regulations, if a proposal meets community goals for affordable, senior, size -limited or
other types of innovative housing. If not permitted outright or through discretionary review
processes, consider providing for these incentives through pilot programs or other innovative
measures.
GOAL 2.4. DOWNTOWN. ENHANCE THE CHARACTER AND ECONOMIC VITALITY OF YAKIMA'S
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
Pnliri, c
2.4.1. Reestablish the historic core of downtown as the heart of the City. Key concepts for the historic
core:
A. Yakima Plaza: Establish a central gathering space for community activities. Specifically:
■ Design to accommodate numerous year-round activities and provide for an 18 -hour
active, vibrant, and distinctive space.
■ Strengthen and build upon existing assets, including the Capitol Theater, the Federal
Building, the existing Millennium Plaza art installment, and Yakima Avenue storefronts.
■ Provide a focus for new ground floor retail and upper floor housing or offices on
surrounding infill sites.
B. Chestnut Main Street: Emphasize Chestnut Avenue between Front and Fourth Streets as a
destination for retail shopping and entertainment. Streetscape elements include:
■ Reduce travel lane widths to widen sidewalks and reduce pedestrian crossing distances.
■ Provide curbside parking adjacent to retail.
■ Eliminate turn lane pockets and prohibit/eliminate driveways.
■ Bury power lines and emphasize/plant canopy street trees.
ow LU -20
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
OR
■ Provide pedestrian scale lighting, benches, shade structures, and public art.
■ Incorporate landscaped curb extensions and specially paved crosswalks at intersections.
■ Feature specially paved sidewalks similar in material to the plaza and market paving.
C.Parking: Implement a phased parking strategy, including:
■ Temporary retail parking lot —the parking displaced by the plaza should be replaced by
acquiring parcels south of the alley between First and Second Streets east of Chestnut
Avenue.
■ Retail parking structure — as demand grows, construct a municipal parking structure
between First and Second Streets east of Chestnut Avenue. Reserve ground level block
frontages for active uses and construct a separate mixed-use building along the Second
Street block frontage.
■ Supplemental parking —to supplement retail customer parking, partner with the Yakima
Mall to lease space for retail, special event, and downtown employee parking. Consider
access and design improvements to facilitate better utilization of the Yakima Mall parking
garage.
D. Public Market: Construct a regional retail anchor at the western edge of Front Street
between Chestnut and Yakima Avenue. Encourage a mixture of uses downtown, including
restaurants and taverns, retail, office, civic, cultural, lodging, and residential uses to support
day and evening activities for all ages.
2.4.2. Land Uses - Maintain and strengthen downtown as the center for civic, retail, cultural, dining and
entertainment activity in Yakima.
E. Emphasize storefronts with active uses (retail, food and drink, and entertainment) along
strategic downtown core block frontages.
B. Promote new mixed-use development on vacant or underutilized parcels. Upper floor
apartments, condominiums, and office uses are encouraged.
C. Prohibit new auto -oriented uses and other uses that are space intensive and facilitate
minimal pedestrian activity.
LONG-TERM STRATEGY
1
1
I
ILD PI-a�
� x
a 8
e
Required Ground -Floor Retail / Build -to -lines
City Center Mixed Use
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
OR
D. Retain and strengthen government uses.
E. Promote adaptive reuse of Yakima Mall, emphasizing active ground floor uses, government,
museum or art gallery uses, and residential and office uses on upper floors.
F. Deemphasize longterm surface parking.
G. Within the District Center Mixed -Use area (see Exhibit 2-3):
■ Promote retail development at key intersections.
■ Allow more flexibility in the range of allowed uses.
Exhibit 2-3: Fundamental Downtown Master Plan concept
- - - _ J1 �\�C Rpp1U5 (S MINUTE wq Li...I. A.....
MLN Jr B..I—.rd
O\S�It1CT CE/VT Vt%CT CE/yT�GjY CBNlFR `STRICT CE/V
OSS R ' I O R
F— I�IMMMMA St
`'J ,I f f fr +r
. 1 i
f r
BOULEVARD
�I-r r �, +
r t
:- Ji LL LL a k s` LL i N W
Pi.. St—t
1►
2.4.3. Community Design — craft and apply design standards for downtown. Key concepts:
A. Reinforce the historic storefront pattern on Yakima Avenue and key side streets. This
includes storefronts built to the sidewalk edge and containing generous transparent window
area, entries facing the street, and weather protection elements (particularly on west facing
facades).
B. Accommodate a variety of pedestrian -friendly building frontages on side streets.
C. Minimize untreated blank walls facing the street.
D. Promote the continued preservation and restoration/rehabilitation of historic and
contributing buildings.
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
BOULEVARD SECTION
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
E. Promote facade massing and articulation that complements historical context.
F. Integrate high quality durable building materials and human scaled detailing.
G. Provide compatible site edges and sensitive rooftop and service area design.
H. Locate and design off-street parking to minimize impacts to the retail and pedestrian
environment.
2.4.4. Streetscape & Circulation —reestablish all downtown roadway corridors as complete streets where
the needs of all travel modes (motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians) are provided for in a
balanced manner. Key concepts to consider:
A. Boulevard — Enhance Yakima Avenue between Front and Naches Streets to prioritize
pedestrian access. Key elements include a wide landscaped median, reduced travel lanes
(from four to two), integration of left turn lanes at intersections, protected bicycle lanes,
additional curbside landscaping, enhanced intersections, and provisions for a future trolley.
B. Parkway - Enhance other segments of Yakima Avenue as a landscaped parkway. The concept
is similar to the Boulevard, except the center turn lanes remain (no landscaped median) and
additional planting strips are provided on each side of the travel lanes.
C. Downtown Street Standards— Update the street design standards for all downtown streets
emphasizing the complete streets approach. The standards should include general
requirements and design elements addressing roadway sidewalk design as suggested in the
2013 Downtown Master Plan.
N
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
GOAL 2.5. ARTERIAL CORRIDORS AND OTHER MIXED-USE CENTERS. ENHANCE THE CHARACTER,
FUNCTION, AND ECONOMIC VITALITY OF YAKIMA'S ARTERIAL CORRIDORS AND MIXED-
USE CENTERS.
Policies
2.5.1. Allow for a mixture of compatible land uses along corridors and within mixed-use designated areas.
This includes the integration of multi -family residential and office uses with retail and service
commercial uses. Provide zoning and design standards to maintain compatibility between different
uses and zones.
A. Avoid placing land uses that create excessive noise, unless the noise level can be mitigated,
in locations that are close to residences or other noise -sensitive land uses.
B. See Policy 2.3.5 regarding the establishment of design standards for multifamily
development.
C. Update zoning and design provisions to promote compatibility between different uses and
zones. Examples include building setbacks, building massing, landscaping buffers, fencing,
service element location, and design provisions, and vehicular parking and access provisions.
Landscape buffers are particularly important elements that can effectively mitigate impacts
of commercial uses on adjacent residential uses. Commercial development adjacent to Low
Density Residential designated areas warrant the greatest compatibility design protections.
D. Improve standards for public and private development to reduce noise and keep light
pollution out of residential neighborhoods.
Smaller scale
lighting fixtures
A _
DO THIS
f 70�p
DON'T DO THIS
2.5.2. Craft and adopt design standards for Yakima's most visible corridors and centers, with the highest
priority being First Street, Regional Commercial designated areas, Summitview Avenue, Nob Hill
Boulevard, and select Commercial Mixed -Use centers. Key design elements:
A. Provide for pedestrian -friendly block frontages (i.e., entries visible from street, pedestrian
access, minimize blank walls, landscaping elements).
B. Promote facade massing and articulation that adds visual interest and reduces perceived
scale of large buildings.
C. Integrate high quality durable building materials and human scaled detailing.
D. Emphasize landscaping elements as a major character defining feature of the City.
E. Provide good internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
F. Minimize impacts of service elements, mechanical equipment, and utilities on the pedestrian
environment.
G. Design compatible site edges or buffers, particularly when adjacent to residential zones.
H. Develop special standards and guidelines for large site development that incorporate open
space and landscaping as a unifying element, provide a connected system of pathways,
integrate safe internal vehicular circulation, demonstrate sensitivity to the surrounding
context, and take advantage of special on-site and nearby features.
I. Integrate opportunities for flexibility in the design standards by allowing multiple ways of
achieving standards and allowing strategic design departures provided the project meets the
design intent.
Also see Policy 2.3.5 regarding design standards specific to multifamily development.
2.5.3. Utilize strict access management standards to enhance safety and maintain the arterial traffic
functions of the corridor (see the Transportation Element for more details).
2.5.4. Prioritize streetscape improvements for the most visible corridors and centers. Possible
improvements include lighting, landscaping, sidewalk, underground utilities, bicycle, and
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
pedestrian furniture. Emphasize landscaping elements as one of the character defining features of
the City.
2.5.5. Commercial Mixed -Use area centered on W. Nob Hill Boulevard & S. 64th Avenue — Promote
coordinated master planned developmentthat integrates a mixture of uses, and the following land
use & design principles:
A. Includes an identifiable neighborhood center feature (i.e., main street or central plaza
space).
B. Integrates a well-connected grid of streets, lanes, and internal walkways and trails. Prioritize
the development of trails that provide a framework for development to orient around and
provide functional connections between uses and amenities.
C. Accommodates a variety of housing types within walking distance of neighborhood center
retail and amenities.
D. Provides attractive arterial block frontages with a strong emphasis on pedestrian access,
landscaping elements, and building facades featuring transparent window areas, articulation
treatments that add visual interest and reduce the perceived scale of large buildings, high
quality durable building materials, and an integration of human scale design details.
E. Integrate a phasing plan that makes optimal use of initial phases.
F. Carefully consider the location of parking lots to minimize impacts on the streetscape
environment.
G. Integrate a range of on-site open spaces to serve residential uses and make the center
attractive to neighborhood residents and visitors.
H. Promote the use of sustainable design techniques to enhance the environmental quality of
the area. Low impact development techniques shall be emphasized to the extent
feasible and incorporated into street, trail, and lot design/layout. Opportunities for
natural system restoration should also be considered.
Coordinated development concept
example that includes a focal point, a
connected circulation system, careful
siting of parking areas, and a mix of
uses.
H
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
I. Edge treatment and compatibility. Treatments along the edges need to consider
current and possible future conditions on adjacent sites. Rather than simply walling
off edges, master plans should include design treatments that allow for better
integration of the various developments and phases.
2.5.6. Cascade Mill redevelopment — Promote coordinated development that integrates a mixture of
uses, and the following land use & design principles:
A. Includes an identifiable tourism oriented feature(s) (i.e., greenway trail access,
brewery/winery district, year-round recreation).
B. Promote and incentivize large-scale industrial park, business park, light manufacturing or
other economic development that integrates with planned retail and recreation uses.
C. Encourage the integration of retail that serves the Northeast Yakima Neighborhood and
regional market. Complementary office uses are encouraged to be mixed with retail uses
both vertically (on upper floors above retail) or horizontally (in separate buildings to the side
or rear of retail).
D. Encourage a range of housing types (including townhouses, apartments, and senior housing),
adjacent to the Cascade Mill site, in locations complementary to future retail activities, trails,
and existing Northeast Yakima Neighborhood uses.
E. Configure retail and tourism uses to create a pedestrian -oriented focal point. This could
include a "main street" concept with storefronts and a pedestrian -friendly street, a central
plaza or commons surrounded by storefronts, or other concept that integrates public
gathering space with retail/tourism uses in a memorable and character -defining built
environment.
F. Integrates a well-connected grid of streets, lanes, and internal walkways and trails. Continue
to plan for and construct the East-West Corridor, freeway access improvements, and the
north -south oriented Cascade Mill Parkway. Prioritize the development of trails that provide
a framework for development to orient around and provide attractive connections between
uses and amenities.
1: wo .se
1A 11 VIole,.I 4.
— —0.—•—,—.—.—.
Cel
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
G. Provides attractive arterial block frontages with a strong emphasis on pedestrian access,
landscaping elements, and building facades featuring transparent window areas, articulation
treatments that add visual interest and reduce the perceived scale of large buildings, high
quality durable building materials, and an integration of human scale design details.
H. Integrate a phasing plan that makes optimal use of initial phases.
I. Carefully consider the location of parking lots and views from 1-82 (to mitigate visual impacts
of parking lots, blank walls, and service areas and enhance the character and identity of
Yakima).
2.5.7. Consider alternative funding or redevelopment tools such as Community Renewal District(s), as
defined by Chapter 35.81 RCW, or a Port District along Yakima's key arterial corridors and the
Cascade Mill Site to aid in accomplishing the policies above.
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
GOAL 2.6. COMMUNITY DESIGN. PROMOTE COMPATIBLE HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THAT
ENHANCES THE CHARACTER AND IDENTITY OF YAKIMA.
Policies
2.6.1. Adopt and administer user-friendly design standards and guidelines that support commercial and
multifamily development in high visibility areas or as a density bonus incentive. Evaluate the
effectiveness of adopted standards and guidelines over time and make adjustments as necessary
to achieve community design goals and policies. Emphasize the concepts referenced in Policies
2.3.1 through 2.3.7.
2.6.2. Design public facilities to support and strengthen Yakima's community character and identity.
A. Recognize that the character of public rights-of-way play a role in determining community
character. Wherever feasible, promote complete streets and incorporate streetscape
improvements, such as way -finding signs, lighting, public art, enhanced landscaping and
street furniture, to enhance community character.
B. Recognize, maintain, and enhance community entry and gateway sites to enhance Yakima's
character and setting.
C. Design public facilities to serve as a model of architectural and site design for private
development in the city through use of quality building materials, human scale detailing,
design character, and landscape materials.
D. Work with WSDCT and Yakima County to consider alternative design plan(s) for the future
East-West Corridor 1-82 bridge with an iconic design that enhances the entryway into Yakima.
E. Locate and design public spaces that reflect and enhance Yakima's character and function as
welcoming formal and informal gathering spaces.
LU -30
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �l,
GOAL 2.7. RESOURCE PROTECTION & SUSTAINABLE DESIGN. REINFORCE AND ENHANCE YAKIMA'S
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.
Policies
2.7.1. Maintain and strengthen regulations to protect sensitive natural areas and pursue
strategies/actions to restore degraded natural areas.
2.7.2. Update development regulations to emphasize sustainable design in new developments, including
forms of Low Impact Development.
2.7.3. Encourage retrofits to existing development and infrastructure to reduce environmental impact.
Explore providing incentives to residents and businesses that improve building energy
performance and/or incorporate onsite renewable energy.
2.7.4. Develop policies and prescriptive designs to encourage property owners to landscape unimproved
right-of-way with functional Low Impact Development features (e.g., bio-swale or rain -garden) or
for use as private food gardens.
2.7.5. Emphasize sustainable design/practice in public improvements and in the design/use of public
facilities and events. Key elements:
A. Update public works standards, as necessary, to emphasize best practice sustainable
design/practice.
b. Incorporate consideration of physical health and well-being into the location and design of
public facilities.
2.7.6. Offer density bonus incentives for sustainable design features, including the integration of:
A. Pedestrian -oriented development.
B. Low -impact development techniques.
C. Well-connected street grid with good pedestrian connectivity between residential uses,
schools, parks, transit access, and commercial services.
2.7.7. Establish resource protection and sustainability goals, monitor development to track success in
meeting those goals, and refine the implementation strategy as needed to help meet goals.
Please see the Natural
Environment Element for
additional guidance on the natural
environment, including
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �l,
GOAL 2.8. COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACE. PRESERVE AND DEVELOP INVITING AND DISTINCTIVE
GATHERING SPACES, WITH THE GREATEST EMPHASIS IN DOWNTOWN, MIXED-USE
AREAS, AND NEIGHBORHOODS.
See Policy 2.4.1.A above regarding downtown gathering space.
See the Parks & Recreation Element for related goals and policies.
2.8.1. Adopt development regulations that provide for the integration of usable public open space in
residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments.
2.8.2. Pursue strategic public/private partnerships with large developments to leverage high quality
public space integrated with new development.
2.8.3. Continue to encourage public participation in the design of public spaces throughout the City.
GOAL 2.9. INDUSTRIAL & MANUFACTURING AREAS. MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE ACTIVE USE OF
INDUSTRIAL LANDS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH.
Policies
2.9.1. Develop industrial and manufacturing lands that minimize impacts on surrounding land uses,
especially residential land uses. Utilize landscape buffers (evergreen trees and shrubs) along with
open space or other design controls to mitigate noise, glare, and other impacts associated with
the uses to ensure that their location will not adversely affect the residential areas.
2.9.2. Encourage infill and promote efficient utilization of vacant land within areas that are designated
for industrial uses.
2.9.3. Encourage development of compact, small-scale high quality industrial parks through Industrial
Planned Development (Industrial PD).
2.9.4. Consider high quality industrial park or Industrial PD for light industrial uses to be located adjacent
to residential neighborhoods, with adequate buffers.
2.9.5. Encourage multiple business manufacturing development, providing a more stable economic base
through diversity, as opposed to a single large manufacturing business.
2.9.6. Limit non -industrial uses to those that are complementary to industrial activities in terms of access
and circulation, public safety, hours of operation, and other land use activities.
2.9.7. Protect industrial and manufacturing lands from encroachment by other land uses, which would
reduce the economic viability of industrial lands.
GOAL 2.10. HEALTHY COMMUNITIES. PROMOTE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN THAT
ENCOURAGES HEALTHY LIVING AND GOOD CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN COMPATIBLE
USES.
Pnliri, c
2.10.1. Adopt development standards that facilitate a complementary mix of uses within mixed-use
centers that encourage walking and bicycling between uses.
2.10.2. Adopt design provisions that provide for safe and attractive non -motorized connectivity between
uses and amenities, with the frequency of connections commensurate with the envisioned
intensity of land uses (e.g., housing, employment, community services, and amenities).
2.10.3. Adopt development standards that encourage the integration of recreational space with
multifamily and planned residential development.
2.10.4. Integrate public recreational amenities accessible to all Yakima residents, workers, and visitors,
with highest priority on locations, facilities, and activities that best serve the community. (also see
the Parks & Recreation Element for more details)
2.10.5. Increase access to health foods by encouraging the location of fresh food markets and community
food gardens in close proximity to multifamily uses and transit facilities through zoning regulations.
GOAL 2.11. INSTITUTIONS. MAXIMIZE THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF
INSTITUTIONS, WHILE MINIMIZING THE ADVERSE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR
DEVELOPMENT GROWTH AND EXPANSION.
Policies
2.11.1. New institutions should be placed where they are compatible with surrounding land uses, and
existing institutions should be developed to be compatible with adjoining land uses.
2.11.2. Institutions within established commercial and industrial areas will be regulated under the codes
affecting those land use zones.
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
2.11.3. Institutions proposed for location in or adjacent to residential areas will be reviewed under the
"Institutional Overlay" zoning requirements, when adopted.
2.11.4. Access to institutions shall be from the nearest arterial and should not increase traffic on local
residential streets.
2.11.5. An impact analysis of how improvement to institutions will affect traffic, parking and other
qualities in surrounding areas will be prepared as part of an Institutional Overlay request.
2.11.6. Institutions that are identified as essential public facilities should meet the policy requirements
under the section "Siting Essential Public Facilities" in this Comprehensive Plan.
2.11.7. All new development or expansion of hospital and higher educational facilities can be developed
through establishing 10 districts.
2.11.8. The establishment of an Institutional Overlay (10) district on the Zoning Map will provide specific
development standards that allow for appropriate growth and development for new institutions,
or for the expansion of existing institutions within their existing or proposed development
boundaries.
2.11.9. Establish boundaries for institutions to reasonably protect established residential neighborhoods
from further encroachment by institutions and allow the institutions to plan for future growth.
2.11.10. Require development and expansion of institutions to be reasonably compatible with the adjacent
residential neighborhoods, and to reasonably minimize the parking and traffic impacts on the
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
2.11.11. Encourage institutions to develop master plans for their future development to ensure that future
growth is planned and coordinated specific to the needs of the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Master plans may allow institutions to develop more intensively to reduce the amount of property
necessary for their future growth.
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
LU -34
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Public Schools
GOAL 2.12. WORK WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND PRIVATE SCHOOL OFFICIALS TO PROPERLY
LOCATE SCHOOL FACILITIES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION
FOR YAKIMA RESIDENTS.
See the Capital Facilities Element for related goals and policies.
Policies
2.12.1. Encourage the location of new elementary and middle schools within the residential
neighborhoods the schools will serve.
2.12.2. Public schools shall be accessible by sidewalks and bikeways. Provide for through -block
connections, where necessary to reduce walking distance to schools.
2.12.3. Locate schools on relatively flat land that is in the center or on the borders of the neighborhoods
being served. Elementary schools should be located on collector streets, middle and high schools
should be located on arterial roads.
2.12.4. Locate and design schools and recreational facilities to function as an important community
resource during off -school hours.
Siting Essential Public Facilities
Essential public facilities include those that are often difficult to place because no one wants them in or
near their community. These include airports, State education facilities, State or regional transportation
facilities, correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities and in-patient facilities including hospitals,
substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities and group homes.
The Growth Management Act requires the Comprehensive Plan to include a process for identifying and
siting essential public facilities. The GMA also states that no local comprehensive plan for any
neighborhood may forbid the placement of essential public facilities within that neighborhood. It is
important to recognize that the location of these facilities may have negative impacts on surrounding land
use areas and different essential public facilities may have different needs in terms of their physical
location.
4
�► LAND USE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
GOAL 2.13. PROVIDE ADEQUATE LOCATIONS FOR SITING ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES.
Pnliriac
2.13.1. All essential public facilities shall be located and developed to be compatible with adjoining land
uses to the greatest possible extent.
2.13.2. Essential public facilities shall be located in areas where they are best able to serve the individuals
they are intended to serve.
2.13.3. All essential public facilities providing County -wide or Statewide services shall be identified
according to the requirements under the Yakima County -wide Planning Policies Section C.3.1
through C.3.2 (see Appendix F).
2.13.4. A review process for siting or the expansion of essential public facilities shall be established
according to the requirements under the Yakima County -wide Planning Policies Section C.3.3
through Section C.3.6 (see Appendix F).
2.13.5. The criteria for determining the location of essential public facilities should be coordinated and
consistent with other planning goal requirements, such as -reducing sprawl, promoting economic
development, protecting the environment, and supporting affordable housing.
GOAL 2.14. SUPPORT GROWTH OF THE YAKIMA AIR TERMINAL SUBJECT TO MITIGATION OF
IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
Policies
2.14.1. The City will support efforts to update the airport master plan to ensure the airport's long-term
vitality as an economic asset to the community.
2.14.2. The Airport Overlay Ordinance will be amended as necessary to ensure the Yakima Air Terminal
Master Plan's success and to protect surrounding uses from airport impacts.
2.14.3. The purpose of the airport overlay is to identify compatible land uses surrounding the Yakima Air
Terminal and ensure minimized adverse impacts on the community and the airport.
2.14.4. The Ordinance should prohibit buildings, structures, or other objects from being constructed or
altered such that those buildings, structures, or other objects do not penetrate the imaginary
surface airspace.
2.14.5. The master plan must include land acquisitions and easements to ensure exclusion of non -noise -
sensitive uses.
2.14.6. The following uses will serve as examples of uses considered compatible with Yakima Air Terminal
operations:
• Air Freight Terminal
• Air Cargo Forwarders
• Aircraft/Parts
Manufacturer
• Aircraft Repair Shops
• Aerial Survey
Companies
• Aviation Schools
• Aviation Research and
Testing
• Trucking Terminals
• Taxi/Bus Terminals
• Parking Facilities and
Auto Storage
• Car Rental Agencies
• Gas Stations
• Restaurants
• Night Clubs
• Golf Courses
• Picnic Areas
• Forests
• Landscape Nurseries
• Arboretum
• Farming
• Mining and
Excavation
• Cemeteries
• Storage Facilities
• Warehouses
• Wholesale
Distribution Center
• Shopping Centers
• Banking Services
• Office Buildings
• Factories
• Large Store Retail
Sales
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
2.14.7. The following uses will serve as examples of uses considered incompatible with Yakima Air
Terminal operations:
■ Residential
School
Landfill
Water Reservoir
Convention
Development > 1
Church
Sewage Pond
Feed Lot
Centers
DU/Acre
Hospital
Transfer Station
Slaughter House
Sports Stadiums
■ Mobile/Manufactured
Outpatient
Sludge Disposal
Waterfowl
Other Large
Home Parks
Surgery Centers
Production
Assembly
■ Multi -Family Large
Facilities that
Complexes
Nursing Home
Wildlife
attract high
■
Day Care
ReSanctuary
concentrations
Facilities
Fish Pond
of people
■
Lake/Pond
■
Wetland Pond
Sanctuary
2.5 Implementation
The primary implementation tool for the Land Use Element is the zoning code and map, and other
supporting development regulations. A key activity to accomplish prior to the next periodic update every
eight years is the establishment of design standards.
LAND USE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
t]:
3.1 Introduction
.I•
0 111[*,
hkI&T/ji
Yakima is one of the oldest communities in Washington. Its downtown and surrounding neighborhoods
boast dozens of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and it's home to the
Yakima Valley Museum, one of the premier history museums in the state.
The purpose of a Historic Preservation Element is to help local governments direct the historic preservation
programs of their communities. The basic elements of preservation planning are identification,
registration, and protection. Within those elements, the subtleties and quirks of each individual
community are considered. The historic preservation goals of this element are consistent with the recently
adopted Historic Preservation Plan, giving strength to both.
Historic Preservation - Growth Management Act
The GMA lists a Historic Preservation goal to "Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures that have historical or archaeological significance." (RCW 36.70A.020(13))
IF
A HISTORIC PRESERVATION
iirr i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �L
3.2 Archaeological Resources
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.
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 native. 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.
3.3 Euro -American Settlement
Yakima began as a Euro -American agricultural community on lands historically used by Native Americans.
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.
3.4 Survey and Listing
As of 2016, survey and listing efforts have produced the following:
■ Over 16,000 properties surveyed; though the majority of these stem from the 2011 upload of
assessor data for planning and modeling purposes, and have little significant information.
■ 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.
February 11,2017
■ Survey C.Mirgent Upon Protect Parameters. Low Risk Survey HighNAEvisetl'. High Risk
■ Survey C.Mingent Upon ProJsd Parameters MogerasNLox Risk E] Survey Highry Agviseg: Very High Risk
Survey Re —nEeb:..d.hh. Risk
Predictive Model of Cultural Resources
Presence
(Source: Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, 2017)
■ There are four properties listed only to the Yakima Register of Historic Places,
including a historic district.
■ 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.
The following are major survey projects conducted in Yakima:
■ Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood
■ Yakima Downtown
■ Yakima Fairgrounds
The preservation plan incorporates a geographic information system (GIS) -based
evaluative model of properties built in the city prior to 1980. This model was
developed to support this preservation plan and to provide a reference tool for the
city as it proceeds with additional surveys. Potentially eligible properties based on a
predictive model are shown in Exhibit 3-1.
3.5 Needs and Opportunities
Historic Value
When communities don't understand and value their heritage, historic preservation
becomes perceived as a "frill," an annoyance, or even an obstruction to progress.
Changing that perception is more difficult in rapidly growing, changing communities.
Finding ways to systematically insert heritage messages in various ways, such as in
conventional and social media, special events, curriculums, tours, lectures, graphics,
and children's activities, creates an informed citizenry that values the important places
and buildings that embody their community's heritage.
IF
A HISTORIC PRESERVATION
iirr i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �f
Exhibit 3-1. Potentially Eligible Properties
es
r:i.
,L re.... :_.._.._.._ :.._.._,�
Legend Base map
SRI Modeled values showing ellgibllty potentlol LOIEof
cuy m,a, - In SRI
Eligibility findings from previous surveys
• NRM nm..wulM WW:eb l•+- li:opwlu.l IC
NRMp.Yplw, m.a..l ..a pa•nwl eaMl rse p:owln_•I Io
e
NRw paem.l Mhtl cannaumr 111 ] wopnt.nl iP
za
Legend
• 1A: potentially individually eligible to the National Register of Historic Places
• 1B: potentially contributing to a National Register of Historic Places eligible
historic district
• 1C: potentially eligible for local designation, but not to the National Register
• 1D: potentially contributing to a local historic district
• 2A: not eligible, with conditions
• 213: not eligible
Source: Artifacts Consulting Inc. 2016
IF
# e .
M
Yakima has begun to acknowledge that its physical heritage is also a great asset. As a historic preservation
ethic takes root, downtown is seeing rehabilitation momentum grow. The surrounding historic
neighborhoods are poised to see similar activity as interest in historic preservation expands.
Historic preservation, as a value and a strategy, is sometimes an afterthought in the planning and
development processes of local governments. Understanding its role in attracting investment and adding
to quality of life allows full engagement with agencies and departments that may not appear to have any
relationship to historic preservation. Land use, housing, code enforcement, economic development,
transportation, parks and recreation, and education all influence—and are influenced by—historic
preservation.
Residential Neighborhoods
Yakima's Northeast and Southeast neighborhoods retain some of the most important historic housing
stock in the city and have a rich multi -cultural population. Both neighborhoods appear to contain eligible
properties and potential historic districts. New approaches that encourage rehabilitation and appropriately
designed infill housing could help stabilize the neighborhoods and position them for growth. Retention
strategies should be a priority, especially if historic district designation is sought. Further loss of buildings
to demolition for code enforcement purposes should be avoided if possible. Concerns about gentrification
should be addressed early so that long-term residents are afforded the first opportunities for new and
rehabilitated housing.
City Facilities
The City of Yakima is steward of two significant properties: The Capitol Theatre and the Yakima Valley
Trolley, which includes associated buildings and track, are important as anchors for downtown and a
growing tourism market. In each case, non-profit organizations manage day-to-day operations, while the
City is responsible for capital needs. Uneven funding over the years has made it difficult for both properties
to keep up with maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Both continue to function with the help of
dedicated volunteers. The City and private entities continue to seek grant funding and partnership
opportunities
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
HP -4
IF
A HISTORIC PRESERVATION
iirr i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �
'Goals and Policies
These Goals and Policies compliment the Yakima Historic Preservation Plan.
GOAL 12.1. PROMOTE BROAD AWARENESS AND APPRECIATION OF YAKIMA'S HERITAGE.
Policies
12.1.1. Develop a broad understanding of the city's history, including the roles and contributions of
various ethnic groups.
12.1.2. Cultivate an appreciation of the city's unique history and how it is represented by extant historic
properties.
12.1.3. Foster partnerships between heritage organizations.
12.1.4. Utilize Certified Local Government (CLG) grants, potential tax revenue sources, or other sources to
fund specific projects.
GOAL 12.2. INTEGRATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION INTO YAKIMA'S PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIES.
Pnliriac
12.2.1. Identify historic preservation as a city-wide priority.
a. Review the city's Capital Improvements Plan annually for potential effects on historic
properties.
12.2.2. Identify historic preservation issues early in the permitting process.
12.2.3. Utilize code enforcement activities to protect historic properties and neighborhoods.
12.2.4. Encourage the mutual reinforcement of sustainability and preservation.
12.2.5.Clarify and strengthen the Yakima Historic Preservation Commission role and functions.
12.2.6. Maintain active communication with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and
formalize a consultation process for archaeological reviews.
IF
A HISTORIC PRESERVATION
iirr i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �
12.2.7. Identify areas classified as "high risk and/or very high risk" for archaeological resources based on
the Washington State Department of Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive model and require a
site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist.
12.2.8. Require the protection and restoration of areas and site in the City of Yakima having historic,
archaeological, cultural, educational or scientific value consistent with local, state, and federal laws.
12.2.9. Development permits should contain conditions of approval which require developers to
immediately stop work and notify local governments, the DAHP, and the Yakama nation if any
archaeological or historic resources are uncovered during excavation.
12.2.10. Development that would destroy archaeological, cultural, and/or historic sites or data will be
delayed for an appropriate amount of time as determined bythe City in consultation with interested
parties that would allow an appropriate entity to protect or mitigate the affected resource.
12.2.11. Establish and implement procedures that protect cultural and historic resources by designing
projects to avoid impacting resources to the greatest extent possible or identifying and
implementing mitigation measures when avoidance or preservation is not possible.
GOAL 12.3. IDENTIFY, REGISTER, AND PROTECT HISTORIC BUILDINGS, PLACES, LANDSCAPES, AND
TREES.
Policies
12.3.1. Increase the number of inventoried properties in Yakima.
a. Identify survey priorities and conduct survey and inventory work within the city limits.
b. Apply for Certified Local Government (CLG) grants to conduct survey and inventory work per
the survey recommendations for agricultural, industrial, transportation -related, ethnic, and
mid-century properties.
12.3.2. Encourage designation of inventoried properties recommended as eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or the Yakima Register of Historic Places.
IF
A HISTORIC PRESERVATION
iirr i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �
GOAL 12.4. ENCOURAGE BUILDING REHABILITATION AND HERITAGE PROJECTS IN DOWNTOWN
YAKI MA.
Policies
12.4.1. Stimulate downtown rehabilitation activity.
a. Encourage nominations to national and local historic registers to qualify for rehabilitation
incentives.
b. Develop design guidelines for the central business district to identify character -defining
features and guide compatible infill development and signage.
c. Prioritize upper floors for housing and office use, with ground floor focused on commercial
use.
12.4.2. Enhance historic downtown amenities.
a. Include an assessment of the effects of the proposed projects on historic buildings as part of
project undertakings in downtown.
b. Develop long-range capital improvement plans with the Capitol Theatre (Capital Theatre
Committee) and YVTC (Yakima Valley Trolleys).
GOAL 12.5. ENCOURAGING THE PROTECTION OF THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF YAKIMA'S OLDER
NEIGHBORHOODS.
Policies
12.5.1. Strengthen historic neighborhoods.
a. Target survey and inventory work in the northeast and southeast residential neighborhoods.
b. Encourage northeast, southeast, and Barge -Chestnut neighborhood district nominations to
national and local historic registers. CLG grants may be utilized.
c. Develop neighborhood -specific design guidelines identifying neighborhood character -defining
features to guide new construction and rehabilitation.
IF
# e .
M
3.7 Implementation
Yakima's Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the actions and investments made by the City with
the support of its residents and stakeholders. Some of these actions include regulatory changes,
partnerships, coordination, administrative acts, policy changes, and capital investments. The following
implementation items aid in this process.
Exhibit 3-2. Historic Preservation Element Implementation
Historic Preservation Plan
Long Range Plan
Inventory and best practices
■ Rehabilitation
Fire Code
Regulatory law
■ Removal of debris after fire
Building Code
Regulatory law
Certificate of Appropriateness
Zoning Code
Regulatory law
Land use
State Environmental Policy Act
Regulatory law
Environmental review considers historic
properties
Energy Code
Regulatory law
Character defining features may be
exempted
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
4.1 Introduction
This element provides information on the current state of the City's economy and the City's potential to
support job growth. The inventory includes information on the City's population, employment, and
commercial land capacity based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Washington Office of Financial
Management, and local assessor data.
4.2 Conditions and Trends
Demographics
Yakima is the most populous city in the County and is the County Seat. In 2016, there were 93,410 residents
in Yakima, which is a 29.8 percent increase in population since 2000. This reflects a notable growth trend
in Yakima as a residential community. Exhibit 4-1 shows the growth between 1990 and 2015. The
compound annual growth rate between 2000 and 2010 was 2.4 percent, which slowed down to 0.4 percent
between 2010 and 2016.
0
Economic Development - Growth
Management Act
An economic development element establishing
local goals, policies, objectives, and provisions for
economic growth and vitality and a high quality of
life. The element shall include: (a) A summary of
the local economy such as population,
employment, payroll, sectors, businesses, sales,
and other information as appropriate; (b) a
summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the
local economy defined as the commercial and
industrial sectors and supporting factors such as
land use, transportation, utilities, education,
workforce, housing, and natural/cultural
resources; and (c) an identification of policies,
programs, and projects to foster economic
growth and development and to address future
needs (RCW 36.70A.070(7))
The City's median age is 33.2, which is younger than the State as a whole at 37.4, though the community
is older relative to other communities in Yakima County per Exhibit 4-1. The City has 27.4 percent of its
population under 18 years of age, relatively larger than the State at 23.0 percent, whereas other
communities in the County have higher shares. The female population makes up 49.8 percent of the total
City population, whereas for the State it is 50.1 percent.
Most of the City's residents have achieved a high school diploma or higher at 73.2 percent, but this is lower
than for the U.S. as a whole at 86.3 percent and Washington State at 90.2 percent. In terms of higher
education, about 17.3 percent of residents have a bachelor's degree or higher compared to the State level
at 32.3 percent or the U.S. at 29.3 percent.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Exhibit 4-1. Yakima Historical Population (1990-2016)
100,000 91,196 �•�`�
80,000 71,845
54,843
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
OOl Owl ONl Oml Owl Owl Owl O^l OGl OGl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o, o, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Source: OFM, 2016
Average household income in Yakima is about $55,294 based on the 2010-2014 ACS. The City of Yakima
has higher incomes than other communities in the County. See Exhibit 4-2.
On a median basis, the Yakima County household income is $43,956, and the City of Yakima median
household income is slightly lower at $40,189. (ACS, 2014) This is lower than Washington State, which was
an estimated $60,294. About 22.8% of the City's population earns incomes below the federal poverty level,
higher than the state as a whole at 13.5%. See the Housing Element for more information.
Exhibit 4-2. Average Household and Family Income, Yakima County and Communities
Washington State
United States
Selah
Zillah
Moxee
Yakima County
Yakima
Naches
Harrah
Sunnyside
Tieton
Grandview
Granger
Union Gap
Toppenish
Mabton
Wapato
Employment
$79,195
$74,596
$65,434
$63,466
F
1,322
548
$48,959
F,540$47,693
$47,372
502
45,068
,049
■ $40,416
$37,724
$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000
About 54.9 percent of the City's population is in the labor force and employed, and a reported 6.9 percent
is in the labor force is not employed. About 38 percent are not in the labor force. The share of the
population in the labor force is less than the State percentage (58.2% in labor force) and slightly less than
Yakima County (55.7% in labor force). (Yakima County, 2016)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
ED -3
Currently, the City has 40,390 jobs (US Census Bureau, 2014). Top sectors include health care, retail,
agriculture, and manufacturing as shown in Exhibit 4-3.
Exhibit 4-3. Counts and Density of Primary Jobs in Yakima
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
3,817
9.5%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
24
0.1%
Utilities
180
0.4%
Construction
993
2.5%
Manufacturing
3,339
8.3%
Wholesale Trade
1,711
4.2%
Retail Trade
5,009
12.4%
Transportation and Warehousing
621
1.5%
Information
651
1.6%
Finance and Insurance
938
2.3%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
435
1.1%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
1,281
3.2%
Management of Companies and Enterprises
145
0.4%
Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation
951
2.4%
Educational Services
3,041
7.5%
Health Care and Social Assistance
9,539
23.6%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
652
1.6%
Accommodation and Food Services
2,893
7.2%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration)
1,031
2.6%
Public Administration
3,139
7.8%
Tota 1
40,390
Source: (US Census Bureau, 2014)
Jobs are concentrated in the Downtown and near US 12, with greater jobs in eastern and central Yakima
than western Yakima which contains largely residential development and vacant land. See Exhibit 4-4.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
ED -4
summlma
w
Exhibit 4-4. Jobs Density in Yakima in 2014 (All Workers)
� oieea
L
11 Skm
2 mi
Map Legend
Job Density (Jobs/Sq. Mile]
5-551
■
552-2,191
■ 2,192-4,924
■ 4,925 - 8,751
■ 8,752 - 13,671
Source: US Census Bureau, 2014
Job Count (Jobs/Census Block]
1-4
.5-50
. 51 - 253
• 2.54 - 798
■ 799-1,949
Selection Areas
r Analysis Selection
Moxee
Union Gap
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
mr;w
Pp.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
w Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Top private employers in the County include major operations inside the Yakima city limits such as the
Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital and Yakima Regional Medical Center. See Exhibit 4-5.
Exhibit 4-5. Top Private Employers in Yakima County
Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital
2,200
Walmart -Yakima/Sunnyside/Grandview
1,700
Zirkle Fruit
1,500+
Washington Fruit & Produce
1,500+
Borton Fruit
1,212
Monson Fruit
1,023
Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic
1,006
Yakima Regional Medical Center
985
A.B. Foods
900
Yakama Nation Legends Casino
644
Source: New Vision Yakima County Development Association 2016
Employment Capacity
The City of Yakima has conducted a land capacity analysis illustrating that there is greater capacity for
employment under the current zoning than needed to accommodate the City's allocated employment
through 2040. Similarly, the City has ample capacity for residential growth and associated population with
the current zoning. Exhibit 4-6 shows overall population and job capacity. Exhibit 4-7 shows capacity by
district.
ED -6
Exhibit 4-6. Population and Jobs Capacity
Jobs 2012-20408,556
28,494
Population 2015-2040
17,167
w
44,817
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
■ Target ■ Capacity
Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2017
Exhibit 4-7. Capacity by Council District
NEW HOMES
Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2017
4
2%
NEW JOBS
6
0%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
District
Capacity: Vacant/ Agriculture /
Underutilized
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
1 9,282
7,634
25,339
Citywide
1 16,413
28,481
44,806
00
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
w Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Market Position for Commercial and Industrial Development
The City of Yakima's is the largest community in Yakima County and the center of an agricultural economy.
Its 300 days of sunshine per year make it an attractive place to live and work. Background data from the
2017-2020 Economic Development Strategic Plan examined several criteria to assess Yakima's
competitiveness.
Yakima received good ratings in Utilities and Infrastructure, Permitting and Regulatory Environment, and
Human Capital; but ranked low in many categories such as Real Estate, Transportation, Entrepreneurship
and Innovation, Sustainability, Incentives, Convention Center, and Business Climate. The Goals and Policies
in Section 4.4 are intended to continue ongoing positive efforts and stimulate further engagement in those
areas that need improvement.
4.3 Challenges and Opportunities
Key Investments and Projects
■ Sites for Business. Businesses need a place to locate. Yakima has finite land available within city
boundaries. By identifying and readying sites for business development, we will preserve land for
economic opportunities, increase the tax base, and improve our image as a vibrant place for business
with desirable curb appeal.
■ Mill Site Redevelopment. The location of the mill site, at Yakima's northeast boundary, has potential
to improve the first impression of the community and will have excellent transportation access. Yakima
has finite land for job creation. There is a risk that development at the site could only move existing
businesses from other parts of the community without net economic gain if not appropriately planned.
A thoughtful and strategic development plan is essential for long-term and sustained quality economic
development that would increase Yakima's image and grow the tax base.
■ Public Authority District. A public authority district can be an effective resource for supporting other
prioritized strategic initiatives, such as operation of an incubator and/or business development at the
Mill Site and Airport. A variety of benefits can be structured with the mechanism of a public authority
ED -8
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
w Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
district, such as property ownership and development, incentives, investment in infrastructure, and
funding of dedicated staff for specific development projects.
Incentives. Communities that provide incentives demonstrate they are business friendly, and if used
wisely, can be effective tools for inviting new businesses. Incentives are valuable to expanding local
businesses so that they choose to expand locally instead of expanding/relocating elsewhere.
Educational Alignment. Access to talent is the leading factor for business growth, productivity, and
ultimately viability. Competitive communities stay on top of matching needs of local employers with
skills to advance quality business services and production. With the impending retirement of many
Baby Boomers, it is important to fill these openings. By enhancing skills, workers have access to greater
opportunities to increase earnings. Yakima benefits from local training of residents so that youth stay
in the community because they are skilled for living -wage jobs.
■ Air Service and Airport Business Growth. To competitively meet the travel needs of business and
residents, Yakima needs to continue efforts to expand air services — both frequency and additional
destinations. Quality air service is critical to growing both the economy and local tourism. An active
airport generates funds for airport operations, maintenance, and capital expenditures.
Yakima has limited sites to house traded -sector businesses providing quality jobs. Sites near the
Yakima Airport — some with direct access to runways — are even rarer, yet they offer a compelling
benefit to aircraft and aerospace manufacturers.
■ Incubator. An incubator is a resource for entrepreneurs that helps to lower the barrier to entry for
business start-ups. Locally grown businesses are more likely to stay and grow where they originate,
thus providing an avenue for job creation that compliments local business expansion and new business
attraction efforts. An incubator could also become a destination asset in Yakima, depending on the
goods and services produced by target occupants.
■ Recruit Cluster Industries. Traded -sector businesses produce and sell products and services outside of
the area, thus bringing wealth to Yakima and hiring people to living -wage, quality jobs. With a focused
effort to target industries that diversify our local economy, we will achieve more stability through
economic cycles.
ED -9
w
Downtown Revitalization
A retail market study was prepared for the Downtown area in 2013. The study documented well known
conditions of downtown retail vacancy, and dominance of other commercial centers with big box retail
formats and strip maps inside the city limits and the Yakima Valley Mall in Union Gap.
While there have been downward trends, there are also unique opportunities, including Downtown
Yakima's ability to create a distinctive retail experience with its historic character, agri- and viticulture
entrepreneurship, local food and beverage and community facilities, and events programming.
Retail demand is estimated to grow by 200,000 square feet per year in the city as a whole. The market
analysis recommended policy, zoning, marketing and direct engagement of stakeholders. The policy,
zoning and design guideline amendments were intended to reinforce a distinct and unique retail identity.
Revitalization would focus on the "heart of Downtown" and catalyst sites.
A key component of the downtown revitalization efforts is the Yakima Plaza. Designed to be a gathering
place for locals and tourists, the plaza will be a crucial centerpiece of investment in our downtown. The
Plaza is key to creating a downtown that is emblematic of the opportunities in our beautiful city.
Community Pride
Community Pride initiatives complement economic development marketing and talent
attraction/retention to draw people to live and work in Yakima. With a positive perception and experience
in Yakima, people who come to visit or live here will choose to stay. If residents are vested, they will
promote and invest in the community.
A primary goal of the 2017-2020 Economic Development Strategic Plan is to establish a Latino Cultural
Center to honor the diverse cultural assets of the Yakima community. This inclusive venue could serve as
a destination draw for visitors and symbol of pride for residents.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
ED -10
w
4.4 Goals and Policies
GOAL 4.1. DEVELOP A DIVERSE PORTFOLIO OF SITES READY FOR BUSINESS THAT PROVIDE YAKIMA
A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE, ANY
CONTAMINATION IS ADDRESSED, AND OWNERS ARE WILLING TO SELL/LEASE.
Policies:
4.1.1. Inventory available sites on the market and potentially on the market.
4.1.2. Develop a system for maintaining complete information (zoning, infrastructure, planned and
funded infrastructure, incentive zones, pricing, terms, etc.) online.
4.1.3. Pursue certified sites designation for potential properties.
GOAL 4.2. SUPPORT THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER CASCADE LUMBER COMPANY MILL
SITE TO ACCOMMODATE QUALITY JOBS AND INCREASE YAKIMA'S TAX BASE, AS WELL
AS PRESENT A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AT YAKIMA'S HIGHLY -VISIBLE NORTHERN
"FRONT DOOR."
Pnliriac-
4.2.1. Document infrastructure and transportation access improvements at the Cascade Mill Site.
4.2.2. Define desired site concept and determine who will manage the master plan and development.
4.2.3. Understand zoning and covenants and environmental clean-up plan(s).
GOAL 4.3. EXPLORE THE POTENTIAL OF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY DISTRICT AS A TOOL TO SUPPORT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCE YAKIMA'S COMPETITIVENESS TO ATTRACT
AND RETAIN BUSINESSES.
Policies:
4.3.1. Research the process to establish a port district or other public authority district.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
4.3.2. Conduct an evaluation of pros and cons for establishment of a district and organize a campaign
around the benefits.
GOAL 4.4. RESPONSIBLY OFFER AND PROMOTE A DIVERSE PORTFOLIO OF COMPETITIVE
INCENTIVES THAT INFLUENCE BUSINESS INVESTMENT IN FAVOR OF A YAKIMA
LOCATION.
Pnliriac•
4.4.1. Gather information on available incentives for Yakima businesses.
4.4.2. Research gaps in the process where Yakima falls behinds or costs more than competitors.
4.4.3. Promote existing City permitting services as an incentive and examine ways to further streamline
the permitting process.
4.4.4. Develop and adopt an incentive policy to define criteria for projects that align with Yakima's
Economic Development goals.
GOAL 4.5. ESTABLISH A HIGH QUALITY, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INCUBATOR TO BOOST EFFECTIVE
BUSINESS START-UPS IN YAKIMA.
Pnliriac•
4.5.1. Create a business plan for an incubator model that includes management and technical assistance
responsibilities.
4.5.2. Pursue grants that align with the business plan/incubator model.
GOAL 4.6. LOCATE A COMPREHENSIVE SUPPLY CHAIN OF AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS AND
SUPPLIERS TO PRIORITIZED SITES ADJACENT TO THE YAKIMA AIRPORT.
Policies:
4.6.1. Develop outreach plan to meet with target businesses.
4.6.2. Leverage WA Department of Commerce marketing to aircraft and aerospace manufacturers,
including relevant industry conferences and trade shows.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
ED -12
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
w Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
4.6.3. Sustain and increase commercial airline service at the Yakima Airport (YKM).
GOAL 4.7. LOCATE TRADED -SECTOR BUSINESSES THAT COMPLIMENT YET DIVERSIFY YAKIMA'S
ECONOMIC BASE.
Policies:
4.7.1. Define requirements and priority location factors of target industries and develop outreach plan
to meet with businesses of target industries.
GOAL 4.8. SUPPORT PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS THAT ENHANCE THE JOB
MARKET AND PROMOTE COMMUNITY PRIDE.
Policies:
4.8.1. Support educational resources that are aligned to meet the comprehensive current and future
needs of employers in Yakima.
4.8.2. Support expansion of the Convention Center to host targeted groups with world-class amenities.
4.8.3. Support the establishment of a Latino cultural center to honor the diverse cultural assets of the
Yakima community.
4.8.4. Enhance local pride in community and foster positive "buzz" about Yakima.
4.5 Implementation
Yakima's Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the actions and investments made by the City with
the support of its residents and stakeholders. Some of these actions include regulatory changes,
partnerships, coordination, administrative acts, policy changes, and capital investments. The following
implementation items aid in this process.
ED -13
Exhibit 4-8. Economic Development Element Implementation
Economic Development Strategic
Plan 2017-2020
2013 Downtown Master Plan
Development Review
Transportation Plan
Zoning Code
State Environmental Policy Act
Implementation Plan
Implementation Plan
Regulatory Law/Permit Process
Long Range Plan
Regulatory Law
Regulatory Law
w
A plan to spur and sustain the
growth ofYakima's Economy.
Actions and projects specific to
downtown redevelopment.
Streamlined permit process that
encourages early applicant/staff
interaction.
Identify key planned corridors and
truck routes.
■ Property zoning and use
compatibility.
■ Environmental review that
establishes different thresholds
based on development.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
ED -14
9
5.1 Introduction
The future demand for housing is a crucial element of this plan. There is need to accommodate current
and future population demands in a variety of housing types and affordability levels. This Housing Element
contains the goals, policies, and implementation actions that will help Yakima achieve high quality,
affordable, and equitable housing for today's generations forward.
Yakima acknowledges that the marketplace will generally provide adequate housing to meet demand for
those in the upper economic brackets, but that some combination of appropriately zoned land, regulatory
incentives, housing funding and rehabilitation programs, and innovative planning techniques will be
necessary to meet the needs of middle and lower income residents. Understanding this challenge, and the
current housing trends, helps the City plan for the future.
Housing Goal- Growth Management
Act
Encourage the availability of affordable
housing to all economic segments of the
population of this state, promote a
variety of residential densities and
housing types, and encourage
preservation of existing housing stock.
(RCW 36.70A.020 (4))
Am
5.2 Conditions and Trends
Most of Yakima's Housing Stock is Single Family Homes
Around 60 percent of structures in 2015 were single family detached units, and another 4 percent of
structures were single-family attached units. Only 7.4 percent of structures had 20 or more units (ACS,
2015). Yakima's housing structures are predominantly one to four bedroom units, with a combined 78.3
percent of units falling into these categories.
Between 2000 and 2015, total units in Yakima grew by around 23.5% from 28,643 to 35,376 (ACS, 2015).
Overall growth in units in Yakima between 2000 and 2016 included an increase in 7.29 square miles (4,813
acres) from annexation.
About Half of Yakima's Residents Are Renters
In 2014, an estimated 54 percent of units were owner -occupied, while 46 percent of units were renter -
occupied.
Based on Vacancy Rates, Yakima's Housing Supply is Low
Vacancy rates, as an indicator of housing markets, can provide information about how supply and
demand are interacting and how the market and prices may react. In 2014, vacancy in Yakima was
around 4.9 percent for renters and 2.0 percent for owners. More recent 2016 data showed a tightening
of vacancy rates, particularly for renters, of 2.0 percent. Several unit types (1 and 2 bedroom) show a
vacancy rate of 1 percent. (Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies / University of Washington, spring
2016)
Most of Yakima's Housing Stock is Old
In 2014, only 10 percent of residential structures had been built since 2000, and 50.1 percent of units were
built 40 or more years ago. Since housing units generally have a functional life of around 40 years, those
units older than 40 years require additional investments. Preserving existing housing is important to
HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
20 or Mobile Boat, RV,
more home van, etc.
units 5.7% 0.2%
7.4%
3 to 19
units
15.1%
1 Unit
2 units 63.8%
7.8%
Housing Structure Shares and Types (ACS,
2014)
fi,Aj,
maintain affordability. A map of structure age (both residential and commercial) is shown in Exhibit 5-1;
the vast majority of structures in the city are residential with older stock focused in eastern Yakima.
Exhibit 5-1. Year Structure Built Map
T '
r -
..._...�
RON
L' ifF1'iR �. 1 y l.y�.. �� f F�,• 11
��. �
J k 11 Vii
Y r
is
J
` 1 ] 111011._—.� _�,
i;
Yeklr =1
The informatwn illustrated an the 'Year ewlt' map N derived from the Yakima County Assessor data. The entire parcel is shaded based on a range of dates ntcr,bumd to the year when a primary structure was
constructed. This information provides a visual representation of the prog—on and growth of the settlement pattern for Yakima. The Plat of Old North Yakima was rewrded in 1885. Vaunt lands wdhout a
primary structure arc not assigned a date for this map.
Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016
HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
YAIUMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Properties by Year Built
Properties by Year Built
lard 191<
. 1915. 1928
1927-1937
138-1946
47 1950
157-1968
1989-1978
1979-1989
.
1990-2001
■
2002-2016
1_J Yakima City Limits
nI Urban Growth Area
fi,A,
The overall age of housing structures is indicative of structure quality, supported by national research that
shows a negative correlation between the age of a unit and its condition. In addition, the older housing in
Yakima is generally not aligned well with the current and trending household needs in terms of household
size, the high number of households without children, relatively low income levels, and the age
demographics of the city. Alternately, Yakima's current population indicates an increasing need for more
small houses, townhouses, multifamily, and accessory dwelling units.
Low Average Household Size
Within Yakima city limits, average household sizes in 2015 were an estimated 2.68 persons per household,
and average family sizes were an estimated 3.30 person per family (ACS, 2015). Yakima has among the
lowest average household sizes in the county (see chart to the right).
Yakima is a Community for the Young and Old Population
The City's population is getting older on average, with more retirees than any other community in Yakima
County. Yet, the City is also seeing an increasing number of children, particularly in east Yakima. Both
seniors and children grew by 5 percent between 2000 and 2010 citywide. The City needs to address housing
and services for older generations such as aging in place, health, and mobility. The City also needs to
address needs of younger residents such as education and recreation.
The median age in Yakima in 2015 was 33.2, which has increased slightly over the previous 15 years. An
estimated 30.6 percent of the population in 2014 was under 20 years of age, and an estimated 13.8 percent
was 65 and older.
HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
0 2 4 6
Granger
4.51
Mabton
4.51
Wapato
3.79
Toppenish
3.77
E3.71
Sunnyside
3.04
Tieton
3.71
Grandview3.7
Harrah
3.45
Moxee
3.41
Zillah
3.07
Yakima...
3.04
Union Gap
0 3.02
Yakima
2.73
Naches
0 2.71
United...
2.63
Washingt...
2.55
Selah
2.45
Average Household Size in Yakima
County and Communities (2014)
An,
Yakima Has Many Young Residents but the Majority of Yakima Households Have No
Children
As of 2014, the City of Yakima contained approximately 33,074 households. About 29 percent of
households consist of single persons, and another 24 percent of householders are married with no children
at home; this means over half of the City's households have single or coupled adults and no children. About
19 percent of households consist of married persons with children, and another 14 percent are households
with single men or single women with children at home. Last, 14 percent of households are classified as
other households (e.g. non -married households without children). Future housing opportunities would
need to address both small units for those living alone as well as larger houses for families with children.
Exhibit 5-2.City of Yakima Household Characteristics: 2014
single Parent,
Children, 14%
Other Households,
14%
Married, Children,
19%
Married, No
Children at Home,
24%
Living Alone, 29%
Source: U.S. Census 5 -Year ACS, 2014; BERK Consulting 2016
HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Under 20 years 30.6%
20 - 64 years 55.8%
65 and older 13.8%
Population by Age (ACS, 2014)
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%
Yakima 13.7%
United States
13.7%
Washington
13.2%
Selah
12.5%
Yakima County
12.1%
Union Gap
11.1%
Naches
10.4%
Harrah
9.9%
Grandvievl
9.6%
Mabton
8.3%
Sunnyside
8.2%
Mah
8.1%
Tieton
7.7%
Wapao
7.5%
Toppenish
7.1%
Moxee
5.3%
Granger
� 3.7%
Persons Aged 65 and Older as a Percent
of Total Population (ACS, 2014)
Am
Almost a Quarter of Yakima's Population Lives Below the Poverty Level
About 22.8"'; percent of the City's population earns incomes below the federal poverty level. This is
higher than the state as a whole (13.590 State sheyes „ig ^^ Q?) It is within the range of communities
in Yakima County. Because the City has the largest population in the County, the City's total persons in
poverty is greater than other communities. Affordable housing options are critical for this population. T4-ee
HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
e HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Percent of Population Below Federal Poverty Level
Yakima County and Communities: 2014
Toppenish
40.8%
Wapato
1 38.8%
Granger
33.9%
Grandview
1 29.9%
Mabton
29.5%
Union Gap
28.8%
Sunnyside
23.5%
Yakima
22.8%
Yakima County
22.5%
Harrah
22.1%
Tieton
20.4%
1
United States
15.6%
Naches
14.5%
Washington State
13.5%
Zillah
12.5%
Moxee
12.4%
Selah
12.1%
e HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Washington State
40.8%
United States
1 38.8%
Selah
33.9%
Zillah
29.9%
M oxee
1 29.5%
Yakima County
28.8%
1
Yakima
23.5%
Naches
22.8%
Harrah
22.5%
Sunnyside
22.1%
Tieton
20.4%
Grandview
15.6%
Granger
14.5%
Union Gap
13.5%
Toppenish
12.5%
Mabton
12.4%
Wapato iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiw
12.1%
Source: Yakima County, 2016; U.S. Census 5 -Year ACS, 2014.
Demand for Special Needs Housing and Programs
Several populations may have special housing needs or supportive services, including the homeless,
residents with disabilities, single parents, seasonal and year-round farmworkers, and the elderly.
■ According to the Homeless Network of Yakima County, in 2015 homelessness had decreased by over
44 percent since 2006. Homelessness still affects families with children, couples, and single persons.
■ As of 2014, the City of Yakima has the most persons with a disability in the county, and the second
highest share of the population at 15.3 percent, behind Union Gap.
fi,A,
■ Single parent households, particularly female headed households, are more likely to have lower
incomes and potentially have cost burdens. As of 2014, over 10 percent of city households are
female headed and another almost 4 percent are male -headed with children.
■ As described above, the elderly make up almost 14 percent of the city's population in 2014. The
elderly often have disabilities — about 46 percent — requiring universal housing designs that meet
ambulatory needs. Continuum of care housing and services allowing aging in place are other
considerations over the planning period.
■ The City of Yakima is located at the heart of Yakima County, which employs many farmworkers at the
farms, orchards, and livestock operations throughout the County. Many of these workers struggle to
find stable housing.
The City of Yakima and other non-profit agencies offer a number of services that address maintaining and
attaining housing to meet the needs of low income households, disabled persons, and senior citizens in
the community.
Housing Value Is Increasing in Yakima, but Housing is Still Relatively Affordable
Appreciation rates have been above average for the last 10 years, at an annual average of 2.5 percent.
Home sales prices have jumped by $20,000 in the last year. The median priced home is attainable to half
of the City's residents. However, in 2014, nearly half of Yakima's homeowners were cost burdened and
nearly one third of renters are cost burdened.
Rental Costs
The Runstad Center for Real Estate Research has noted that in 2016 that in the previous year "...Yakima
County has recorded the greatest decrease in vacancy rate with a considerable drop of 5.8 percent (from
7.8% to 1.7%)." If supply does not keep up with demand, it is likely that rental rates will increase.
In the City there is a gap of over 3,300 units affordable to those earning lower incomes. Many households
have to pay more than they can afford for the units that are available.
HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
As of 2012, 32% of city renters are cost
burdened and 49% of owners are cost
burdened.
Ensuring there are opportunities to
develop a variety of housing types and
densities affordable to different income
levels can help to address current and
future households and their cost burden.
e HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Homeowner Costs
As of 2015, the County's housing supply showed it was relatively affordable for a metropolitan area and
that there was a large share of homes for sale below the median home price. Recent price increases were
leading the state in 2015.
In 2016, around 56% of households can afford a median home price, with homeownership less attainable
for the remaining 46% of the population. To purchase a single family home at the current median selling
price a household would need to earn $38,477 annually or $3,206 monthly. There are an estimated 18,402
households in Yakima with incomes greater than $35,000, or 56% of the population that can afford the
median home price in Yakima.
5.3 Challenges and Opportunities
Yakima currently provides a relatively affordable housing stock, the majority of which are single family
homes. The City has additional capacity for housing with a large share of land that is developable,
particularly to the west, and a good portion of the City that provides an opportunity for infill development
and redevelopment.
Low vacancy rates in Yakima are leading to a pressure on housing supply as the population grows and the
housing stock ages. New housing will be needed to replace units that have reached the end of their useful
life and to house new residents. In addition, a diversity of housing types will be needed in order to provide
units that fit the needs of large and small households, special needs populations, those aging in place, and
a diversifying population.
Yakima has a vision of being a place that provides affordable and quality housing equally to all residents
across the city. The City has sufficient capacity to meet future housing growth targets for 2040. Yakima's
strategy is to focus on infill housing downtown and in mixed use centers, with compatible transitions to
ground -related townhomes and single family dwellings. The capacity in Downtown Yakima and mixed use
nodes will create an increased supply of smaller units in multifamily or mixed use residential structures
while the undeveloped land capacity to the west will result in added single family units.
4
2%
5
2017 Capacity for New Units by
Council District on Undeveloped and
Redevelopable Land
e HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
5.4 Goals and Policies
GOAL 5.1. ENCOURAGE DIVERSE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHOICES.
Policies
5.1.1. Monitor market rate and affordable housing needs. Review and adjust land capacity for housing
development and redevelopment based on housing needs.
5.1.2. Promote the preservation, improvement, and development of single family homes in Yakima.
5.1.3. Encourage mixed use infill development, particularly Downtown and in commercial nodes.
5.1.4. Facilitate small lot sizes, condominiums, clustering and other options that increase the supply of
affordable homeownership options and the diversity of housing that meet the needs of aging,
young professional, and small and large households.
5.1.5. Allow accessory dwelling units in single family zones to increase the supply of affordable housing
units and to help existing homeowners remain in their homes.
5.1.6. Allow manufactured homes on individual lots in residential zones in accordance with the provisions
of state and federal law. Apply development and design standards equally to manufactured
housing and other residences.
5.1.7. Promote the improvement of existing mobile home parks to meet health and safety standards and
quality of life needs of residents.
5.1.8. Encourage and incentivize affordable housing development.
5.1.9. Support proposals for affordable assisted and market rate housing based on the following criteria:
■ Dispersion of affordable housing throughout the City
■ Convenient access to transit
■ A range of unit types
■ Ownership housing when possible
■ Long-term affordability
e HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
5.1.10. Remove barriers to development of affordable and market rate housing.
■ Maintain a zoning system that allows a wide range of housing types and densities.
■ Use creative SEPA tools such as exemption thresholds, infill and mixed use exemptions, or
planned actions to encourage housing and streamline permitting.
■ Ensure that City fees and permitting time are set at reasonable levels so they do not
adversely affect the cost of housing.
5.1.11. Encourage a range of affordable homeownership options and provide access to education for first
time buyers.
5.1.12. Participate in efforts to secure land available for affordable housing.
5.1.13. Allow for well-designed farmworker housing recognizing the City of Yakima's role as the primary
city in the agricultural Yakima valley with the greatest range of housing opportunities, urban
infrastructure, and public services.
GOAL 5.2. PRESERVE AND IMPROVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
Policies
5.2.1. Invest in and improve quality of life in existing neighborhoods.
5.2.2. Support programs that improve and preserve Yakima's existing housing stock.
5.2.3. Seek alternatives, when feasible, to demolition and removal of units from housing stock.
5.2.4. Encourage maintenance and preservation of existing housing. Maintain the City's Housing Repair
Assistance Program for low- and moderate -income homeowners.
GOAL 5.3. ENSURE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.
Policies
5.3.1. Prioritize the provision of fair share housing opportunities to all economic segments of the
population and those with special needs.
e HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
5.3.2. Support development of new units and the operation of existing units for housing persons with
special needs such as the disabled and elderly. Promote universal design principles in new and
rehabilitated housing to ensure housing is designed for all persons and abilities.
5.3.3. Support programs that offer assistance to homeless individuals and families.
5.3.4. Support programs and housing options that allow the senior population to age in place as their
housing needs change.
GOAL 5.4. ENCOURAGE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF HIGH QUALITY
HOUSING.
5.4.1. Promote sustainable development practices in housing development.
5.4.2. Use transitional densities, design and landscape standards to ensure housing is compatible with
existing character and planned goals.
5.4.3. Encourage development of well-designed new housing in coordination with population growth,
employment growth, and transportation goals.
5.4.4. Coordinate future housing development with capital planning and investment.
5.4.5. Implement utility standards that encourage infill development.
5.4.6. Ensure multimodal public and private transportation options are available for new and
redeveloped housing.
5.4.7. Promote complete streets and trails to interconnect Yakima's neighborhoods and promote
walkability.
5.4.8. Promote safe, energy efficient, and healthy housing attainable to very low-, low-, and moderate -
income households. Explore measures to improve indoor air quality and foster construction
methods that reduce dust, mold, and air toxics concentrations in the homes.
e HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
GOAL 5.5. FOSTER A CARING COMMUNITY THAT NURTURES AND SUPPORTS INDIVIDUALS,
CHILDREN, AND THEIR FAMILIES.
5.5.1. Make human services more inclusive and accessible to the Yakima community.
5.5.2. Identify opportunities and develop strategies that are proactive and preventative in their approach
to human services needs.
5.5.3. Allocate City general funds and seek federal and state funds to offer human services that the City
can best provide to address a spectrum of community needs.
5.5.4. Consider human services objectives in developing City regulations and codes. For example,
enforcing code abatement may mean making people homeless. Ensuring there are community
resources to assist these residents, before they are abated, is critical.
5.5.5. Cooperate with school districts and non-profit human service providers to identify needs and
effective delivery of services to individuals, children, and families.
5.5.6. Educate the community about and promote affordable and special needs housing and human
services facilities and programs. Conduct early and ongoing public outreach and communication
during program or project review and apply appropriate conditions of approval that address
community concerns such as traffic congestion, public service provision, or environmental quality.
5.5 Implementation
Yakima's Housing Element is implemented through the actions and investments made by the City with the
support of its residents and stakeholders. Some of these actions include regulatory changes, partnerships,
coordination, administrative acts, policy changes, human service programs, and capital investments. The
following implementation items aid in this process.
H-14
H-15
HOUSING
e
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Exhibit 5-3. Housing Implementation
Implementation Item
Action Type
Desired Result
Strategic plan, updated periodically, that
Data on housing inventory
provides an assessment of current and
and needs
City of Yakima
projected housing needs, housing market
Inventory of affordable
Consolidated Plan
trends, inventory conditions, barriers to
housing providers
providing affordable housing, a list of current
providers, and a five-year strategy for providing
Increase in affordable
affordable housing.
housing
A Ten -Year Plan to End
•
Data on homelessness
Homelessness: A Five
Report on local efforts and strategies.
Year Update
Decrease homelessness
Annual Action Plan for
Investment in affordable
CDBG and HOME
housing needs and
Investment Partnership
Plan for use of federal funds, updated annually
community development
Funds,2016
needs
■
Housing needs data for
Yakima County
seasonal and year-round
Farmworker Housing
Strategic plan for approaching issues related to
farmworkers
farmworker housing
Action Plan, 2011— 2016
Increased housing stability
for farmworkers
■
Ensure code aligns with
goals and needs in the
Zoning Code, YMC Title
Regulatory law on housing development,
community
15
amended as needed
■
Remove barriers to
affordable housing
Senior/Disabled Persons
City housing program administered through the
Increased investment in
Office of Neighborhood Development to those
neighborhoods
g
Home Repair Program
who qualify (income and asset restrictions)
Aesthetic improvements
H-15
Am
City housing program administered through the Increased investment in
Exterior Paint Program Office of Neighborhood Development to those neighborhoods
who qualify (age and disability restrictions) Aesthetic improvements
Homeownership Through City housing program administered through the
New Construction Office of Neighborhood Development to those Increased homeownership
who qualify (income restrictions)
Office of Neighborhood Development Services Improved tenant/landlord
Tenant/Landlord program to assist either tenants or landlords relationships
Counseling with disputes and advice on reaching Education on legal support
agreements or seeking legal support. for those in need
A City program within the Yakima Target Area
that provides funds to purchase lots for New housing stock
residential development projects. Lots must be
Lot Acquisition Program Neighborhood revitalization
residentially zoned, have vacant or substandard
buildings, and be developed within 12 months New infill development
of purchase.
A City program designed to provide increased Special valuations for eligible
Downtown residential opportunities. This program is improvements in
Redevelopment Tax intended to stimulate new multi -family housing residentially deficient urban
Incentive Program (YMC and the rehabilitation of vacant and centers.
11.63) underutilized buildings for multi -family
housing.
HOUSING
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
k4 Fil Ll k5A I[*
6.1 Introduction
The multimodal transportation system is integral to many facets of the City of Yakima, including land use,
economic development, tourism, and recreation. The Transportation Element together with its companion
document, the Transportation Systems Plan, provides the framework to guide the growth and
development of the city's transportation infrastructure. They integrate land use and the transportation
systems, responding to current needs and ensuring that all future developments are adequately served.
The Transportation Element addresses the development of a balanced, multi -modal transportation system
for the city and adjacent urban growth area (UGA) and recognizes the regional nature of the transportation
system and the need for continuing interagency coordination.
This Transportation Element and Transportation Systems Plan are based on a study of Yakima's existing
transportation network, combined with a 20 -year (2040) projection of future growth and transportation
needs. The Transportation Element establishes a policy framework for making decisions consistent with
the City's vision, and describes a strategy for accomplishing the City's vision over the 20 -year planning
horizon. Based on the goals and policies in the Transportation Element, the Transportation Systems Plan is
intended to serve as a guide for transportation decisions to address both short and long term needs.
eum
\II'
GMA Goal —Transportation Element
• Be consistent with the Land Use Element,
including travel forecasts of at least 10 -years
based on the land use plans;
• Identify the impacts of the City's land use (and
transportation) plans on the on state owned
transportation facilities to provide a
framework for monitoring the performance of
and planning for improvements for the state
highways and other state facilities;
• Include level of service (LOS) standards for all
locally owned arterials and transit routes to
gauge the performance of the systems;
• Identify system improvements to address any
LOS deficiencies;
• Include a multiyear financing plan based on the
needs identified in the comprehensive plan.
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
6.2 Policy Framework
The Growth Management Act requires that a transportation element be consistent with the Land Use
Element and that it address:
Land use assumption used in estimating travel;
Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities resulting from land use
assumptions to assist the department of transportation in monitoring the performance of state
facilities, to plan improvements for the facilities, and to assess the impact of land -use decisions on
state-owned transportation facilities;
• Facilities and services including:
o An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including
transit alignments and general aviation airport facilities, to define existing capital facilities
and travel levels as a basis for future planning. This inventory must include state-owned
transportation facilities within the city or county's jurisdictional boundaries;
o Regionally coordinated level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit
routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system;
o Level of service standards for state-owned highways;
o Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned
transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard;
o Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide
information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; and
o Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands.
Identified needs on state-owned transportation facilities must be consistent with
statewide multimodal transportation planning;
• Financing, including:
o An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources;
o A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the
appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit
program; and
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
o A discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be
reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met, if probable funding falls
short of meeting identified needs;
• Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the
transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent
jurisdictions;
• Demand management strategies; and
• Pedestrian and bicycle component to include collaborative efforts to identify and designate
planned improvements for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and corridors that address and
encourage enhanced community access and promote healthy lifestyles.
Creating a functional, coherent, and seamless regional transportation systems requires coordination of
transportation planning between jurisdictions and agencies. To ensure the efforts of all service providers
are coordinated, consistent and meet a range of regional goals, the Yakima Valley Conference of
Governments and the Yakima County Countywide Planning Policies establish transportation policy
frameworks for the region. Direction contained in each of these documents is incorporated in the goals
and policies of this element.
6.3 Conditions and Trends
The City of Yakima owns and manages transportation facilities throughout the city and UGA. The
multimodal transportation system is integral to many facets of the City of Yakima, including land use,
economic development, tourism, and recreation.
Vehicle Operations
City of Yakima LOS standards are identified in this Comprehensive Plan for roadways within the City. For
these roadways the standard is LOS D.
• The results of the LOS analysis indicate that all of the study intersections currently meet City LOS
standards, with the exception of two intersections located at N 16th Ave / W Tieton Dr (Signal),
and S 18th St / E Nob Hill Blvd (Signal). These two intersections are located on arterial roadways
which are designated to serve a high number of vehicles.
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Safety
The collision history of the transportation system can help identify crash patterns for all modes and is
used in the development of projects to improve the safety of the City's roadways.
o Eight intersections within the City had an observed collision rate higher than the
intersection's critical collision rate.
o Five of the eight intersections had collisions with pedestrians or bicycles. Of those five
intersections, the 16th Avenue / Tieton Drive intersection had the most with one
pedestrian collision and two bicycle collisions.
o More than half of all non -motorized collisions occurred on Principal Arterials. While these
roadways carry only a portion of pedestrian and cyclists, they are the roadways where
most collisions between vehicles and pedestrians or vehicles and cyclists occurred.
Land Use Changes
The 2040 Baseline alternative was developed to establish a framework for the Plan and to identify future
traffic operational deficiencies. The Baseline alternative is also referred to as Alternative 1 orthe No Action
alternative. This land use scenario assumes current land use zoning within City limits remaining in place
and household and employment growth allocated throughout the City consistent with historical trends.
• The Preferred alternative is also referred to as Alternative 2. This land use scenario assumed
changes to the zoning within Yakima that would reallocate growth to areas closer to the downtown
areas and northeast Yakima. For regional growth outside the City limits, the same assumptions use
for Baseline were applied
• Existing, No Action, and Action Alternative land use is described in the Land Use Element.
Yakima Regional Airport
The Yakima Air Terminal — McAllistar Field (YKM) is located within the city limits of Yakima. This 825 -acre
airport has two active runways which can accommodate most types of aircraft. The Airport provides
commercial passenger service, and supports both corporate and general aviation activities.
In addition to the Yakima Valley, the airport serves all of Yakima County and portions of Kittitas, Klickitat,
and Lewis counties. The Airport Director and supporting staff oversee the day-to-day operations and
maintenance in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
PO T-4
mown
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
The Yakima Airport has one primary Runway (9/27) measuring a length of 7,604 feet and a secondary
crosswind Runway (4/22) measuring 3,835 feet. The 2015 Airport Master Plan includes extending Runway
9/27 from 7,604 feet to 8,800 feet to accommodate larger commercial and military aircraft. The airport
has a number of ground-based instrumentation (ILS- VOR/DME) as well as satellite -based (GPS) instrument
approaches to accommodate aircraft operations during inclement weather. The primary runway can
accommodate aircraft up to 160,000 pounds with dual -wheel configuration while the crosswind runway
can withstand an aircraft up to 80,000 pounds. The airport conveniently has an Air Traffic Control Tower
to manage arriving and departing aircraft and is operational from 6:00am till 10:00pm seven days a week.
In 2009, the Yakima Airport handled approximately 58,994 passengers who boarded commercial aircraft
prior to the downturn of the economy. Currently, the airport provides four roundtrip flights per day
operated on Alaska Airlines' Q-400 aircraft. Forecasting passenger demands is critical in the overall
planning for the airport, of which the 2015 Airport Master Plan update projects enplanements to be 75,508
by 2020. The number of actual enplanements in 2016 was approximately 97.2% of this forecasted number
at 73,378.
Alaska Airlines provides four flights per day (in each direction) to and from the Seattle -Tacoma
International Airport. Xtra Airways provides casino charter service to Wendover, NV and Sun Country
Airlines provides charter service to Laughlin, NV. McCormick Air Center supports the corporate and general
aviation community through a single Fixed Base Operator. McAllister Museum also provides fueling
services with self-service 100LL fuel. Other businesses and services located at the Airport include JR
Helicopters, Airlift Northwest medivac, Airporter Shuttle, Cub Crafters (an aircraft manufacturer), Explore
Aviation LLC (flight training), FedEx, and the United Parcel Service (UPS). Additionally, the airport supports
a variety of Rental Car agencies, which major brands include Budget, Avis, and Hertz.
The forecast from the Washington State Long -Term Air Transportation Study (July 2009) projects moderate
growth of traffic and service at the Yakima Regional Airport over the 25 year forecast period.
In 2005, the Yakima Airport ranked #5 in the State for air cargo tonnage. Between the years 1990 and 2020,
the handling of air freight is expected to increase approximately 4.2% per year. This average annual growth
rate would result in about 402 metric tons of air cargo being handled at the Airport in the year 2020. The
Yakima urban area has a number of freight dependent industrial businesses and various other land uses
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
that are located throughout the Yakima area. Connection to the Yakima Airport is a growing issue in the
Yakima Valley as opportunities increase for freight movement by air.
Six commercial service airports currently operate in central Washington. Passenger traffic at Yakima has
been relatively consistent, although Delta Airlines and United Express no longer serve the Yakima Valley.
Total passenger levels have ranged from 92,409 in 1997 to a low of 53,155 in 2004.
The Yakima Air Terminal -McAllister Field's Airport Master Plan was recently updated in 2015. The local
jurisdictions (Yakima County, the City of Yakima and the City of Union Gap) are encouraged to adopt the
plan into their Comprehensive Planning process.
In addition, the Airport Master Plan has recommendations for the protection of airspace consistent with
FAR Part 77. The protected airspace is a slope with its lowest point closest to the runway. Further from
the runway higher objects and structures can be permitted without violating airspace. Landowners and
developers within the corridor must be informed of the constraints of the airspace protection.
The Tri -Cities Airport is owned by the Port of Pasco. It consists of three asphalt runways ranging from 1,348
to 7,700 feet long. The Tri -Cities Airport is an instrument airport utilizing a number of landing and
navigational aids. The airport is served by Delta, Alaska Air/Horizon Air, United Express and Allegiant with
flights to Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Las
Vegas and Mesa, Arizona. The Tri -Cities Airport is currently on Phase II of a major airport expansion and
modernization project; construction is expected to be complete in 2017.
Improvement Projects
The City has identified a comprehensive list of multimodal transportation system improvement projects
and programs. Thematic examples of project include:
• Intersection Improvements include upgrading intersections through added turn lanes or
modifications to traffic controls. Where applicable, improvements may also include upgrading
traffic signals and implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which could encompass
modifications to vehicle detection and coordinated signal timing.
• Active Transportation improvements add pedestrian and bicycle facilities to roadways or
construct off-street multiuse pathways to complete gaps in the existing non -motorized network.
• Study includes further analysis and evaluation to develop more detailed improvement projects
and cost estimates.
• Roadway Improvements include modifying roadways to current City design standards and
incorporating multimodal improvements to serve higher traffic volumes and non -motorized
travel.
• New Roadway includes constructing new arterials or collector roads, including non -motorized
facilities.
The comprehensive list of multimodal transportation improvement projects is described in the
Transportation Systems Plan.
6.4 Transportation Systems Plan
The Transportation Systems Plan presents an inventory, revenue analysis, level of service analysis, and all
known transportation needs for the future of Yakima to accommodate growth. The Plan and this Element
together provide a comprehensive look at investment in the City's transportation system and its ability to
serve residents broadly. The Plan aids the City in ensuring that transportation facilities are in place to serve
current residents and future growth as new development occurs.
6.5 Goals and Policies
The Transportation Element goals and policies help guide implementation of the City's transportation
system and supports the other Elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the overall vision for Yakima. The
goals and policies establish the general philosophy for use of City rights-of-way and transportation funds.
The policies also indicate City priorities for regional transportation system programs, including freeways,
arterials, non -motorized facilities, bus and rail transit service and facilities, and transportation demand
management (TDM).
TRANSPORTATION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
GOAL 6.1. DEVELOP AN INTEGRATED AND BALANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN YAKIMA
THAT PROVIDES SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND RELIABLE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION.
GOAL 6.2. INCREASE THE SHARE OF TRIPS MADE BY NON -MOTORIZED TRAVEL MODES.
GOAL 6.3. PROVIDE A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN
AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WASHINGTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN, YAKIMA VALLEY
METROPOLITAN AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AND YAKIMA COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
GOAL 6.4. PRESERVE AND EXTEND THE SERVICE LIFE AND UTILITY OF TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENTS.
GOAL 6.5. ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT A STABLE, LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION FOR
IMPROVING THE QUALITY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND EFFICIENCY OF THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM.
policies
General Plan and Safety — A multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely through
the city and nearby areas. These policies include implementing standards that improve safety and
efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining design standards.
6.5.1. Use a combination of enforcement, education, and engineering methods to keep vehicular travel
patterns and travel speeds consistent with street functional classification, and promote pedestrian
safety. (2.1.1, 3.1.7)
6.5.2. Enforce intersection clear -view standards at intersections and access points to promote safety for
all users of the transportation system. (2.1.4)
6.5.3. Maintain street signage, wayfinding, and lane markings to industry standards to heighten traffic
safety, support emerging vehicle technology, and maintain clean community image. (2.2.2, 5.2.2)
6.5.4. Maintain program to monitoring and analyzing vehicle collision patterns and severity of injuries to
identify high priority safety improvements. (6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.2)
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
6.5.5. Include accommodations for the transportation needs of special population groups (such as ADA -
related, school age, and/or elderly) for each transportation project. Use design standards for
consistent application. (3.2.1, 3.2.3)
6.5.6. Leverage the transportation system to help create and enhance a sense of place within the City.
This includes gateway treatments, landscaping, pedestrian -scale elements, and lighting. Use
design standards for consistent application at target locations. (3.4.5, 5.3.4)
6.5.7. Balance the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, transit, autos, and trucks on the whole transportation
system by improving streets according to the Mode Priority Classification. This includes
intersection and access designs. (3.4.6, 4.2.1, 6.1.3, 11.2.5)
6.5.8. Work to address remaining road -rail conflicts within the City. Enhance protection (signals or gates)
or remove conflict (grade -separation or facility removal). Properly maintain existing grade -
separation infrastructure. (5.1.3, 7.1.6, 7.1.7)
Transportation Network Efficiency— A multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely
through the city and nearby areas. These policies include implementing standards that improve safety and
efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining design standards.
6.5.9. Ensure that the city transportation networks (all travel modes) have good connectivity to provide
safe alternate routes and more direct travel. Where possible, encourage small block sizes. (2.1.2)
6.5.10. Discourage new 4 -lane streets (where left -turns are expected) because of safety and system
efficiency issues. Convert existing 4 -lane streets to 3 -lane streets, 4 -lane streets with turn -
restrictions, or 5 -lane streets, depending on forecasted vehicle volumes, street classifications,
multi -modal use, and adjacent land uses. (4.1.6, 5.3.2)
6.5.11. Maintain a program to repair and preserve existing streets surfaces, drainage, sidewalks, street
lighting, and trails; including ADA -related upgrades. (5.2.1)
6.5.12. Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through transit, active transportation, and other
Commute Reduction strategies. This postpones the need for capital roadway projects. (5.1.4, 8.1.1,
8.1.3)
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
6.5.13. Maintain a Transportation Concurrency Program and Traffic Impact Study guidelines to coordinate
projects related to SEPA mitigations, off-site developer improvements, and the 6 -Year
Transportation Improvement Program. (5.1.5, 5.1.6)
6.5.14. Coordinate transit facility improvements on all projects. Evaluate if additional or relocated stops,
pull-outs, shelters, or other special improvements are needed. (8.2.2)
Active Transportation —The active transportation system includes pedestrian, bicycling, and other modes
that promote healthy lifestyles and provide alternative modes to private vehicles for commuting. These
modes depend on increasing network connectivity and constructing non -motorized facilities within the
city.
6.5.15. Educate pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety, sharing the road,
and Rules of the Road, including multi -modal rules. Promote and support special events (races and
bicycle rodeos) that encourage bicycling and pedestrian safety. (4.1.5, 4.3.2, 4.3.3)
6.5.16. Require new development, infill development, and redevelopments to provide pedestrian facilities
and transit facilities along their street frontage consistent with adopted street design standards,
ADA Transition Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Transit Development Plan. (2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.4.1,
3.4.2, 3.4.3, 8.1.4, 10.2.2, 11.2.3 )
6.5.17. Give high priority to projects that create or improve safe "Walk to School Routes", provide access
to activity centers, provide linkages to transit, and connections to trails for pedestrians and
bicyclists. (3.1.6, 4.1.2)
6.5.18. Work to improve pathway linkages to regional and off-street trail systems as identified in the ADA
Transition Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. (3.1.8, 4.1.4)
6.5.19. Encourage projects and support grant applications and other funding sources that provide facilities
(such as signage, lighting, and/or restrooms) at trailhead locations to support safe, clean, and
efficient trail use. (3.1.9)
6.5.20. Provide bicycle storage facilities at transit facilities, buses, and civic centers. Require storage
facilities at employment, retail, and mixed-use developments. (4.3.4, 4.3.5)
T-10
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
6.5.21. Maintain and regularly update an inventory of sidewalks, curb ramps, marked crosswalks, trails,
bicycle facilities, transit facilities, and roadways to assist in a smart allocation of transportation
resources. (3.1.4)
6.5.22. Support the development and adoption of a Pedestrian System Plan.
6.5.23 Support the development and adoption of a Long Range Transit System Plan.
Transportation Funding —Adequate, diverse, and sustainable funding sources for transportation projects
can help ensure the implementation of improvement projects.
6.5.24. Actively seek and develop funding solutions to address future project and program needs and
address transportation goals of the City. This includes dedicated funding sources to match state or
federal funding. (2.1.4, 2.2.1, 3.1.5, 5.1.7, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1)
6.5.25. Provide freight routes to serve the Yakima Regional Airport, significant industrial centers, and other
freight activity centers. (7.1.1) Maintain a dedicated funding source for capital, operation and
maintenance of the City's Transit System. (10.3.2)
6.5.26. Encourage the use of public and private funding to remove gaps in pedestrian facilities on existing
roadways. (3.1.2)
Economic Activity — Air, rail, and freight are important economic drivers for the City and region. Ensuring
adequate access to these activities and to the regional network is important.
6.5.27. Provide freight routes to serve the Yakima Regional Airport, significant industrial centers, and
other freight activity centers. (7.1.1)
6.5.28. Support future expansion of services at Yakima Regional Airport by anticipating any necessary
transportation T28 network changes in the vicinity of the airport, including intermodal facilities.
(7.1.3, 7.1.4, 7.2.1, 7.2.2)
6.5.29. Support future services of rail interests by anticipating any necessary transportation network
changes in the vicinity of the rail facilities. (7.1.5)
�+ TRANSPORTATION
6 � Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
6.5.30. Support the development and adoption of a Long Range Transit System Plan.
Interjurisdictional Coordination — Encouraging coordination between the City and public/private
partnerships will help create a cohesive regional transportation network.
6.5.30. Plan and support the transportation networks in the City and region in collaboration with Yakima
County, the City of Union Gap, the WSDOT, and other neighboring jurisdictions. (9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3)
6.5.31. Coordinate with WSDOT and neighboring jurisdictions regarding level of service definitions,
concurrency requirements, and other impacts. (9.2.1)
6.6 Implementation
Yakima's Urban Area Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the actions and investments made by
the City with the support of its residents and stakeholders. Some of these actions include regulatory
changes, partnerships, coordination, administrative acts, policy changes, and capital investments. The
following implementation items aid in this process.
Transportation
Systems Plan
Transportation
Improvement
Program
Airport Master Plan
Yakima Transit
Development Plan
Exhibit -1. Transportation Element Implementation
Functional Plan and Funding Transportation improvements for addressing
Plan for six and 20 -year period
existing conditions and planning for short and
long-term growth.
Six-year investment program
updated annually with budget
Framework to guide future
development of the airport
6 -year plan, reviewed and
updated each year as a guide in
planning Transit programs and
capital projects
■ Transportation investment programming over
short-term
■ Coordination with airport operations
■ Coordination with transit services and projects
Bicycle facility design,
Yakima Bicycle Including bicycle facilities with new projects,
maintenance, network, and
Master Plan where appropriate.
projects
TRANSPORTATION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
�Vk Ri I WAV MEW
7.1 Introduction
The Capital Facilities Element and associated Capital Facilities Plan (Volume II Appendices) are designed to
provide policies to ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve existing and new development
in an efficient, effective, and equitable manner. The element, along with the Capital Facilities Plan, details
the inventories of existing facilities, lists future infrastructure needs, identifies funding sources, and
provides the goals and policies that create a framework for capital facility planning.
Capital planning, as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), must be coordinated with the City's
larger land use planning process. This includes ensuring that adequate capital facilities are available as
development and growth occur, along with the distribution of improvements responsive to prioritized
need.
Part of the capital facilities planning process involves prioritizing the funds that are available to capital
spending, which involves a decision process about the level of service (LOS) that will be provided and where
investment will occur, taking into consideration the land capacities for growth within Yakima. This element
GMA Goal — 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. (RCW
36.70A.020(12)
What are Capital Facilities? Capital facilities
involved should include, at a minimum, water
systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water
facilities, reclaimed water facilities, schools, parks
and recreational facilities, police and fire protection
facilities. (WAC 365-196-415(2)(a)(ii)) City Financial
Management Policies consider capital assets to be
assets with values in excess of $5,000 and an
estimated useful life of more than one year.
♦ • CAPITAL FACILITIES
121 i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
A# w O,
helps frame the criteria that these decisions are based on as capital planning occurs. All other capital facility
functional plans will refer to the goals and policies within.
7.2 Conditions and Trends
The City of Yakima owns and operates the following capital facilities: police and fire facilities; roads; city
buildings; the airport; transit facilities; water, irrigation, wastewater, and stormwater facilities; solid waste
facilities; and parks. Additional capital facilities that are not operated by the City of Yakima, but which are
necessary for development: schools; fire facilities; water and irrigation facilities by special districts. The
applicable plans listed in Exhibit 7-1, which lists capital facility providers, are incorporated by reference.
Facility Type
Exhibit 7-1. Capital Facility Service Providers
Provider Description
Public Buildings
City of Yakima
Includes City -owned public buildings.
Fire and
Provides facilities that support the
Emer enc y
Yakima Fire
provision of fire and emergency
Services
Department
services.
Yakima Police
Provides facilities that support the
Law Enforcement
Department
provision of law enforcement services.
Provides elementary and secondary
facilities for instruction in several
branches of learning and study
Yakima School
required by the Basic Education Code
Schools
District
of the State of Washington. The
West Valley School
Yakima School District serves most
District
students and the West Valley School
District serves the western part of the
city.
City Budget, 2016
Yakima Fire Department
Annual Report, 2016
Yakima Police
Department 2014 Annual
Report
2014 — 2015 Fiscal Year -
End Report (YSD)
2016 — 2017 Budget
Summary (WVSD)
Yakima Parks and Provides facilities for passive and 2012 — 2017 Parks and
Parks Recreation
Recreation active recreational activities.
Comprehensive Plan
0
MAL
Source: BERK Consulting 2017
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
6 -Year TIP, 2017 - 2022
Provides streets, sidewalks, traffic
Streets Yakima Public Works
Transportation Plan 2017
controls, and street lighting.
(pending)
Transit Development
Provides transit service in and around
Plan Annual Report for
Transit Yakima Transit
the City of Yakima.
2015 and Six -Year Plan
2016-2021
The Air Terminal is owned by the City
Yakima Air
of Yakima and provides facilities for air
Terminal/McAllister Field
Air Terminal Yakima Air Terminal
service. The City contracts with a third
Airport Master Plan,
party operator.
2015
2015 Waste Load
Provides facilities used in collection,
transmission storage, and treatment
Assessment
Wastewater Yakima Public Works
2013 Wastewater
or discharge of waterborne waste
Collection System
within the city.
Master Plan
Stormwater
Provides facilities that collect and
Stormwater Yakima Public Works
Management Program
transport Stormwater runoff.
for City of Yakima, 2015
City of Yakima, Water
System Plan Update,
Yakima Public Works
Provides supply of potable water to
2017 (pending)
Water Nob Hill Water
portions of the City of Yakima.
Nob Hill Water
Associates
Association Draft Water
System Plan, May 2015
Provides supply of non -potable
Irrigation Yakima Public Works
irrigation water to portions of the City
City of Yakima
of Yakima.
Provides automated refuse collection
Refuse City of Yakima Refuse
City Budget, 2016
to residential customers.
Source: BERK Consulting 2017
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
l �
Ah ow
The Capital Facilities Plan provides the detailed summary of provider facilities, level of service standards,
and planned projects. It is based on the projected growth associated with the proposed Land Use Plan in
the Land Use Element. Some highlights of the Capital Facilities Plan levels of service analysis are
summarized below.
Public Buildings: The City manages municipal and cultural buildings including City Hall, Capitol Theatre,
and the Convention Center. The City does not have a level of service standard for public buildings, and
facilities are anticipated to be adequate to meet the needs of current population and future growth. The
City should designate an LOS standard for capital facilities deemed necessaryforthe operations of the City.
To carry forward the current ratio of space to the projected population, the ratio would be 2,400 square
feet per person. To maintain the current building inventory through the year 2040, the ratio would be
1,900 square feet per person.
Fire and Emergency Services: The City of Yakima Fire Department (YFD) provides emergency and non-
emergency fire, rescue, and medical services to the City. As of January, 2015 the Yakima Fire Department
provides services to the city of Union Gap and Yakima County Fire Protection District 11 (Broadway)
through an interlocal agreement (YFD, 2016). The current adopted level of service for response time is 8
minutes, 90% of the time. In 2016, YFD was able to meet this level of service 69% of the time, with an
average response time of just over eight 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). As calls and incidenttypes increase, the department could experience pressure
on its ability to provide services at the identified LOS standard, leading to a need for changes to the
operations and facilities.
Law Enforcement: The current LOS policy for YPD is 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents (see Exhibit 7-2). Using
the LOS of 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents, the department currently has a deficit of 20 officers. Since
population growth will lead to increased demand for police services, with current staffing levels there
would be a deficit of 62 officers by 2040 (when the population is expected to increase to over 110,000).
Given that YPD is already operating out of a constrained space, the addition of 60 officers will add to the
need for new and expanded capital facilities.
Schools: The City of Yakima is primarily served by the Yakima School District and the West Valley School
District. Assuming that the current service level of a student -teacher ratio of 18.3 is maintained, by 2040,
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
l �
Ah ow
142 additional teachers will be needed to serve the additional students coming to the Yakima School
District. The level of service analysis for the West Valley School District, based on the square footage
information provided, indicates that there is around 167 square feet per student served. In order to
continue serving students at this level, over 400,000 square feet will need to be added to the inventory by
2040 to accommodate student growth.
Parks: Yakima has 401.82 acres of parks and recreation facilities. Park types include Regional,
Neighborhood, Community, Mini, Pathway, Parkway, Golf Course, and Cemetery. Only the Neighborhood
and Community Parks are assigned levels of service standards. Based on a two -acre per 1,000 population
standard for Neighborhood/Mini Parks, the City of Yakima has a current deficit of park lands, and will have
a deficit of 173 acres by 2040 if no additional Neighborhood Parks are added. Based on a five -acre per
1,000 population standard for Community Parks, the City has a current deficit of 217 acres and will have a
deficit of over 300 acres by 2040 if no additional Community Park lands are added.
Air Terminal: The facility assessment in the Yakima Airport Master Plan identifies that the passenger
terminal will need to be expanded by 2020 or sooner to maintain an acceptable level of service for
passenger air service. Commercial, cargo, and passenger air service is expected to continue to have a
growth in demand.
Street Lights: Street lights are one of many of Yakima's expenses each year. The City of Yakima maintains
4,925 street lights. The approximate cost for power consumption is around $300k per year which works
out to about $61 per light per year. The City is in the process of converting street lights to energy-saving
LED lights. There is no adopted level of service standard.
Streets and Sidewalks: The City of Yakima maintains approximately 750 miles of streets and 250 miles of
sidewalk. Street classification and Level of Service is discussed in greater detail in the Transportation
Element.
Wastewater: The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) processes wastewater from
homes and businesses in Yakima, as well as Union Gap, Terrace Heights, and Moxee. 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.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
CF -5
l �
Ah Ow
The City conducted a sewer system plan update in 2016, which considers future land use and growth. The
Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (YRWWTP) has long-term capacity to serve at current levels.
Stormwater: Yakima's stormwater collection area includes the City of Yakima, as well as some of the West
Valley area outside of city limits. 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.
Water: Water and irrigation services in Yakima are provided by the Yakima Water Division, which is owned
and operated by the City of Yakima, and the non-profit Nob Hill Water Association (which is partially
located within the City) (Nob Hill Water, 2016). Some areas are under served; water service is extended on
request and new development pays for the extension of infrastructure. The current Yakima system
capacity is 21.6 millions of gallons per day (MGD), and in 2040 there will be an additional 1.7 mgd of
capacity beyond the projected maximum day demand (MDD). The Nob Hill 2015 Water System Plans
assumes a growth rate of over 2%. Planned growth in western Yakima is about 1.5% and can be
accommodated with the improvements identified in the district's Water System Plan.
Irrigation: The City of Yakima was originally developed on irrigated farmland, with irrigation provided by
several private irrigation systems. Today the City's system allows customers to irrigate lawns, gardens and
small farms. 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. 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 in order to bring the system up to an acceptable level of service. The level of service standard
provides for minimum design pressure of 20 psi. Currently, there are 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 customers
served. Assuming this is an appropriate level of service, 6.24 miles of pipe will need to be added to maintain
this level of service through the addition of new customers by 2040.
Refuse: The City of Yakima's Refuse Division provides weekly garbage collection to over 26,000 households
located within the City of Yakima. Annually, around 32,000 tons is collected, with around 90% of the
tonnage categorized as garbage and around 10% categorized as recycled yard waste. The Solid Waste and
Recycling Division operates under the mission of protecting the public health and safety of the City of
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
♦ • CAPITAL FACILITIES
121 i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
A# w ow
Yakima and its residents through providing solid waste services that are efficient, cost effective, and
environmentally responsible. If nearly 6,000 housing units are added with the future land use plan that
could mean about 7,400 more tons of solid waste, an increase of 23%. Additional capital costs and staffing
may be required to absorb the increase in demand for garbage collection.
7.3 Capital Facilities Plan
The Capital Facilities Plan (Volume II Appendices) presents an inventory, revenue analysis, level of service
analysis, and all known capital needs for the future of Yakima to accommodate growth. The Plan and this
Element together provide a comprehensive look at investment in the City's infrastructure and its ability to
serve residents broadly. The Plan aids the City in ensuring that capital facilities are in place to serve current
residents and future growth as new development occurs.
7.4 Goals and Policies
GOAL 7.1. PRIORITIZE FUNDING IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO MAINTAIN AND INVEST IN
FACILITIES THAT PROVIDE SERVICES TO YAKIMA'S RESIDENTS IN A WAY THAT
INCREASES THE QUALITY OF LIFE, MEETS SERVICE STANDARDS, AND ACCOMMODATES
GROWTH.
Policies
7.1.1. Prepare and adopt a six-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) regularly and include reviews of forecasts
and actual growth, revenue and costs totals based on adopted level of service standards, and the
means and timing by which identified deficiencies will be corrected. Annually adopt a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) with the budget that more specifically identifies financing and
implementation of facilities contained in the six-year CIP. Ensure the 20 -year projected growth,
level of service, and funding projections are also considered in the CFP.
7.1.2. Ensure budget decisions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
7.1.3. Manage capital facility planning and funding consistent with the City of Yakima Financial
Management Policy and Stewardship of Public Funds.
7.1.4. Aggressively pursue funding from all levels of government and private agencies to accomplish the
City's Capital Investment Program while optimizing resources.
7.1.5. Use the Capital Improvement Program and functional plans to prioritize facility funding.
7.1.6. Ensure consistency between land use planning and capital planning.
7.1.7. Use local population and employment projections as a baseline for capital facilities needs planning.
7.1.8. Plan for long-term maintenance and replacement needs.
7.1.9. Pursue required facility maintenance, improvement, and replacement needs to increase efficiency
and expand system capacity in concert with the growth of this region.
7.1.10. Adopt a policy for level of service standards for individual services to use as a performance
measure and to evaluate future capital facility needs as identified in Exhibit 7-2
Exhibit 7-2. Level of Service Standards
Public Buildings City of Yakima
Fire and Yakima Fire Department
Emergency
Services
■ In order to maintain existing level of service through
2036, the LOS policy would need to be 2,400 square
feet per 1,000 population.
■ In order to maintain the current public building space
without adding capacity through 2040, the LOS policy
would need to be 1,900 square feet per 1,000
population.
■ Response time: eight minutes, 90% of the time.
Law Enforcement Yakima Police Department ■ 1.8 Officers per 1,000 population.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
l �
OR,
Schools
Yakima School District
■
Yakima School District: Student -teacher ratio of 18.3.
West Valley School District
■
West Valley School District: Student -teacher ratio of
17.2
Parks
Yakima Parks and Recreation
■
Two acres per 1,000 population for Neighborhood/Mini
Parks.
■
Five acres per 1,000 population for Community Parks.
Streets, Transit
Yakima Public Works,
■
See Transportation Element and Transportation Plan.
Yakima Transit, Yakima Air
Terminal
Air Terminal
City of Yakima
■
Reliable and safe air service at a facility that is
compatible with the community.
Street Lights
City of Yakima
■
None.
Wastewater
Yakima Public Works
■
342.8 pounds of organic loading per day per 1,000
population.
Stormwater
Yakima Public Works
■
Maintain per Ecology Stormwater Management Manual
for Eastern Washington or equivalent as determined by
the Stormwater Management Program for the City of
Yakima.
Water
Yakima Public Works
■
Yakima: 233 gallons per day (gpd) per equivalent
Nob Hill Water Associates
residential unit (ERU).
■
Nob Hill: 309 gpd/ERU.
Irrigation
Yakima Public Works
0
Minimum design pressure of 20 psi.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
l �
OR,
Refuse City of Yakima Refuse ■ 1.23 tons of refuse per household per year.
■ Set level of service consistent with existing service of
collecting 1.23 tons per household per year.
■ Set service standard for percent of solid waste diverted
to recycling.
7.1.11. Reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of existing needs. The reassessment
may result in changes to growth projections, alternative level of service standards, or expanded
funding or financing options.
GOAL 7.2. ENSURE SERVICE PROVISION AND CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE COORDINATED BETWEEN
CITY DEPARTMENTS, SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS, AND WITH PRIVATE UTILITIES.
Policies
7.2.1. Use departmental functional plans to plan for the long-term facility needs of individual services.
7.2.2. Work with Yakima County and adjoining jurisdictions, and local purveyors to manage, regulate,
and maintain the regional water, wastewater, and irrigations systems.
7.2.3. Encourage public and private community service providers to share or reuse facilities when
appropriate, to reduce costs, conserve land, and provide convenience and amenities for the public.
Encourage joint siting and shared use of facilities for schools, community centers, health facilities,
cultural and entertainment facilities, public safety/public works, libraries, swimming pools, and
other social and recreational facilities.
7.2.4. Encourage service providers to consolidate facilities, use existing facilities, construct within
existing transportation and utilities corridors and to minimize visual impacts of new and expanded
facilities where technically feasible.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
CF -10
♦ CAPITAL FACILITIES
121 i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
4 _ ow
GOAL 7.3. ENSURE THAT FACILITIES AND SERVICES ARE PLANNED, DESIGNED, AND SITED IN A FAIR
AND EQUITABLE MANNER.
Policies
7.3.1. Provide equitable levels of service by accounting for existing community conditions and needs, and
considering how decisions will impact different geographic areas and racial and socioeconomic
groups.
7.3.2. Prioritize social, environmental, and economic equity in siting or expanding capital facilities.
7.3.3. Encourage public engagement and input into large public capital facility projects to identify
community needs and community benefits.
GOAL 7.4. PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICES WITHIN THE URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT
PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, IS AESTHETICALLY COMPATIBLE, AND
PROTECTS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
Policies
7.4.1. Coordinate with other jurisdictions and suppliers in the city limits and UGA to ensure a reliable,
economic source of water and to address the long-term regional water demand needs of all of the
area's agencies and suppliers.
7.4.2. Encourage water conservation by residents and businesses and undertake municipal actions to
conserve water and water resources as appropriate.
7.4.3. Encourage conversion from on-site wastewater disposal systems as sewer lines become available.
Require areas with failed septic systems to connect to sanitary sewer to protect public health and
safety and environmental quality.
7.4.4. Extend City of Yakima sewer services within the city limits and UGA in accordance with planned
growth.
7.4.5. Invest in water and sewer system infrastructure in areas designated for infill and redevelopment.
Ensure new growth extends infrastructure based on its demand for service.
City of Yak
'ma
Water Distribution
W Or4nf To ahfr for
l �
Ah ow
7.4.6. Apply the adopted surface water design manual as the minimum requirement for all development
projects and other actions that could cause or worsen flooding, erosion, water quality, and habitat
problems for both upstream and downstream development.
7.4.7. Encourage community policing, crime prevention through environmental design principles, and
community watch programs to improve public safety for both businesses and residences.
7.4.8. Support the capital and operation plans of the Yakima Fire Department to assure response time
objectives are met in the community. Encourage continued mutual aid agreements with other fire
districts.
7.4.9. Provide for municipal, maintenance, and public safety building space reflecting changing needs for
staffing, information technology, and community service needs.
7.4.10. Work in partnership with School Districts to offer quality education to Yakima residents. Consider
partnerships with human service and parks and recreation programs and facilities.
7.4.11. Regularly prepare a Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan to consider appropriate LOS and
capital needs for six and 20 years.
7.4.12. Promote active and passive park and recreation facilities that promote the community's well-being
through connections to nature and opportunities for activity and healthy lifestyles.
7.4.13. Reduce the solid waste stream and support reuse and recycling.
7.4.14. Implement efficient street lights that illuminate travel ways for vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists, and assist with crime prevention through environmental design. Avoid street light
standards that cause undue light pollution or glare that disrupts natural areas, impacts views, and
lead to higher energy and maintenance costs.
7.4.15. Implement infrastructure system rehabilitation and improvements in order to safely manage
services for residents and the environment.
7.4.16. Correct infrastructure deficiencies and increase system efficiency.
7.4.17. Require concurrency for new development for transportation facilities and invest in transportation
facilities to meet adopted levels of service.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
7.4.18. Require adequate facilities and services are available where necessary to support growth
7.4.19. Protect, enhance, and restore natural systems and features for their infrastructure service and
other values.
7.4.20. Promote public facility standards and guidelines that address distinct topographical, geologic,
environmental, and other conditions.
7.5 Implementation
Yakima's Urban Area Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the actions and investments made by
the City with the support of its residents and stakeholders. Some of these actions include regulatory
changes, partnerships, coordination, administrative acts, policy changes, and capital investments. The
following implementation items aid in this process.
Exhibit 7-3. Capital Facilities Implementation
Functional Plan and Funding Capital improvements for short and long-term
Capital Facilities Plan and associated revenue projections to plan in
Plan for six and 20 -year period balance with needs and resources
Capital Improvement Six-year investment program Capital investment programming over short -
Program updated annually with budget term
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
8.1 Introduction
The Utilities Element of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan provides an overview of the utilities
provided by non -municipal providers. These utilities include natural gas, electricity, and
telecommunications. Each private or semi-public utility should plan their system in alignment with major
growth decisions and when gaps in capacity are identified.
City -provided services are addressed in the Capital Facilities Element and the Capital Facilities Plan
Electric and telephone utilities are generally available throughout the entire urban areas. Cable television
and natural gas are generally available within the City limits and available in some areas within
unincorporated portion of the urban area. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC) regulates provision of these services and the costs that a utility can recover in order to ensure
consistency and responsibility on the part of the provider. The City of Yakima has the authority to
determine appropriate locations for existing and proposed utilities and to regulate this through the use of
the local land use laws.
Utilities - Growth Management Act
Each comprehensive plan shall
include ... A utilities element consisting of
the general location, proposed location,
and capacity of all existing and proposed
utilities, including, but not limited to,
electrical lines, telecommunication lines,
and natural gas lines. (RCW
36.70A.070(4))
8.2 Conditions and Trends
The utilities listed in Exhibit 8-1 serve Yakima residents. The following section provides descriptions of
these utilities.
Exhibit 8-1. Utility Service Providers
Electricity Pacific Power and Light
Company
Cascade Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Corporation
■ Century Link/Qwest
■ Integra
■ Charter Spectrum
Telecommunications ■ Cellular services
are provided by a
variety of national
and regional
carriers.
Provides supply of electrical
power through transmission
lines.
Provides supply of natural gas
from interstate pipelines.
Provides transmission of
information through telephone,
radio, cellular telephone, and
cable television.
■ 2015 Integrated
Resource Plan
Update
■ 2011 Cascade
Natural Gas
Integrated Resource
Plan
Electricity
Pacific Power and Light Company owns and maintains the power grid within the city limits. The company,
formed in 1910 from several small electric companies, serves portions of Yakima, Benton, and Kittitas
UTI LITI ES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
• UTI LITI ES
Ii Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
i
counties within the Yakima Valley (Pacific Power, 2016). The large concentration of agriculture and food
processing in Yakima make up a good portion of energy demand in the City (PacifiCorp, 2015).
Pacific Power provides a 99.97 percent service reliability. Currently, the Union Gap substation near Yakima
is being upgraded to enhance reliability, security, and operational flexibility for the transmission grid that
delivers directly to homes and businesses. The River Road and Punkin Center substations, which also serve
the Yakima area, are currently being upgraded to increase their capacity. In addition, Pacific Power has
proposed a 230 -kilovolt line that will connect the existing Bonneville Power Administration power
substation near Vantage, Washington to the Pomona Heights substation near Selah, benefiting customers
through increased operation flexibility and security of the transmission grid. The timeline for this project
involves construction beginning in late 2016 and service beginning in late 2017. (Pacific Power, 2016)
Natural Gas
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation provides natural gas service to Yakima and the surrounding area and is a
subsidiary company of MDU Resources Group, Inc., which serves over a million customers with electricity
and natural gas services (MDU Resources Group, Inc., 2014). Cascade serves more than 272,000 customers
and 96 communities, concentrated heavily in western and central Washington State (Cascade natural Gas,
2016). Cascade's production areas are in the Rocky Mountains and western Canada and the resources are
transmitted through interstate pipelines from the production areas to the service area (Cascade natural
Gas, 2016).
The Cascade Natural Gas Corporation is served by Northwest Pipeline, LLC, which is owned and operated
by the energy infrastructure company Williams. The pipeline has a peak design capacity of 3.9 million
dekatherms per day, with storage capacity of 14 million dekatherms, and 2,900 miles of pipeline
throughout the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain Region. (Williams, 2016)
Telecommunications - Digital
Yakima is served by CenturyLink, Integra, and Charter Spectrum (New Vision, 2016).
0 CenturyLink/Qwest offers Yakima customers internet, phone, and television services.
• UTI LITI ES
Ii Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
i
■ Integra offers internet customers fiber, on -network, multi -service POP, and Ethernet services. Fiber is
only available in select areas of the city. On -network and multi -service POP are only available in
select buildings.
■ Charter Spectrum offers Yakima customers television, internet, and phone services.
Telecommunications — Cellular
Local telephone service is provided by Qwest, which is now merged with CenturyLink (WUTC, 2016).
Yakima's cellular network is served by Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T -Mobile, and U.S. Cellular.
8.3 Goals and Policies
These goals and policies address utility provision in concert with growth. For additional goals and policies
addressing conservation and energy see the Energy Element.
GOAL 8.1. PROVIDE ALL UTILITIES AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO ACCOMMODATE
FUTURE DEMANDS.
Policies
8.1.1. Ensure adequate communication between the City and utility providers to coordinate growth and
development of service capacities.
GOAL 8.2. ENSURE THAT UTILITIES ARE PROVIDED IN A RELIABLE, SUSTAINABLE, AND SAFE
MANNER.
Policies
8.2.1. Use land use, design, and construction policies and regulations to manage placement and
construction of utilities, encouraging the efficient use of land and co -location of facilities where
feasible.
8.2.2. Ensure that utility facilities are designed, built, and maintained to have a minimal impact on
surrounding neighborhoods.
U-4
8.2.3. Educate utility providers and utility consumers on the costs and benefits of emerging technologies
that may provide added sustainability and reliability.
8.2.4. Allow Yakima to be competitive for businesses by encouraging provision of high quality
telecommunications services.
8.2.5 Support the undergrounding of utility lines in new development and in substantial redevelopment
or major rights-of-way improvements.
8.4 Implementation
Yakima's Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the actions and investments made by the City with
the support of its residents and stakeholders. Some of these actions include regulatory changes,
partnerships, coordination, administrative acts, policy changes, and capital investments. The following
implementation items aid in this process.
Exhibit 8-2. Utilities Element Implementation
Capital Facilities Plan Functional plan and funding plan
Land Use Code YMC
Title 15 Regulatory law
Development Review Review process
Cascade Natural Gas
2011 Integrated System Plan, updated periodically
Resource Plan
• Capital investment in utilities
• Well-designed and appropriately -
located utility facilities
• Review of private provider
facilities
• Natural gas provided in
coordination with growth
UTI LITI ES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
��OF1/F®
Pacific Power 2015 _
Integrated Resource System Plan, updated periodically • Power provided in coordination
Plan Update with growth
Local wireless • Telecommunication services
Coordination between City and private
telecommunication providers provided in coordination with
service providers growth
UTI LITI ES
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r '0
Vil k54 16 4k Vb6 -11 k54 am k54 It*
9.1 Introduction
The mission of Yakima Parks and Recreation Division is "to provide and promote community leisure as well
as recreational and cultural activities for all citizens of Yakima." The division offers recreational programs
and activities, maintains facilities that are aesthetic and desirable for use, and enhances well-being of
Yakima's citizens. This element, in parallel with the City of Yakima Parks and Recreation Comprehensive
Plan 2017-2022, guides the future of park acquisition, development, and management that meets level of
service standards.
9.2 Conditions and Trends
Yakima has 401.8 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, the Yakima Sportsman's 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. Exhibit 9-1 shows a map of Yakima's
existing Neighborhood and Community Parks.
Open Space and Recreation — Growth
Management Act
Retain open space, enhance recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife
habitat, increase access to natural resource
lands and water, and develop parks and
recreation facilities. (RCW 36.70A.020(9))
PARKS & RECREATION
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �L
Exhibit 9-1. City of Yakima Parks
—. n.
-
r
_ •..�_
I Rr Ro. d Pump
:ef5lefp EMs
ClroW yPark M1bnwrlal' �'•
ra�' v B P.n yxa
_..--• 're,.v.� _ �` l .n.rr..aR aaEom - Millon 6
P. 1—Y Palk',
.�..-.�..I ¢ �.� Ncqui Prt �GhanY •.., n..xn•.n
S
awerhouae I Park •r � .
B
pan,
Pan �vem`e IW ....... Mia Pen •. rya' kmann •
Park B G.. -y
vuum wa,mm Sunn Sports Caanpba PsrK•,
t.
C~Al 'rn.n•:_w �.• Pan
Gail— Pan
Fnnxln en •,'1� \ Menln LA.,
�al Llg.�aal 3 (h Kmq Pan
pec Rouima e6rh Park Yawme
Av Par 1 syn=
Pan ` Raymom snw
lwr t!an P«x s«nheaa 2 Yaw
nln aai
Goa Parh a ANoreky
F..X.k
7t F
t
Par+Y PM Cllabn
Soccer Com a Palk
. ^ x
.:. ,....�,.. Spens
P -
••..u..•. a Y
. o•a.a
I----, r r
j Pan YakbnaPan GIS
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Yakima Parks
Parks
.. Trails and Greenway
Yakima City Limits
Urban Growth Area
N
0 0.5 1 Miles
I I I I I
I
The City of Yakima provides Parks and Recreation services to residents, community members, and visitors. The location of the majority of these facilities and services are shown on this map, however, the City of f
Yakima Parks Plan provides more detail on maintenance, upgrades and future park projects. The location of these facilities is used In land use, permit, and development decisions, and In concert with the goals,
policies, and objectives of this Plan 2040.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016
t�MN
—. n.
-
r
_ •..�_
I Rr Ro. d Pump
:ef5lefp EMs
ClroW yPark M1bnwrlal' �'•
ra�' v B P.n yxa
_..--• 're,.v.� _ �` l .n.rr..aR aaEom - Millon 6
P. 1—Y Palk',
.�..-.�..I ¢ �.� Ncqui Prt �GhanY •.., n..xn•.n
S
awerhouae I Park •r � .
B
pan,
Pan �vem`e IW ....... Mia Pen •. rya' kmann •
Park B G.. -y
vuum wa,mm Sunn Sports Caanpba PsrK•,
t.
C~Al 'rn.n•:_w �.• Pan
Gail— Pan
Fnnxln en •,'1� \ Menln LA.,
�al Llg.�aal 3 (h Kmq Pan
pec Rouima e6rh Park Yawme
Av Par 1 syn=
Pan ` Raymom snw
lwr t!an P«x s«nheaa 2 Yaw
nln aai
Goa Parh a ANoreky
F..X.k
7t F
t
Par+Y PM Cllabn
Soccer Com a Palk
. ^ x
.:. ,....�,.. Spens
P -
••..u..•. a Y
. o•a.a
I----, r r
j Pan YakbnaPan GIS
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Yakima Parks
Parks
.. Trails and Greenway
Yakima City Limits
Urban Growth Area
N
0 0.5 1 Miles
I I I I I
I
The City of Yakima provides Parks and Recreation services to residents, community members, and visitors. The location of the majority of these facilities and services are shown on this map, however, the City of f
Yakima Parks Plan provides more detail on maintenance, upgrades and future park projects. The location of these facilities is used In land use, permit, and development decisions, and In concert with the goals,
policies, and objectives of this Plan 2040.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016
4 -
PARKS & RECREATION
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
9.3 Challenges and Opportunities
Yakima's park system includes an extensive inventory of passive and active recreation facilities. Repair and
maintenance of these assets is a priority of the Parks and Recreation Division. While there has been
substantial investment in the system in the last 15 years of almost $20 million, there are still parks and
amenities that have aging infrastructure in need of repair or replacement.
Yakima's current park inventory includes 401.82 acres of park land. Additional land is needed to increase
the available park acreage and opportunities in Yakima. Based upon National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA) standards, Yakima is deficient in park land by approximately 127.4 acres of
Neighborhood Parks and another 217.8 acres of Community Parks for the 2016 population. Increased
access to existing trail systems, such as the Yakima Greenway and Powerhouse Canal Pathway, is also a
priority.
9.4 Goals and Policies
GOAL 9.1. MAINTAIN EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES AT A LEVEL THAT MEETS THE
PUBLIC'S DESIRE FOR SAFE, CLEAN, AND ENJOYABLE PARKS.
GOAL 9.2. DEVELOP EXISTING CITY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS TO MEET THE CURRENT AND
FUTURE DEMANDS OF BOTH INDIVIDUAL CITY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE COMMUNITY
AT LARGE.
GOAL 9.3. ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT A LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS,
OPEN SPACE, GREEN BELTS AND PATHWAYS WITHIN THE CITY OF YAKIMA AND THE
GREATER URBAN GROWTH AREA.
Policies
9.3.1. Explore opportunities for leveraging local money for park development through both public and
private grant funding.
9.3.2. Establish an ongoing Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Parks and Recreation facilities.
NRPA Standards:
■ Neighborhood/Mini Parks: 2
acres/1,000 population
■ Community Parks: 5 acres/1,000
population
• Fund capital improvements through the City's general fund, parks cash balance and state, federal,
and other grants.
• Promote private, public and non-profit partnerships for capital improvements to parks.
GOAL 9.4. SUPPORT THE PRESENCE OF ART THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY IN
PUBLIC SPACES AND PARKS TO ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY AND ITS QUALITY OF LIFE.
Policies
9.4.1. Support local arts organizations to encourage the addition of art in public spaces and parks.
GOAL 9.5. ESTABLISH A PRIORITY FOR FUTURE LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK DEVELOPMENT
BASED ON NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS THE OVERALL CITY'S NEEDS.
Policies
9.5.1. Develop and maintain an up-to-date park land acquisition plan for potential future park
acquisitions.
• Review the City and its neighborhoods and identify needs according to that standard.
• Meet with local neighborhood associations and residents to identify their needs and interests.
• Consider safe pedestrian and bicycle access in future land acquisition and park development.
GOAL 9.6. CREATE A UNIQUE AND POSITIVE IMAGE FOR THE CITY THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN BELTS AND PATHWAYS WITHIN THE CITY OF YAKIMA.
Policies
9.6.1. Continue to cooperate and share resources to develop and expand the Yakima Greenway.
9.6.2. Work with the city Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Committee to use existing irrigation canal
rights-of-way and Yakima Valley Transportation (YVT) corridors for pathways.
9.6.3. Ensure that bikeways and pedestrian pathways are made a consideration in surface transportation
planning for the City of Yakima.
PARKS & RECREATION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
PR -4
4 -
PARKS & RECREATION
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
9.6.4. Coordinate landscaping implementation along major city streets, arterials and city pathways at
urban gateways that are compatible with area uses and maintainable by existing city resources.
9.6.5. Incorporate, whenever possible, greenbelts and pathways into all future residential, commercial,
and industrial developments and keep these trails, as much as possible, separate from streets and
arterials.
9.6.6. Consider alternative connections to the William 0. Douglas Trail portion which goes through the
City of Yakima.
9.6.7. Explore possibilities for establishing pathway connections between existing and future parks.
GOAL 9.7. DEVELOP INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO CREATING NEW PARK FACILITIES.
Policies
9.7.1. Promote private, public and not profit partnerships for capital improvements to parks.
9.7.2. Encourage creation of a centrally located outdoor performing arts stage or facility through a public,
private and/or business partnership.
9.7.3. Encourage development of non-traditional recreation venues including a water park, BMX track,
skate parks, disc golf, and other facilities for emerging sports and activities.
9.7.4. Use city cultural and historical landmarks as a cornerstone for park development whenever
possible.
9.7.5. Establish level of service standards for city park properties to provide guidelines for their
appropriate use by the public and for special events.
GOAL 9.8. CREATE AND IMPLEMENT A LONG-RANGE PLAN AND PROGRAM FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF PRIME OPEN SPACE AREAS IN OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF YAKIMA.
Pnliriac
9.8.1. Support continued expansion of the Yakima Greenway.
9.8.2. Support the fostering of a strong relationship between the Greenway and abutting city
neighborhoods.
9.8.3. Advocate incorporation of greenbelts into future residential, commercial, and industrial
development to minimize impacts of locating potentially incompatible land uses next to one
another.
9.8.4. Preserve open space through means other than ownership, such as transfer of development rights,
tax obligation relief and land donations to non-profit open space preservation organizations.
9.5 Implementation
Yakima's Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the actions and investments made by the City with
the support of its residents and stakeholders. Some of these actions include regulatory changes,
partnerships, coordination, administrative acts, policy changes, and capital investments. The following
implementation items aid in this process.
Exhibit 9-2. Parks and Recreation Implementation
Capital Facilities Plan Functional plan and funding plan, updated
periodically
Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan
Functional plan, updated periodically
■ Capital investment in parks
■ Goals and policies to guide future of
parks
■ Maintain grant eligibility consistent
with the Washington State Recreation
and Conservation Office (RCO)
requirements
Bicycle Master Plan Strategic plan for bicycle circulation Improved bicycle network
PARKS & RECREATION
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.1 Introduction
The primary components of any environment are the air, water, soil, and living organisms, such as plants
and animals. How these components interact with and are modified by each other determines the
character of the environment, and how well it meets the needs and desires of the living organisms. The
Natural Environment Element of the Yakima Comprehensive Plan summarizes the existing conditions of
the City of Yakima with respect to those components, and identifies future goals for management.
10.2 Conditions and Trends
Following is a brief description of the components of Yakima's natural environment based on the Existing
Conditions Report (2017).
Geology
The Yakima Valley can be viewed as part of a larger geologic structural system that is underlain with folded
flow layers of a thick sequence of Yakima basalt. The upper basalt layer is primarily composed of
Natural Environment — Growth
Management Act Goals
■ open space and recreation. Retain
open space, enhance recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and
wildlife habitat, increase access to
natural resource lands and water,
and develop parks and recreation
facilities. (RCW 36.70A.020(9))
■ Environment. Protect the
environment and enhance the
state's high quality of life, including
air and water quality, and the
availability of water. (RCW
36.70A.020(10))
4
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
sedimentary rocks of the Ellensburg formation, up to 1,000 feet thick. These rocks are then overlain by
cemented basalt gravel up to 400 feet thick comprising the second layer. The valley floor and final layer
are composed of alluvial sand and gravel, up to 30 feet thick.
Water Quality
Different measures of water quality are important depending on whether human health or the health of
other terrestrial or aquatic organisms is being considered. For example, temperature and dissolved oxygen
are critical characteristics that determine suitability of the water for certain fish, but are not critical to
human health. On the other hand, high fecal coliform levels can be a health concern for humans, but have
little to no effect on fish. In the City of Yakima, impervious surfaces and industrial, 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.
As part of the federal Clean Water Act compliance, the Washington Department of Ecology implements a
testing protocol and tracking procedures for impairments of waters in the state. Six waterbodies in the City
have been documented as exceeding standards for one or more parameters (Exhibit 10-1).
Exhibit 10-1. Water Quality Impairment
Myron Lake — Ammonia -N
5 — Polluted waters that require a Naches River —Temperature, pH
TMDL Shaw Creek — Bacteria (fecal coliform)
Wide Hollow Creek —Temperature, bacteria (fecal coliform)
Yakima River - pH
4c — Impaired by a non -pollutant Rotary Lake — invasive aquatic species (Eurasian water-milfoil)
2 — Waters of concern Wide Hollow Creek — pH, dissolved oxygen
Yakima River — pH, temperature
Source: Washington Department of Ecology, 2012
4
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, and separating from the Regional Stormwater Policy
Group led by Yakima County. 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.
Air Quality
An airshed is defined as "a volume of air, bounded by geographical and/or meteorological constraints,
within which activities discharge contaminants." 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 (PM1o).
In 2014, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency developed a plan that strives to ensure that Yakima County
can maintain compliance with the standards for PM2.5 concentrations. These smaller particulates pose a
particular health risk to those with lung and heart problems, the elderly, and the young. The greatest
outputs are from residential heating (wood -burning stoves), dust on gravel roads, and tilling of fields.
Because of local topography and climate conditions, the concentrations and associated health problems
can be most severe in late -fall and winter. The plan combines a number of regulatory and voluntary tools
to achieve reduction targets for PM2.5 emissions.
Critical Areas
General conditions in the City of Yakima for each of the critical area types are described below.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
4 r-
• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
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 Exhibit 10-2—Floodplains).
Exhibit 10-2. Floodplains — City of Yakima
iM1elucaw uf1.1:,ayu+f:v>uiNrH.1 anu+, moy dM— wnrvc-1.3rnc0 r>Ilmlvd and wM1.re lrvt Clv str:c toVrcxare orrirM1an.r1h,1.utianalt.y orinvcorrw ind 1A, +M1own on tM1emaPT �munlagr++
pNtMy Pe. ,kBN dattrip[Inns M[nea lnrarbrt�nr anunda.ln are. not anvaYx aeaMNe. 1M1 tbn It N.han M1em may.cnurces
nru
="l ni erdax�emraunx�wmw,amy,>r�ykwel:na. ninP n�¢ Irelta. nyme=r.,naderorp.e,lr ate.Ilp.maP.rnrx,wrmacmnal.,m,u,n oa nr nr«enuuon Plrrwsa•�enN.�
Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Floodplaim
zon. onlsn,rion
® FlPPdwey Pfeaa
Yakima City imih
❑ v wma cor,ncilownn
�i Urban Growth Area
�v fimntp ad d
fl -p-1.1—
nPv.aPiopenle
wan r Im�oe �tlrine w'�
rRarom melPc !
aA proeenen h zero AE
en�IlY-eaPxeO mylmapn cwnnuceen Ir. new
ontlPlain:Pwee ore.'ano>
nl PPne-Pro
+ 1 P atwP an+•wM
Yn'Y. Ya a pedlthtl to
ebennen,�
(lI�IP).Pba�aanca brayire torral'iFe.g—
arelbaacke! rrarl,aga,.
0 0.5 1 MileS
I I I
PW NE -4
4
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. As currently mapped, eight percent of the City is in a designated floodplain. The majority of
the floodplains are associated with the Yakima and Naches Rivers on the east and north sides of the City,
and are bounded by a levee system. The smaller streams in the southern and western portions of the City
generally have narrow floodplains, except in some of the flat, less-developed agricultural areas, parks, and
around the airport.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
As defined in Washington Administrative Code 365-190-030, 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 limited to, rare or vulnerable ecological systems, communities,
and habitat or habitat elements including seasonal ranges, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement
corridors; and areas with high relative population density or species richness." 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 Exhibit 10-3 — Wetlands and Streams).
The WDFW has classified certain important fish and wildlife habitats and species as "priority habitats" and
"priority species" to ensure they are considered in land use planning and management. The majority of the
priority habitats inside the City of Yakima's jurisdiction are wetlands and high quality riparian zones
associated with the Yakima and Naches Rivers, and with Wide Hollow Creek (see Exhibit 10-4 - Wildlife).
Other types of priority habitat in Yakima are designated as "urban natural open space" and waterfowl
concentration areas.
Significant wetlands inside the City include those wetlands associated with the Yakima and Naches Rivers
and Wide Hollow Creek. Additional small wetlands are associated with the other streams (see Exhibit 10-3
— Wetlands and Streams). A number of artificial lakes with groundwater connections to the Naches and
Yakima Rivers also provide important habitat for birds, and several are stocked for recreational fishing by
WDFW.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Exhibit 10-3. Wetlands and Streams — City of Yakima
Th—
Source: City of Yakima GIS 2017
• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
r �t
YAIUMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Wetlands and Streams
WA_Wetlands
WETLAND_—
■ Fleevwetei Emergert Wedeed
■ Aiaeiwatei Fa�mteWSM1iuL YW9and
■ Freevwetel Pgnd
■ 15ke
■ Rive ine
Y k— Co —its
❑ Yekine Lguncll DSAntt
I Urban Growth A—
N
0 05 1 Miles
I I I
j t
(l t
TM1CI�rvlon>vl 'I "F '0.111 - "I d d Ic dr A 4' d FmlM1ePly mw r.r towP�txYr<aerlra M1 f - - val lM1a>cu tm undh
Exhibit 10-4. Wildlife — City of Yakima
wxu.
a _ _
Yakima GIS
..�....n.. _ ` October. 3016
YAMMA 2040
JMPREHENSIN
PLAN UPDATE
WIIdIHe
BALD EAGLE
RIPARIANLONES
SHRLB-GIEDPE
MTERFC M CONCENTRATIONS
wooB Duck
Yakima City 1-i-
I Urban Growth Area
A0 0.5 1 Miles
I I I
iM rsM1 Ytf Ih,
N
& rtnn pa 8y 8 N pb nrq rD.unu4m Vupn Yfnn a wx4 .F ap.nnmtM
fkh ntlwltlNgv Spntnaweh mane •Pn-wUonlM1vfAwdfwwaeov/mapp ratVM1l]faran mnstt n.t ana _ hoot the nutbra nfV +rlrysP>t et arcNa6Aac r�-
Source: City of Yakima GIS 2017
Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated, or listed, several fish species that
live in one or more City of Yakima waterways. Additional fish species are designated by WDFW as priority
species. Exhibit 10-5 identifies the sensitive fish species documented within the City's aquatic areas:
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
4
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Exhibit 10-5. Sensitive Fish Species Identified in the City's Streams and Rivers
Chinook salmon
Threatened
Candidate, Priority
Yakima River, Naches River
Steelhead trout
Yakima River, Naches River, Cowiche Creek, Wide Hollow Creek,
Threatened
Candidate, Priority
Bachelor Creek
Bull trout
Threatened
Candidate, Priority
Yakima River, Naches River
Coho salmon
Species of
Priority
Yakima River, Naches River, Cowiche Creek
Concern
Cutthroat trout
None
Priority
Yakima River, Wide Hollow Creek
Rainbow trout
Yakima River, Naches River, Cowiche Creek, Wide Hollow Creek,
None
Candidate, Priority
Spring Creek, Bachelor Creek
Source: WDFW, 2016
In addition to fish, other priority species in the City of Yakima 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 Exhibit 10-3 — Wetlands and Streams). 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. 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.
4 -
• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Geologically hazardous areas include areas of erosion hazard, landslide hazard, seismic hazard, and other
hazard, including volcanic and channel migration zones. The primary purpose of regulating geologically
hazardous areas is to reduce the risk of harm to people or property, although there are secondary
consequences of such hazard events on fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
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 (Exhibit 10-6 — Geologic Hazards).
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.
Exhibit 10-6. Geologic Hazards — City of Yakima
�
� NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
YAMMA 2040
OMPRERENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Geologic Hazards
.~Ty,
°-1-
'
m, /Miles
--~..... ....... ------~-----.... ...... ........ ----�-........ —.------------
Source: City ofYakima GIS zo1s
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Critical aquifer recharge areas are lands where surface waters orpollutants can infiltrate into groundwater
that is utilized for drinking water. The City's drinking water comes from the Nacheo River water treatment
facility, but the backup supply comes from four municipal groundwater wells that can pump a combined
11,050 gallons per minute. Once groundwater is contaminated it can be difficult and costly to dean. In
• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
some cases, the quality of groundwater in an aquifer is inextricably linked to its recharge area. To date, the
City has identified five discrete areas that have high vulnerability to contamination (see Exhibit 10-7—
Aquifers) 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.
Exhibit 10-7. Aquifers — City of Yakima
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PIAN UPDATE
Aquifers
Wellhead 10 Year Protection Area
1100"rate
High
■ Extreme
��� Yakima City limits
I] Yakima Council Diathet
1 Urban Growth Area
Ir - d N- n nc 11P T'1-10,11.11
a W r.arm
e p r�. �rtrm ,a a w a p
a.a [nSW�rn wa racreamempry corps brine mixa fora nrt�nf �4ane froupn Me rknmonr men frarc.
Source: City of Yakima GIS 2017
4 -
• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3 Challenges and Opportunities
Environmental quality is an essential element of the City's livability. By considering both the natural and
built environment in planning for the future, the City of Yakima has the opportunity to create a sustainable
urban environment that provides clean air and water, habitat for wildlife, and comfortable and secure
places for people to live, work and recreate. Through policy, decisions and actions, the City of Yakima will
continue to seek balance between various environmental goals and economic development, allowing
multiple objectives to be met.
The City has been a participant in regional efforts to study and develop solutions to address the recent
water flow problems in the Yakima River Basin, which has culminated in the development of a proposed
Integrated Water Resource Management Plan. As stated in the plan, "The goals of the Integrated Plan are
to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat; provide increased operational flexibility to
manage instream flows to meet ecological objectives, and improve the reliability of the water supply for
irrigation, municipal supply, and domestic uses." These goals are consistent with the GMA, the City's critical
areas regulations and SMP, and the desires of the citizens of Yakima to have a healthy ecological system
that can serve multiple needs.
10.4 Goals and Policies
GOAL 9.1. ENHANCE AND PROTECT SURFACE, STORM, AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND
QUANTITY.
Policies
9.1.1. Implement the City's stormwater program and require use of appropriate stormwater manuals or
best management practices for the design, construction, and operation of developments or
activities which could alter surface or ground water quantity or quality.
9.1.2 Continue to implement and refine water conservation programs.
9.1.3 For the multiple purposes of ensuring sufficient and sustainable supplies of water for fish habitat,
agricultural and industrial needs, and drinking water, support implementation of the Yakima River
Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan.
4
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
9.1.4 Continue implementing the City's local Wellhead Protection Program, which includes education,
inter -agency coordination, and regulation, to prevent contamination of public groundwater
supplies.
9.1.5 Update standards to allow and encourage use of low impact development techniques and other
construction methods that offset or mitigate the effects of increased impervious areas.
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.
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.
GOAL 9.3. MANAGE FLOODPLAINS TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND TO SUPPORT
ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION.
Policies
9.3.1. Protect natural drainage systems associated with floodways and floodplains through application
of regulations based on best available science.
9.3.2 Ensure adequate protection of life and property from flood events in floodways and floodplains
through application of appropriate limitations on and mitigation requirements for development,
and implementation of Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plans, when available.
9.3.3 Emphasize non-structural methods in planning for flood prevention and damage reduction.
9.3.4 Require use of best management practices to minimize adverse stormwater impacts generated by
the removal of vegetation and alteration of landforms that increase impervious surface areas.
9.3.5 Within frequently flooded areas, encourage and support the retention of natural open spaces or
land uses, such as parks, that can maintain important hydrologic function with minimal risk to
property damage from floodwaters.
4 -
• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
GOAL 9.4. PRESERVE AND ENHANCE TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC HABITATS TO MAINTAIN VIABLE
POPULATIONS OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS.
Policies
9.4.1. Maintain and implement a system of environmental regulations based on best available science
that will protect fish and wildlife species and habitat with special local, state or federal status,
giving special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or
enhance anadromous fisheries.
9.4.2 Continue participating in and supporting the work of the regional Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife
Recovery Board to plan and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration.
9.4.3 Locate, design, construct, and operate development to first avoid, and then minimize and mitigate
adverse impacts to the functions and values of streams, wetlands, and other fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas.
9.4.4 Promote stream, wetlands, and other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas protection
through education and cooperation with the Greenway Foundation, Cowiche Canyon
Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, and other similar organizations.
9.4.5 Sustain existing levee vegetation to promote and retain functional habitat. Enhance levee
vegetation during maintenance projects, where feasible.
9.4.6 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 9.5. MANAGE USE AND DEVELOPMENT IN GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
Policies
9.5.1. Apply and enforce current and future environmental regulations to protect and promote public
health and safety from geologic hazards during construction and operation.
NE -14
4 -
• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
9.5.2 Locate development within the most environmentally suitable and naturally stable portions of the
proposed property.
9.5.3 Classify and designate areas on which development should be prohibited, conditioned, or
otherwise controlled because of danger from geological hazards.
10.5 Implementation
Environmental protection and enhancement, based on "Best Available Science" (as defined in the GMA),
are important factors in the City of Yakima's land use planning, zoning and development regulations.
Development that does not reasonably avoid or accommodate critical areas will be required to provide
mitigation for potential impacts to prevent a net loss of function and value. The GMA requires updating of
critical area regulations as necessary to maintain consistency with State law. As part of that review, the
City of Yakima will evaluate Chapter 15.27, last updated in 2008, and amend as needed.
In addition to critical areas regulations, which are part of the City's Land Use Code, the following items aid
in the implementation of this element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Exhibit 9-8. Natural Environment Element Implementation
Implementation Item Action Type
Land Use Code — YMC Titles 15 and 17 Regulatory law that addresses critical areas and
shoreline protection
Development Review
City of Yakima Stormwater Management Program
2015
2012-2017 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plans
Review Process that ensures critical areas and
shoreline protection
Plan, updated periodically, that minimizes adverse
effects on water quality and quantity
Plan, updated periodically, that strives to balance
active and passive uses of the City's more natural areas
Plans that include short- and long-term approaches to
balancing the competing needs of new and existing
development with the environment.
Yakima Regional Stormwater Group
4 -
• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Coordination with Yakima County, Union Gap and
Sunnyside to perform permit compliance under the
Department of Ecology's Phase II NPDES Stormwater
Permit
F]:
Purpose and Relationship of the Shoreline Management Act to the Growth
Management Act
The Growth Management Act (GMA) was amended in 1995 to add the goals and policies of the state
Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as one of the goals of the GMA. The purpose of the SMA is stated in
RCW 90.58.020 as follows:
"The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural
resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection,
restoration, and preservation. In addition, it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being
placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the
shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands
adjacent thereto are in private ownership, that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly
owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest, and therefore, coordinated planning is
necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same
time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is,
therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by
federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal
development of the state's shorelines.
The Growth Management Act considers
the goals and policies of a Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) developed under
the Shoreline Management Act to be an
element of the Comprehensive Plan, and
the SMP development regulations to be
a component of a jurisdiction's GMA
development regulations.
This Chapter presents the SMP goals and
policies completed in fall 2014 and
adopted by both the City of Yakima and
the State of Washington Department of
Ecology.
It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and
fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these
shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable
waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse
effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their
aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. ***
In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of
natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall
best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent
with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent
upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those
limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant
structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other
improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments
which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other
development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines
of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be
recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be appropriately classified and
these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in
circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of
the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state no longer meeting the definition of
"shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.
Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar
as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference
with the public's use of the water."
The Shoreline Management Act policy has been refined to include provisions for uses along the shoreline,
public access to shorelines, preservation and restoration of the shoreline resources and ecology,
promotion of long-term over short-term benefit, and other actions to promote the state-wide interest of
appropriate use of shoreline over local interest.
In addition to incorporating the state SMA goals and policies, the Growth Management Act also provides
that "the goals and policies of a shoreline master program for a county or city ... shall be considered an
element of the county or city's comprehensive plan." The City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
was originally approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology in June 1974. In 2013, the SMP
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
was updated consistent with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-26, State master
program approval/amendment procedures and master program guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines
are administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The SMP becomes effective
14 days after conclusion of both the City's SMP development and adoption process followed by Ecology's
review and approval process.
Profile of Shoreline Jurisdiction in Yakima
The entire shoreline jurisdiction within the City limits and Urban Growth Area (UGA), including
unincorporated territory and the waterbodies themselves, amounts to approximately 1,696 acres (818
acres non-UGA, 878 acres UGA). The City of Yakima has two rivers, one stream, and three lakes which are
identified as "shorelines of the state": the Yakima River, the Naches River, Cowiche Creek, Willow Lake,
Lake Aspen, and Rotary Lake. Buchanan Lake and its shorelands (approximately 76 acres) will be considered
part of the City's shoreline jurisdiction when the Washington Department of Natural Resources Surface
Mine Reclamation Permit lapses or is terminated, or when the City receives a permit application for new
development on or uses of Buchanan Lake.
In accordance with state law, the jurisdiction of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program encompasses the
shoreline waterbodies; land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of these waterways; and their
floodways, certain portions of 100-yearfloodplains and channel migration zones, and associated wetlands.
Development of Goals and Policies
The goals and policies presented here are categorized according to Master Program elements as mandated
by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The elements are identified in the SMA as generic classes of
activities for which goals and policies shall be developed and systematically applied to different shoreline
uses in these classes, when deemed appropriate by the local jurisdiction.
The general goal and policy statements found within each element of the Master Program are intended to
provide the policy basis for administration of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program. All elements
are equal in their importance and no element has a greater standing or relevance than any other element.
The Master Program Elements are as follows.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
S-3
SHORELINE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
A. Shoreline use element for considering:
1. The proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines and
adjacent land areas, including, but not limited to, housing, business, industry, transportation,
agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other
categories of public and private uses of the land;
2. The pattern of distribution and location requirements of water uses including, but not limited to,
aquaculture, recreation, and transportation; and
3. Establishing the importance of locating water -oriented uses, particularly those that are water -
dependent, within the shoreline jurisdiction area.
B. Economic development element for the location and design of industries, transportation facilities,
port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent
on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state;
C. Public access element for provision for public access to shorelines, particularly publicly owned areas;
D. Recreational element for preserving and enlarging recreational opportunities including but not
limited to parks, beaches, and recreational areas;
E. Circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated
with the shoreline use element;
F. Conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic
vistas, aesthetics, and critical areas' functions and values, fisheries and wildlife protection, and
shoreline ecological functions;
G. Historical/cultural/scientific/and educational element for protecting and restoring buildings, sites
and areas having historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific, or educational values; and
H. Flood control element for giving consideration to the state-wide interest in the prevention and
minimization of flood damages, and construction, modification, and restoration of flood -damaged
structures consistent with FEMA Standards.
S-4
General Shoreline Planning Sub -element
10.3.1. Implement the general policies and goals of the Shoreline Management Act as listed below
(WAC 173-26-176(3)):
10.3.1.1.
Utilize Shorelines for economically productive uses that are particularly dependent on
10.3.2.2.
Shoreline location or use.
10.3.1.2.
Utilize Shorelines and the waters they encompass for public access and recreation.
10.3.1.3.
Protect and restore the ecological functions of Shorelines.
10.3.1.4.
Protect the public right of navigation and corollary uses of waters of the state.
10.3.1.5.
Protect and restore buildings and sites having historic, cultural, and educational value.
10.3.1.6.
Plan for public facilities and uses correlated with other shoreline uses.
10.3.1.7.
Prevent and minimize flood damages.
10.3.1.8.
Recognize and protect private property rights.
10.3.1.9.
Preferentially accommodate single-family uses.
Coordinate shoreline management with other relevant local, state, and federal programs.
10.3.2. Protection measures for Shorelines of Statewide Significance should follow the Shoreline
Management Act principles in order of preference as listed below (RCW 90.58.020):
10.3.2.1.
Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest;
10.3.2.2.
Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
10.3.2.3.
Result in long term over short term benefit;
10.3.2.4.
Protect the resource and ecology of the shoreline;
10.3.2.5.
Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
10.3.2.6.
Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
10.3.2.7.
Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or
necessary.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.3. Establish a system of shoreline uses that:
10.3.3.1. Gives preference to uses with minimal impacts that are dependent upon their
proximity to the water;
10.3.3.2. Is consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment;
10.3.3.3. Protects the public's health, safety, and welfare; ecological functions; and property
rights; and
10.3.3.4. Establishes conditional uses to provide extra protection for the shoreline.
10.3.4. Assure that new shoreline development in the City of Yakima is consistent with a viable
pattern of use suitable to the character and physical limitations of the land and water.
10.3.5. Encourage sound management of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources.
10.3.6. In general when determining the order of preference between conflicts of shoreline uses
the following order should be observed:
10.3.6.1. Water -dependent commercial uses are preferred over nonwater-dependent
commercial uses;
10.3.6.2. Water -related and water -enjoyment commercial uses are preferred over nonwater-
oriented commercial uses; and
10.3.6.3. Nonwater-oriented commercial uses should only be allowed in limited situations.
Shoreline Environment Designations
10.3.7. The City of Yakima's Shorelines are classified into specific environment designations based
on existing and future land use patterns, as well as the biological and the physical character
of the shoreline. Land uses and activities which are permitted within these environment
designations should be limited to those land uses that are consistent with the character of
the identified environment designation.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
High Intensity Environment Policies
10.3.8. High Intensity Environment: The purpose of the "High Intensity" environment is to provide
for high-intensity water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while
protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have
been previously degraded.
10.3.9. Specific criteria for designation of the High Intensity environment include areas or
properties that:
10.3.9.1. Presently support high intensity land uses including commercial, industrial, urban
recreational, transportation, or high-intensity water -oriented uses.
10.3.9.2. Are planned to accommodate urban expansion of uses listed in 10.3.9.1.
10.3.10. Water -oriented commercial, industrial, and recreation uses should be given high priority in
the High Intensity environment. First priority should be given to water -dependent uses.
Second priority should be given to water -related and water -enjoyment uses. Nonwater-
oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed-use developments. Nonwater-
oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or
limit opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the
shoreline. Public benefits such as ecological restoration or public access may be required in
association with nonwater-oriented development.
10.3.11. New stand-alone residential uses in the High Intensity environment should be discouraged.
10.3.12. When considering shoreline environment designation amendment proposals, full utilization
of existing high intensity areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive
development is allowed.
10.3.13. Development in the High Intensity designation should assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions as a result of new development. Where applicable, new development
should include environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any
relevant state and federal law.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.14. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as part of development
in the High Intensity designation unless it already exists to serve the development or other
safety, security, or fragile environmental conditions apply.
10.3.15. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations,
appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of
natural vegetative separation.
Essential Public Facilities Policies
10.3.16. The purpose of the Essential Public Facilities environment is to support planning and
maintenance of existing essential public facilities.
10.3.17. Assign an "Essential Public Facilities" environment designation to lands containing those
facilities that are typically difficult to site or relocate, such as state or regional
transportation facilities and waste water handling facilities.
10.3.18. Essential public facilities and their accessory or supporting uses are allowed in the Essential
Public Facilities environment.
10.3.19. Allowed new development in the Essential Public Facilities designation should assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions.
10.3.20. Where applicable, new and expanded development should include environmental cleanup
and restoration of the shoreline to comply with any relevant state and federal law.
10.3.21. Expansion and improvement of existing facilities should be allowed, with mitigation
sequencing applied to avoid and then minimize adverse impacts to the extent consistent
with the specific facility and public needs, with mitigation required for any remaining
adverse impacts.
Shoreline Residential Environment Policies
10.3.22. The purpose of the "Shoreline Residential" environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. An additional
purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.23. Assign a "Shoreline Residential" environment designation to areas that are predominantly
single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for
residential development.
10.3.24. Development standards addressing the development envelope, water quality, and
vegetation should assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account
the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of
infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.
10.3.25. Multifamily and multi -lot residential and recreational developments should provide public
access and joint use for community recreational facilities.
10.3.26. Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing
needs and/or planned future development.
10.3.27. Commercial development should be limited to water -oriented uses and allowed only when
the underlying zoning permits such uses.
Floodway / Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Environment Policies
10.3.28. The Floodway/CMZ environment is intended to protect the water areas; islands, associated
overflow channels, and channel migration areas. This environment provides for the
movement of the river within its floodplain, and emphasizes preservation of the natural
hydraulic, geologic and biological functions of the City's shorelines that are constrained by
biophysical limitations.
10.3.29. The Floodway/CMZ designation is assigned to shoreline areas that are within a mapped
Channel Migration Zone and/or within a designated FEMA Floodway. The extent of the
Floodway/CMZ designation should never extend beyond the limitations of the Shoreline
CMZ found in WAC 173-26-221(3)(b). Areas separated from the active river channel by
existing legal artificial channel constraints should not be considered as part of the CMZ.
In addition, areas that are separated from the active channel by legally existing artificial
structure(s) including transportation facilities, built above or constructed to remain intact
through the one hundred -year flood, should also not be considered part of the CMZ.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.30. Commercial, industrial, mining, nonwater-oriented recreation, roads, utilities, parking
areas, and residences should generally not be located in the Floodway/CMZ environment.
Other uses (recreation, resource, etc.) should be carefully limited to protect shoreline
functions.
10.3.31. Activities that may degrade the value of the Floodway/CMZ environment should be limited,
and development in hazardous areas should be restricted.
10.3.32. Modifications that harden or fix stream banks and channels should be discouraged.
Urban Conservancy Environment Policies
10.3.33. The Urban Conservancy environment is intended to protect and restore ecological
functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and
developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses.
10.3.34. Specific criteria for designation of the Urban Conservancy environment include areas or
properties that:
10.3.34.1. Lie in the city limits and urban growth areas;
10.3.34.2. Are planned for development that is compatible with the principals of maintaining or
restoring the ecological functions of the area;
10.3.34.3. Are suitable for water -enjoyment uses;
10.3.34.4. Are open space or floodplains, or;
10.3.34.5. Are areas that retain important ecological functions which should not be more
intensively developed.
10.3.35. Allowed uses for the Urban Conservancy environment generally include uses which
preserve the natural character of the area, and promote the preservation of open space,
floodplains or sensitive lands. Uses allowed under this designation should focus on
recreation. Commercial, industrial and residential uses should be limited, and when
allowed result in restoration of ecological functions. Public access and recreation objectives
should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts mitigated.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
S-10
SHORELINE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Aquatic Environment — Lakes
10.3.36. The purpose of the "Aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique
characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of
shoreline lakes.
10.3.37. Specific criteria for the Aquatic designation are lands waterward of the ordinary high water
mark of shoreline lakes.
10.3.38. Allow new over -water structures only for water -dependent uses, public access, or
ecological restoration. The size of new over -water structures should be limited to the
minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use.
10.3.39. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of
water resources, multiple use of over -water facilities should be encouraged.
10.3.40. Uses that could adversely impact the ecological functions of critical freshwater habitats
should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of the Shoreline
Management Act, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to mitigation
sequencing as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.
10.3.41. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation
of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.
10.3.42. When considering development or activities in the Aquatic environment, the City should
favor development and activities associated with preferred uses of the Shoreline
Management Act and apply development standards that consider water quality, navigation,
presence of aquatic vegetation, existing critical habitats, aesthetics, public access, and
views.
11.1 Economic Development Sub -element
Commercial and Service Development
10.3.43. Limit commercial and service development to those activities that are dependent upon a
shoreline location. Nonwater-oriented commercial uses may be allowed when part of a
mixed-use development including water dependent activities, or on sites separated from
the shoreline, or when public benefits such as public access and ecological restoration are
provided.
10.3.44. Commercial and service uses which are not shoreline dependent should be encouraged to
locate upland.
Industrial Development
10.3.45. Allocate sufficient quantities of suitable land for water -related industry.
10.3.46. Discourage industries which have proven to be environmentally hazardous in shoreline
areas.
11.2 Public Access and Recreation Sub -element
Public Access
10.3.47. Protect navigation of waters of the state, the space needed for water -dependent uses, and
views of the water through development standards.
10.3.48. Transportation and parking plans within Shoreline jurisdiction shall include systems for
public access, including pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate.
10.3.49. Whenever possible shoreline development by public entities such as the City of Yakima,
Yakima, County, Yakima Greenway, Washington State Department of Transportation, and
Federal Highway Administration should incorporate both physical and visual public access
to shoreline areas which are compliant with the various entities safety and security access
plans. However, adopted public access plans as described in WAC 173-26-221(4)(c) that
more effectively allow public access thru alternative means may be accepted in lieu of the
above site specific access requirements.
10.3.50. Development standards for dedicated and improved public access to the shoreline and
visual quality should be required for public and private developments, with few exceptions,
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
except where it is demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of safety, security, or
impact to the shoreline environment, or constitutional or legal limitations.
10.3.51. Promote and enhance diversified types of public access to shorelines in the City of Yakima
that accommodate intensified uses without significantly impacting natural areas, and do
not infringe upon property rights.
10.3.52. Access to recreational areas should emphasize multiple points of access (parking areas,
trails or bicycle paths).
10.3.53. Development standards should be established to assure preservation of unique, fragile, and
scenic elements, and to protect existing views from public property or large numbers of
residences.
10.3.54. When considering shoreline issues where there is a conflict between water dependent
uses, public access, or maintenance of an existing view from adjacent properties, public
access or water dependent use should have priority unless there is a compelling reason to
the contrary.
10.3.55. Road and railroad facilities should be properly designed, to provide to the greatest extent
practical, scenic corridors, rest areas, view points, and other public oriented facilities.
10.3.56. Wherever feasible, utilities should be placed underground.
Recreational Development
10.3.57. Assure preservation and expansion of diverse, convenient recreational opportunities along
shorelines for public use, consistent with the capacity of the land by ensuring that shoreline
recreational development is given priority and is primarily related to access, enjoyment and
use of the water and Shorelines of the State. This policy may be accomplished by ensuring
that shoreline recreational development is given priority and is primarily related to access,
enjoyment and use of the water and Shorelines of the State.
10.3.58. Land uses designated for a specific shoreline recreational area should be planned to satisfy
a diversity of demands, and must be compatible with each other and the environment.
10.3.59. Where feasible, encourage the use of public lands for recreational facilities as an
economical alternative to new acquisitions by local agencies.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.60. Locate, design, construct and operate recreational facilities to prevent undue adverse
impacts to natural resources and adjacent or nearby private properties.
11.3 Circulation Sub -element (Transportation & Parking)
10.3.61. Encourage a transportation network capable of delivering people, goods, and services, and
resulting in minimal disruption of the shorelines' natural system.
10.3.62. When major highways, freeways and railways are required to be located along stream
drainages or lake shores, the facilities should be sufficiently setback, and minimal land area
consumed so that a useable shoreline area remains.
10.3.63. Access roads and parking areas should be located upland, away from the shoreline
whenever possible, and access to the water should be provided by pathways or other
methods.
10.3.64. Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and should be allowed only as
necessary to support an authorized use.
10.3.65. Proper design, location, and construction of road and railroad facilities should be exercised
to:
10.3.65.1. Minimize erosion and permit the natural movement of water;
10.3.65.2. Use existing topography and preserve natural conditions to the greatest practical
extent.
10.3.66. Loops or spurs of old highways with high aesthetic quality or bicycle route potential should
be kept in service.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
11.4 Shoreline Uses and Modifications Sub -element
Agriculture
10.3.67. Allow lawfully established agricultural activities occurring on agricultural lands to continue.
10.3.68. New agricultural activities on land not currently used for agriculture, conversion of
agricultural lands to other uses, and other development on agricultural land that does not
meet the definition of agricultural activities (including any agricultural development not
specifically exempted by the provisions of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(iv)) should meet shoreline
requirements.
10.3.69. Prohibit concentrated feeding operations in shoreline jurisdiction.
Aquaculture
10.3.70. Consider aquaculture a preferred shoreline use when consistent with the control of
pollution and prevention of damage to the environment.
10.3.71. Ensure that aquaculture uses do not conflict with other water -dependent uses or
navigation, spread disease, establish non-native species that cause significant ecological
impact, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
10.3.72. Protect spawning areas designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
from conflicting uses.
Boating and Private Moorage Facilities
10.3.73. Ensure that boating facilities are located only at sites with suitable environmental
conditions, shoreline configuration, access, and neighboring uses.
10.3.74. Piers and docks should only be allowed for water -dependent uses and public access, except
that water -enjoyment and water -related uses may sometimes be included as part of a
mixed-use development.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.75. Applications for new piers and docks must show a specific need and must be the minimum
size necessary.
10.3.76. Encourage the cooperative use of shared docks.
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal
10.3.77. Dredging should only be permitted for maintaining existing navigation uses, not for
obtaining fill material or mining.
10.3.78. The deposition of spoils in water areas should only be allowed for habitat improvement or
when the alternative is more detrimental than depositing in water areas.
Fill
10.3.79. Normal and reasonable land grading and filling should be allowed where necessary to
develop a land area for a permitted use provided:
10.3.79.1. There is no substantial changes made in the natural drainage patterns; and
10.3.79.2. There is no reduction of flood water storage capacity that might endanger other
areas.
10.3.79.3. Filling within the ordinary high water mark should only be allowed when necessary to
support water -dependent uses, public access, transportation facilities, mitigation,
restoration, enhancement, and certain special situations listed in WAC 173-26-
231(3)(c).
10.3.80. In evaluating fill projects, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation
restriction, impediment to water flow and circulation, impediment to irrigation systems,
reduction of water quality, and destruction of fish and wildlife habitat should be examined.
10.3.81. Shoreline fills or cuts should be located and designed to avoid creating hazards to adjacent
life, property, natural resources systems, and to ensure that the perimeters of the fill
incorporate appropriate mechanisms for erosion prevention.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
In -Water Structures
10.3.82. Location and planning of in -water structures should consider the full range of public
interests, watershed functions and processes, and environmental concerns, with a special
emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and species.
10.3.83. All in -water structures should provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem -
wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, but not limited to,
fish and wildlife, water resources, shorelines, critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and
natural scenic vistas.
Mining
10.3.84. Removal of sand, gravel, and minerals should be allowed from only the least sensitive
shoreline areas and should comply with the below policies:
10.3.84.1. Due to the risk of avulsion and mine pit capture by the rivers, mining within the
stream channel and channel migration zones should not be allowed; and
10.3.84.2. Restoration or enhancement of ecological functions is encouraged.
10.3.85. Require land reclamation plans of any mining venture proposed within a shoreline.
10.3.86. Mining reclamation plans shall incorporate this SMP's restoration goal to the greatest
extent feasible, and shall be done in conformance with the Washington State Surface
Mining Act (RCW 78.44).
10.3.87. Ensure that mining and associated activities are designed and conducted consistent with
the applicable environment designation and the applicable critical areas ordinance.
10.3.88. Ensure that proposed subsequent uses of mined property and the reclamation of disturbed
shoreline areas are consistent with the applicable environment designation and that
appropriate ecological functions are required within the reclamation plan.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Residential Development
10.3.89. Design subdivisions at a density, level of site coverage, and occupancy that is compatible
with the physical capabilities of the shoreline, and ensure proposals are located to prevent
the need for new shore stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures.
10.3.90. Restrict subdivisions in areas subject to flooding.
10.3.91. Encourage cluster development wherever feasible to:
10.3.91.1. Maximize use of shorelines by residents,
10.3.91.2. Maximize both on-site and off-site aesthetic appeal, and
10.3.91.3. Minimize disruption of the natural shorelines.
Shoreline Stabilization
10.3.92. Shoreline modifications should only be allowed where they are shown to be necessary to
support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing shoreline use that is in
danger of loss or substantial damage, or they are necessary for mitigation or enhancement
work.
10.3.93. Shoreline modifications should be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish the
objective, while still protecting ecological functions. Give preference to shoreline
modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions.
10.3.94. New structural stabilization measures should only be allowed:
10.3.94.1. When they are necessary to protect an existing primary structure,
10.3.94.2. Are in support of new and existing development, or
10.3.94.3. Are necessary to protect projects where restoration of ecological functions or
hazardous substance remediation projects is taking place.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.95. Flood protection and stabilization measures which result in or tend toward channelization
of streams such as, hardening of stream banks, or fixing channel locations should be
avoided.
10.3.96. All shore stabilization activities should be designed and constructed to accepted
engineering standards.
Signs
10.3.97. Outdoor sign size, spacing and lighting should conform to the Scenic Vistas Act (RCW 47.42)
and standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
Utilities
10.3.98. New utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants and sewage
treatment plants, or parts of those facilities that are nonwater-oriented should not be
allowed in shoreline areas unless it can be demonstrated that no other feasible option is
available. Expansion, updating, and maintenance of existing facilities is allowed but should
be designed to minimize impacts as much as possible.
10.3.99. Wherever possible, transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power
lines, cables, and pipelines, should be located outside of the shoreline area. If location
within the shoreline cannot be prevented, utilities should be confined in a single corridor or
within an existing right-of-way or underground consistent with policy 10.3.50.
10.3.100. New sewage treatment, water reclamation, and power plants should be located where they
do not interfere with and are compatible with recreational, residential or other public uses
of the shoreline.
10.3.101. New waste water treatment ponds for industrial uses should be located upland when
feasible.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
SHORELINE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Existing Uses
10.3.102. The SMP should recognize existing uses and developments in the shoreline, and allow them
to continue consistent with their lawfully established condition.
10.3.103. The City should apply applicable SMP provisions to the shoreline use or development
proposed in shoreline jurisdiction, considering the size, location, duration and scope of the
proposal where appropriate.
Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance
10.3.104. The SMP should recognize existing uses and developments in the shoreline, and allow them
to continue consistent with their lawfully established condition.
10.3.105. The City should apply applicable SMP provisions to the shoreline use or development
proposed in shoreline jurisdiction, considering the size, location, duration and scope of the
proposal where appropriate.
11.5 Conservation Sub -element
Environmental Protection
10.3.106. Maintain, restore and where necessary improve the shoreline terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems so that they maintain viable, reproducing populations of plants and animals
while providing the maximum public benefit of limited amounts of shoreline areas.
Critical Areas & Vegetation Conservation
10.3.107. New development or uses, including the subdivision of land, should not be established
when it is foreseeable that the development or use would require structural flood hazard
reduction measures within the channel migration zone or floodway.
5-20
10.3.108. New structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction should only be
allowed when the following can be demonstrated:
10.3.108.1. The structural flood hazard reduction measure is necessary to protect an existing
development,
10.3.108.2. Nonstructural measures are not feasible,
10.3.108.3. Impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully
mitigated so as to assure no net loss of ecological functions, and
10.3.108.4. Appropriate vegetation conservation actions are undertaken.
10.3.109. Protect all shorelines of the state so that there is no net loss of ecological functions from
both individual permitted or exempt development.
10.3.110. Evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of development on shoreline ecological
functions to ensure no net loss of ecological function.
10.3.111. Develop a means to allocate the burden of addressing cumulative effects.
10.3.112. Provide, where feasible and desirable, restoration of degraded areas along the City's
shorelines.
10.3.113. Critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction are protected through the critical area policies
and standards of the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan
Natural Environment Chapter.
10.3.114. Protect shoreline streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands through the application of vegetative
buffers.
10.3.115. Existing agriculture should be encouraged to provide through voluntary means:
10.3.115.1. Maintenance of a permanent vegetative buffer between tilled areas and associated
water bodies,
10.3.115.2. Reduction of bank erosion,
10.3.115.3. Reduction of surface runoff,
10.3.115.4. Reduction of siltation,
10.3.115.5. Improvement of water quality, and
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
SHORELINE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.115.6. Habitat for fish and wildlife.
10.3.116. Buffer requirements for new agriculture uses on non-agricultural lands should be applied.
10.3.117. Provide a permitting process which allows government agencies, and public and private
groups to submit and gain approval for long-term maintenance plans which comply with
the requirements of the City of Yakima Shoreline Master Program.
10.3.118. Natural vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction should be retained to the greatest extent
feasible by applying the stream corridor and wetland buffer requirements.
10.3.119. Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection, and the removal of noxious weeds
is allowed.
10.3.120. Shoreline construction/maintenance projects which disturb areas of the shoreline should
be restored to a state which is equal or greater than the original project condition. When
replanting is required, native species should be planted and maintained until new
vegetation is established.
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
10.3.121. Restoration and enhancement of shorelines should be designed using principles of
landscape and conservation ecology and should restore or enhance chemical, physical, and
biological watershed processes that create and sustain shoreline habitat structures and
functions.
10.3.122. Restoration and enhancement actions should improve shoreline ecological functions and
processes and should target meeting the needs of sensitive plant, fish and wildlife species
as identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Yakama Nation, National Marine Fisheries Service, and/or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
10.3.123. The City should, and private entities are encouraged to, seek funding from State, Federal,
private and other sources to implement restoration, enhancement, and acquisition
projects, particularly those that are identified in the Restoration Plan of this SMP or the
local watershed plans.
10.3.124. The City should develop processing guidelines that will streamline the review of
restoration -only projects.
10.3.125. Allow for the use of tax incentive programs, mitigation banking, grants, land swaps, or
other programs, as they are developed, to encourage restoration and enhancement of
shoreline ecological functions and to protect habitat for fish, wildlife and plants.
Water Quality, Stormwater Management, and Nonpoint Pollution
10.3.126. Shoreline water quality should be protected as follows:
10.3.126.1. Rely on the City's stormwater program and Ecology's Stormwater Management
Manual for Eastern Washington which meet state and federal stormwater control
requirements where possible;
10.3.126.2. Utilize Critical Aquifer Recharge Area protection measures;
10.3.126.3. Control drainage and surface runoff from all facilities requiring large quantities of
fertilizers and pesticides to prevent contamination of water areas;
10.3.126.4.
All developments should comply with Yakima County Health regulations, when
applicable;
10.3.126.5.
Handle and dispose of pesticides in accordance with provisions of the Washington
Pesticide Application Act (RCW 17.21) and the Washington Pesticide Act (RCW 14.47);
10.3.126.6.
Proper design, location, and construction of all facilities should be exercised to
prevent the entry of pollutants or waste materials into waterbodies;
10.3.126.7.
When earthen materials are moved within shoreline areas, measures to adequately
protect water quality should be provided;
10.3.126.8.
Water quality protection measures should not impact recreation opportunities;
10.3.126.9.
New development and redevelopment proposals should be connected to city sewer;
and
10.3.126.10.
New development and redevelopment proposals should provide adequate
stormwater handling and possibly pre-treatment facilities.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.127. Agricultural erosion control measures should conform to standards established by the
Conservation Districts of Yakima County and those agreed upon in USDA conservation
plans.
10.3.128. In planning for marina location and design, special water quality considerations should be
given to:
10.3.128.1. Fuel handling and storage facilities to minimize accidental spillage,
10.3.128.2. Proper water depth and flushing action for any area considered for overnight or long-
term moorage facilities, and
10.3.128.3. Adequate facilities to properly handle wastes from holding tanks.
10.3.129. Sanitary landfills along shoreline areas should be prohibited. The disposal of all solid
wastes should be disposed of in accordance with the Yakima County Inter -local and
Moderate Risk Solid Waste Management Plan.
11.6 Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources Sub -element
10.3.130. Require the protection and restoration of areas and sites in the City of Yakima having
historic, archaeological, cultural, educational or scientific value consistent with local, state
and federal laws.
10.3.131. Development along shorelines includes planning that incorporates expertise and
recommendations of qualified cultural resource professionals including archaeologists,
historians, and tribal representation to identify cultural and historic resources that could be
affected by the project; evaluate any present resources for significance; and recommend
appropriate preservation strategies.
10.3.132. Shoreline permits should contain conditions of approval which require developers to
immediately stop work and notify local governments, the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, and the Yakama Nation, if any archaeological or historic resources are
uncovered during excavation.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
S-24
SHORELINE
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
10.3.133. Development that would destroy archaeological, cultural and/or historic sites or data will
be delayed for an appropriate amount of time as determined by the City in consultation
with interested parties that would allow an appropriate entity to protect or mitigate the
affected resource.
10.3.134. Establish and implement procedures that protect cultural and historic resources by
designing projects to avoid impacting resources to the greatest extent possible or
identifying and implementing mitigation measures when avoidance or preservation is not
possible.
11.7 Flood Hazard Management Sub -element
10.3.135. The City should ensure public and private development applications site and design flood
control measures consistent with appropriate engineering principles, including guidelines
of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Yakima
County Flood Hazard Management Plan, watershed plans, restoration plans, critical area
regulations, floodplain regulations, and stormwater management plans and regulations in
order to prevent flood damage, maintain the natural hydraulic capacity of floodways, and
conserve limited resources such as fish habitat, water, and soil.
10.3.136. Where feasible, non-structural methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline
ecological functions and processes and other shoreline resources should be encouraged
as an alternative to structural flood control works. Non-structural methods may include,
but are not limited to, shoreline buffers, land use controls, use relocation, wetland
restoration, dike removal, biotechnical measures, stormwater management programs, land
or easement acquisition, voluntary protection and enhancement projects, or incentive
programs.
10.3.137. New or expanding development or uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including subdivision of
land, that would likely require structural flood control works, such as dikes, levees,
revetments, floodwalls, channel realignment, gabions or rip -rap, within a river, floodway, or
lake should not be allowed.
10.3.138. New structural flood control works should only be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction when it
can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are necessary to
protect existing development, that impacts to ecological functions and priority species and
habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss, that appropriate
vegetation conservation actions are undertaken, and where non-structural flood hazard
reduction measures are infeasible.
10.3.139. Flood control works and shoreline uses, development, and modifications should be located,
designed, constructed and maintained so their resultant effects on geo-hydraulic shoreline
processes will not cause significant damage to other properties or shoreline resources, and
so that the physical integrity of the shoreline corridor is maintained.
Implementation
This element is implemented by the full Shoreline Master Program, which includes development
regulations that support Shoreline goals and policies. A permit process for shoreline substantial
development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances references these goals
and policies and the shoreline development regulations.
SHORELINE
Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
12.1 Introduction
The purpose of this Energy Element is to identify opportunities and key issues related to the promotion of
renewable energy use and facilities in the City of Yakima. This Element is intended to supplement existing
Comprehensive Plan Elements for Land Use, Transportation, and Economic Development.
12.2 Conditions and Trends
Wind Energy
Washington State is ranked 10th in the nation in net generation of electricityfrom wind energy. While there
is substantial wind energy infrastructure in nearby Kittitas and Klickitat counties, there are no substantial
wind energy facilities in or around the City of Yakima.
Energy - Growth Management Act
The GMA provides for optional elements to
the Comprehensive Plan, including Energy.
(RCW 36.70A.080(1)(b))
�I
ENERGY
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
Solar Energy
There are no substantial solar energy facilities in or around the City of Yakima at this time. According to
the US Energy Informational Administration, the northeast corner of the City has good photovoltaic solar
potential. The City of Yakima sees about 300 days of sunshine per year.
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal power uses heat from below the earth's surface to produce electricity or heat buildings and
water systems. Geothermal power produces little to no air pollution and is extremely reliable during the
lifetime of the power plant. Geothermal applications cover a range of uses, from small-scale heat pumps
used in homes to large-scale power plants that provide electricity. There are no substantial geothermal
energy facilities in or around the City of Yakima at this time.
12.3 Challenges and Opportunities
New Construction
Strengthened building codes and innovative construction methods (solar energy) are effective ways to
reduce energy consumption. Effective layout of subdivisions can also increase energy efficiency by allowing
for solar access and protection from winds.
Industrial and commercial sectors are similarly encouraged to explore alternate energy sources when
designing new buildings, especially those that are LEED eligible.
Transportation
A well -laid -out transportation system will aid in conserving energy. Smoother traffic flows can increase
vehicle efficiency, additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities promote alternate means of commuting, and
higher urban densities along transit routes can further reduce vehicle trips.
r
Source: So
r.com
ENERGY
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
12.4 Goals and Policies
GOAL 12.1. SUPPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
AND MIXED-USE STRUCTURES AND DEVELOPMENTS.
Policies
12.1.1. Allow flexibility in development regulations that promote energy efficiency and conservation.
12.1.2. Protect solar access to use natural heating and lighting opportunities.
12.1.3. Consider development standards that allow small-scale solar and wind energy facilities in new and
existing developments.
GOAL 12.2. REDUCE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION.
Policies
12.2.1. Promote an efficient transportation system through a compact development pattern.
12.2.2. Review parking standards to promote a parking lot layout that maximizes energy efficiency.
12.2.3.Continue to provide and encourage viable options for multi -modal means of transportation to
reduce the amount of single occupant vehicles.
12.2.4. Encourage installation of charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.
GOAL 12.3. SEEK OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION AT ALL LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENT.
Policies
12.3.1. Incorporate energy efficient facilities in new and rehabilitated government buildings, where
feasible.
WIN
q
ria r
E-34
ENERGY
i Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
12.5 Implementation
Yakima's Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the actions and investments made by the City with
the support of its residents and stakeholders. Some of these actions include regulatory changes,
partnerships, coordination, administrative acts, policy changes, and capital investments. The following
implementation items aid in this process.
Exhibit 12-1. Energy Element Implementation
Building Code Regulatory Law Construction standards
■ Land use densities and
Zoning Code Regulatory Law allowable uses
■ Parking standards
State Environmental Policy Act Regulatory Law Environmental review
it
}��'. yep 4 "'���YY7• + � - J
Prepared for the City of Yakima
City of Yakima
2040
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM PLANT
Acknowledgements
CITY OF YAKIMA
Dulce Gutierrez, District 1
Avina Gutierrez, District 2
Carmen Mendez, District 3
Bill Lover, District 4
Kathy Coffey, District 5
Maureen Adkison, District 6
Holly Cousens, District 7
CONSULTANT TEAM
Transpo Group
Toole Design Group
ECO Northwest
PLANNING COMMISSION
Bill Cook
Al Rose
Scott Clark (Chair)
Patricia Byers (Vice -Chair)
Jacob Liddicoat
Gavin Keefe
Peter Marinace
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN ............................1
1. BACKGROUND AND PLANNING CONTEXT .....3
1.1 Plan Development...............................................................5
1.2 Changes Since Last Plan Update...........................................5
1.2.1 Completed Projects............................................................................. 5
1.2.2 Subarea/Corridor Plans....................................................................... 6
1.2.3 Annexations and UGA.......................................................................... 6
1.3 Governing Legislation..........................................................7
1.3.1 Growth Management Act and Concurrency ....................................... 7
1.3.2 Healthy Communities.......................................................................... 7
1.3.3 Clean Air Conformity Act..................................................................... 7
1.3.4 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ................................................. 7
1.4 Relationship with Other Plans..............................................8
1.4.1 City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan ....................................................
8
1.4.2 City of Yakima Bicycle Master Plan ......................................................
11
1.4.3 Airport Master Plan.............................................................................
11
1.4.4 Transit Development Plan....................................................................
12
1.4.5 Yakima County -Wide Planning Policy ..................................................
12
1.4.6 Yakima Valley Conference of Governments .........................................
12
1.5 Relationship with Funding...................................................12
30
1.5.1 Grant Opportunities............................................................................ 12
1.6 Agency Level of Service Standards.......................................12
1.6.1 Vehicle Level of Service...................................................................... 12
1.6.2 Non -Motorized Level of Service.......................................................... 13
1.6.3 Transit Level of Service........................................................................ 13
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ............ 15
2.1 Transportation System Networks.........................................17
2.1.1 Street Network and Traffic Controls ....................................................
17
2.1.2 Traffic Volumes..................................................................................
20
2.1.3 Pedestrian Facilities...........................................................................22
34
2.1.4 Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................
24
2.1.5 Transit Facilities and Ridership...........................................................
26
2.1.6 Freight Corridors................................................................................
30
2.1.7 Rail Lines and Crossings.....................................................................
30
2.1.8 Air Facilities........................................................................................
32
2.2 Transportation System Performance
....................................32
2.2.1 Intersection Operations..................................................................... 32
2.2.2 Corridor Capacity............................................................................... 32
2.3 Transportation System Safety...............................................34
2.3.1
Safety Analysis...................................................................................
34
2.3.2
Collision Rates....................................................................................
34
2.3.3
Collision Severity................................................................................
36
2.3.4
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety............................................................
38
3. TRAVEL FORECAST AND
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ...........................41
3.1 Travel Demand Model and Land Use Forecasts ..................... 43
3.1.1 Baseline (Alternative 1 or No Action) .................................................. 43
3.1.2 Preferred (Alternative 2)...................................................................... 43
3.2 Vehicle Forecast Conditions (2040) .....................................43
3.2.1 Forecast Operations with Plan Framework .......................................... 44
111d1k
v
FIMILAIn
We aw Vaki na
Table of Contents
3.3 Non -Motorized Forecast Conditions.........
3.4 Transit Forecast Conditions ....................
3.5 Plan Framework........................................................
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
45 4.3 Street Design Guidelines....................................................64
45 4.4 Transit and Transportation Demand Management ...............66
45 4.4.1 Transit System.................................................................................... 66
3.5.1 Maintain Connected Networks............................................................
46
3.5.2 Expand Capacity on Key Corridors
...................................................... 46
3.5.3 Right -Size Urban Corridors.................................................................
46
3.5.4 Bridge Non -Motorized Gaps................................................................
46
3.5.5 Facilitate Economic Development
...................................................... 46
3.6 Emerging Transportation Trends
..........................................46
3.6.1 Autonomous Vehicles(AVs).................................................................
46
3.6.2 Parking Demand Shifts.........................................................................
47
3.6.3 Connected Vehicles.............................................................................
47
3.6.4 Teleworking.........................................................................................
47
3.6.5 Transportation Funding Methods.......................................................
48
3.6.6 Emerging Trends Takeaways................................................................
48
4. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN.................49
4.1 Network Classifications........................................................51
4.1.1 Functional Classification Systems.......................................................
51
4.1.2 Travel Context Classification................................................................
54
4.1.3 Truck Route Classification....................................................................
56
4.1.4 Other Street Classifications................................................................
56
4.2 System Plans by Travel Mode...............................................58
4.2.1 Highway and Street System............................................................... 59
4.2.2 Pedestrian System............................................................................. 60
4.2.3 Bicycle System.................................................................................... 62
4.4.2 TDM Programs................................................................................... 66
4.5 Level of Service Standards...................................................67
4.5.1 Vehicle LOS........................................................................................ 67
City Level of Service Standards..................................................................... 67
4.5.2 Non -Motorized System LOS............................................................... 67
4.6 Transportation Projects & Programs.....................................68
5. FINANCING PROGRAM...................................79
5.1 Overview of Existing Funding and Expenditures ..................81
5.1.1 Transportation Expenditures............................................................... 81
5.1.2 Existing Revenue Sources................................................................... 82
5.2 Estimated Project and Programs Cost...................................85
5.3 Financial Outlook.................................................................86
5.3.1 Administration, Maintenance, and Operations Financial Outlook ...... 86
5.3.2 Capital Financial Outlook..................................................................... 86
5.3.3 Existing Revenue Sources.................................................................... 88
5.3.4 Additional Funding Options and Tools ................................................. 88
5.4 Reassessment Strategy........................................................90
APPENDIX .................... .......................... .....91
YVCOG Transportation Element Consistency Review Process .....93
Table of Figures and Tables
FIGURES
2-1 Existing Roadway Network and Signals..........................................................
19
2-2 Traffic Volumes by Hour on Major Corridors ..................................................
20
2-3 Existing (2015) Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Number of Lanes ............
21
2-4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities...........................................................................
23
2-5 Existing Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................
25
2-6 Existing Transit Corridors................................................................................
27
2-7 Historical Yakima Transit Ridership.................................................................
28
2-8 Existing Freight Corridors...............................................................................
32
2-9 Existing Intersection Vehicle Level of Service ................................................
33
2-10 Total of All Reported Collisions (2010 — 2014) .............................................
34
2-11 Vehicle Collisions (2010— 2014).................................................................
35
2-12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Street Type (2010 — 2014) ..................
38
2-13 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2010 — 2014) ..........................................
39
4-1 Functional Classification Relationship between Mobility and Access............
52
4-2 Roadway Functional Classification.................................................................
53
4-3 Travel Context Classification Map...................................................................
55
4-4 Truck Route Classification...............................................................................
57
4-5 Highway and Street System Plan....................................................................
59
4-6 Pedestrian System Plan..................................................................................
61
4-7 Examples of Bicycle Facilities..........................................................................
62
4-8 Bicycle System Plan........................................................................................
63
4-9 Transportation Improvement Projects...........................................................
69
5-1 Total Transportation Expenditures.................................................................
81
5-2 Operations and Maintenance Expenditures...................................................
82
5-3 Construction Expenditures.............................................................................
82
5-4 Historical Transportation Revenue.................................................................
82
5-5 Local Revenue................................................................................................
83
5-6 State and Federal Revenue............................................................................. 83
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
TABLES
2-1 Existing (2017) Fixed Route Summary............................................................
26
2-2 Intersections with Collision Rates Exceeding
the Critical Collision Rate (2010-2014)...........................................................
37
3-1 Existing and Future Intersection LOS Summary ..............................................
44
4-1 City of Yakima Functional Classification Definitions .......................................
54
4-2 Street Design Guidelines................................................................................
65
4-3 Transportation Improvement Projects...........................................................
70
5-1 Estimated Project and Program Costs (2015 $) ..............................................
85
5-2 Estimated Local Match Funding (2015$)........................................................
87
5-3 Projected Transportation Funding Summary (2015 $)...................................
87
Vii
This page left intentionally blank.
Introduction to the Plan
The multimodal transportation system is integral
to many facets of the City of Yakima, including
land use, economic development, tourism,
and recreation. The City's 2040 Transportation
Systems Plan is the background and companion
document to the Transportation Element of the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation
Element establishes the City's goals and policies
for developing the transportation system within
the City. Both the Transportation Element and
Transportation Systems Plan provide a long-
range vision for the City's transportation system
to guide City decision makers, staff, advisory
bodies, and citizens on transportation priorities
and projects over the next twenty-five years.
The Transportation System Plan coordinates
and plans for the development of a
balanced, multimodal transportation system
by recognizing the regional nature of the
transportation system and the need for
continuing interagency coordination.
The Transportation Systems Plan is intended
to serve as a guide for making transportation
decisions to address both short and long term
needs. To meet Growth Management Act (GMA)
requirements, the Transportation Systems
Plan must identify existing transportation
system characteristics, establish standards
for levels of service, and identify existing and
future deficiencies based on land use growth
projections.
The Transportation Systems Plan identifies
roadway mobility and accessibility needs,
improvements necessary to enhance safety,
bicycle and pedestrian travel characteristics, and
transit service.
The Transportation Systems Plan should be
a document that is regularly reviewed and
updated periodically to reflect and serve as a
decision-making tool for transportation policy,
planning, and construction efforts within the
City. This should be accompanied by a regular
review and update to the Municipal Code to
ensure that the goals and projects contained
in the Transportation Systems Plan are
implemented.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
AMR
THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS PLAN IS
ORGANIZED INTO
FIVE CHAPTERS
1. Background and Planning Context
2. Existing Transportation System
3. Travel Forecasts and Alternatives
Evaluation
4. Transportation Systems Plan
5. Financing Program
This page left intentionally blank.
BACKGROUND A
PLANNING CON
2040 Transportation System Plan
,1.11
\U'
�M
This page left intentionally blank.
Background and Planning Context
The 2040 Transportation Systems Plan was
developed to address future land use growth
and identify transportation needs to support
future growth. This plan is required to satisfy
Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements
and to update the City's transportation
improvement projects and programs. This
chapter of the Plan summarizes the regulatory
setting and regional planning efforts that guided
the development of the Transportation Plan.
1.1 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The development of Yakima's 2040
Transportation Systems Plan was approved by
the City Council to provide an update to the
Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan, 2025.
The Yakima City Council adopted its previous
Transportation Plan in December 2006. The
Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan, 2025
and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive
& Transportation Plan 2012 Addendum were
prepared to meet the requirements of GMA. In
2015, the City identified a need to update the
Transportation Plan to address the impacts of
growth within the City and its Urban Growth
Area (UGA). The update was also needed to
address changes in available transportation
funding, development standards, and
changes in the GMA. The purpose of the 2040
Transportation Systems Plan is to provide an
update to the existing plan by identifying and
evaluating the transportation improvement
plans for the City through the years 2016 and
2040.
CITY OF YAKIMA
• O 2040 Transportation System Plan
1.2 CHANGES SINCE LAST PLAN UPDATE
Since the last plan was completed in 2006
and updated in 2012, the City of Yakima has
completed several transportation projects
that were identified in the Yakima Urban Area
Transportation Plan, 2025. The City has also
completed several other transportation planning
efforts in subareas and along corridors.
1.2.1 Completed Projects
The Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan,
2025 identified $103.9 million in transportation
system improvements and maintenance over a
20 -year planning horizon. The following projects
identified in that plan have been completed:
Capacity Constrained Projects
16th Avenue & Washington Avenue
Signal Upgrade
Nob Hill Boulevard Corridor —
52nd Avenue to 80th Avenue
System Improvement Projects
► Railroad Grade Separation of MLK Boulevard
& Lincoln Avenue
► Multimodal (Sidewalks, Transit, and Parks)
Projects
► ADA Ramp Improvements
(numerous locations as part of other projects)
► 16th Avenue Pedestrian Crossing
► 6th Street — Nob Hill Boulevard
to Lincoln Avenue
Annual Projects and Operations
► School Safety Projects — WV Middle School
Vicinity.
1.2.2 Subarea/Corridor Plans
Subarea and corridor plans provide the footprint
for future capital projects to address capacity
and safety improvements as well as a "sense of
place" for subareas and corridors. In this way,
improvements that are both functional and
aesthetically pleasing may be developed.
Yakima Downtown Master Plan (2013)
The Yakima Downtown Master Plan discusses
the transformation of the downtown Yakima
and the Central Business District along Yakima
Avenue to create a vibrant destination. A prime
objective of the Plan was to provide a 'retail
strategy' for Downtown. Concepts central to the
Plan include Yakima Plaza, new parking options,
and enhancements to the Public Market.
Multimodal circulation is presented including
enhancements to Yakima Valley Trolley routes
and new bicycle facilities in the corridor area.
Terrace Heights Neighborhood Plan (1999)
The Terrace Heights Neighborhood Plan
discusses growth within the area as guided
by the Yakima Urban Area Plan. Access and
circulation are addressed as well as the
importance of Terrace Heights Drive, the sole
link between downtown and Terrace Heights.
West Valley Neighborhood Plan
The West Valley neighborhood, located in the
southwest Urban Growth Area of the city,
discusses the relationship to the Comprehensive
plan including the transportation element. The
vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian systems are
discussed with recommended treatments at
select locations. Cost estimates for projects in
the West Valley area are included.
East West Corridor Project (2012)
The East-West Corridor is part of a larger
transportation corridor that includes the Terrace
Heights Corridor that would connect Fruitvale
Boulevard in western Yakima to 57th Street in
Terrace Heights. This 2012 study is supplemental
to a 2011 study and recommends corridor
alignments.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
1.2.3 Annexations and UGA
As areas in the UGA have been annexed, the
total land area and number of residents within
the City limits has increased over the years. As
of 2015, the City includes over 27 square miles
and approximately 93,300 residents (2011-
2015 American Community Survey Five -Year
Estimates, US Census).
1.3 GOVERNING LEGISLATION
The 2040 Transportation Systems Plan and
Transportation Element fulfills the requirements
of the Washington State Growth Management
Act. Other state legislation requires the
Plan include projects that address Healthy
Communities and the Clean Air Conformity Act.
Projects must also comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
1.3.1 Growth Management Act and
Concurrency
Under the Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A.070), referred to herein as the GMA, the
Transportation Plan is required to assess the
needs of a community and determine how to
provide appropriate transportation facilities for
current and future residents. The Transportation
Plan must contain:
► Inventory of existing facilities
► Assessment of future facility needs to meet
current and future demands
► Multi-year plan for financing proposed
transportation improvements
► Forecasts of traffic for at least 10 years based
on adopted land use plan
► Level of service (LOS) standards for arterials
and public transportation, including actions to
bring deficient facilities into compliance
► Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies
► Identification of intergovernmental
coordination efforts
Additionally, under GMA, development may
not occur if the development causes the
transportation facility to decline below the
City's adopted level of service standard unless
adequate infrastructure exists or strategies are
identified to accommodate the impacts of the
development are made within six years of the
development. Finally, the element must include
a reassessment strategy to address how the Plan
will respond to potential funding shortfalls.
1.3.2 Healthy Communities
Recognizing the growing need for physical
activity among residents, the Washington State
Legislature amended the GMA in 2005 with the
Healthy Communities Amendment, ESSB 5186.
Comprehensive plans are directed to address
the promotion of Healthy Communities through
urban planning and transportation approaches.
The two amendments to the GMA require that
communities:
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
Consider urban planning approaches that
promote physical activity in the Land Use
Plan; and
2. Include a bicycle and pedestrian component
in the Transportation Plan.
1.3.3 Clean Air Conformity Act
The Transportation Plan is also subject to the
Washington State Clean Air Conformity Act that
implements the directives of the Federal Clean
Air Act. Because air quality is a region wide
issue, the City must support the efforts of state,
regional, and local agencies as guided by WAC
173-420-080.
1.3.4 Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
was enacted on July 26, 1990, and provides
comprehensive civil rights protections to
persons with disabilities in the areas of
employment, state and local government
services, and access to public accommodations,
transportation, and telecommunications. Of the
five titles or parts to the ADA, Title II is most
pertinent to travel within the public right-of-
way. Part 35, Subpart D — Program Accessibility
§ 35.150 (d)(3)) of Title II requires local agencies
to conduct a Self -Evaluation and Transition Plan.
1.4 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER PLANS
The Transportation Systems Plan and
Transportation Element describes both policies
and actions that are required by the City to
implement the intent of the transportation plan.
It is essential that the Plan be coordinated with
the Comprehensive Plan, including the Capital
Facilities Plan, the Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program and the Yakima
Valley Conference of Governments Regional
Transportation Plan.
1.4.1 City of Yakima
Comprehensive Plan
The Transportation Systems Plan is a
component of the Comprehensive Plan and
should be consistent with other sections
of the Comprehensive Plan, including the
Transportation Element. An update to the
Comprehensive Plan was begun in conjunction
with the 2040 Transportation Systems Plan to
provide consistency and coordination between
the two planning efforts.
The Transportation Element goals and policies
help guide implementation of the City's
transportation system and supports the other
Elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the
overall vision for Yakima. The goals and policies
establish the general philosophy for use of City
rights-of-way and transportation funds. The
policies also indicate City priorities for regional
transportation system programs, including
freeways, arterials, non -motorized facilities,
bus and rail transit service and facilities, and
transportation demand management.
■ GOAL TR 1. Develop an integrated and
balanced transportation system in Yakima
that provides safe, efficient, and reliable
multimodal transportation.
■ GOAL TR 2. Increase the share of trips
made by non -motorized travel modes.
■ GOAL TR 3. Provide a transportation
system that supports the city's land use
plan and is consistent with the Washington
Transportation Plan, Yakima Valley
Metropolitan and Regional Transportation
Plan, and Yakima County Comprehensive
Plan.
■ GOAL TR 4. Preserve and extend the
service life and utility of transportation
investments.
■ GOAL TR S. Encourage and support a
stable, long-term financial foundation for
improving the quality, effectiveness, and
efficiency of the transportation system.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
General Plan and Safety Policies
A multimodal transportation network moves
people and goods safely through the city
and nearby areas. These policies include
implementing standards that improve safety and
efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining
design standards.
■ 4.5.1. Use a combination of enforcement,
education, and engineering methods to
keep vehicular travel patterns and travel
speeds consistent with street functional
classification, and promote pedestrian
safety.
■ 4.5.2. Enforce intersection clear -view
standards at intersections and access
points to promote safety for all users of
the transportation system.
■ 4.5.3. Maintain street signage, wayfinding,
and lane markings to industry standards to
heighten traffic safety, support emerging
vehicle technology, and maintain clean
community image.
■ 4.5.4. Maintain program to monitoring and
analyzing vehicle collision patterns and
severity of injuries to identify high priority
safety improvements.
■ 4.5.5. Include accommodations for the
transportation needs of special population
groups (such as ADA -related, school age,
and/or elderly) for each transportation
project. Use design standards for
consistent application.
■ 4.5.6. Leverage the transportation system
to help create and enhance a sense of
place within the City. This includes gateway
treatments, landscaping, pedestrian -
scale elements, and lighting. Use design
standards for consistent application at
target locations.
■ 4.5.7. Balance the needs of pedestrians,
bicycles, transit, autos, and trucks on the
whole transportation system by improving
streets according to the Mode Priority
Classification. This includes intersection
and access designs.
■ 4.5.8. Work to address remaining road -
rail conflicts within the City. Enhance
protection (signals or gates) or remove
conflict (grade -separation or facility
removal). Properly maintain existing grade -
separation infrastructure.
Transportation Network Efficiency Policies
A multimodal transportation network moves
people and goods safely through the city
and nearby areas. These policies include
implementing standards that improve safety and
efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining
design standards.
■ 4.5.9. Ensure that the city transportation
networks (all travel modes) have good
connectivity to provide safe alternate
routes and more direct travel. Where
possible, encourage small block sizes.
■ 4.5.10. Discourage new 4 -lane streets
(where left -turns are expected) because
of safety and system efficiency issues.
Convert existing 4 -lane streets to
3 -lane streets, 4 -lane streets with turn -
restrictions, or 5 -lane streets, depending
on forecasted vehicle volumes, street
classifications, multi -modal use, and
adjacent land uses.
■ 4.5.11. Maintain a program to repair
and preserve existing streets surfaces,
drainage, sidewalks, street lighting, and
trails; including ADA -related upgrades.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
■ 4.5.12. Reduce growth in vehicle
travel demand through transit, active
transportation, and other Commute
Reduction strategies. This postpones the
need for capital roadway projects.
■ 4.5.13. Maintain a Transportation
Concurrency Program and Traffic Impact
Study guidelines to coordinate projects
related to SEPA mitigations, off-site
developer improvements, and the 6 -Year
Transportation Improvement Program.
■ 4.5.14. Coordinate transit facility
improvements on all projects. Evaluate if
additional or relocated stops, pull-outs,
shelters, or other special improvements
are needed.
Active Transportation Policies
The active transportation system includes
pedestrian, bicycling, and other modes
that promote healthy lifestyles and provide
alternative modes to private vehicles for
commuting. These modes depend on increasing
network connectivity and constructing non -
motorized facilities within the city.
■ 4.5.15. Educate pedestrians, cyclists, and
drivers regarding pedestrian and bicycle
safety, sharing the road, and Rules of
the Road, including multi -modal rules.
Promote and support special events
(races and bicycle rodeos) that encourage
bicycling and pedestrian safety.
■ 4.5.16. Require new development, infill
development, and redevelopments to
provide pedestrian facilities and transit
facilities along their street frontage
consistent with adopted street design
standards, ADA Transition Plan, Bicycle
Master Plan, and Transit Development
Plan.
■ 4.5.17. Give high priority to projects
that create or improve safe "Walk to
School Routes", provide access to activity
centers, provide linkages to transit, and
connections to trails for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
■ 4.5.18. Work to improve pathway linkages
to regional and off-street trail systems as
identified in the ADA Transition Plan and
Bicycle Master Plan.
■ 4.5.19. Encourage projects and support
grant applications and other funding
sources that provide facilities (such as
signage, lighting, and/or restrooms) at
trailhead locations to support safe, clean,
and efficient trail use.
■ 4.5.20. Provide bicycle storage facilities at
transit facilities, buses, and civic centers.
Require storage facilities at employment,
retail, and mixed-use developments.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
Transportation Funding Policies
Adequate, diverse, and sustainable funding
sources for transportation projects can help
ensure the implementation of improvement
projects.
■ 4.5.24. Actively seek and develop funding
solutions to address future project and
program needs and address transportation
goals of the City. This includes dedicated
funding sources to match state or federal
funding.
■ 4.5.25. Provide freight routes to serve
the Yakima Regional Airport, significant
industrial centers, and other freight activity
■ 4.5.21. Maintain and regularly update
centers.
an inventory of sidewalks, curb ramps,
■ 4.5.26. Maintain a dedicated funding
marked crosswalks, trails, bicycle facilities,
source for capital, operation and
transit facilities, and roadways to assist
maintenance of the City's Transit System.
in a smart allocation of transportation
resources.
■ 4.5.27. Encourage the use of public
and private funding to remove gaps in
■ 4.5.22. Support the development and
pedestrian facilities on existing roadways.
adoption of a Pedestrian System Plan.
■ 4.5.23. Support the development and
adoption of a Long Range Transit System
Plan.
Economic Activity Policies
Air, rail, and freight are important economic
drivers for the City and region. Ensuring
adequate access to these activities and to the
regional network is important.
■ 4.5.28. Provide freight routes to serve
the Yakima Regional Airport, significant
industrial centers, and other freight activity
centers.
■ 4.5.29. Support future expansion of
services at Yakima Regional Airport by
anticipating any necessary transportation
T28 network changes in the vicinity of the
airport, including intermodal facilities.
■ 4.5.30. Support future services of rail
interests by anticipating any necessary
transportation network changes in the
vicinity of the rail facilities.
Interjurisdictional Coordination Policies
Encouraging coordination between the City and
public/private partnerships will help create a
cohesive regional transportation network.
■ 4.5.31. Plan and support the
transportation networks in the City and
region in collaboration with Yakima County,
the City of Union Gap, the WSDOT, and
other neighboring jurisdictions.
■ 4.5.32. Coordinate with WSDOT and
neighboring jurisdictions regarding
level of service definitions, concurrency
requirements, and other impacts.
LEVEL OF DETAIL
CITY OF YAKIMA
O 2040 Transportation System Plan
1.4.2 City of Yakima
Bicycle Master Plan
The Bicycle Master Plan was developed to
improve bicycle transportation throughout the
City of Yakima. The Plan will guide planning,
development, and management of existing and
future bicycle connections within the City of
Yakima. The plan builds upon previous City of
Yakima initiatives, including the 1995 Bicycle
Master Plan, the Yakima Greenway Master
Plan, and numerous on- and off-road bicycle
investments made to date.
1.4.3 Airport Master Plan
The Yakima Air Terminal -McAllister Field's
Airport Master Plan was recently updated in
F 2015. The local jurisdictions (Yakima County,
LU the City of Yakima and the City of Union Gap)
are encouraged to adopt the plan into their
Comprehensive Planning process. The Airport
Master Plan has recommendations for the
protection of airspace consistent with FAR Part
77. The protected airspace is a slope with its
lowest point closest to the runway. Further
r from the runway higher objects and structures
UJcan be permitted without violating airspace.
2 Landowners and developers within the corridor
must be informed of the constraints of the
This grWk, afugtrates rhe mefstove caarextand levet` of dewt fmm t`ocal modal
pransuptostate GMAmquaarwts, airspace protection.
1.4.4 Transit Development Plan
The City of Yakima Transit division prepares a
six-year Transit Development Plan annually. The
plan identifies existing fixed route, paratransit,
vanpool, park & ride lots, school service, and
multimodal connections. The plan also includes
short and long-range public transportation
operating and capital improvement projects.
1.4.5 Yakima County -Wide
Planning Policy
The GMA also requires that counties adopt
Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) to guide
and coordinate issues of regional significance.
The Yakima County -Wide Planning Policy,
originally adopted in 1993 and updated in 2003
contains the countywide goals and policies for
transportation.
1.4.6 Yakima Valley
Conference of Governments
The Yakima Valley Conference of Governments
(YVCOG) coordinates planning efforts for the
region, including the development of a regional
travel demand model and the Yakima Valley
Regional Transportation Plan. Adopted in 2016,
the Plan contains goals and policies for the
region.
1.5 RELATIONSHIP WITH FUNDING
Identifying and securing the necessary funding
for multimodal transportation projects is
essential. Current projections reflect a short-
fall in needs versus revenue sources. The city
needs to pursue a wide range of potential
funding sources at the local, regional, statewide
and national level to address future capacity
constraints and multimodal needs, preserve
system integrity, address safety concerns and
promote responsible economic development.
Securing these funds will require collaboration
with regional partners to jointly pursue grant
opportunities.
1.5.1 Grant Opportunities
Over the past several years the City has had
significant success in securing state and federal
grants for transportation improvements. Grant
funding is typically tied to specific improvement
projects and distributed on a competitive
basis, often with a local funding match. Due to
reduced federal and state allocations, the pool
of available grant funds will likely decrease in
the future. In addition, more local agencies are
pursuing grants resulting in a more competitive
environment.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
1.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Traffic operations analyses provides quantitative
method for evaluating how the transportation
system is functioning. It is applied to existing
and forecast conditions to assist in identifying
issues and potential improvement options.
Level of service is a measure of the quality of
traffic flow and operations. It can be described
in terms of speeds, travel times, delays,
convenience, interruptions, and comfort.
1.6.1 Vehicle Level of Service
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
(Transportation Research Board, 2010), provides
methodologies for evaluating level of service
(LOS) for transportation facilities and services.
The HCM criteria range from LOS A indicating
free-flow conditions with minimal delays, to
LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long
vehicle delays.
State Highway Level of Service Standards
Cities in Washington are required to include
the LOS standards for all state routes in the
Transportation Plan of their local comprehensive
plan. US 12 and 1-82 are state highways serving
the City of Yakima and are designated as
highway of statewide significance (HSS). The
LOS standards for HSS facilities are jointly set
by WSDOT and YVCOG. The LOS standard for
facilities in Yakima County that are in urban
areas is LOS D and for facilities in rural areas
is LOS C. US 12 within the City of Yakima is
designated as urban and has an LOS D standard.
WSDOT applies these standards to highway
segments, intersections, and freeway
interchange ramp intersections. When a
proposed development affects a segment or
intersection where the LOS is already below
the state's adopted standard, then the pre -
development LOS is used as the standard. When
a development has degraded the level of service
on a state highway, WSDOT works with the local
jurisdiction through the SEPA process to identify
reasonable and proportional mitigation to offset
the impacts. Mitigation could include access
constraints, constructing improvements, right-
of-way dedication, or contribution of funding to
needed improvements.
Yakima County Level of Service Standards
The County's standard allows flexibility for
LOS to be expressed in terms such as speed
and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort, convenience, geographic
accessibility and safety. The regional LOS
standards are contained in the Yakima Valley
Regional Transportation Plan that identifies a
standard of LOS D or better, when feasible and
cost effective.
City Level of Service Standards
The City has established LOS standards to
provide for adequate mobility of traffic at
intersections and adjacent roadways. The
City has maintained an LOS standard of D
for all intersections, including traffic signals,
roundabouts, and stop -controlled intersections.
The official City of Yakima Level of Service
standards are discussed in Chapter 4.
1.6.2 Non -Motorized
Level of Service
Existing non -motorized level of service is
discussed in Parks and Recreation Plan
for Yakima County (2014), and outlines a
methodology for assessing trail adequacy. An
expansion of the level of service system to
include additional pedestrian facilities such as
sidewalks and multi -use pathways, as well as
bicycle facilitates is discussed in Chapter 4.
1.6.3 Transit Level of Service
An existing transit level of service methodology
has not been adopted by the City or related
agencies. Historic ridership data can be found in
the Transit Development Plan.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
A 10 Free flow
B > 10-20 Stable flow (slight delay)
C >20-25 Stable flow (acceptable delay)
Approaching unstable flow
D >35-55 (tolerable delay, occasional wait
through ore than one signal)
E >55-80 Unstable flow
(intolerable delay)
F >80 Forced flow (jammed)
This page left intentionally blank.
EXISTING
TRANSORTATION
2040 Transportation System Plan
M N4T
4TER
Ali- a
ow
SYSTEM
Am
This page left intentionally blank.
Existing Transportation System
This chapter summarizes key components of
the existing transportation system serving the
City of Yakima that represent the transportation
system in its current condition. An inventory of
transportation facilities is presented through
maps, figures, and descriptions that provide a
foundation for identifying and prioritizing the
City's transportation improvement projects
and programs presented later in the 2040
Transportation Plan.
The transportation system within the City
of Yakima consists of streets and highways,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit
service. Freight and goods, which are vital to
the City's economic development, are primarily
carried by trucks and rail lines. Following a
description of the street system, subsequent
sections describe the existing multimodal
transportation system within the City for the
travel modes on the City's transportation
system.
2.1 TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM NETWORKS
The transportation system inventory identifies
key transportation issues to be addressed in this
plan update. The networks that comprise the
transportation system include the arterial and
collector street system, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, transit service, freight routes, rail lines,
and air facilities. Most travel within the City of
Yakima occurs on the streets and highways that
also provide public space for other modes.
2.1.1 Street Network
and Traffic Controls
The street system provides mobility and access
for a range of travel modes and users. Streets in
the central business district and older sections
of the City are laid out in a dense grid, while the
newer neighborhoods in the western sections
of the City have greater spacing between major
roadways.
The City limits, existing streets, and traffic signal
locations are shown in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-3
summarizes the number of lanes of major north -
south and east -west roadways within the City.
CITY OF YAKIMA
o e 2040 Transportation System Plan
AMR
J
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE
SYSTEM INVENTORY?
► Overview of street network
► Vehicle traffic volumes
► Pedestrian facilities
► Bicycle facilities
► Transit facilities and ridership
► Freight street facilities
and tonnage
► Rail lines and street crossings
► Air facilities
► Traffic operations
► Traffic safety analysis
► Pedestrian and bicycle
safety analysis
Yakima City is at the crossroads of two major
Washington State transportation corridors.
Interstate 82 (1-82) provides access to Oregon
and the Tri -Cities area to the south, and the
1-90 corridor to the north. US 12 provides an
alternate pathway to Western Washington with
connections to the 1-5 corridor and the Puget
Sound area (via SR 410).
Interchanges (1-82 and US 12)
The interchanges with 1-82 and US 12 act
as major gateways in and out of the City of
Yakima. Along 1-82, the City of Yakima has three
interchanges: 1st Street, Yakima Avenue, and
Nob Hill Boulevard. In addition, the Valley Mall
Boulevard interchange in Union Gap provides
a major 182 access to southern areas of the
City of Yakima. Along US 12, there are three
interchanges: 40th Avenue/Fruitvale Boulevard,
16th Avenue, and 1st Street. Given the direct
connections to these regional routes, these City
streets are considered Principal Arterials.
Major East-West Corridors
The Summitview Avenue/Yakima Avenue
corridor is a major east -west corridor
connecting 1-82, Yakima downtown, western
areas of the City, and west valley areas in
the county. This corridor crosses the railroad
at -grade in the downtown area on Yakima
Avenue. While travelling west at 16th Avenue,
Yakima Avenue transitions to a local access
street. For continued westerly travel, drivers
must travel north along 16th to Summitivew, or
access Summitview directly at 7th Avenue. This
corridor is generally 4 to 5 lanes within the city.
The Nob Hill Boulevard corridor is another major
east -west corridor within the city. It provides a
more direct connection to 1-82 for western areas
of the city. It is generally 4 to 5 lanes within the
city, and has a grade -separated crossing of the
railroads.
The Washington Avenue/Valley Mall Boulevard
corridor is a major east -west corridor in the
southern areas of the city. It provides access
to the regional airport and connections to 182
for southern areas of the city. The corridor is
generally 4 to 5 lanes within the city, and has
a grade -separated crossing for the railroad on
Valley Mall Boulevard.
Fruitvale Boulevard provides access to US 12
and industrial areas in the northern areas of
the City. Lincoln Avenue and Martin Luther Kind
Jr Boulevard provide a higher speed parallel
route to Yakima Avenue with grade -separated
rail crossings. Other east -west corridors include
Tieton Drive, Walnut Street, Mead Avenue, and
'I' Street.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
Major North-South Corridors
The 1st Street corridor provides a major north -
south connection between US 12 and 1-82 to the
north, the Yakima downtown area, and Union
Gap to the south. It is the only continuous route
throughout the City east of the railroad. It is
generally 4 to 5 lanes within the City.
The 16th Avenue corridor provides north -
south mobility in the central areas of the City.
It connects US 12 to the north and the regional
airport to the south, as well as connections
to most major east -west City corridors. It is
generally 4 lanes wide.
The 40th Avenue corridor provides north -south
mobility in the western areas of the City. It
connects US 12 to the north and connections to
most major east -west City corridors. It is general
4 lanes wide.
Other Principal Arterial connections providing
north -south mobility include 72nd Avenue, 5th
Avenue, 8th Street, and Fair Avenue. Minor
Arterial north -south corridors include 96th
Avenue, 80th Avenue, 64th Avenue, 3rd Avenue.
Fair Avenue, 18th Street, and Rudkin Road.
lil _
I:I -..,, I•I lig
gill �A=��'■���1 ;mill n • � I:I �'
,, I, nN, I I I I I
RI 11 I'llllllli s Iislims
l
I:I ��11� II � �� I:I I:I I.I tllLl � I.I I.I �.II.1��,�,■
HIM IlilllmommemIRiiilil
..�. ��� �• i��tW1Y1r1Ji1!*s�: 1111���11�"111
.I ila I:I I I =!•I •l ii�l Ii#fl��:� 1ai111117��1111
. 11 I� ■r:� �� �11--nillil�i1 1i1r111111
—�7'!"��11■ l" iiiliiiii■``) x11111
111�II�LIIIdQ'WIN
11 IIIIL�III 1
lil lil lil ( 11 Ii1111111�1
�An1111�
I•I II_ LI +�•i==i•I I•I
I•I � .
r -r -r -r -m
0 0.5 Miles r
I ti.
Figure 2-1. Existing Roadway Network and Signals
I
WVALLEY LL VD
MANUM
transpogroup Tr
19
2.1.2 Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts were collected at several midblock locations on City
roadways in October 2015 over three midweek days to gather average
24-hour counts. These recent tube counts were used to update historical
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on City roadways to represent
existing traffic conditions. Existing (2015) average daily traffic volumes
for major roadways are shown in Figure 2-3. Roadways with notable
changes in traffic volumes as compared to 2006 counts include:
►1st Street: Traffic volumes decreased between 2,000 and 8,000
vehicles per day.
Do- 16th Avenue: Traffic volumes decreased between 4,000 and 6,000
vehicles per day.
► Fruitvale Boulevard: Traffic volumes increased by approximately
6,000 east of
16th Avenue.
► Lincoln Avenue/MLK Jr. Boulevard: Traffic volumes decreased on the
couplet between 3,000 and 6,000 vehicles per day.
In addition to ADT volumes, PM peak hour volumes typically represent
the worst travel conditions experienced during the day. Figure 2-2 shows
the traffic volumes by hour on 40th Avenue and Nob Hill Boulevard.
As shown in this figure, most traffic occurs between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
each weekday with peaks during the morning and late afternoon. The
PM peak hour is shown in yellow and represents the highest total traffic
volumes on the road. Traffic operations analysis is typically evaluated
based on the weekday PM peak hour.
CITY OF YAKIMA
IRS � 2040 Transportation System Plan
40th Avenue (�uninijiview, Avenue to Tieton Drivej
2.000
1.500
� 4
01
J, 500 i
ti
0
12:00 AM 4-.WAM 8,U0 AM 12:40 PM 4:0011M 8:0011M 12;00 AM
Northbound —Southbound — — —Total
Nob Hill Boulevard (Fair Avenue to 18th Street)
am
1,500
X-0 1,000
500
0
12:00 AM 4fl0 AM 8:00AM 12:0011M 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM
Eastbound Westbound — — — Total
Figure 2-2. Traffic Volumes by Hour on Major Corridors
u ..
Legend law
823
2 Lanes
3 Lanes IIX_
4 Lanes!�� -
i ,N.
5 Lanes�.,r.--
ti
r City Limits ~ 39p0 12 1
UGA Boundary '-6�o 6600 soo
ti 2,$00 a
Park / Open Space l� "" �o
__ _ `,.q •��_ oo ,500 - -- 7,500 3,800.
• 0
�'" •L��i.._.,� {21p0 f,ff w ,p0 2,400 12,800 19,100-3 2100
apo o� j i' Lo C 0 010
L F -1- - �0
~- 1,900 ri 2,500 6,400 8,100 r 5,200 �� 3,100 N
-� y% 2,400 a 3,800 4,500 8;800 : 9,700 16,900 ¢ 15,400 3p0 > w
�L. �. 1. X00 4p0 A♦6�
SUMMITVIE �,,..�9,500 12,400 12,700 a 18,600 w 19,00021,600 11,100 'ri 13,3 IO- 13,500 z 12,700 13,200 1'I;2p0 20 O
0 0 I I o 0 0 00 11300 .15 p00> >.
O O O _ O O Q� O > W
Q
M O _ S N O �a
neroN DR 6,400 7,700 10;900 7,700 8;100 17,800 200 ` 18,100 14,500 17,600 13,�p0
11,500 0
o 0
o O z
0
6,800 11,600 13,000
__r.i - O 16,600 20,900 24,700 ,24,500 24,400 21,600 28,100
oLLI� N
iJ[� E ¢i I o 00 0 o
� N
N -
°� O 9,200 9,$00 WMEADAVE 10
O
3,300 1,100 O
2 20, 800 Oo o
0
�.� TM 11
o �o
L---•'ro8;300 7,800 24,800 16,100 23;800 16,400
o � r r.. ..� 1i
r _ ' 2,500 Cq o I - -
0
IFNTM RD 2,400 Ci 6,100 ' B`VD
L.. r AHTANUM RD `•I 10,700
I
0 0.5 Miles
Figure 2-3. Existing (2015) Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Number of Lanes
6,Qp0 c
-C
a
0>_116
O y��
15,500
I
1,100 00 1
s
TERRACE HGTS DR
0V
UM RD
ti
m
transpogroup Tr
21
2.1.3 Pedestrian Facilities
Every trip begins and ends with a walk. People
walk to their cars and drive to a location where
they will walk into a building or facility, or
they need to walk to a transit station. A well-
established pedestrian system encourages
healthy recreational activities, reduces travel
demand on roadways, and enhances safety
within a livable community. Non -motorized
facilities provide critical access to and from
transit stops, which can increase the use of
active transportation. Along with shared -use
trails, sidewalks are the primary facility type for
pedestrians. Sidewalks are generally provided
adjacent to the street on one or both sides.
Where sidewalks are not available, pedestrians
must use the roadway shoulders. Existing
pedestrian facilities in the City of Yakima are
illustrated in Figure 2-4.
Sidewalks
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.
Shared -Use Trails
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, Walter Ortman Parkway, William 0.
Douglas Heritage Trail and several unnamed
neighborhood connector paths support
pedestrian travel in Yakima.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O 2040 Transportation System Plan
The Powerhouse Trail, Walter Ortman Parkway,
and the Yakima Valley Greenway Trail are
recreational and commuting trails. The Yakima
Valley Greenway Trail is approximately 10 miles
long and provides access to several parks,
fishing lakes, playgrounds, and natural areas.
The Powerhouse Trail is an in -city trail that
connects to schools, city parks, and residential
areas. The Walter Ortman Parkway, along
Willow Street from 10th to 6th Ave, connects
to the Powerhouse Canal Pathway through
McGuinness Park.
tm ll�
sh
SUIITVIEWAY�TL rm
_ _II'r�:lflllll
" mmmmmm
mC I Ir 1�3=j#'�lll�i
...., WORM Moles �IMIIIIIII
IM
ow
Shared -use trails may be primarily used for
recreational purposes, but also serve commuter
and utility travel between neighborhoods
and to surrounding areas. Standard trails are
separated from the roadways and vary in width
from approximately 5 feet to 12 feet wide. ADA
access is provided on many trails, but some may
not include these features. Shared -use trails are
also important linkages for bicycle travel.
2.1.4 Bicycle Facilities
Bicycling is an important and growing mode of
travel for people in cities across the country.
When appropriately planned, bicycle routes
have a role in reducing congestion, improving
air quality, providing travel choices, encouraging
exercise and recreation, and providing greater
mobility for those without access to a vehicle.
Existing bicycle facilities and descriptions are
coordinated and consistent with the Bicycle
Master Plan (City of Yakima, 2015).
There are a range of bicycle treatments available
for cities to provide comfortable space for
cyclists of all ages and abilities. The City of
Yakima has three types of bicycle treatments:
shared lanes, bicycle lanes, and shared -use
trails. Existing bicycle facilities are shown in
Figure 2-5 and described in the sections that
follow.
Shared Lanes
While not formal bicycle facilities, roadways
with shared lane markings, or sharrows, can
provide connectivity for experienced cyclists.
Shared lane markings are a tool that can assist
cyclists and motorists by indicating appropriate
bicycle positioning on a roadway, increasing
safety and visibility.
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle lanes are striped roadway space
dedicated for cyclists and are typically provided
on the edge of the traveled way. Bicycle lanes
may be included on both sides of the roadway
or on one side of a sloped roadway where there
is not sufficient space for bicycle lanes in both
directions. They are typically 4 to 6 feet in width
(not including vehicle buffers) and are marked
with a wide white stripe or buffer area.
Yakima has approximately 5 miles of bike lanes
currently installed. Bicycle lanes are present in
the central business district on Lincoln Avenue,
MLKJr. Boulevard, 3rd Street, and 6th Street.
There are also a few segments of bike lanes on
the east end of town on Tieton Drive, Nob Hill
Boulevard, and Washington Avenue.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
1
T■■•
Ca" ALE -. ■�� '
MpfIlominlliumu a
MW'
�F 111111 ��I '1i
IIE 4ul�u �i1VIIIII11f11111"I . 111
••� ■ u� 11 r� 11u11111 IFI�1INIT KNOWNu;;11111111�
Y �
111
.
IDENTAI ■ 1AIn;iYl
AHTANUM ., u
• •
.5 Miles
Figure 2-5. Existing Bicycle Facilities
s
TERRACE HGTS DR
N
SMP JE
��
Ij
r
r
_
a
LL
�
N�
N
to
E NOS HILL D I•`
M FAD AVE
F
WAS I •TONAVE
r
r
'ALLEY LL III
.J
WAH
IUM RD
r
�
s
transpogroup �r
25
Shared -Use Trails
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.
2.1.5 Transit Facilities and Ridership
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, 2016).
Several transit routes were modified in late
2003 to be more responsive to the needs
of passengers getting to work and school.
This schedule re -alignment offered more
direct routings and maximized transfer point
connections, as well as overall frequency of
transit service within the community. In mid -
2005, transit service was extended to Selah and
Union Gap with funding provided by a CMAQ
grant to relieve traffic congestion on the north -
south arterial streets. Figure 2-6 identifies
the roadways with transit service, which are
identified as transit corridors.
Fixed Route Service
As of 2017, Yakima Transit operated fixed -route
bus service along eleven different routes that
operate between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m.
within the cities of Yakima and Selah. Weekday
routes are operated with half-hour headways on
most routes, while Saturday and Sunday routes
are operated on an hourly basis. Table 2-1
summarizes fixed route service, including the
commuter route service between Yakima and
Ellensburg.
Yakima—Ellensburg Commuter Service
Yakima Transit hired Central Washington
Airporter to operate the Yakima—Ellensburg
Commuter service as a partnership with Central
Washington University and WSDOT.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
Table 2-1. Existing (2017)
Fixed Route Summary
Service along Summitview / Lincoln
Weekday,
1 Avenue from 96th Avenue to
Saturday,
Yakima Transit Center
Sunday
Service from 72nd Ave on Nob Hill
Weekday,
2 Blvd to Yakima Transit Center via
Saturday,
Nob Hill Boulevard
Sunday
Service from Castlevale to Yakima
Weekday,
3 Transit Center via 40th Avenue and
Saturday
River Road
Service from Yakima Transit Center
Weekday,
4 to Castlevale via 16th Avenue
Saturday,
Sunday
Service from 72nd Avenue on Nob
Weekday,
5 Hill Boulevard to Yakima Transit
Saturday
Center via Tieton Drive
Service from Yakima Transit Center
Weekday,
6 to Viola Avenue via Fair Avenue
Saturday,
(and back)
Sunday
Service from BiMart and Chesterly
7 Park P&R to Yakima Transit Center
Weekday,
via 40th Avenue, Washington
Saturday
Avenue, and S 1st Street
Service from Yakima Transit Center
Weekday,
9 to BiMart and Chesterly P&R via
Saturday,
Fruitvale Boulevard
Sunday
Service from Selah to downtown
Weekday,
10 Yakima Transit Center (and back)
Saturday,
via 1st Street
Sunday
Yakima — Ellensburg Commuter
11 from Yakima Airport to downtown
Commuter
Ellensburg
�1
Nun
IlrIAI
MEMO ONE 1-31
■�l�ll�llll� 1111116�..
IIIIIIIIN
ownwild is
,IIL ,11111
11111
�Crem,
1.
d.
r..
HTANUM
•
• •
Corridors.5 Miles
Figure 2-6. Existing Transit
TERRACE HGTS DR
I � ' � Fz4 1
MEA6AVE �•
qAVE�-
V'AIUM
WA I
transpogroup �r
27
Paratransit Service
Paratransit service (Dial -a -Ride) is provided
by Yakima Transit for patrons who cannot use
fixed -route bus services due to a disability and
in accordance with ADA. This service provides
curb -to -curb paratransit service during the same
operating days and hours of local fixed route
service. Paratransit services are provided, door-
to-door, to eligible clients and serves the areas
within the city limits of Yakima and Selah and
some trips into the City of Union Gap.
System -Wide Ridership
Yakima Transit reports ridership for all services
in the Transit Development Plan. Similar to
tracking trends in vehicle volumes, the number
of annual passenger boards is important to the
success and performance of a transit system.
Figure 2-7 shows system -wide annual boardings
for the most recent 5 years of available data.
As shown in Figure 2-7, annual boards exceeded
1.5 million in 2011 and 2012, but have declined
as a result of rate increases, lower fuel prices,
and a reduction in service after 2012.
Vanpool Program
Yakima Transit operates vanpool services for
residents within the Greater Yakima area.
Vanpool services are provided on a cost
recovery basis; costs are covered by the users.
As part of the services provided through the
vanpool program, Yakima Transit offers each
vanpool commuter a guaranteed ride home, in
the event they are sick, the vehicle brakes down,
or other issues come up. The guaranteed ride
home service may be used by an individual user
up to four times per year. There are currently 17
vans in operation, four vans less than at the end
of 2014.
CITY OF YAKIMA
IRS � 2040 Transportation System Plan
YAKIMA TRANSIT SYSTEM -WIDE RIDERSHIP
2,000,000
1,500,000
0
m
1,000,000
c
a
I
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 2-7. Historical Yakima Transit Ridership
Park -and -Rides
There are four park and ride locations served by
Yakima Transit service:
Chesterly Park at the 40th Avenue/River Road
intersection has approximately 50 spaces.
Gateway Center along Fair Avenue at 1-82
ramps has approximately 64 parking spaces.
Public Works Facility at 23rd Avenue/Fruitvale
Boulevard has approximately 88 spaces.
Firing Center Park & Ride Lot in Selah is
served by the Yakima—Ellensburg Commuter
service and has approximately 35 parking
spaces.
Figure 2-6 illustrates the locations of designated
Park -and -Ride lots.
Yakima Transit Center
Yakima has one major transit center in its
downtown area. The Yakima Transit Center is
located along 4th Street between Chestnut
Avenue and Walnut Avenue. All Yakima Transit
Routes are routed through the Yakima Transit
Center. The transit center can accommodate up
to 12 buses at a time.
Figure 2-6 illustrates the location of the Yakima
Transit Center.
CITY OF YAKIMA
IRS � 2040 Transportation System Plan
2.1.6 Freight Corridors
Centrally located for companies that rely on
distribution throughout Washington State,
the City of Yakima is a natural distribution hub
served by many freight routes. Planning for
freight is an important component to Yakima's
overall economy. While the City does not
have designations for freight routes, WSDOT
maintains a classification system for freight
corridors statewide, including Yakima.
The Washington State Freight and Goods
Transportation System (FGTS) classifies
highways, county roads, and city streets
according to the average annual gross truck
tonnage they carry. Truck tonnage values are
derived from actual or estimated truck traffic
count data that is converted into average
weights by truck type.
The FGTS uses five truck classifications, T-1
through T-5, depending on the annual gross
tonnage the roadway carries. Yakima has
roadways or roadway segments that fall into
every classification level.
FGTS Truck Classifications in tons
T 1 > 10 million
peryear
O' O 0'0'0
4-10 million
per year
rr300k-4
' 0o
million
ryear
O' -0 000
4 A 100-300k
peryear
o'o 0
�' T 5 0"10
> 20k/60 days
< 100k/year
01 '011, [n n 0
Corridors with the highest annual gross
tonnage, T-1 and T-2 routes, are also identified
as Strategic Freight Corridors. 1-82 is a T-1 route
that runs through Yakima County and connects
to other freeways in Washington and Oregon.
Many roadways with ramps to 1-82, including US
12 and SR 24, are T-2 corridors and important
connections to other regional destinations.
Freight corridors are illustrated in Figure 2-8.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O 2040 Transportation System Plan
2.1.7 Rail Lines and Crossings
Rail lines in the City of Yakima are exclusively
used for freight transportation and do not
include passenger service. The double -tracked
line through the City's central business district is
a Strategic Rail Corridor (WSDOT, 2013) and one
of three statewide east -west rail lines. Owned
by BNSF, these tracks connect Auburn and Pasco
via Stampede Pass. Additional spur lines within
the City and its UGA carry less train traffic, but
many remain important connections for the rail
community.
At -Grade Rail Crossings
Safety for all at -grade rail crossings is of
potential concern for all modes near the
crossing when the rail line is active. At -grade rail
crossings typically include warning systems and
signage to inform drivers of the conflict zone
with rail traffic. Highly active crossings include
gate arms to stop vehicle traffic, but spur tracks
may not include these types of warning devices.
To reduce the negative impacts of at -grade
rail crossings, the City has completed several
grade separation projects, including the recent
completion of the MLK Jr. and Lincoln Avenue
grade separation projects in 2013 and 2014.
-•- •
Freight• ••
Freight• ••
Freight• ••
Freight• ••
Freight• ••
Railroad
City Limits PEW m
UGA Boundary
Park Open Space L\ Ll
71d��1�
�Fpfllqm owl
h 11 �����11111 n� 1s iii°'u5i iii ii„
11I11111MC 1<1 11 mill r`Mill 11 I
X10 0 011Fi`=11U'ii1
will 011
111111111
mwa
Figure 2-8. Existing Freight Corridors
823
i
i
5
z �.n
Z 5 _
N� EUN • `� TERF�ACE HGTS DR
a ,■
SZ
T 1
N
� 1
- m
G E NOB HILL BLVD qj
MEADAVE __ ,•
5 2AS ON AVE �aa�
..VAS
r �
r VALLEY ALL BLV.. . j
W AH UM R
s
ti
m
s
transpogroup Tr
31
SHINGTON AVE
r 1
I
-O IDENTAL
D
AHTANUM RD ,
0 r-rl 0 5 Miles
f Source: WSDOT
f
Figure 2-8. Existing Freight Corridors
823
i
i
5
z �.n
Z 5 _
N� EUN • `� TERF�ACE HGTS DR
a ,■
SZ
T 1
N
� 1
- m
G E NOB HILL BLVD qj
MEADAVE __ ,•
5 2AS ON AVE �aa�
..VAS
r �
r VALLEY ALL BLV.. . j
W AH UM R
s
ti
m
s
transpogroup Tr
31
2.1.8 Air Facilities
The Yakima Airport (McAllister Field) is a general
aviation air facility between Washington Avenue
and Ahtanum Road in the south-central area of
the City. The airport handles small passenger
aircraft that includes flights to and from SeaTac
Airport in Seattle.
2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
Performance of the transportation system
includes an evaluation of all modes based on
City standards and available analysis tools. The
existing performance results contained in this
section will set the stage for the evaluation of
the forecast (2040) transportation system. The
following sections describe vehicular operations
at intersections and on corridors, non -motorized
operations, and transit service operations.
2.2.1 Intersection Operations
Intersection traffic operations evaluate the
performance of signalized and stop -controlled
intersections according to the industry
standards set forth in the HCM 2010. PM peak
hour traffic operations were evaluated at 30
study intersections using Synchro version 9.1.
The PM peak hour intersection operations
were selected due to the higher typical traffic
volumes occurring during that time period for a
single hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
Existing (2015) Intersection LOS
City of Yakima LOS standards are identified in
this Comprehensive Plan for roadways within
the City. For these roadways, the standard is
LOS D. Existing levels of service at key
intersections in City of Yakima are shown in
Figure 2-9. The results of the LOS analysis
indicate that all study intersections currently
meet City LOS standards, except for two
intersections located at 16th Avenue/Tieton
Drive (Signal), and 18th Street/Nob Hill
Boulevard (Signal). These two intersections
are located on arterial roadways which are
designated to serve a high number of vehicles.
2.2.2 Corridor Capacity
The existing regional travel demand model
includes a roadway capacity that provides an
estimated volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio that is
used to identify general areas where weekday
PM peak hour volumes approach or exceed
the capacity of the roadway. A roadway with
a v/c ratio of 1.0 is assumed to be at capacity.
As vehicle volumes approach peak roadway
capacity, travel times and vehicle delays typically
increase. While this does not necessarily mean
the roadways would need widening, it does
mean that these sections of roadway may need
to be monitored closely.
TERRACE HGTS DR
6TI 181
MEN 11NOWNEW
I
� z a
i�
C+CIDENTAL RD
0 0.5 Miles
Figure 2-9. Existing Intersection Vehicle Level of Service
11�1�-
11en11■■1�
_22___.■,.
11511m'l11f1 '1T ■1111��
y�"Ew111,�11 a■■i■i ■11q ■!
M ' �I��I I'�11�ra�1�r■■� ��
11!■.■.1111
��111111:��111 ""�
D a •: INLI1�11� � �11��' D lfliflni
1 �� N■��1
-�� .7_ r■tl� 111111111 111111 ��••••■•
AC11T,7111 _ r1111�111 11111 :=OMNI
B ■ �� 1 �:�� 11 '111�i � ��
!n>t>E
. , 1
• .V
•
In situations where the roadway has an excess
of capacity, the number of travel lanes could be
reduced to include bike lanes or other enhanced
non -motorized facilities in the street right-of-
way. Average Daily Traffic and roadway number
of lanes is shown in Figure 2-3.
General Guidance on Corridor Capacities
The specific corridor capacity is calculated based
on hourly vehicle traffic volumes and can be
impacted by many characters such as speeds,
number of lanes, lane widths, on -street parking,
and the number of access points per mile. In
addition, intersection capacity constraints can
limit the number of vehicles that a corridor
can efficiently move. However, transportation
professionals have created general guidance
("rules of thumb") on how to size major urban
streets based on Average Daily Traffic volumes,
such as:
3 -lane urban street capacity: 18,000 ADT
4 -lane urban street capacity: 25,000 ADT
5 -lane urban street capacity: 34,000 ADT
2.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SAFETY
The collision history of the transportation
system can help identify crash patterns for
all modes and is used in the development
of projects to improve the safety of the
City's roadways. Records for the most recent
complete five-year period were reviewed for all
collisions reported for the period of January 1,
2010 to December 31, 2014 in City of Yakima
as provided by WSDOT. An evaluation of the
location and severity of reported collisions was
completed to identify potential safety issues for
vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
2.3.1 Safety Analysis
The most recent collision data during a five-year
period for all roadways in the City of Yakima,
excluding state highways and interstates, were
used for analysis. The total number of collision
records reviewed over the 5 -year period totaled
over 8,000, and the number of collisions
reported by year is shown in Figure 2-10.
As shown in the figure, the total number of
collisions was lowest in 2012 before slowly
beginning to climb again through 2014. This
trend follows national observations in the total
number of vehicle miles traveled, which show
lower levels of vehicle travel following the Great
Recession.
2,000
0
0
1,500
0
0
1,000
Z
0
500
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 2-10. Total of All Reported Collisions
(2010 — 2014)
The total collisions over the 5 -year study period
are shown in Figure 2-11.
The locations of collisions were mapped to
identify roadway segments and intersections
with the most frequent number of collisions.
Roadways with higher volumes, such as
Principal Arterials, generally have higher
numbers of collisions.
2.3.2 Collision Rates
Crash rates were compiled by intersection and
along major roadway segments to identify
locations with potential safety issues. Crash
rates were analyzed to identify the average
crash frequency based on the number of
u v
mwi
L..�..7 - HINGTON AVE
OCCIDENTAL D __� r �•-�•���--���
AHTANUM RD ~•I
r -r -r -r -T-1
0 0.5 Miles Note: Collision Data collected from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2014
I
Figure 2-11. Vehicle Collisions (2010 — 2014)
wi
L
TERRACE HGTS DR
�� iTON AVE
•r•r I:�
.LEV LL BLV 9'. -J
I
7
WA I UM RD
•
transpogroup Tr
35
vehicles traveling through the intersections or
along the roadway. The typical measure for
determining crash rates at intersections is the
number of crashes per million entering vehicles
(MEV), while the typical measure for crash
rates on roadways is the number of crashes per
million vehicle miles (MVM).
The critical crash rate compares that location to
other intersections in the City that have similar
characteristics. Groups of intersections and
roadway segments were evaluated consistent
with guidance provided in Chapter 4 of the
Highway Safety Manual (HSM, American
Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials, 2010).
2.3.3 Collision Severity
Intersections with observed collision rates
higher than the critical collision rate were
flagged for further review, consistent with
guidance provided in the Highway Safety
Manual. The type and severity of reported
collisions provides insight into the circumstances
that resulted in higher collision rates at these
intersections.
The critical collision rate calculated for each
intersection compares that location to other
intersections in the City that have similar
characteristics. Three groups of intersections
were evaluated that included signals, two-way
stop -controls, and all -way stop -controls. This is
consistent with guidance provided in Chapter
4 of the Highway Safety Manual. Table 2-2
summarizes the factors and calculations used to
determine the critical collision rate for the study
intersections.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
As shown in Table 2-2, eight intersections had
an observed collision rate higher than the
intersection's critical collision rate. The Fair
Avenue/Nob Hill Boulevard intersection had
the highest observed collision rate at 1.61 with
"entering -at -angle" and "rear -end" being the
predominate collision types. The 40th Avenue/
Nob Hill Boulevard had a collision rate of 1.28
with "left-turn/thru collision" being most
common.
The remaining intersections had rates between
1.10 and 1.31 with rear end being the most
common. Generally rear end collisions are
associated with congested traffic conditions.
Five of the eight intersections had collisions
with pedestrians or bicycles. Of those five
intersections, the 16th Avenue/ Tieton Drive
intersection had the most with one pedestrian
collision and two bicycle collisions.
No stop -controlled (all -way or two-way) study
intersections had observed collision rates higher
than critical collision rates.
Table 2-2. Intersections with Collision Rates Exceeding the Critical Collision Rate (2010-2014)
40th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
21920 Signal
44
0
0
1.28
16th Ave /Tieton Dr
2,935 Signal
38
1
2
1.10
16th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
31550 Signal
53
0
1
1.25
3rd Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
3,265 Signal
32
1
1
1.12
1st St / `I' St
1,885 Signal
23
1
1
1.10
1st St / Nob Hill Blvd
3,575 Signal
61
0
0
1.32
1st St /Washington Ave
3,010 Signal
37
0
0
1.31
Fair Ave /Nob Hill Blvd
L
2,145 Signal
1.61
—
1. Total Entering Vehicles.
2. Collisions per MEV.
3. Calculated per Equation 4-10 in the Highway Safety Manual.
4. Calculated per Equation 4-11 in the Highway Safety Manual.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
0.87
1.02
Left Turn/Thru Collision
0.87
1.02
Rear End
0.87
1.00
Rear End
0.87
1.01
Rear End
0.87
1.06
Rear End
0.87
1.00
Rear End
0.87
1.02
Rear End
0.87
1.05
Entering at Angle/ Rear End
2.3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Collisions with pedestrian and bicycle crashes
were reviewed over the 5 -year period of crash
data obtained from WSDOT. Locations that
experienced multiple non -motorized collisions
were reviewed for any crash patterns. Roadways
with higher vehicle turning movements create
safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists.
Locations where sidewalks are not present or
only available on one side of the street can also
be particularly hazardous. In addition, the lack
of safe crossings on some corridors may be a
factor because pedestrians and cyclists could be
crossing at unsafe locations.
The types for roadways where pedestrian and
bicycle collisions were reported are shown in
Figure 2-12.
As shown in the figure, more than half of all
non -motorized collisions occurred on Principal
Arterials. While these roadways carry only a
portion of pedestrian and cyclists, they are
the roadways where most collisions between
vehicles and pedestrians or vehicles and cyclists
occurred. The location of all non -motorized
collisions reported over the 5 -year study period
are shown in Figure 2-13.
0
CITY OF YAKIMA
'T7 2040 Transportation System Plan
Minor Arterial
-ollector Arterial
_ Irincipal Arterial
Local Street
Figure 2-12. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions
by Street Type (2010 — 2014)
u N
Legend 1 CYk l��w
O Pedestrian Collisions eza
O Bicycle Collisions �—
Number of Collisions i, ��� i •�-
t� y • •.�•
O 2 T :s. 12
O3-5 FR��
r City Limits t i~ ` � i -
W
UGA Boundary L.t — u� i .� = ' • j
r f..�-CY�STLEVA E RD s 5 •
Park / Open Space �.._ _ h .j �•-�:ir z z ,-
lL..�• �. V _ • *4 Z ..a - N F
• > • • — O TERRACE HGTS DR
O• •ti..—.
�y 4 WLINO LN AVL W ti�
iO �t • 1
UMMI VIEWA FL
.�EYP �M N • •
i ♦i 1
s
I �..WWI 0ym ,'••� t
D I-
I P
�•••
_rJ U a W NO ti E NOS HI
DE HJLOVV RF%❑ F • •
• W DAVE
a
•� I 1 Y
0
L..—•' - W SHINGTONWAS ON AVE —J
i-
OCCIDENTAL D L.. r VALLEY LL SLV9'. .J
AHTANUM RD W AH UM RD
r -r -r-^, transpogroup �r
0 0.5 Miles Note: Collision Data collected from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2014
Figure 2-13. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2010 — 2014)
39
This page left intentionally blank.
TRAVEL FORECAST AND
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
2040 Transportation System Plan
IP!ROPANE
MES HILID t r
d BARBEpUE '
MOTOREOEL A •i
OPP
ENERGNit ki)
nm
We aw Yaki na
L6
This page left intentionally blank.
Travel Forecast and Alternatives Evaluation
3.1 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL AND
LAND USE FORECASTS
The YVCOG's regional travel demand model
was used to support the City's transportation
planning efforts. The travel demand model
provides a tool for forecasting long-range traffic
volumes based on the projected growth in
housing and employment. The model is also
useful in evaluating the impact of changes to the
roadway network.
Travel forecasts are largely derived based
on changes in households and employment
within the study area. In addition, the model
land use forecasts reflect regional planning
assumptions as defined by Yakima County's
growth allocations and YVCOG. Additional
information on residential and employment land
use forecasts assumed for the transportation
analysis can be found in the Land Use Element
of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City
developed two land use alternatives to be
evaluated in the Transportation Systems Plan
development process. These land use scenarios
are described below.
3.1.1 Baseline
(Alternative 1 or No Action)
The 2040 Baseline alternative was developed
to establish a framework for the Plan and to
identify future traffic operational deficiencies.
The Baseline alternative is also referred to as
Alternative 1 or the No Action alternative. This
land use scenario assumes current land use and
zoning within City limits remaining in place and
household and employment growth allocated
throughout the City consistent with historical
trends.
Regional growth outside the City limits reflect
assumptions in the YVCOG travel demand
model.
3.1.2 Preferred (Alternative 2)
The Preferred alternative is also referred to as
Alternative 2. This land use scenario assumed
changes to the future land use within Yakima
and additional goals/policies that promote
higher density infill -growth in areas closer to the
downtown and northeast/southeast Yakima.
For regional growth outside the City limits,
the same assumptions use for Baseline were
applied.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
3.2 VEHICLE FORECAST CONDITIONS
(2040)
Forecast travel conditions estimate where
future bottlenecks may occur based on future
travel demand. Travel demand is based on
anticipated changes to land use and the types
of trips generated based on the population and
employment allocations described in the Land
Use Element. The aggregation of those trips on
City roadways provides planners with a future
snapshot of the transportation system as a
whole.
Traffic volumes in urban areas are typically
highest during the weekday PM peak hour. This
reflects the combination of commuter work
trips, shopping trips, and other day-to-day
activities which result in travel between 4 and
6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Therefore, the
weekday PM peak hour is typically used for
evaluating transportation system needs.
The 2040 Baseline transportation system
includes committed transportation system
projects — those currently under construction
or fully funded. As a conservative assessment of
vehicle forecast conditions, the Baseline model
did not assume significant changes to the City
of Yakima network. The YVCOG model included an additional lane of
capacity along 1-82 through the urban areas of the county. In addition,
the YVCOG model included a new east -west road corridor connecting
northeast Yakima to eastern county areas across 1-82 and the Yakima
River.
3.2.1 Forecast Operations with Plan Framework
The 2040 Baseline model includes roadway capacities that provide an
estimated volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio that is used to identify general
areas where weekday PM peak hour volumes approach or exceed the
capacity of the roadway. A roadway with a v/c ratio of 1.0 is assumed
to be at capacity. As vehicle volumes approach peak roadway capacity,
travel times and vehicle delays typically increase. While this does not
necessarily mean the roadways would need widening, it does mean
that these sections of roadway may need to be monitored closely. No
roadway v/c issues were identified within the study area.
As described in the Existing Conditions section, intersection traffic
operations evaluate the performance of signalized and stop -controlled
intersections according to the industry standards set forth in the
Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Peak hour traffic operations were
evaluated at the study intersections based on level -of -service (LOS)
methodology.
City of Yakima LOS standards are identified in this Comprehensive
Plan for roadways within the incorporated areas of the City. For these
roadways, the City maintains an adopted standard of LOS D. The results
of the LOS analysis indicate that all study intersections will meet City
LOS standards with existing configurations and controls, except for
the intersections shown in Table 3-1. Nearly all the study intersections
would operate the same regardless of the land use alternative. The
Preferred Alternative generally shifts minor amounts of traffic to the
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
Table 3-1. Existing and Future Intersection LOS Summary
72nd Ave /Tieton Dr
Signal
C
E E
72nd Ave /Washington Ave
TWSC
D
F F
40th Ave / Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
C
E E
40th Ave / Englewood Ave
Signal
C
E D
40th Ave / Summitview Ave
Signal
D
E E
40th Ave / Tieton Dr
Signal
C
E E
40th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
F F
40th Ave /Washington Ave
Signal
B
E E
16th Ave / W Lincoln Ave
Signal
D
F F
16th Ave / W Tieton Dr
Signal
E
F F
16th Ave / W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
E E
16th Ave / W Washington Blvd
Signal
C
F F
3rd Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
C
E E
1st St / `I' St
Signal
B
E E
1st St / Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
E E
Fair Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
F E
18th St / Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
E E
downtown area, reducing volumes in other
areas of the City.
Selected transportation projects described
in Chapter 4 were developed to address
intersection and roadway deficiencies found in
the land use scenarios. Section 3.5 has more
discussion about how and why projects were
identified and selected for the Transportation
Systems Plan.
3.3 NON -MOTORIZED FORECAST
CONDITIONS
The non -motorized transportation network
within the City of Yakima and its UGA serves
pedestrians, cyclists, and other types of non -
motorized users. The future non -motorized
transportation network contained in the
Transportation Systems Plan builds upon
previous planning efforts that have identified
future routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.
These plans identify future pedestrian and
bicycle routes for the City of Yakima through a
combination of on -street facilities and off-street
pathways provide the core network for walkers,
cyclists, and other non -motorized users to
travel.
The City of Yakima will continue to develop
pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of
its transportation system improvements.
The TSP identifies the desired pedestrian
and bicycle systems plans, which will guide
the development and implementation of
improvement projects throughout the City. The
non -motorized systems plan includes facilities
on arterials, collectors, and local streets, as well
as multi -use trails. The bicycle and pedestrian
systems plans are discussed in section 4.2.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
3.4 TRANSIT
FORECAST CONDITIONS
To provide a comprehensive transportation
system, the City of Yakima recognizes the
importance of transit. As growth and density is
encouraged in the downtown core, a frequent
and reliable transit system can help move
people efficiently without the use of a personal
vehicle. The six-year (2016-2021) Yakima Transit
- Transit Development Plan, contains the transit
agency's short and long-range priorities, capital
improvements, and planned operating changes.
The City's transit system plan is discussed in
section 4.4.
3.5 PLAN FRAMEWORK
Based on the alternatives evaluation, the
Plan Framework was established for creating
its long-range multimodal street network.
The framework builds from the City's prior
Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Plans, as well
as other agency transportation improvement
programs. Below are the five key themes used
to create the Transportation Master Plan and
project list.
3.5.1 Maintain Connected Networks
The Transportation Systems Plan specifically
identifies the primary and secondary routes
for each of the major travel modes within the
city. When layering these separate network
plans together, urban corridors were classified
as "Auto Priority", "Bike/Ped Priority", or
"Shared Priority". This allows project funding
resources to be targeted to the best types of
improvements that would complete the overall
system. In addition, maintenance dollars could
also be prioritized based on the anticipated
street functions.
3.5.2 Expand Capacity
on Key Corridors
Reviewing the travel demand model volume
forecasts and intersection operations
analysis made it clear that Principal Arterials
will continue to be the core vehicle routes
throughout the City. Principal Arterials should
provide maximum vehicle capacity with 5
lanes, or if 5 lanes are not feasible, 4 lanes
with greater access control. Arterial -to -arterial
intersections should have traffic signals with
separate left -turn lanes, and if necessary dual
left -turn lanes and/or right -turn lanes.
3.5.3 Right -Size Urban Corridors
Many urban streets within the City are oversized
for the traffic demands expected by 2040 and
beyond. These are mostly 4 -lane roads classified
as local streets, major collectors, and even some
minor arterials. Reducing the number of lanes to
2 or 3 lanes improves safety, allows for on -street
parking, or provides space for bicycle facilities.
It is also much easier to create safe pedestrian
crossings on 2- or 3 -lane facilities compared to
4 -lane facilities.
Hefore
A[Ler
ROAD "DIET"
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
3.5.4 Bridge Non -Motorized Gaps
A review of the existing pedestrian and bicycle
facilities shows that there are major gaps in
connectivity throughout the overall system.
While all roads should accommodate all users,
the Transportation Systems Plan focuses on
projects that help bridge the existing gaps in the
system.
3.5.5 Facilitate
Economic Development
The transportation system can be a major
component in development of economic
growth in the area. Increased capacity along
1-82 and related interchanges helps drive
opportunities to the City. New roadways in the
Cascade Mill Site area provide the backbone
for redevelopment in that area. In downtown
areas and other activity centers within the
city, providing lower stress multimodal urban
corridors promotes economic vitality for the
City.
3.6 EMERGING
TRANSPORTATION TRENDS
In addition to formal transportation analysis and
forecasting, long-range planning also includes
anticipating emerging transportation trends that
may change basic assumptions concerning how
people travel and how transportation systems
operate. Transportation -related technology
has advanced quickly over the past decade,
will continue to accelerate, and will create
major shifts in transportation within the City of
Yakima. This section describes some of these
technology -related trends and the potential
impacts on Yakima's transportation system.
3.6.1 Autonomous Vehicles (AVs)
There is a great deal of uncertainty for
communities planning for autonomous
vehicles. Potential outcomes carry a wide
range of possibilities. Over the next 15 years, a
portion of the vehicles on the City's streets and
highways could be operating without drivers. It
is possible that 30 to 40 years from now all, or
nearly all, vehicles will be driverless or will have
driverless capabilities in certain situations. The
implementation of some of these technologies
may be within the 2040 planning horizon, and
thus the City should consider the ramifications
of these technologies on its transportation
network. A few key issues rise to the top of
what local agencies should contemplate while
preparing long-range plans.
Roadway Capacity and Safety
AVs will be able to space themselves closer
together, effectively increasing the capacity of
streets and highways. This is especially true
if AVs travel in narrower lanes with smaller
vehicles (assuming AV -only lanes and/or AV -only
urban areas). This implies that roadway capacity
improvements to accommodate more vehicles
could be postponed as the potential of AVs
becomes realized. In addition, AVs may reduce
many common accident risks.
Transit Service
Over half of the cost of operating buses is
related to the driver. In the future, replacing the
driver with AV technology may enable transit
operators to offer more service for the same
cost. Technology that clears lanes when buses
approach may allow them to avoid the same
congestion they now face. This would also
increase service as buses will be able to run
routes faster. Such technology may reduce the
need for investments in rail transit infrastructure
as buses may operate with close to the same
freedom that trains do on dedicated rights-of-
way.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
On -Demand or Shared Ride Regulations
The demand for shared ride services such as Lyft
and Uber may likely increase as the economics
improve without drivers. Public agencies would
likely need to address regulations regarding
these types of services, especially those that
offer pooling options for two, three or more
people to ride together.
Human Services Transportation
AVs may provide independent mobility for
low-income and disabled populations, reducing
the need for conventional demand response
services.
3.6.2 Parking Demand Shifts
It is likely that the economics of transportation
will dramatically change with widespread use
of on -demand or shared ride services. Car
ownership in urban areas may further decrease
if on -demand travel (with or without driverless
vehicles) becomes a legitimate alternative. This
would reduce the need for off-street parking at
places of employment or residential areas, but
would increase the demand for curbside areas
set aside for loading/unloading activities.
3.6.3 Connected Vehicles
Although it is not yet clear what the demand
for vehicle -to -infrastructure may ultimately
look like, cities might look ahead to providing
infrastructure as efficient reference points.
For example, light poles could become hubs
of wireless communication to/from vehicles.
Connected vehicle technology has the potential
to optimize traffic flow as computer systems
communicate with vehicles to moderate flow.
Cities should monitor technologies to prepare
for phased implementation of such systems.
3.6.4 Teleworking
Advances in technology and communication
infrastructure would facilitate the exponential
growth of teleworking in the next decade and
beyond. Per recent Census data, "not traveling
at all" accounts for more than two percent of
the overall national mode split and is increasing
at a greater rate than all other modes. Factors
that are fueling this change include: improving
communications and collaboration technologies;
increased high-speed broadband availability;
and the proliferation of web -based applications.
The land use and transportation implications of
this trend are wide ranging including: reduced
vehicle -miles traveled, reduced roadway
congestion; reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
and, greater number of employees choosing to
live further from job sites.
3.6.5 Transportation
Funding Methods
The traditional transportation funding method
of taxing fuels has become unsustainable
as transportation technology changes. The
emerging funding trends point to user fees
in the form of facility tolling or pay -per -mile
taxes. These "user fees" would directly impact
commuting costs and incentivize less frequent
or shorter vehicle trips.
3.6.6 Emerging Trends Takeaways
It remains unclear whether these new
technologies (or others) will be implemented
by agencies, vehicle manufacturers, and
related industries. The shifts may be relatively
quick (within a decade) or take much longer
to develop. The following list highlights the
emerging trends takeaways as the City of Yakima
plans for the future.
► Growth in commute vehicle trips is likely to
decline over time as teleworking technology
improves.
► Agencies can play a major role in how
connected vehicle infrastructure gets
implemented, which can lead to better traffic
management.
CITY OF YAKIMA
IRS � 2040 Transportation System Plan
► Growth in car ownership is likely to continue
to decline due to on -demand services and
commuting costs. This would likely increase
demands for non -motorized and transit
modes. This would also decrease the need for
off-street parking.
► Demand for curb space for loading/unloading
for AV and on -demand services would likely
increase dramatically. This could impact on -
street parking or default cross-sections.
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS PLAN
2040 Transportation System Plan
We aw Vak&na
ACk 411.1-M Mi
This page left intentionally blank.
Transportation Systems Plan
The Transportation Systems Plan provides
the blueprint for improvement projects
and programs to meet the multimodal
transportation needs of the community.
Each mode has a separate systems plan that
harmonize together to build the overall City
plan. The Transportation Systems Plan is based
on the evaluation of existing system deficiencies
and forecasts of future travel demands. The
improvement projects and programs must be
balanced with the availability of funding, as
discussed in Chapter 5.
The Transportation Systems Plan is organized
and presented by travel mode to provide
an overview of key components of each
element. However, the Plan is integrated to
create a multimodal transportation system.
For example, improvements along arterial
streets and highways also incorporate
appropriate non -motorized improvements.
The non -motorized systems were defined
to support access to transit, and to provide
alternatives to automobile travel within the
City. As improvement projects move toward
implementation, the City will conduct detailed
design studies, supported with project -level
environmental review, and input from the public
and other stakeholders.
A key implementation tool of the Transportation
Systems Plan is a defined network classification
system. Network classifications include the
Roadway Functional Classification, the Travel
Context Classification, and the Truck Route
Classification. These classifications directly
influence the street cross-section design
standards as City streets are reconstructed,
improved, or enhanced.
Each of the mode plans illustrate how the City
of Yakima's transportation system supports, and
relies on, transportation facilities and programs
provided by other agencies. These include
new or improved interchanges with 1-82 and
US 12, consistency of the arterial and collector
road system, connectivity of trails and non -
motorized transportation systems, additional
transit service and facilities, and rideshare
programs. The City will continue to coordinate
with WSDOT, Yakima County, and adjacent
cities develop a comprehensive multimodal
transportation system for the greater Yakima
area.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
irl
OUTLINE OF PLAN MAPS
NETWORK CLASSIFICATION
Functional Classification
Travel Context Classification
Truck Route Classification
System Plan Maps
STREET AND HIGHWAY
SYSTEM PLAN
Pedestrian System Plan
Bicycle System Plan
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MAPS
Transportation Projects
4.1 NETWORK CLASSIFICATIONS
Network classifications are one of the key
implementation tools of the Transportation
System Plan by establishing priorities. It is
unreasonable and uneconomical to build each
street to accommodate every function and user
and so priorities must be set. The Functional
Classification identifies whether mobility or
access is a priority for each street. The Travel
Context Classification identifies whether auto,
bikes, or pedestrians are the priority for each
street. The Truck Route Classification identifies
routes that should be designed to accommodate
regular truck activity.
The following sections provide more details on
these network classifications.
4.1.1 Functional
Classification Systems
Roadways are classified by their intended
function to provide for a selection of roadways
that provide varying degrees of access and
mobility. Figure 4-1 shows the relationship
between access, mobility, and street types.
The City of Yakima maintains a functional
classification that is tied to the City's roadway
plans and street standards. In addition to the
City's functional classification system, there
are federal and state roadway designations.
Federal and state grant programs provide
funding for improvement projects that are on
streets classified by federal or state roadway
designations.
City of Yakima Functional Classification
The City's Functional Classification defines
the characteristics of individual roadways to
accommodate the travel needs of all roadway
users. The functional classification of the City
of Yakima street system establishes five types
of streets: State Highways, Principal Arterials,
Minor Arterials, Major Collectors, and Local
Streets. Table 4-1 describes the roadway
characteristics of these classifications recognized
by the City. A map depicting the functional
classification designations for City roadways is
provided in Figure 4-2.
Access Management and Vehicle Capacity
The term access management relates directly
to the functional classification. Higher mobility
means that greater access control is necessary,
meaning better management of streets
and driveways accessing the street. That
access control on City streets is called Access
Management. Many Principal Arterials within
the city have a high number of access points
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
FREEWAYS
ARTERIAL
STREETS
COLLECTOR
STREETS
LOCAL
STREETS
Figure 4-1. Functional Classification
Relationship between Mobility and Access
(driveways and streets) which inherently limit
mobility, and ultimately vehicle capacity. In
other words, better aligning the functional
classification and access management will
improve vehicle capacity on the arterial street
corridors.
Figure 4-2. Roadway Functional Classification
N�
Legend
�w
Functional Classification
$23
Principal Arterial
r—�
-'�•
Minor Arterial
•��•
Major Collector
moon Future Principal Arterial
- 12
I
Future Minor Arterial
-
r City Limits
w
1�
UGA Boundary`
f 4..1
f r �ti •.1 {
•�
_
"C -y
-CFI STLEVALE RD
� N
+•" F -
� w M : • +• ';+. Y �
Park / Open Space
••—
#��
'"'
TER CE HGTS DR
1
`L._.J
'i
-
4 wLl
NAv
— '•
p.•"
•SU NII VIEW
FT
_ _
5 O
EYP _
A
E
z
\NYPK`
TW
_TI
5
I D
'H
I I I Ll
I �
�
w _rJINQRHIII
w
RIVn
E NOS HILL D
IV•
l
I I
I
MEAD AVE '-
,
4U
•,
�••�-•1
SHINGTON AVE
�
WA
`
IN94TAVE
r
f
.F -
;
•
iVA4I
Mq �� BLVD5
IOCCInFNTAI
i
RD
LL
r
L..
r
VALLEY 4LL SLVdP.
.J
{.-.�
AHTANUM RD
WAH
UM RD
_
z
trans o rou
P Tr
9 P
0 0.5 Miles
i _ ,
Figure 4-2. Roadway Functional Classification
Table 4-1. City of Yakima Functional
Classification Definitions
Local streets provide direct access
to adjoining properties, commercial
businesses, and similar traffic
destinations. These roadways also
provide traffic circulation within or
Local Streets through neighborhoods. Local streets
typically carry low volumes of traffic,
at relatively low speeds. Through
traffic is generally discouraged through
appropriate geometric design and/or
traffic control devices.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
4.1.2 Travel Context Classification Bike/Ped Priority Classification
The Transportation System Plan was developed The Bike/Ped Priority class emphasizes bicycle
using traditional planning techniques to
State Highways connect major regions
State
with one another, and WSDOT classifies
Highways
certain State highways as Highways of
vision of a safe and attractive motorized and
Statewide Significance.
non -motorized transportation system. The City
Principal Arterials serve both local and
of Yakima will continue to develop pedestrian
through traffic entering and leaving the
Principal
City and provide access to major activity
Arterials
centers within Yakima. The Principal
vehicle capacity at key intersections and streets.
Arterials also connect the minor arterial
and collector street system to the
freeways.
Minor Arterial Streets support
moderate -length trips and provide
Minor
connections between neighborhoods
Arterials
and community/regional activity centers
There is a higher degree of access and
lower vehicular travel speed than on
major arterials.
Major Collectors are the intermediate
Major
street classification. They provide a link
Collectors
between local roadways and the arterial
system providing a balance between
access and mobility.
Local streets provide direct access
to adjoining properties, commercial
businesses, and similar traffic
destinations. These roadways also
provide traffic circulation within or
Local Streets through neighborhoods. Local streets
typically carry low volumes of traffic,
at relatively low speeds. Through
traffic is generally discouraged through
appropriate geometric design and/or
traffic control devices.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
4.1.2 Travel Context Classification Bike/Ped Priority Classification
The Transportation System Plan was developed The Bike/Ped Priority class emphasizes bicycle
using traditional planning techniques to
and pedestrian mobility over other modes.
establish a foundation with key connection
Posted vehicle speeds would be lower and the
and facility types added to develop a holistic
number of vehicle lanes would be minimized.
vision of a safe and attractive motorized and
non -motorized transportation system. The City
Shared Priority Classification
of Yakima will continue to develop pedestrian
The Shared Priority class represents corridors
and bicycle facilities as part of its transportation
were vehicle mobility is balanced with non -
system improvements, in addition to expanding
motorized travel comfort. This type of street has
vehicle capacity at key intersections and streets.
been referred to as a "complete street".
The type and size of pedestrian, bicycle, and
vehicle facilities is dependent on the travel
context of the street. The Travel Context
Classification along with the Functional
Classification is referenced in the City's street
design standards.
The following describes the three Travel Context
Classifications. Figure 4-3 shows the travel
context classification for the City of Yakima.
Auto Priority Classification
The Auto Priority class emphasizes automobile
mobility over other modes. Pedestrian and
bicycle facilities are focused on facilitating
local access, however overall non -motorized
travel would be more comfortable on alternate
parallel routes.
•7
{... r AHTANUM RD ~•I
r_r_r_rT_I
0 0.5 Miles
� f
Figure 4-3. Travel Context Classification Map
--iu
�z
d 411* +�
■ •� ��♦
I
Z l
1j4 •�.` TERRACE HGTS DR
all if#..fi.
iillllll�:�:!!� f -111
111111
1111111
� N
ANUM
I
P 9
trans o rouP Tr
55
4.1.3 Truck Route Classification
The City of Yakima has a significant level of
truck activity. With increased commercial and
employment growth forecast through 2040,
the level of truck activity will also increase. To
systematically address the needs of future truck
travel, the City has adopted a defined system of
truck routes.
As shown in Figure 4-4, the Truck Route system
generally connects freight generating areas
with 1-82 and US 12. In northwest Yakima,
Summitview Avenue and 40th Avenue are the
major routes. In northeast Yakima, 16th Avenue
and 1st Avenue connect Fruitvale Boulevard
and Downtown areas to US 12. Yakima Avenue,
Lincoln Avenue, and Martin Luther King
Boulevard connect downtown areas to 1-82.
In southeast and southwest Yakima, Nob Hill
Boulevard, Washington Avenue, Valley Mall
Boulevard, and Ahtanum Road connect areas to
1-82.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, WSDOT's Freight
and Goods Transportation System (FGTS)
classifies state highways, county roads, and city
arterials according to average annual gross truck
tonnage. The following corridors in the greater
Yakima area are designated as part of a Strategic
Freight Corridor (T-1 or T-2 in Figure 2-8):
► 1-82 throughout Yakima County
► US 12, between City of Naches and 1-82
► Yakima Avenue/Terrace Heights Drive,
between 8th Street (Yakima) and 41st Street
(Yakima County)
► SR 24, between 1-82 (Yakima) and University
Parkway (Yakima County)
► Ahtanum Road, between 90th Avenue
(Yakima) and Main Street (Union Gap)
► Main Street, between Union Gap City Limits
and Ahtanum Road (Union Gap)
► Valley Mall Boulevard, between Main Street
(Union Gap) and 1-82 (Union Gap).
4.1.4 Other Street Classifications
The following classifications are included as
reference. Federal and state classification
systems serve different purposes from the
City classifications, particularly as it relates to
funding.
Federal Functional Classification
The Federal Functional Classification system
provides a hierarchy of roadways as defined
by the Federal Highway Administration. This
classification system defines the role of travel
through a network of roadways, rather than
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
focusing on individual roadways. As a result,
the Federal Functional Classification differs
in several ways from the City's Functional
Classification.
Changes to the Federal Functional Classification
may be submitted through the Washington State
Department of Transportation.
National Highway System
The National Highway System (NHS) includes the
Interstate Highway System as well as other roads
important to the nation's economy, defense,
and mobility as defined by the Federal Highway
Administration. Both 1-82 and US 12 and are
classified as NHS facilities.
Highways of Statewide Significance
WSDOT designates interstate highways and
other principal arterials that are needed to
connect major communities in the state as
Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS). This
designation assists with the allocation of some
state and federal funding. These roadways
typically serve corridor movements having
travel characteristics indicative of substantial
statewide and interstate travel. 1-82 and SR 12
are HSS facilities.
� 1 1
_ OC (DENTAL RD •--
4.. AH
r -r -r -r -T-1
0 0.5 Miles
� f
Figure 4-4. Truck Route Classification
-{ U
:AD AVE--�
1
1
1
1
transpogroup Tr
�i
57
4.2 SYSTEM PLANS BY TRAVEL MODE
The Yakima Transportation System Plan
combines the system plans from three different
travel modes: vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicycles. The following sections highlights detail
included in each of the system plans: Highway
and Street System Plan, Pedestrian System Plan,
and Bicycle System Plan.
4.2.1 Highway and Street System
Streets and state highways are the backbone
of the transportation system serving the City
of Yakima and surrounding communities. They
provide for the overall movement of people and
goods, for a wide range of travel modes. Streets
and highways serve automobile trips, trucks,
transit, vanpools, carpools, and the majority of
bicycle and pedestrian travel. Therefore, the
streets and highways establish the framework
for the overall transportation system for the
City.
Figure 4-5 highlights the highway and street
system envisioned for the City of Yakima based
on the size (number of lanes) and connectivity
of City arterials and collectors. Most Principal
Arterials are anticipated to be 4 to 5 lanes
to best facilitate vehicular travel throughout
the City. Existing Principal arterials limited to
4 lanes would be widened to 5 lanes where
possible. Where widening Principal Arterials is
mpractical, then greater Access Management
vould be anticipated over time. Example
:orridors include 40th Street, 16th Street,
Lst Street, Fruitvale Boulevard, Summitview
3oulevard, Nob Hill Boulevard, and Valley Mall
3oulevard.
linor Arterials would be 3 to 5 lanes wide
epending on anticipated traffic volumes in the
rea. Major Collectors would be limited to 2 to
lanes, with possible exceptions in commercial
reas. Existing Major Collectors with 4 lanes
could likely be reduced to 3 lanes in the future.
acal streets are mostly 2 lanes with possible
xceptions in commercial areas.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
Rail Crossings
Rail crossings are an important consideration
when developing the Highway and Street System
Plan. For safety and mobility reasons, Principal
Arterials ideally would have grade -separated rail
crossings. Fortunately, most of Yakima's Principal
Arterials cross rail lines with grade -separated
structures (Lincoln Avenue, Martin Luther King
Boulevard, Nob Hill Boulevard, and Valley Mall
Boulevard). In addition, US 12 provides a major
grade -separated crossing of the railroad corridor.
In the long-term plan, an additional grade -
separated crossing is anticipated between 5th
Avenue and 1st Street north of downtown. This
will reduce the crossing conflicts at nearby 'I'
Street.
The Highway and Street System plan anticipates
that the rail crossings at Yakima Avenue and
16th Avenue (both Principal Arterials) would
remain at -grade.
Minor Arterials also have major rail crossings.
Walnut Street is the only grade -separated
crossing for a Yakima Minor Arterial. At -grade
crossings are present at 'I' Street, Mead Avenue,
and Washington Avenue. Changes to these
routes or parallel routes are anticipated to
reduce vehicle -rail conflicts in the future.
W-1111 w
■s�� ■
W11,11-11 In, Mks'
14�MEN 1`MENEIRE1:;:�� Iilw �sl, ► _�!i1M�ii�� ��� 1
i1C M �i■J ",11` it 11
IIi �Ih I��� IWIY11
fiN1-fill M
S-HINGT
AVE
Cl
4.2.2 Pedestrian System
Sidewalks, walkways, and multi -use trails are
integral to the City's overall transportation
system. The City generally desires to have
sidewalks or comparable pedestrian facilities
on both sides of streets, unless special
circumstances make it physically or cost
prohibitive. In addition, safe crossings are
desired at regular intervals along a corridor
to discourage unsafe pedestrian and cyclist
crossings of arterial roadways.
The City requires that new developments
construct sidewalks on their internal streets
and adjacent frontages. This process has helped
the City convert the rural roadways developed
under Yakima County road standards into the
urban facilities needed to support the additional
growth and higher traffic volumes within the
City. Developer improvements will continue
to provide for a large portion of the ultimate
pedestrian system; however, even with those
improvements some significant gaps would
remain in sidewalks along arterial and collector
corridors.
Figure 4-6 illustrates the priority pedestrian
system plan for the City. The primary pedestrian
routes indicate those corridors that have the
highest priority for establishing a completely
connected sidewalk and trail network. The
secondary network indicates the arterials and
collector streets that also should have basic
pedestrian facilities. The street design standards
will indicate the type of pedestrian facilities
based on the Functional Classification and Travel
Context Classification of the street segment.
Most of the additional pedestrian facilities will
be constructed as part of associated roadway
projects. These may be constructed as part of
developer frontage requirements or as part of a
capital project by the City of Yakima or another
agency. In some corridors, pedestrian facilities
will be provided through development of multi-
use trails separated from the travel lanes.
Safe Routes to Schools
The Pedestrian System Plan is meant to provide
a backbone of pedestrian facilities throughout
the City of Yakima. However, it is also recognized
that safe routes to neighborhood schools would
also be a priority. The Pedestrian System Plan is
meant to be complement rather than compete
with safe -routes -to -school travel networks.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
WSi:
Piro IMM&M
IL
��.�■ � r..■ IIS
169 11h k rM..
MUM
NEW
1Il==
Iffaill ua:l'g 111111-1 ;�y j � ��rq��:i 11■ �, 8 2
Yu91 1�■ill I>Il 1����. _r. _ter monsoon
C,IIL �. I 10111! Ilium. 119f,"n, � I NMI;
il��lil'::::::: 11111 II join
Ii1111�� � IllMill
""ls�loolooi lil 1
I��� Iwlu:l 1111 �e:: �111!::■ 111 �:� .: :n �
OUR
ill v i
�! .11 �rn
C1
4.2.3 Bicycle System
The bicycle system plan provides a
comprehensive network of attractive bicycle
facilities between the City's residential
neighborhoods, the transit system, employment
areas, schools, and parks.
The bicycle facilities will include multi -use trails,
protected bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, bike
lanes, bike routes, and bicycle boulevards on
lower volume roadways (see Figure 4-7). The
primary bicycle routes indicate those corridors
that have the highest priority for establishing a
completely connected bicycle facility network.
The secondary network indicates the arterials
and collector streets that also should have basic
bicycle facilities. Wide shoulders on higher
speed roads and shared lane markings on low
speed, low volume roads are appropriate bike
facilities in the adjacent rural areas. Specific
improvements for each corridor are identified,
however project level planning and engineering
studies are still required to determine feasibility
on a project by project basis.
Bicycle facilities would be along most key
arterials, excluding most Principal Arterials
due to high vehicle and truck volumes and
limited right-of-way. The main east -west bicycle
corridor would be Chestnut Avenue in western
Yakima and Walnut Street in eastern Yakima.
Major north -south bicycle corridors would be
64th Avenue, 44th Avenue, 32nd Avenue, 24th
Avenue, 11th/10th Avenue (south of Walnut
Street), and 5th Avenue (north of Walnut
Street). Direct connections to the Yakima
Greenway and Cowiche Canyon trails are also
provided.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
Key investment priorities include completion
of short gaps in the existing bike lane system,
construction of continuous bike lanes and
bicycle boulevards which provide alternatives to
bicycling on arterials, connecting neighborhoods
to destinations like schools and parks.
Figure 4-8 shows the planned bicycle system
plan for Yakima and the surrounding areas.
Multiuse Trail Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Lane
Wide Shoulder
1071 i L
NklVi "I'A,
il7ff,
Shared Roadway*
,d Y ,
*Shared roadways on low volume, low speeds Ire els that include safe arterial crossings are called Bicycle Boulevards. Bicycle
Boulevards may use motor vehicle speed or volume management treatments to ensure safe and comfortable travel for bicyclists.
Figure 4-7. Examples of Bicycle Facilities
Source: Tool Design Group 2017
Legend
Primary Bike Route
Secondary Bike Route
Future Primary Route
1,
r City Limits'��;
UGA Boundary
Park Open / Open Space r—
�rr�.,ti_
Jft
0
z
r•
w SUMMI IEWAVE
J¢
TTIF
Till nm np
J ❑
� z
L-cl s
i ❑MA 111 11
z
� -- r ----•--..i �..� �'--••--•----•--ice•.
Iwo
{... _.. �' AHTANUM RD
0 0.5 Miles ly
F
Figure 4-8. Bicycle System Plan
)AAM L02 %N!"M
r
N O&W-H
ANUM
� ill
transpogroup Tr
63
4.3 STREET DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Street Design Guidelines are an integral
part of implementing the Transportation System
Plan. The Functional Classification and Travel
Context Classification work together to inform
City staff on the type of cross-section that would
be anticipated for each roadway segment.
Table 4-2 shows the Street Design Guidelines
for the City of Yakima. For Principal Arterials,
only the Auto Priority and Shared Priority
classifications are relevant. For Minor Arterials
and Collectors, all three Travel Context
Classifications are provided.
The following are general observations about
each design element.
► Posted Speeds. Vehicle speeds would be 30
mph or less where bicyclist are anticipated.
Otherwise arterial speeds could be 35 to 40
mph.
► Number of Travel Lanes. Number of lanes
would be dictated by the Highway and Street
System Plan.
► Center Median. For safety and mobility
reasons, a center median is always
recommended on arterials and collectors.
► Travel Lane Widths. Auto priority areas
would have wider lanes (12 feet), otherwise
narrower lanes are recommended. This
does not include any width for shoulders or
buffers.
► Shoulder/Buffer. Buffers would always be
recommended, especially adjacent to bike
facilities.
► Bike Facilities. Facilities would not be
recommended on higher speed facilities.
Otherwise they would be recommended or
required.
► On -Street Parking. Parking would only be
provided on lower speed minor arterials and
collectors.
CITY OF YAKIMA
IRS � 2040 Transportation System Plan
LJ
Table 4-2. Street Design Guidelines
Posted Speed (mph)
Number of Travel
Lanes
Center Median/
Turn Lanes
Travel Lane Widths
Shoulder/ Buffer
Bike Facilities
Auto Priority' Shared Priority Auto Priority
35 to 40 35
5 5
Recommended
Wide:
11 to 12 ft
(wider outside
lane for freight)
Recommended
Not
recommended
Recommended
Narrower:
10 to 12 ft
Recommended
Encourage parallel
routes or use
barrier separated
facilities
35
Shared Pedestrian/
Priority2 Bicycle'
Auto Priority
30 30 or less 30
5 3 3
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
S
—'Fa-
red Pedestrian/
Priority° Bicycle
25 25
3 3
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Wide:
(high -turnover)
g ft or more g ft or more g ft or more
Sidewalk Buffer/ (no planting), (no planting), (no planting), 4 ft or more for 4 ftor more for 4 ftor more for 4 ftor more for
4 ft or more
None
11 to 12 ft
Narrower:
Narrower:
Narrower:
Narrower:
Narrower:
(wider outside
10 to 12 ft
10 to 11 ft
10 to 12 ft
10 to 12 ft
10 to 11 ft
lane for freight)
than 30 mph are preferred for on -road bike facilities. Bike facilities should not be precluded forfacilities with
higher speeds if no parallel facilities existing within a half mile. Greater protection for bike lanes in terms of 5. Central Business District streets require 12 ft sidewalk
lateral separation and physical barriers used should be provided as speed and volume increases.
Recommended
Recommended
Use to buffer
Recommended
Use to buffer
Use to buffer
bike lanes
bike lanes
bike lanes
Auto Priority
20-25
2
No
Narrower:
10 to 11 ft
Recommended
Not recommended Recommended Required Not recommended Recommended Required Not
recommended
If no bike lane, 7 f 7 f 7 f
7 f
Not Not Not 7 ft (low -turnover) (low -turnover) (low -turnover)
(low -turnover) 7 ft
On -Street Parking recommended recommended recommended (low -turnover), 8ft 8ft 8ft
8ft(high-turnover)
8ft (low -turnover)
(high -turnover) (high -turnover) (high -turnover)
(high -turnover)
g ft or more g ft or more g ft or more
Sidewalk Buffer/ (no planting), (no planting), (no planting), 4 ft or more for 4 ftor more for 4 ftor more for 4 ftor more for
4 ft or more
None
Planting Strip 4 ft or more 4 ft or more 4 ft or more street trees street trees street trees street trees
for street trees
(with planter) (with planter) (with planter)
Sidewalk' 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard,
5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum ' 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum ' 5 ft minimum 5 ft minimum
7 ft standard, 5 ft minimum
5 ft minimum
Source: Toole Design Group
1. Wider travel lanes (greater than 11 ft) are appropriate in locations with high volumes of heavy vehicles (greater 3. Strategies to reduce motor vehicle speeds to lower than 30 mph must be included with the inclusion of bike
than 8%) or designated freight or transit routes; Planting strip may be wider, widths are based on minimum tree facilities. Also, greater protection for bike lanes in terms of lateral separation and physical barriers used should be
pit dimensions. provided as speed and volume increases. Consider using parking lane
to buffer bike lane from vehicle lanes.
2. Consider strategies to reduce motor vehicle speeds to preferred levels; for higher volume roads, speeds of lower 4. Widersidewalks and planting strips are recommended.
than 30 mph are preferred for on -road bike facilities. Bike facilities should not be precluded forfacilities with
higher speeds if no parallel facilities existing within a half mile. Greater protection for bike lanes in terms of 5. Central Business District streets require 12 ft sidewalk
lateral separation and physical barriers used should be provided as speed and volume increases.
4.4 TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION
DEMAND MANAGEMENT
To provide a comprehensive transportation
system, the City of Yakima recognizes the
importance of transit and transportation
demand management (TDM) programs. In
general, these programs build on regional
programs with some refinements to reflect the
specific needs of the City.
4.4.1 Transit System
Transit service in the Yakima area is provided
by Yakima Transit. Yakima Transit has submitted
to WSDOT a six-year Transit Development Plan
(TDP) for the period 2016 to 2021. The TDP
provides a framework to guide Yakima Transit's
service delivery through the next six years.
The City should continue to work with Yakima
Transit to improve transit services and develop
a convenient, integrated and efficient transit
system that supports future growth.
Yakima Transit's 6 -year TDP identifies a variety
of investments targeted at bringing back service.
Other than capital investments in vehicle
replacements and equipment upgrades, Yakima
Transit doesn't have any significant operating
changes planned for the 2016-2021 period.
4.4.2 TDM Programs
The expansion of existing TDM programs are
recommended to reduce the overall amount
of travel by single -occupancy vehicles within
the City. TDM programs are coordinated with
regional agencies such as Yakima County,
Yakima Transit and Yakima Valley Conference of
Governments (YVCOG).
The City of Yakima identifies Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) policies in the City's Bicycle
Master Plan, which includes policies found in
the Yakima Valley Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) (see Chapter 1 of the Bicycle Master Plan)
The YVCOG discusses components of the CTR
program including:
► Ridesharing - Employers can develop and
maintain a database of home addresses
to facilitate carpool and vanpool matching
between employees working on the same
site. Employers can also provide financial
incentives or reserved parking spaces for
carpool and vanpool vehicles.
► Flexible and Alternative Work Schedules —
Flexible work hour schedules allow employees
to adjust start/end times to accommodate
carpools, vanpools, or transit options.
Alternative work schedules can also be used
to reduce the number of days an employee
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
commutes during peak travel periods. These
programs help reduce the need for adding
capacity to highways and arterials, and reduce
the levels of peak hour congestion.
Telecommuting — The use of
telecommunications technology can allow
some employees to work from home,
reducing the need for travel to and from a
work site for some work days.
► Secured Bicycle Parking and Showers —
Secured bicycle parking could be provided
near major employment centers, preferably
in a covered, weather -protected area. Shower
facilities at work sites are also desirable to
encourage commuting by bicycle.
4.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Level of service (LOS) for vehicles has been
part of transportation planning for decades,
but recently cities and other jurisdictions are
recognizing the need to evaluate transportation
system performance for other modes as well.
Levels of service are measured for vehicles
using methodologies identified in the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM 2010, Transportation
Research Board). HCM 2010 is a nationally
recognized and locally accepted method
of measuring traffic flow and congestion.
Criteria range from LOS A, indicating free-
flow conditions with minimal vehicle delays
to LOS F. While the HCM 2010 includes LOS
methodologies for measuring the quality of
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, these
more detailed analyses are generally reserved
for corridor studies or subarea plans and
therefore not included as part of the citywide
Transportation System Plan.
4.5.1 Vehicle LOS
Signalized intersection LOS is defined in terms
of a weighted average control delay for the
entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the
increase in travel time that a vehicle experiences
due to the traffic signal control and provides a
surrogate measure for driver discomfort and
fuel consumption. Signalized intersection LOS
is stated in terms of average control delay per
vehicle.
Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be
further reduced into three intersection types
present within the City of Yakima: roundabouts,
all -way stop, and two-way stop control. LOS
for roundabouts and all -way stop control
intersections is expressed in terms of the
weighted average control delay of the overall
intersection or by approach. Two-way stop -
controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of
the average control delay for each minor -street
movement as well as major -street left -turns.
City Level of Service Standards
The City has established LOS standards to
provide for adequate mobility of traffic at
intersections and adjacent roadways. The
City maintains an LOS standard of D for
all intersections, including traffic signals,
roundabouts, and stop -controlled intersections.
In certain cases, unsignalized two-way stop
controlled intersections may be allowed to
operate below the LOS standard on the minor
street if a signal or roundabout improvement
is not warranted. The lower LOS standard
for unsignalized, two-way stop controlled
intersections reflects the desire to minimize
delays on the major street and through street
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
traffic, while supporting safe and efficient
operations from the minor streets.
4.5.2 Non -Motorized System LOS
Non -Motorized System LOS refers to evaluating
the pedestrian and bicycle system as a means
to understanding how the non -motorized
system is operating at a given time. The City
has not adopted a non -motorized system LOS
standard, but will be evaluating options for
implementation in the future. The potential
goals would be to (1) monitor how the non -
motorized system is improving over time
and (2) identify metrics that show how new
development is impacting the non -motorized
system.
4.6 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
& PROGRAMS
The City has identified a comprehensive
list of multimodal transportation system
improvement projects and programs. The
multimodal improvement projects address
transportation needs within the existing City
limits. Improvements under other jurisdictions
include previously identified projects as well as
potential improvements identified by the City
of Yakima. The City will continue to coordinate
with the other agencies in their transportation
planning efforts to facilitate development of a
comprehensive transportation system for the
City and surrounding communities. Figure 4-9
shows a map of the projects.
Each of the projects have been assigned a likely
timing horizon of short-range (2015-2020), mid-
range (2021-2030), and long-range (2031-2040).
The timing blends the relative priority of each
project with the likely timing to be able to fund,
design, and construct an improvement project.
The timing horizon also takes into consideration
the availability of funding, which is presented in
Chapter 5.
Planning level cost estimates were prepared for
each project under the jurisdiction of the City
of Yakima. The planning level cost estimates
are based on typical unit costs for different
project types. The cost estimates also account
for potential right-of-way acquisition, and
engineering design Costs of specific needs
such as a bridge or major power lines are
also incorporated, at a planning level. All cost
estimates are reported in 2015 dollars.
The projects were categorized as follows (and
shown in Tables 4-3):
Intersection Improvements include upgrading
intersections through added turn lanes or
modifications to traffic controls. Where
applicable, improvements may also include
upgrading traffic signals and implementing
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which
could encompass modifications to vehicle
detection and coordinated signal timing.
Active Transportation Improvements add
pedestrian and bicycle facilities to roadways
or construct off-street multiuse pathways to
complete gaps in the existing non -motorized
network.
Study includes further analysis and evaluation
to develop more detailed improvement
projects and cost estimates.
Roadway Improvements include modifying
roadways to current City design standards
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
and incorporating multimodal improvements
to serve higher traffic volumes and non -
motorized travel.
New Roadway includes constructing new
arterials or collector roads, including non -
motorized facilities.
Legend
Intersection Improvement
Active Transportation
Study r..--•�
Roadway Improvement
j6, New Roadway
r
O Or — f�
Intersection —
Roadway 1'"�-_'.��±% ; •✓
i 'l City Limits '
UGA Boundary
Park/Open Space
_ w SUMMIT IEW AVE
�¢ I
,J ❑
•I , I Z
TIE rON DR
0
• � m
WIDE HOLLOW R fir'•
s'
OC IDENTAL RD
{..._ AHTANUM RD
0 0.5 Miles
—J f
Figure 4-9. Transportation Improvement Projects
R-1 N2�
A27 N1
R-28
. R-3 A-30
S"It R
�...R r.. -s11
_ A-7 m=R-227 �1 1
E� � l _A-28
11::L ;4 8z
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
Table 4-3. Transportation Improvement Projects
1-1
Nob Hill Blvd / Fair Ave
Intersection
Widen Nob Hill Boulevard through the intersection, construct left -turn lane, curb, gutter,
$1,900,000 Medium
Intersection Improvements
sidewalk, street lighting and drainage. Upgrade signal by installing mast arm structures.
Nob Hill Blvd / 18th St
Provide dual southbound left -turn lanes. Add westbound right -turn lane. Install curb,
1-2
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
gutter, sidewalk, upgrade traffic signal system. Coordinate with Project 1-13 (trail
$516,000 Medium
connection).
1-3
64th Ave / Ahtanum Rd
Intersection
Improve the 64th Avenue and Ahtanum Road intersection by constructing a westbound
$575,000 Short
Intersection Improvements
right -turn lane on Ahtanum and installing a traffic signal.
1-4
3rd Ave /Washington Ave
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
Upgrade the traffic signalization system
$230,000 Medium
Improve the Washington Avenue and Longfiber Road intersection by constructing an
1-5
Washington Ave / Longfiber Rd
Intersection
eastboung left -turn lane on Washington and a northbound left -turn lane on Longfiber,
$1,023,000 Medium
Intersection Improvements
install or replace curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, storm drainage and safety flashing
signal. Project may be removed or changed based on Washington Avenue study findings.
1st St /Washington Ave
Realign intersection, widen E. Washington Avenue to accommodate an additional lane,
1-6
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
replace curb, gutter and sidewalk, and install a new traffic signalization system. Project
$2,000,000 Long
may be removed based on Washington Avenue study findings.
1-7
72nd Ave /Tieton Dr
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed.
$6,000,000 Long
40th Ave / Fruitvale Blvd
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes on westbound and southbound
1-8
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
approaches when needed. Project may change based on 40th Avenue Access
$6,000,000 Long
Management Plan
1-9
40th Ave /Tieton Dr
Intersection
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Project may change based
$6,000,000 Long
Intersection Improvements
on 40th Avenue Access Management Plan
40th Ave / Summitview Ave
Improve the intersection by constructing larger corner radii, lengthening the turn lanes,
1-10
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
and upgrading the traffic signal system. Project may be modified based on 40th Avenue
$1,093,000 Medium
Access Management Corridor Study findings.
1-11
40th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
Intersection
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Project may change based
$6,000,000 Long
Intersection Improvements
on 40th Avenue Access Management Plan
1-12
16th Ave / Lincoln Ave
Intersection
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Project may change based
$6,000,000 Long
Intersection Improvements
on 16th Avenue Access Management Plan and Lincoln Ave/MLK Bvd Realignment Study.
1-13
16th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
Intersection
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Project may change based
$6,000,000 Long
Intersection Improvements
on 16th Avenue Access Management Plan
CITY OF YAKIMA
O 2040 Transportation System Plan
34th Ave / Fruitvale Blvd
Improve intersection by installing multilane roundabout, curb, gutter and sidewalk.
1-14
Intersection Improvements and
Intersection
Project includes a single -lane roundabout at River Rd/34th Ave intersection. Add lower
$1,012,898
Short
Bike Crossing
stress bike crossing north -south.
1-15
1st St / I St Intersection Improvements
Intersection
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed.
$6,000,000
Long
1-16
3rd Ave / Nob Hill Blvd
Intersection
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes on northbound and southbound
$3,000,000
Long
Intersection Improvements
approaches when needed.
1-17
Nob Hill Blvd / 1st St
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed.
$7,000,000
Long
1-18
72nd Ave / Washington Ave
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
Improve intersection by installing a traffic signal system or roundabout.
$840,000
Medium
1-19
40th Ave / Englewood Ave
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
Replace traffic signal poles and upgrade controller.
$350,000
Medium
1-20
Powerhouse Rd / Englewood Ave
Intersection
Construct single -lane roundabout. If not possible, realign intersection, install curb,
$728,000
Medium
Intersection Improvements
gutter, sidewalk and safety flashing signal.
1-21
48th Ave / Summitview Ave
Intersection Improvements
Intersection
Install traffic signal at the intersection of Summitview Avenue and 48th Avenue.
$693,000
Medium
1-22
Washington Ave / 40th Ave
Intersection
Convert one northbound lane to a southbound left -turn lane to provide dual left -turn
$200,000
Medium
Intersection Improvements
lanes. Update signal and lane markings at intersection to match.
1-23
SR 12 / 16th Ave
Interchange:
Construct a roundabout where the westbound ramps intersect with N. 16th Avenue.
$1,500,000
Medium
Interchange Improvements
SR 12 Ramps / 16th Avenue
Coordinate with 1-13 project.
1-24
16th Ave / Fruitvale Blvd
Intersection
Improve the intersection by constructing larger curb radii, installing ADA ramps, and
$806,000
Medium
Intersection Improvements
upgrading the traffic signal system.
1-25
16th Ave / Tieton Dr
Intersection
Reconstruct and widen 16th Avenue and Tieton Drive by adding/lengthening left -turn
$5,800,000
Medium
Intersection Improvements
lanes for all movements at the intersection. Upgrade the traffic signal.
1-26
16th Ave / Washington Blvd
Intersection
Widen south leg to provide exclusive dual left -turn lanes. Project may change based on
$280,000
Medium
Intersection Improvements
Washington Ave corridor study.
1-27
Tieton Dr / 5th Ave
Intersection
Remove existing traffic signal and construct a roundabout, remove and replace curb,
$1,200,000
Medium
Intersection Improvements
gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and drainage
CITY OF YAKIMA
O 2040 Transportation System Plan
A-1
Powerhouse Rd Safety Improvements
Powerhouse Rd: Cowiche Canyon
Widen westbound lane to provide a 14 -foot wide shared bike lane and construct curb,
$245,000
Short
Rd to Mobile Home Park Access
gutter and sidewalk on the north side of the road.
A-2
Washington Ave Bike Corridor
Washington Ave:
Add low stress bike trail on north side of corridor
$2,550,000
Medium
(64th -24th)
64th St to 24th St
A-3
Naches Avenue Sidewalk
Pacific Ave. to Walnut Ave.
Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk
$330,000
Medium
A-4
4th Street Sidewalk
Pacific Ave. to Walnut Ave.
Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk
$315,000
Medium
A-5
Chestnut Avenue Sidewalk
56th Ave. to 70th Ave.
Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north side of the road
$448,200
Medium
A-6
Mead Avenue Sidewalk
27th Ave. to 28th Ave.
Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side of the road
$17,000
Medium
A-7
Browne Avenue Sidewalk
7th Ave. to 16th Ave.
Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk
$336,000
Medium
A-8
Mead Avenue Pedestrian Signal
10th Ave to 10th Ave.
Install pedestrian signal across Mead Avenue north of 10th Avenue
$300,000
Medium
A-9
44th Avenue Sidewalk
Viola to Randall Park
Construct sidewalk on the west side of the road.
$275,000
Medium
A-10
Pacific Avenue Sidewalk
Fair Avenue to Jail Property
Construct sidewalk on both sides of the road where needed.
$300,000
Medium
A-11
Fair Avenue Sidewalk
Pacific Ave. to Nob Hill Blvd.
Construct sidewalk on the west side of the road.
$370,000
Medium
A-12
Nob Hill Blvd. Sidewalk
12th Street to 14th Street
Construct sidewalk on the south side of the road.
$130,000
Medium
A-13
SR 12 / 16th Ave Interchange
Interchange:
Add two-way cycle track on west side of bridge and corresponding intersection
$150,000
Medium
Trail Improvements
SR 12 Ramps / 16th Avenue
improvements to complete trail. Coordinate with X project.
A-14
N. 16th Avenue Sidewalk
Fruitvale Blvd. to River Road
Construct sidewalk on the west side of the road.
$250,000
Medium
A 15
16th Ave Sidewalk Improvements
16th Ave: Washington Ave to Nob
Install 7 -foot sidewalk on the west side of 16th Avenue.
$730,000
Medium
(Washington -Nob Hill)
Hill Blvd.
A-16
Nob Hill Blvd Sidewalk Improvements
(16th -6th)
Nob Hill Blvd:
16th Ave to 6th St
Construct sidewalk in locations where it doesn't exist on the south side of Nob Hill.
$1,500,000
Medium
A-17
Chestnut Ave/40th Ave Crossing
Intersection
(crossing east -west)
Add intersection treatment to create lower stress bicycle connection
$40,000
Medium
Yakima Greenway Trail Access
Along Yakima Ave,
Reduce turn radii at major intersections and improve trail pavement markings;
A-18
(Yakima Ave)
10th St to 18th St
complete trail connection on east end of corridor. Coordinate with future interchange
$1,340,000
Medium
improvements (Project R-37).
A-19
Yakima Greenway Trail Access
Along Nob Hill Blvd,
Reduce turn radii at major intersections and improve trail pavement markings; complete
$690,000
Medium
(Nob Hill Blvd)
18th St to 1-82 NB Ramps
trail connection on west end of corridor
A 20
Powerhouse Trail Connection
Intersection of 16th Ave/
Add lower stress bike connection between existing Powerhouse Trail endpoints, across
$220,000
Medium
(16th Ave)
Englewood Ave
intersection.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
A-21
32nd Ave/Lincoln Ave Bike Crossing
Intersection
Add RRFB for north -south bike crossing
$40,000
Medium
A 22
88th Ave Reconstruction
88th Ave: Tieton Dr to
Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage system on the east side of 88th
$650,000
Medium
(Tieton-Summitview)
Summitview Ave
Avenue.
Adams ES & Washington MS
This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of Adams
A-23
Safety Improvements
Various Streets
Elementary School and Washington Middle School, such as, constructing sidewalks,
$282,000
Short
improving roadway crossings, installing flashers and installing fencing.
Along 32nd Ave, from Mead Ave
A-24
32nd Ave/34th Ave Bike Corridor
to Englewood Ave; Along 34th
Ave, Englewood Ave to Fruitvale
Add bike boulevard treatments and wayfinding to corridor
$840,000
Medium
Blvd
Along Chestnut Ave, 72nd Ave
to 24th; Jog north along 24th,
A-25
Chestnut Ave Bike Corridor
then along Yakima Ave, 24th to
14th; Jog along Terrace St, 12th
Add bike boulevard treatments (or bike lanes in wider sections) and wayfinding to
$1,220,000
Medium
Ave, Chestnut Ave, 11th Ave to
corridor
Walnute Ave; Along Walnut Ave,
11th Ave to 5th Ave
Along 11th Ave,
A-26
10th/11th Ave Bike Corridor
Walnut St to Steward St;
Jog along Steward St; Along 10th
Add bike lanes or bike boulevard elements along corridor to lower stress
$640,000
Medium
Ave, Steward St to Washington St
A-27
3rd Street Bike Corridor
Along 3rd St, I St to Pacific Ave
Add bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, or widen buffered bike lanes to lower stress
$810,000
Medium
Along Maple St, 3rd St to 13th St;
Along 13th St, Maple St to Beech
St; Along Beech St, 13th St to
A-28
Maple St/Parks Bike Corridor
Chalmers Rd; Along Chalmers Rd,
Intersection crossing improvement at 6th St; Add bike lanes and wayfinding; Along Beech
$520,000
Medium
Beech St to Riverside St; Along
St remove yellow centerline and add fog lines to indicate low volume roadway
Riversidr St, Chalmers Rd to 18th
St; Along 18th St, Riverside St to
Bike Trail Connection
Along Pacific Ave, 3rd St to 18th
A-29
Pacific/18th St Bike Corridor
St; Along 18th St,
Add bike lanes by removing parking or removing center median
$590,000
Medium
Pacific Ave to Nob Hill Blvd
This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of Garfield
A-30
Garfield ES Safety Improvements
Various Streets
Elementary School, such as, constructing sidewalk, improving roadway crossings,
$141,000
Short
installing flashers.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O 2040 Transportation System Plan
A-31
McClure ES Safety Improvements
Various Streets
This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of McClure
$270,000 Short
Elementary School, such as, constructing sidewalk, ADA ramps and improving crosswalks.
This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of McKinley
A-32
McKinley ES Safety Improvements
Various Streets
Elementary School, such as, replacing dilapidated sidewalk, constructing ADA ramps, and
$480,000 Short
installing a HAWK pedestrian crossing system.
Powerhouse Rd:
A-33
Powerhouse Rd Bike Corridor
Mobile Home Park Access
Add bike lanes
$350,000 Medium
to 40th Ave
A-34
Cowiche Canyon Trail Improvements
Cowiche Canyon:
Powerhouse Rd to Trailhead
Construct a 10 -foot wide pathway, including two bridges over Cowiche Creek.
$2,000,000 Short
A-35
34th Ave to Greenway Trail Connection
Along Fruitvale Blvd:
Provide cycle track or trail on north side of Fruitvale Blvd to provide low stress bike
$190,000 Medium
34th Ave to 40th Ave
connection between two primary bike corridors.
A-36
Yakima Ave Bike Corridor Connection
Yakima Ave:
Add short section of cycle track on south side of Yakima (300 feet east of 16th Avenue to
$80,000 Medium
(16th -Terrace)
16th Ave to Terrace St
Terrace St) by removing one eastbound vehicle lane.
A-37
3rd Avenue Sidewalk
Nob Hill Blvd to Walnut Ave.
Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk
$480,000 Medium
S-1
40th Ave Access Management Plan
40th Ave:
Study to determine plan for access management and spot intersection improvements to
$500,000 Medium
(SR 12 -Washington)
SR 12 to Washington Ave
improve vehicle capacity and safety for all travel modes in corridor.
S-2
16th Ave Access Management Plan
16th Ave:
Study to determine plan for access management and spot intersection improvements to
$500,000 Medium
(SR 12 -Washington)
SR 12 to Washington Ave
improve vehicle capacity and safety for all travel modes in corridor.
Lincoln Avenue:
Study the option of orienting the west end of the Lincoln/MLK couplet south to
16th Ave to 5th Ave;
Summitview, and converting Lincoln Ave (16th to Pierce) to 3 lanes with bike lanes. Pierce
S 3
Lincoln Ave & MILK Blvd Realignment
Ave would be widened (to the east) to 5 lanes between Summitview Ave and MILK Blvd.
$250,000 Medium
Study (Auto and Bike Mobility)
Pierce Ave:
Intersection of Summitview Ave/Pierce Ave would have dual eastbound left -turns and
Lincoln Ave to Summitview Ave
dual southbound right turns. Need to improve both auto and bike east -west mobility in
area.
Washington Ave:
Study feasibility of converting corridor from 4 lanes to 3 lanes. Could reduce or eliminate
S-4
Washington Ave Corridor Study
16th Ave to 1st St
need for improvements at 16th St, Longfiber Rd, and 1st St. Increases safety along
$150,000 Medium
corridor and reduces conflicts at the at -grade railroad crossing.
S-5
West Valley
North/South Corridor
North-South Corridor
West of 80th Ave:
Corridor study to determine the best location for a north/south limited access vehicle
$500,000 Long
(Ahtanum-Summitview)
Ahtanum Rd to Summitview Ave
corridor in West Valley. City and Countyjoint project.
74
CITY OF YAKIMA
IRS � 2040 Transportation System Plan
R-1
H St Extension, Phase 1
'H' St: 1st St to 10th St
Construct new 3 -lane roadway including water, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
$5,100,000 Short
(1st -10th)
lighting and storm drainage system.
R 2
24th Avenue Bike Corridor
24th Ave: Inglewood Ave to
Convert 4 -lane street to 3 -lane street with bike lanes between Washington and Nob Hill.
$200,000 Medium
(Inglewood -Washington)
Washington Ave
Wayfinding throughout corridor.
R-3
6th Avenue Rehabilitation
6th Avenue, Walnut St to River Rd
Reconstruct the existing trolley rail and impacted roadway, grind and overlay the
$4,400,000 Medium
(Walnut -River)
remaining width of 6th Avenue.
1st St Revitalization, Phase 2Improve
North 1st Street by rehabilitating the pavement and lane markings, removing on -
R -4
(MLK-N St)
1st St: MILK Blvd to'N' St
street parking, enhancing street and pedestrian lighting, constructing median islands and
$10,000,000 Medium
installing various pedestrian and decorative elements.
Along Lincoln Ave, 5th Ave to
R-5
Linclon/MLK Bike Corridor
10th St; Along MILK Blvd, 5th Ave
Along Lincoln Ave and MILK Blvd, reduce vehicle lanes to 2 and add buffered/protected
$500,000 Medium
to 10th St; Along Fair Ave, 10th St
bike lanes. Add signage/markings to completed full corridor.
to Yakima Ave
R 6
Yakima Downtown Future Initiatives,
Yakima Ave Corridor Area: 1st St
Install historic lighting, sidewalk modifications and other improvements. Exact
$6,000,000 Medium
Phase 5
to 9th St
improvement area(s) to be determined.
R-7
Yakima Ave Bridge Replacement
Yakima Ave / 18th Street Crossing
Replace the bridge on E. Yakima Avenue that crosses over 18th Street. Consider lowering
$3,160,000 Medium
(18th St)
18th Street to accommodate larger vehicles.
R-8
Spring Creek Rd Widening
(Washington -36th)
Spring Creek Rd: Washington Ave
to 36th Ave
Widen roadway to 3 lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights.
$1,920,000 Short
R-9
36th Ave Widening
(Spring Creek -Sorenson)
36th Ave: Spring Creek Rd to
Sorenson Rd
Widen roadway to 3 lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights.
$905,000 Short
R-10
Sorenson Rd Widening
(36th -38th)
Sorenson Rd: 36th Ave to 38th
Ave
Widen roadway, install curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights.
$320,000 Short
R-11
80th Ave Bridge Widening (Wide
80th Ave: Wide Hollow Rd to
Replace existing two-lane bridge over Wide Hollow Creek with three -lane bridge. The
City's involvement is only to pass through of an Ecology grant in conjunction with the
$100,000 Short
Hollow Creek)
Plath Ave
County's flood plain management project.
Wide Hollow Rd Bridge Widening
Wide Hollow Rd:
Replace existing two-lane bridge over Wide Hollow Creek with three -lane bridge. The
R-12
(Wide Hollow Creek)
89th Ave to 88th Ave
City's involvement is only to pass through of an Ecology grant in conjunction with the
$100,000 Short
County's flood plain management project.
R-13
River Rd Improvements
(40th -36th)
River Rd:
40th Ave to 36th Ave
Upgrade road to urban standards and add bike facilities.
$1,500,000 Short
R-14
88th Ave Widening
88th Ave:
Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm
$2,519,000 Medium
(Tieton-Zier)
Tieton Dr to Zier Rd
drainage system.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
R-15
66th Ave Widening
66th Ave:
Reconstruct and widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm
$1,560,000
Medium
(Summitview-Scenic)
Summitview Ave to Scenic Dr
drainage system and utilities.
R-16
I Street (6th Ave -3rd St)
Along I St, 6th Ave to 3rd St
Upgrade street to urban standards by constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
$4,140,000
Medium
Keep at two vehicle lanes, no center vehicle median.
R-17
64th Ave Widening
64th Ave:
Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm
$2,081,000
Medium
(Washington -Nob Hill)
Washington Ave to Nob Hill Blvd
drainage system.
R-18
Englewood Ave Widening (40th -56th)
Englewood Ave:
Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm
$1,703,000
Medium
40th Ave to 56th Ave
drainage system.
Englewood Ave Widening (24th -40th)
Englewood Ave:
Reconstruct and widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
R-19
and Bike Corridor Connection
24th Ave to 40th Ave
lighting and storm drainage system. Install sewer and water lines. Add bike lanes to
$3,854,000
Medium
corridor.
R-20
Englewood Ave Widening (16th -24th)
Englewood Ave:
Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm
$3,411,000
Medium
16th Ave to 24th Ave
drainage system, water and sewer lines. Add bike lanes to corridor.
R-21
48th Avenue Widening
48th Ave:
Reconstruct and widen 48th Avenue, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and
$2,575,000
Medium
(Summitview-Nob Hill)
Summitview Ave to Nob Hill Blvd
drainage system.
R-22
Nob Hill Widening (40th -48th)
Nob Hill Blvd:
40th Ave to 48th Ave
Widen corridor to 5 lanes
$1,660,000
Medium
R-23
Nob Hill Blvd Widening
Nob Hill Boulevard:
Reconstruct and widen roadway to 5 lanes with intersection improvements, curb, gutter,
$9,442,000
Medium
(6th -18th)
6th St to 18th St
sidewalk, street lighting and drainage system.
R-24
Mead Ave Reconstruction
Mead Ave:
Partner with Union Gap to reconstruct E. Mead Avenue, install curb, gutter, sidewalk and
$2,158,000
Medium
(Rudkin-Fair)
Rudkin Rd to Fair Ave
storm drainage system.
R 25
Rudkin Rd Reconstruction
Rudkin Rd:
Reconstruct roadway, install curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage. Partner with
$2,132,000
Medium
(Viola -Rainier)
Viola Ave to Rainier PI
Union Gap to install additional sewer force main.
1st St Revitalization, Phase 1
1st St:
Improve North 1st Street by rehabilitating the pavement and lane markings, removing on -
R -26
(N St -SR 12)
'N' St to SR 12
street parking, enhancing street and pedestrian lighting, constructing median islands and
$3,142,000
Short
installing various pedestrian and decorative elements.
R-27
Yakima Valley Transportation Company
Intersection (Yakima Ave / 6th
Remove and replace a portion of the existing trolley rail in the vicinity of the intersection
$52,000
Short
Preservation
Ave)
of 6th Avenue and Yakima Avenue.
R-28
Northside Alley Paving
Alleys in area between
Folsom Ave, Fruitvale Blvd,
Pave the east/west gravel alleys between Folsom Avenue and Fruitvale Boulevard from
$448,185
Short
16th Ave, and 6th Ave
16th Avenue to 6th Avenue.
R-29
Lincoln Ave Safety Improvements
Lincoln Ave:
Convert 4 -lane street to 3 -lane street with bike lanes.
$420,000
Medium
(40th -Powerhouse)
40th Ave to Powerhouse Rd
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
Bravo Company Blvd Extension
10th St:
Construct new 5 -lane roadway including water, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
N-1
(H -Lincoln)
'H' St to Lincoln Ave
lighting and storm drainage system. Connects new East-West corridor in Mill Site to
$6,600,000 Short
Lincoln/MLK corridor.
N-2
H St Extension, Phase 2
'H' St:
Construct 5 -lane new roadway including water, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
$3,000,000 Short
(10th -I 82)
10th St to 1-82
lighting and storm drainage system. Creates Mill Site east -west roadway.
N-3
75th Ave Connection
75th Ave:
$1,500,000 Medium
(Mead -Nob Hill)
Mead Ave to Nob Hill Blvd
New arterial roadway between
N 4
Fruitvale Blvd to H Street Connection
Fruitvale Blvd/5th Ave
Contruction new arterial roadway to connect the Fruitvale Blvd and H St corridors to
$25,000,000 Long
(5th -1st)
intersection and 1st St/H St
provide a continuous east -west corridor. RR crossing would be grade separated.
intersection.
N-5
H St Extension, Phase 3
(I 82 -Butterfield)
'H' St:
1-82 to Butterfield Rd
Complete new east -west corridor across the Yakima River to Butterfield Road
$50,000,000 Medium
Reconstruct/extend off -ramp from existing 1-82 offramp for Lincoln Avenue (Fair Avenue)
to vicinity of'G' Street (the new east -west corridor). Construct Collector -Distributer (CD)
0 1
I-82 / Yakima Ave Interchange
1-82 Corridor:
roads and auxilary lanes along 1-82. Construct new diamond interchange with 'H' Street
'H'
$75,000,000 Medium
Improvements
SR 12 to Nob Hill
extension. Connect Street ramps and Yakima Avenue interchange ramps to CD roads.
Fair Ave Loop connector converted to limited access one-way road (right -in from Yakima,
right -out to Fair Ave).
0-2
Ahtanum Road
Ahtanum Road from
Reconstructing and widening roadway to three lanes, with a separated bike/pedestrian
$6,560,000 Short
26th Avenue to 52nd Avenue
pathway.
This page left intentionally blank.
FINANCING
2040 Transportation System Plan
r
I
-
-
wN
a
PROGRAM
-74
This page left intentionally blank.
Funding and Financing Program
The multimodal improvement projects and
programs provide the blueprint for improving
the transportation system to meet existing
and future travel demands in and around the
City of Yakima. The funding and financing
assessment presented in this section details
the City's transportation financial situation and
options. This section presents a summary of
historical revenues and the estimated costs of
the transportation projects and program. Key
findings include:
Both transportation spending and funding
have increased substantially over the past 15
years, in both nominal and real terms.
The city has been, and is planning to greatly
leverage state and federal award sources
to accomplish the majority of its capital
transportation spending needs.
Maintenance, costs are a growing share of the
city's overall transportation expenditures.
The majority of new capital spending has
been on preservation of existing facilities, as
opposed to new facilities.
Until recently, the City has not used large
shares of local derived taxes to support
transportation funding.
5.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING FUNDING
AND EXPENDITURES
Building the plan first requires an understanding
of how local transportation agencies fund
their capital and operations needs. This
analysis provides a financial summary of
historical patterns of the sources and uses
of transportation activities by the City of
Yakima. The use of those funds includes (1)
administration, maintenance, and operations
and (2) capital construction. Transportation
revenue comes from (1) local, (2) state, and (3)
federal sources.
The datasets for expenditures and revenues are
pulled from the State of Washington financial
reporting system as part of annual reporting of
Washington cities. The data have been filtered
for transportation activities by WSDOT.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
5.1.1 Transportation Expenditures
The City of Yakima uses their transportation
revenues to fund administrative, maintenance,
and operations activities, as well as capital
improvements. Since 2000, transportation
expenditures have increased from $6.2 million
to $30.3 million in 2014. In this 15 -year period,
cumulative transportation expenditures totaled
over $200 million.
� 535
7
f 530
525
5x0
515
510
55
—Total (2014S)
so
M1 h 1 O w 7 4
Figure 5-1. Total Transportation Expenditures
Administration, Maintenance, and Operations
Transportation administration, maintenance,
and operational spending is directly related
to the size of the system and the service
expectations established for each community.
Administration, maintenance, and operations
have accounted for almost 40% of total
expenditures since 2000; maintenance
expenditures alone represent one-third of total
expenditures.
Since 2000, maintenance expenses have grown
from $2.6 million to $4.4 million in 2014. Over
the same period administration and operations
expenses have been relatively flat.
$35
• Tra%ic Pdiany
SW
■Plant Maolenance d CansUvcWn
Oen Service
S25
• AdMiNsI bW d ppe"W$
• O[Inr
S20
. Memtenance
515
S10
S5
Sn 801=0A
o � 1 7 1 o n 'L S b
M1�O ryp0 M1�O M1�� M M1 '6 e l e ON", #11
M1N M1�� M1a4
Capital Construction
Construction projects accounted for the majority
(54%) of expenditure since 2000 totaling $108.5
million. The city has increased its spending
on building new facilities and preserving its
existing facilities since 2000. However, Yakima's
construction spending has varied year to year on
a per -project basis, which is related to the ability
to fund the project through state and federal
grants. In addition, the 2014 road bond provides
a large one-time spend on facilities.
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
S0
le M101 e le e e 41 41 le e 1011160+1 f;."'V110b
CITY OF YAKIMA
O 2040 Transportation System Plan
5.1.2 Existing Revenue Sources
Since 2000, transportation revenues in Yakima
have grown from $7.3 million to $33.9 million in
2014.
Total transportation revenues have been
variable from year to year. Since 2010, non -
bond revenues for the City have averaged $19.0
million a year.
S35
S30
$75
$20
$15
$10
55
$0 Apr
h°°❑ 'L°°q 'L°°~ rye., ell 'l°�� M1°°1 _a 'L'" M°~o �1�. lell 1$,, ho b
Figure 5-2. Operations and Maintenance Figure 5-3. Construction Expenditures Figure 5-4. Historical Transportation Revenue
Expenditures
Local Sources
Local sources of transportation revenue
primarily fund administration, maintenance, and
operational uses. They are also used as sources
of local match funding for larger capital projects,
typically levered other sources of funds. Since
2000, local funding accounted for 47% of City
transportation revenues. Overall, local revenues
are more stable and have grown steadily
overtime. In 2014, the recent road improvement
initiative created a large one-time influx of bond
revenues of $14.8 million. However, property
tax revenues have declined from almost $4.0
million in 2000 to $3.1 million in 2014. Figure
5-5 shows the change in local revenues over
time. More detail on specific local revenue
sources is discussed below.
City General Fund. Dollars may be used
in numerous ways. Yakima has historically
contributed some general fund dollars
to transportation financing. However,
general fund dollars are discretionary for
transportation spending. The primary sources
of general fund revenues for the city include
property taxes, sales taxes, business taxes,
and utility taxes.
City Special Assessments. In the last several
years, Yakima increased its use of special
assessments for transportation revenue.
Special assessments include funds received
through Local Improvement Districts (LIDs).
Although these assessments may be levied
by a City, they are applied only to local,
clearly-defined areas in which the land
owners are expected to benefit from a
specific improvement project, rather than
to an entire jurisdiction. The assessment
comes in the form of an additional real estate
property assessment that covers debt service
payments on the sale of bonds purchased
to finance the project. LIDs may be used for
transportation projects, but may also be used
for water, sewer, and storm sewer facilities.
Other Local City Funding. Yakima receives
other local revenue from development
mitigation fees. These fees are collected on
individual development projects as part of
the permitting process and are calculated
to reflect their estimated direct impact on
specific public facilities.
State and Federal Sources
State and federal transportation revenues
primarily fund capital improvements. Until 2014,
state and federal support accounted for the
largest share of transportation funding for the
City (53% of revenues since 2000). Most of the
variability from year to year is due to federal
and state grants awards for capital projects, as
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
533
4
' $Gerd AEb@65rrenl
i $30
•General F�n�]
• Baod Proceeds
$2$
• Othrr l oral R—P,.
S20
• Property Taxes
$15
$10
ti h°�, 'Y� �' M1� h°°b 'b� 4°°^ h$e 'G' 'L°A° M1°^s 'L°i'4 'F°+'S 'L°••D
Figure 5-5. Local Revenue
S33
c • $Ia10 Fu@I To Drgtriqutgn
2 S30 - Fatleral Revenues
• Other slate Funds
525
S20
$11s
S110
Ss
so
Figure 5-6. State and Federal Revenue
can be seen in Figure 5-6. The City's share of the
State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax is more stable. Fuel
tax revenues have been declining since 2006,
though. In 2006 the City received $2.0 million,
and in 2014 the City received $1.3 million.
► State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Funding.
The City receives a portion of the State
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVF) based on a
reimbursement formula.
► State Grant Funding. Grants are an important
Development -based
Transportation Contributions
In addition, the City uses several non -tax
based programs to help offset the increased
traffic impacts of new development or
redevelopment. These include construction of
frontage improvements such as curb, gutter,
and sidewalks, with or without dedication of
right-of-way, and new roadways needed to serve
the development. The City is also required to
review the potential transportation impacts of
funding source for transportation capital development and define appropriate mitigation
projects; however, these funds are distributed under the State Environmental Policy Act
in a competitive process making it difficult to
determine future grant funding levels. State
grants are largely funded through a portion
of the fuel tax revenue not distributed to
jurisdictions, and are therefore affected by
the diminishing funds.
► Federal Funding Sources. As previously
discussed, grant funding is difficult to project
because it is awarded on a competitive basis.
Federal transportation grants are funded
through the federal portion of the Fuel Excise
Tax. The federal gas tax rate has fluctuated
between $0.184 and $0.183 per gallon
since 1994. The majority of these funds are
deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and
disbursed to the states through the Highway
and Mass Transit Accounts.
(SEPA) and GMA concurrency requirements.
In addition, the City previously adopted a
Transportation Impact Fee program as allowed
for by the GMA to help fund growth -related
transportation system improvements but does
not currently implement a fee.
CITY OF YAKIMA
IRS � 2040 Transportation System Plan
5.2 ESTIMATED PROJECT
AND PROGRAMS COST
Table 5-1 summarizes the costs of the
recommended transportation improvement
projects and programs identified for the 2040
Transportation System Plan (TSP). The costs are
summarized for the short-range (2015-2020),
medium -range (2021-2030), and long-range
(2031-2040) time periods based on the project
timelines presented in Table 5-1. The cost
summary includes projects identified within the
City of Yakima's jurisdiction. The project and
program costs are presented in constant 2015
dollars.
Planning level cost estimates were developed
for the capital improvements presented in
the Transportation Systems Plan section of
the Transportation Element. Cost estimates
were prepared based upon average unit costs
for recent transportation projects within the
City. They include estimates for engineering
design, right-of-way, and construction costs.
More detailed costs of individual projects
will be developed as the improvements are
programmed for design and implementation.
The final costs will fluctuate from the planning
level estimates, but the planning level estimates
provide a reasonable basis for the financing plan
of the Transportation Element.
Overall, the full list of projects and programs the
City has funding responsibility for total more
than $256.4 million over the next 25 years.
Short-range cost total $28.2 million, just over
11 percent of the total costs. Medium -range
projects account for a large share costs with an
estimated $148.7 million in costs (58 percent).
New roads and existing roadway improvements
represent most of these costs. Long-range costs
New Roadway
$9,600,000
$51,500,000
$25,000,000
$86,100,000
Roadway Improvements
$13,587.185
$61,915,000
$0
$75,502,185
Intersection Improvements
$1,631,000
$17,159,000
$54,000,000
$72,790,000
Active Transportation
$3,418,000
$16,711,200
$0
$20,129,200
Study
$0
$1,400,000
$500,000
$1,900,000
Table 5-1. Estimated Project and Program Costs (2015 $)
CITY OF YAKIMA
O O 2040 Transportation System Plan
account for almost $79.5 million, or 31 percent
of total project and program costs.
Maintenance related projects, which
primarily include roadway and intersection
improvements, account for $148.3 in project
costs. New construction projects, which
primarily include new roadways and active
transportation projects, total $106.2 million. A
number of various proposed studies total $1.9
million.
Other projects under the jurisdiction or lead
of WSDOT or Yakima County would be needed
as part of this plan but are not included in the
City's financial analysis. These "Other Agency"
projects are estimated to cost over $81.5
million. The City supports these projects, and
the completion of these projects would have
impacts on the City's transportation system.
However, the costs of these projects are not the
City's responsibility.
5.3 FINANCIAL OUTLOOK
Transportation infrastructure funding
is challenge due to the dependence on
competitive grants and variability in project
costs and timing. Yakima will have to address
these challenges in order to fund the TSP's
projects in the time frame they are needed.
The City broadly has two strategies for funding
projects in the TSP: (1) pay as you go (e.g.,
funding), and (2) financing (e.g., borrowing).
Funding is the ultimate source of revenue for
infrastructure costs, such as property taxes or
fuel taxes. Financing is when funds for projects
are borrowed and paid back over time, such
as through a general obligation bond. Future
revenues are the used to pay the debt service
of that bond. The City has used both options
in the past. In addition, the City has been
successful using local funds to leverage state
and local grants to fund those projects. All these
strategies will likely be necessary in the future to
meet the City's funding needs.
In aggregate, future transportation project costs
are similar to the City's recent experience. Over
the last 15 years the City has spent more than
$200 million on transportation projects. The
proposed TSP estimates $177 million in costs
over the first 15 years of the plan. However, the
alignment of costs and revenues will dependent
on whether the project is a maintenance
project, likely funded through local sources, or a
new construction project, likely funded by state
and federal grants.
5.3.1 Administration, Maintenance,
and Operations Financial Outlook
Funding for administration, maintenance, and
operational needs will likely be a challenge
for the City over the next 25 years. Since 2000
the City realized $121.7 million in local and
state motor vehicle fuel tax revenues, which
funds the City's transportation administration,
maintenance, and operational needs. Property
tax revenues and the City's share of the motor
vehicle fuel tax, which are declining, accounted
for largest share of these revenues generating
$80.5 million (66%).
Over the same period administration,
maintenance, and operational expenditures
have been increasing. This trend is likely to
continue over the next 25 years. As a result, the
City will likely have to find new revenue sources
to supplement existing sources. The source of
these funds will mostly likely have to come from
local sources beyond MVET distributions.
CITY OF YAKIMA
O 2040 Transportation System Plan
5.3.2 Capital Financial Outlook
Funding new construction projects will also be
a challenge for the City. While estimated future
construction expenditures totaling $256.4
million are generally in line with recent historical
averages, there are still transportation funding
challenges the City will have to address. One
specific challenge is how lumpy capital project
costs are, which is illustrated in Figure 5-3.
Revenues for projects may not be in hand when
the costs occur.
Many of the projects identified in the TSP,
except for some Active Transportation projects,
will be dependent on grants for funding. The
City of Yakima will have responsibility for some
portion of the costs that is the local match for
those grants. Table 5-2 shows the estimated
portion of the total project costs the City would
be responsible for funding. In total, the City is
estimated to be responsible for $30.8 million
through 2040. Short-range totals would be $4.3
million, medium -range totals are $16.6 million,
and long-range totals are $9.8 million.
Relative to the total estimated project costs, 88
percent would be funded through grant awards.
Table 5-3 compares projected revenues available
for construction projects with the estimated
project costs for the short-, medium-, and long-
range. Projected revenues include local and
grant funding.
The projected revenues are based on Yakima's
historical transportation revenue per capita
and construction expenditures share of total
transportation revenue. Over the last 15 years
Yakima has averaged $178 in transportation
revenue per capita, and construction
expenditures averaged 41 percent of total
revenues. The projections then applied the
$178 per capita factor to the City's planned
population growth, which aligns with the
Comprehensive Plan's 2040 population
target, multiplied by 41 percent to determine
construction revenues.
The projections estimate that the City would
realize over $187.0 million in revenue for
capital improvement projects. Compared to
the estimated $256.4 million in project costs
the City has a shortfall of approximately $69.4
million over the planning period. The revenue
shortfall is primarily an issue from 2021 to 2030
(medium -range), which has the vast share of
the project and program costs over the next
18 years. It is important to note that much of
the program costs are contingent on the award
of grants and would not occur without those
New Roadway
$0
$202,500
$2,500,000
$2,702,500
Roadway Improvements
$4,123,500
$7,733,400
$0
$11,856,900
Intersection Improvements
$184,600
$2,930,800
$7,290,000
$10,405,400
Active Transportation
$0
$5,580,900
$0
$5,581,900
Study
$0
$189,100
$67,500
$256,600
Table 5-2. Estimated Local Match Funding (2015 $)
Projected Transportation $34,820,000 $73,430,000 $78,770,000 $187,020,000
Revenue for Construction
Transportation Improvement $28,236,185 $148,685,200 $79,500,000 $256,421,385
Project Costs
Table 5-3. Projected Transportation Funding Summary (2015 $)
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
awards. They do reflect an underlying need to
likely match future awards with higher levels of
local monies.
To address the potential shortfall for
transportation improvements, the City will need
to be as or more successful in being awarded
federal and state grants. In addition, the City
will likely need to consider new revenue sources
to address funding gaps and to serve as a new
source of funding for local match funds. The
City may also consider financing projects if it
is unable to receive grant funding or needs to
make improvements before funds are available.
However, the debt service for the bonds come
from local funding source, which underscores
the importance of finding new local revenue
sources.
The next sections provide assessments of
individual existing funding sources and identifies
potential new funding sources the City can
consider to address any future funding gaps.
5.3.3 Existing Revenue Sources
Existing funding sources will continue to
compose a substantial portion of the City's
transportation funding into the future. However,
a number of current revenue sources are likely
to be a declining revenue source for the City,
specifically property tax revenue and motor
vehicle fuel sales tax revenues. Thus, other
funding sources and may have to compose a
larger share of revenues in the future.
Local Tax Revenues
The existing tax revenues used by the City will
need to be maintained as one source of revenue
to fund transportation projects and programs.
The majority of the General Fund allocation
is anticipated to be used for maintenance,
and to provide the matching funds for grants
or to complete a portion of the improvement
projects not covered by other funding sources.
In addition, property taxes compose a sizable
portion of the City's General Fund revenues.
State law caps growth in property tax to 1%
annually, which causes property tax dollars
to decrease on an inflation-adjusted basis,
decreasing the overall available general funds.
State Funding Sources
For the City, motor vehicle fuel tax distributions
from the state have decreased slightly since
2000. In addition, state grants are may be more
competitive as more jurisdictions compete due
to their own decreases in funds. There have, in
recent years, been increases in the state fuel
tax rate, though many of these additional funds
were earmarked for specific large projects.
Federal Funding Sources
Federal grant funding is typically tied to specific
improvement projects and distributed on a
competitive basis, often with a local funding
match. Ultimately, competitiveness for federal
funds depends on the specific programs that
exist at the time and its priorities and criteria, as
well as other projects also submitted.
Developer Mitigation and Requirements
The City has adopted specific development -
related requirements which will help fund
the identified improvements. These include
requirements for frontage improvements,
mitigation of transportation impacts under
SEPA, and concurrency requirements. Several of
the projects identified in the Transportation Plan
could be partially funded and constructed as
part of new developments. Given scarce public
funding sources, development will likely bear a
larger share of costs going forward.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
5.3.4 Additional Funding Options
and Tools
The City can increase funding for capital street
projects using a range of revenue options. These
include partnering with other agencies, tapping
new revenue sources, or pursuing additional
grants as available.
Transportation Impact Fees
The GMA allows agencies to develop and
implement a transportation impact fee program
to help fund part of the costs of transportation
facilities needed to accommodate growth. The
City previously had a transportation impact fee
and represents potential source for new local
revenues.
However, the fees can only be used to help fund
improvements that are needed to serve new
growth. The cost of projects needed to resolve
existing deficiencies cannot be included.
Tax Increment Financing
Washington State allows cities to create
"increment areas" that allows for the
financing of public improvements, including
transportation projects within the area by
using increased future revenues from local
property taxes generated within the area. The
specific rules and requirements are noted in the
Community Revitalization Financing Act (CRF).
The City also has a Local Infrastructure Financing
Tool (LIFT) award that it has not utilized. The
funds are programmed for projects to support
development at the Cascade Mill Site District. To
the extent that redevelopment happens faster
than expected and revenues exceed program
costs, these funds could be used to support
other TIP identified projects.
Voter Approved Bond/Tax Package
Bonds do not result in additional revenue
unless coupled with a revenue generating
mechanism, such as a voter approved tax. The
debt service on the bonds results in increased
costs that can be paid with the additional tax
revenues. Although the City does not anticipate
issuing bonds in the near future, it remains an
option for generating additional transportation
revenues to fund some of the higher cost
improvement projects.
Local Improvement Districts
A local improvement district (LID) is a special
assessment area established by a jurisdiction
to help fund specific improvements that would
benefit properties within the district. LIDs could
be formed to construct sidewalks, upgrade
streets, improve drainage or other similar
types of projects. An LID may be in residential,
commercial, or industrial areas or combinations
depending on the needs and benefits. LIDs can
be proposed either by the City or by property
owners. LIDs must be formed by a specific
process which establishes the improvements,
their costs, and assessments. The assessments
are added to the property tax that helps to
spread the costs over time.
Transportation Benefit District
A transportation benefit district (TBD) is
authorized to impose a vehicle license fee, sales
and use tax, development fees, or vehicle tolls
for construction and operation of improvements
to county roadways. The TBD may be used for
the reconstruction and upgrade of existing
facilities, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements,
or other regionally significant projects. The
City previously considered implementing a TBD
before issuing the road bond, and it remains an
option in the future if an additional local funding
source is needed.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
5.4 REASSESSMENT STRATEGY
Although the Financial Outlook section
identifies a potential shortfall in revenues to
cover identified project costs over the life of
the Plan, the City is committed to reassessing
their transportation needs and funding sources
each year as part of its six-year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). This allows the City
to match the financing program with the short-
range improvement projects and funding.
The City will take three broad approaches for
the reassessment strategy: delay projects until
funding becomes available, explore new sources
of local funding, and/or be more competitive
in pursuing grant awards. The City will use the
annual update of the six-year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) to re-evaluate
priorities and timing of projects and need for
alternative funding programs. Throughout the
planning period, projects will be completed and
priorities revised. This will be accomplished
by annually reviewing traffic growth and the
location and intensity of land use growth in the
City and its UGA. The City will then be able to
direct funding to areas that are most impacted
by growth or to roadways that may be falling
below the City's level of service standards.
The development of the TIP will be an ongoing
process over the life of the Plan and will be
reviewed and amended annually.
To implement the Transportation Plan, the
City will consider the following principals in its
transportation funding program:
► Balance improvement costs with available
revenues as part of the annual six-year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
► Review project design standards to determine
whether costs could be reduced through
reasonable changes in scope or deviations
from design standards
► Fund improvements or require developer
improvements as they become necessary to
maintain LOS standards
► Explore ways to obtain more developer
contributions to fund improvements
► Coordinate and partner with WSDOT,
Yakima County, and others to implement
improvements to state owned facilities
► Vigorously pursue grant funds from state and
federal sources
► Work with Yakima County to develop
multiagency grant applications for projects
that serve growth in the City and its UGA
► Evaluate a transportation impact fee program
to fund capital improvement project list
► The City could consider changes in its level
of service standards and/or limit the growth
potential in the City and its UGA as part of
future updates to its Comprehensive Plan.
CITY OF YAKIMA
2040 Transportation System Plan
APPENDIX
2040 Transportation System Plan
•
N
Mile,O! =0
7 his page left intentionally blank.
O
t2
rA
U
Q
N
C)
v�
4.)
tl.7
w
Q
.�
Cz
O
u�
Cc
0
u
r
INTRODUCTION
This document describes a process that allows the Yakima Valley Regional Transportation Plaiming
Organization (Yakima Valley RTPO) to certify the consistency of transportation elements of local
comprehensive plans. This certification is based on the, Growth Management Act (G A) requirements
adopted in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC),
BACKGROUND
Section 47.80.023 of the RCW requires that all transportation elements of local comprehensive plans
undergo a consistency review to ensure that they conform to the requirements of the Ci A. The GMA
states that this process is to be developed and adininistered by Regional Transportation Planning
Organizations (RTPOs). Yakima Valley Conference of Governments (YVCOG) is the designated lead
planning agency for the Yakima Valley RTPO.
The WAC's procedural criteria for adopting comprehensive plans, reiterates
sections of the RCWs and recommends further steps to meet the requirements.
CONFORMITY WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
The G conformity requirement directs RTFQs to certify that the transportation elements of
comprehensive plans conform to the appropriate requirements of RCW 36.70A.070, and recommends
Steps to meet the RCW requirements in WAC 365-19,64X
THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
Required transponation-related elements listed in DEW 36.70A.070 are:
1. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;
2. Estimated traffic impacts to state owned transportation facilities and services;
3. Facilities and service needs:
a. Inventory of transportation facilities and services,
b. Level of service standards-,
c. Compliance with level of service standards;
d. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned
transportation facilities or services that am below an established LOS standard-,
e. Ten year traffic forecast;
E Identification of system needs to meet current and future demands.
4, Finance:
a. Analysis of funding capability;
b. Multi-year finance plan, basis for six year prograrn,-
c. Funding shortfalls;
5. Inter govern mental coordination;
6. Demand management strategies; and,
7. Pedestrian and bicycle planning.
I Incorporate a discussion concerning regional development strategies which promote the
regional transportation plan and an efficient transportation system.
2, Jurisdictions should assess the impacts of their transportation and land use decisionsort adjacent
jurisdictions. Impacts of those decisions should be identified and discussion of strategies to
address inconsistencies should be included.
3Traffic forecasts should be based on adopted regional growth strategies, the regional
transportation plan, and compfoheasive plans within the region tu ensure consistency between
Transportation Element Consistency Review 2017 —City of Yakima
Page 1
jurisdictions. The forecast of at least ten years of travel demand should include vehicular, transit
and non -motorized modes of transportation.
PROCESS FOR CERTIFICATION
The consistency review will be completed by Yakirna Valley RTPO staff and representatives of member
jurisdictions through the TruDsportation Technical Advisory Committees (TAQ. The TAC will
recommend approval of certification to the YVCOG Transportation Policy Board. If the plan is
consistent, a certification letter from the Policy Board Chair will be sent to the local jurisdiction.
A checklist will be used to determine where there is consistency and where there is not. There is a
-.omment section for each checklist item to help clarify what is inconsistent or to provide positive
F..# 1# certification efforts.
1. Preliminary review will be performed by YVCOG staff. The checklist will be used as an aid in
conducting the ptefirr�inaty certification review. Any inconsistencies or potential problems across
jurisdictional boundaries would be noted at this time.
2. YVCOG staff will prepare an overall certification report that addresses all of the individual
elements from a checklist. The staff certification report will then be reviewed by the
Transportation TAC.
3. Following the review by the TAC, the final report will be sent to the YVCOG Transportation
Policy Board and a recommendation will be presented for action.
4. After action by the Transportation Policy Board, a copy of the final report will be forwarded to
the jurisdiction.
I,- KJ 1e1y_TMq7Prf
the jurisdiction's staff. If issues cannot be. resolved at this level, the discussion will next take place witF
the Transportation TAC. Any unresolved issues from the TAC level will then be discussed by the
YVCOG Transportation Policy Board for consideration about certification .
proposed by the jurisdiction's staff. Once the local transportation elements are certified, they remain
certified until they are amended or updated. Revised transportation elements would require
rece,,tificatio%
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHECKLIST
The following checklist is used to evaluate local plans' transportation elements for confornuty with state
law. It is based primarily on requirements of the GMA, as described in RCW 36.70A.070.
Additional appropriate factors have been drawn from the Washington State Department of
Transportation checklist, and the WAC Procedural Criteria.
I. El Yes 0 No Were land use assumptions used in estimating nvel?
'The City of Yakima used land use assumptions in estimating travel. See Transportation System Plan
Section 3 —Travel Forecasts and Alternatives Evaluation, Goal 6.3.
Ste also Transportation Element Land Use Changes on Page T-4 and Goal 6.3 on Page T-&
2, S Yes El No Does the inventory of transportation facilities arid services incl ude all transportation
moF es, such as automobiles, transit, truck/fteight, tail, air, pedestrian, and bicycle?
His W [Moir.
RI2 bxi tiTr p a n
:MIS ICYCIC M043Cntras
S anC itructure or services (f ages I f W ougA 34, Sectio, u s ng am r1a Ii o
9,Ystera).
g Yes E3No Have LOS Standards been established for all arterials, including the, state bighways and
transit routes?
The City of Yakima operates a public transit system. See the Transportation System Plan Section, L6 —
Agency Level of Service Standards (Page 9).
Yakima's Transportation System Plan leads the reader ibrougb functional classification discussion,
through idealized urban and rural roadway capacities and then explains hiow LOS is deteni-fined for the
arterials using a standardized measure in a regionally utilized reference called the Highway Capacity
Manual. Ile specific analysis used volume/capacity ratio is T4onally consistent (Section 1.6 on Page 9
and alsa Section 4.1 on Pages 44-49),
(D Yes 0 No Is a deficiency analysis and an action strategy to address the identified deficiencies
proposed in the p1m?
F
4 4911014:1 i: 11 *1 is kill film
C :R Yes El No Does &a plan contain a multi-year financial plan based on the, neWs identified which will
serve as the basis of the six-year streer. ro4 or inswit plan?
..w u. I . M . I
1610111114 INW1,301,11
7. ZYesC]No Does the plan contain goal statements to ensure mitigation of develop rnent i mpacts &I
oma.d facilities meet concurrency requirements?
IN' .64 'It's 1 I. Ili# AW M
FIRIIii PhIlIng
I—
F F Id—, i7F—IVT7f—RTr617T it r Wr r I s 7 , IF
Pagei
9. X Yes [D No Are goal statements incorporated nito the plan to accommodate the impacts related %
development?
1�11 1111
I I I FS a I VA I O.Angir.] L#J q i I Eil AFRIM F -M t"M W RILIUM61 19 Jr.
10, &Yes UNo Docs the plan address coordination with adjacent jurisdictions to determine land uses
within the adj accut junsdiftiow that would affect local traf5c patterns?
MOM
11. ZYes 0No Does the plan address current and future coordination with state, regional, and local
interests as part of the planning efforts?
LT -- -
and local interests in Section 6.1, Introduction on Page 10 1, and in Policies 6,5.30 and 6.5.31 on Page T-
10.
11 1 1 1111111 � 11 1 F
I - 0 4 AL 9 11'. 1 111 1 r EMM M" 11 . I 111 1111, r
b'sa-1-11:221MV BUY010H M01 H
TraospOrta floo Policy Board Motion For Approval Of Consistency Review Checklist
KOMITZE= mlxzffiq�=
l
Date: April 7, 2017
Judsdiction: City of Ya'im
I - i - -
WANT*. I'M (IONIM011W
TI board cetti e Aty of faluma's Transportation ElemeWi
conforms to the requirements of the GMA.
Sincerely,
YVCOG Executive Director
cc- Matt Kunic, WSDOT HQ
.2= NOMMEM
7 his page left intentionally blank.
7 his page left intentionally blank.
6MM��1 11 II' ll�r I
Prepared for the City of Yakima
l
I
5
1
S
11
Prepared by
transpogroup r
346
we ctw
V a�°�`nu�c
comprehensive plan 2040
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
May, 2017
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDf47
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
1.0
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1
The Capital Facilities Plan..............................................................................................................2
1.2
Key Principles Guiding Yakima's Capital Investments...................................................................3
1.3
Services Addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan..........................................................................3
1.4
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan............................................5
1.5
Foundation Documents (Incorporation by Reference).................................................................6
2.0
Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis...................................................................................................
6
2.1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................
6
2.2
Funding the Capital Facilities Plan................................................................................................6
2.3
Assumptions..................................................................................................................................6
2.4
Dedicated Capital Revenues and Operating Transfers.................................................................
7
2.5
General Capital Revenues...........................................................................................................34
2.6
Total Capital Revenues................................................................................................................36
2.7
Policy Options and Other Funding Sources.................................................................................37
2.8
Other Service Providers..............................................................................................................
37
3.0
Comprehensive capital facility plan................................................................................................38
3.1
Inventory.....................................................................................................................................
38
3.2
Level of Service Consequences...................................................................................................
38
3.3
Projects.......................................................................................................................................
39
4.0
Capital Facility detail.......................................................................................................................39
4.1
Public Buildings...........................................................................................................................39
4.2
Fire and Emergency Services......................................................................................................40
4.3
Law Enforcement........................................................................................................................43
4.4
Parks............................................................................................................................................44
4.5
Transportation: Streets and Transit............................................................................................48
4.6
Wastewater.................................................................................................................................48
4.7
Stormwater.................................................................................................................................51
4.8
Water..........................................................................................................................................
52
4.9
Irrigation......................................................................................................................................
54
4.10
Schools........................................................................................................................................
56
4.11
Airport.........................................................................................................................................59
4.12
Solid Waste.................................................................................................................................61
References..................................................................................................................................................
63
May 2017 1
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LIPDf4JE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the Capital Facilities Element of a
Comprehensive Plan include an inventory, projected needs, and funding and financing for facilities and
infrastructure. This Capital Facilities Plan is intended to provide the technical foundation — inventory,
service standards, capacity, proposed projects, and funding as appropriate — for the Capital Facilities
Element. The goals and policies for the Capital Facilities Element is included in the body of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Capital Facilities Plan
The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is to use sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public
facilities consistent with the land use element and concurrent with, or prior to, the impacts of
development to achieve and maintain adopted standards for levels of service.
The CFP is based on the following sources of information and assumptions:
Capital Facility Functional or System Plans. Capital facility functional or system plans of the City of
Yakima or other service providers were reviewed for inventories, levels of service, planned facilities,
growth forecasts, and potential funding.
Growth Forecasts. Population and job growth forecasts were allocated to the City of Yakima by
Yakima County, in accordance with the Yakima Countywide Planning Policy (Yakima County 2003).
The City considered the targets, planning and permit trends, and land capacity. The City developed
growth assumptions that accommodate the targets and are less than capacity. The estimates were
distributed by transportation analysis zone (TAZ). The 2022 population (six-year) and 2040
population (23 -year) growth for each service provider is estimated.
Revenue Forecasts. Revenues were forecasted for Yakima services to the year 2040. The sources of
revenue are summarized from available plans and compared to typical revenue sources for those
service providers.
Growth Management Act Requirements
GMA requires that all comprehensive plans contain a capital facilities element. GMA specifies that the
capital facilities element should consist of:
An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities;
A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities;
The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
A six-year capital facilities plan that will finance capital facilities within projected funding capacities
and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and
A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of existing needs.
(RCW 36.70a.070(3))
The GMA requires the CFP to identify specific facilities, include a realistic financing plan (for the six-year
period), and adjust the plan if funding is inadequate. Capital facilities are important because they support
the growth envisioned in the City's Comprehensive Plan. GMA requires that all capital facilities have
"probable funding" to pay for capital facility needs, and that jurisdictions have capital facilities in place
and readily available when new development comes in or must be of sufficient capacity when the
population grows, particularly for transportation (concurrency) or for services deemed necessary to
support development.
May 2017 2
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDf4JE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Levels of service (LOS) are established in the CFP and represent quantifiable measures of capacity. They
are minimum standards established by the City to provide capital facilities and services to the Yakima
community at a certain level of quality and within the financial capacity of the City or special district
provider. LOS standards are influenced by local citizens, elected and appointed officials, national
standards, mandates, and other considerations such as available funding. Examples of LOS measures
include: amount of intersection delay, acres of park or miles of trails per 1,000 population, gallons of water
per capita per day, and others. Those facilities and services necessary to support growth should have LOS
standards and facilities.
Recent Growth Management Hearings Boards cases have placed more importance on the preparation and
implementation of CFPs. The key points include:
Capital facilities plans should address the 20 -year planning period and be consistent with growth
allocations assumed in the Land Use Element. Capital facilities plans should also demonstrate an
ability to serve the full city limits and urban Growth Area (UGA).
Financial plans should address at least a six-year period and funding sources should be specific and
committed. The City should provide a sense of the funding sources for the 20 -year period, though it
can be less detailed than for the six-year period.
Growth, LOS standards, and a funded capital improvement program are to be in balance. In the case where
the LOS cannot be met by a particular service or facility, the jurisdiction could do one of the following: 1)
add proposed facilities within funding resources, 2) reduce demand through demand management
strategies, 3) lower LOS standards, 4) phase growth, or 5) change the land use plan.
Definition of a Capital Project
According to WAC 365-196-415, at a minimum, those capital facilities to be included in an inventory and
analysis are water systems, sewer systems, stormwater systems, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
police facilities, and fire facilities. Capital facilities generally have a long useful life and include city and
non -city operated infrastructure, buildings, and equipment. Capital facilities planning does not cover
regular operations and maintenance, but it does include major repair, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of
facilities.
The capital facilities and projects addressed in the plan include infrastructure (such as streets, roads,
traffic signals, sewer systems, stormwater systems, water systems, parks, etc.) and public facilities
through which services are offered (such as fire protection structures and major equipment, law
enforcement structures, schools, etc.).
Key Principles Guiding Yakima's Capital Investments
There are two main guiding elements behind the capital facilities planning: fiscal policies and the GMA.
These principles interact to guide capital investments. Fiscal policies are tools that the City can use to
adjust spending and revenues by changing tax rates and identifying specific areas for expenditure.
Services Addressed in the Capital I-acilities Plan
Exhibit 1. Facilities and Services addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan summarizes the facilities and
services addressed in this Plan, including the service, the provider, and applicable plans considered in this
appendix.
May 2017 3
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 1. Facilities and Services addressed in the Caoital Facilities Plan
Public Buildings City of Yakima
Fire and
Emergency Yakima Fire
Department
Services
Law Yakima Police
Enforcement Department
• Yakima School
District
Schools • West Valley
I School District
Parks
Streets
Transit
Air Terminal
Wastewater
' Stormwater
L
Includes City -owned public buildings. I • City Budget, 2016
Provides facilities that support the I • Yakima Fire
provision of fire and emergency I Department Annual
services. I Report, 2015
F • Yakima Police
Provides facilities that support the
014
provision of law enforcement services. Department
Annual Report
Provides elementary and secondary
facilities for instruction in several
branches of learning and study
required by the Basic Education Code
of the State of Washington. The
Yakima School District serves most
students and the West Valley School
District serves the western part of the
city.
Yakima Parks and Provides facilities for passive and
Recreation active recreational activities.
Yakima Public Provides streets, sidewalks, traffic
Works controls, and street lighting.
Yakima Transit Provides transit service in and around
the City of Yakima.
The Air Terminal is owned by the
Yakima Air airport and provides facilities for air
Terminal service. The City contracts with a third -
party operator.
Yakima Public
Works
Yakima Public
Works
Provides facilities used in collection,
transmission, storage, and treatment
or discharge of waterborne waste
within the city.
Provides facilities that collect and
transport stormwater runoff.
• 2014 — 2015 Fiscal
Year -End Report
(YSD)
• 2016 — 2017 Budget
Summary (WVSD)
• 2012 — 2017 Parks
and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan
(Under Update)
• 6 -Year TIP, 2017 —
2022
• Transportation
System Plan 2017
• Transit
Development Plan
Annual Report for
2015 and Six -Year
Plan 2016 — 2021
• Yakima Air
Terminal/McAllister
Field Airport Master
Plan, 2015
• 2015 Waste Load
Assessment
• 2013 Wastewater
Collection System
Master Plan
• Stormwater
Management
Program for City of
Yakima, 2015 JI
May 2017 4
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATIE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Type
Provider
DescriptionFacility
..
• City of Yakima,
City of Yakima*
93,220
100,094
116,431
Irrigation
53,115
Water System Plan
57,246
• Yakima Public
22,850
Update, 2017
34,860 ji
Works
Provides supply of potable water to
82,408
Water
• Nob Hill Water
portions of the City of Yakima.
• Nob Hill Water
147,379
Nob Hill Water District**
28,151
Association Draft
41,066
Associates
73,722
Water System Plan,
83,730
May 2015
• City of Yakima
Provides supply of non -potable
Irrigation
Yakima Public
irrigation water to portions of the City
Water/Irrigation
Works
of Yakima.
Division, 2016
City of Yakima
Provides automated refuse collection
Refuse
• City Budget, 2016
Refuse
to residential customers.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
1.4 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan
The Capital Facilities Plan relies on the policies set forth in the Yakima Comprehensive Plan as a baseline
for studying capital planning needs. The future land use plan and the comprehensive plan population
assumptions drive future development in the City, which impacts levels of service and determines capacity
needs for services provided by city and non -city providers.
Exhibit 2 lists the population assumptions for the six and 23 -year planning horizon years for the City of
Yakima and the special districts. The City of Yakima is required to plan for capital needs to serve at least
its target population of 110,387 residents by 2040. However, the City developed growth numbers for
alternatives based on trends and pending plans and permits and those Action Alternative numbers were
the numbers tested in the EIS. The Action Alternative is carried forward and is the basis for the CFP. The
CFP will be monitored and can be amended if growth numbers are lower or higher than assumed.
Exhibit 2. Yakima Population Assumptions, 2016 — 2040
*Fire, Police, and Stormwater service area boundaries are synonymous with the City of Yakima city limits.
**City planning numbers differ slightly from the individual district planning numbers.
Source: City of Yakima, 2017; BERK, 2017
May 2017
2015
2022
040
City of Yakima*
93,220
100,094
116,431
Irrigation
53,115
54,420
57,246
West Valley School District
22,850
26,157
34,860 ji
Yakima School District
78,932
82,408
90,310
Wastewater
110,413
121,102
147,379
Nob Hill Water District**
28,151
31,766
41,066
Yakima Water District**
73,722
76,787
83,730
*Fire, Police, and Stormwater service area boundaries are synonymous with the City of Yakima city limits.
**City planning numbers differ slightly from the individual district planning numbers.
Source: City of Yakima, 2017; BERK, 2017
May 2017
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Foundation Documents (Incorporation by Reference)
The documents used to prepare the CFP are the capital facility and capital improvement plans prepared
routinely by the City of Yakima, which are required for obtaining project funding. The following documents
are incorporated by reference:
Yakima's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Functional plans for service areas were also reviewed and are incorporated by reference into this
document. See Exhibit 1.
2.0 CAPITAL FACILITIES REVENUE ANALYSIS
Overview
The revenue analysis of the Capital Facilities Plan supports the financing for providing facilities and
services, as required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). Revenue estimates, using assumptions that are based on
historical trends, were used to represent realistic expectations for revenue that may be available for
capital funding.
This revenue analysis looks at Yakima's capital facility revenues for those services provided by the City of
Yakima. Through identifying fiscal constraints in the future, project prioritization can be incorporated into
the capital planning process.
The revenue analysis provides an approximate, and not exact, forecast of future revenue sources. The
numbers projected in this analysis are for planning purposes and cannot account for sensitivities such as
local, state, and federal policy, economic trends, and other factors.
Funding the Capital Facilities Plan
Estimated future revenues are projected for the Plan's 2017 — 2040 time period. The revenue analysis is
grouped according to:
General Capital Revenues. Those revenues under the category of general capital revenues are the
revenues required by law to be used for capital projects. The general capital revenues in Yakima
include REET I and REET II.
Dedicated Capital Revenues. Dedicated revenues are required to be used for certain types of capital
spending, outlined by the law. The dedicated capital revenues in Yakima include grants and facility
charges and fees.
Operating Transfers. Operating transfers -in are those revenue sources that are transferred in from
operating funds. Although these are not dedicated sources to be relied on for capital funding, it has
been the historical practice of the City to regularly make transfers into capital funds for certain
service departments. Those are calculated separately as the practice may be common enough to be
considered a potential funding source, however these transfers are not dedicated to capital
spending and could be used elsewhere.
Potential Policy Options and Other Funding Sources. There are additional policy tools and sources
available to fund capital projects.
2.3 Assumptions
The assumptions used in this analysis may not align with the City's budget assumptions regarding the
same sources of revenue because the purpose of the two analyses is different. The City's budget estimates
May 2017
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
how much money the City will have available for spending in the coming fiscal year while this CFP revenue
analysis estimates how much money (dedicated to capital spending) the City is likely to receive in total
over the next six and 23 years. The Yakima revenue analysis is based on the following assumptions:
City Boundary. The City of Yakima will maintain the same boundary now through the 2040 planning
horizon, without annexing any additional unincorporated areas. The buildable lands analysis
indicates that the City can accommodate all expected growth by 2040 in the city limits. While
annexations may occur with willing landowners, they are likely to be incremental.
District Boundaries. Some of the service providers operate in a geographic area other than the city
limits. Population estimates through 2040 for these districts are indicated in Exhibit 2.
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). This analysis assumes that assessed values (AV) for property tax will
increase an annual rate of 1% going forward and that the turnover rate is 3% for residential
properties and 2% for commercial properties. New construction is assumed to be 0.4% of total AV.
The growth in assessed value and the turnover rates are important since REET revenues are based
on the total value of real estate transactions in a given year. REET 1 and REET 2 each assess 0.25%
on the assessed value.
2.4 Dedicated Capital Revenues and Operating Transfers
CBD Capital Improvement
CBD Improvement: Dedicated Revenues
The CBD Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 321) historically received an average of $0.42 per capita
annually in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated
revenues per capita used in the model are $0.40 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3%
annually. Exhibit 3 shows the historical and projected non -transfer and non -grant revenues for CBD capital
improvement.
Exhibit 3 shows historical revenues to the left of the dotted line and an estimated future revenue trend
to the right of the dotted line. An average annual per capita dollar amount is assumed in each year for this
analysis, based on 5 -year historical per capita revenues. While the annual average cannot fully represent
future receipt of revenues, it approximates how many total dollars may be received over a period of time.
This method of projection is consistent for the analysis of dedicated revenues for all service areas
analyzed.
May 2017 7
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAT4E
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 3. Historical and Projected CBD Improvement Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
100 K
90 K
80 K
70 K
60 K
50 K
40 K
30 K
20 K
10K
0
L
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 4 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
ment Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$
CBD Capital Improvement: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 5 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for CBD Improvement capital projects over
the planning period. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $2,200 in its CBD
Improvements Capital Fund. These funds are also available to cover CBD capital projects during the 2017
— 2040 period. The CBD Capital Improvement Fund will focus largely on the construction of the Downtown
Plaza and other minor services. In 2018, work is expected to begin on the $10 million plaza. A $9 million
LTGO bond will be secured for its construction and will be paid back with $9 million in community
donations.
Exhibit S. Pro
YOE$
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011— 2015) there was almost
$500,000 in grant revenues and contributions for CBD Improvement capital spending. The City will need
to consider what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future.
CBD Capital Improvement: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated CBD Improvement revenue sources with its planned
project costs forthe six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
May 2017 8
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
Exhibit 6. Estimated CBD Improvement Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
Estimated Fund Revenues $250,000
2016 Fund Balance $2,279
Total Funds Available $250,000
Capital CostS2 $0
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $250,000
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
zlnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Capitol Theatre
Capitol Theatre: Operating Transfers
The Capitol Theatre Construction Fund (Fund 322) historically received an average of $53,000 annually in
operating transfers between 2011 and 2015 (see Exhibit 7). The assumed transfer revenues used in the
model are $50,000 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
Exhibit 7 shows historical revenues to the left of the dotted line and an estimated future revenue trend
to the right of the dotted line. An average annual dollar amount is assumed in each year for this analysis,
based on the 5 -year historical average transfer amount. While the annual average cannot fully represent
future receipt of operating transfers, it approximates how many total dollars may be transferred over a
period of time. This method of projection is consistent for the analysis of operating transfers for all service
areas analyzed.
Exhibit 7. Historical and Projected Capitol Theatre Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
140 K
1
120 K
100 K
80 K
60 K
40 K
20 K
0
U13 Vlwzl laI<►T�7► �►Trl►��►Irl►•Y<►•i�7►•�iirI���►�rI�I��►�rI���►�rI��t►��I� ]
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
May 2017 9
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAV
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 8 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 8. Projected Capitol Theatre
ng Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE
Estimated Revenues I $340,000 I $1,440,000 I $1,780,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Capitol Theatre: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 9 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for Capitol Theatre capital projects over the
planning period. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 ending fund balance of about $245,000 in its Capitol
Theatre Capital Fund. These funds are also available to cover theatre projects during the 2017 — 2040
period.
Exhibit 9. Pro
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Capitol Theatre: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
YOE$
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Capitol Theatre revenue sources with its planned
project costs forthe six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
Exhibit 10. Estimated Capitol Theatre Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
_W IEL
Capitol Theatra- Revenue Gap
Estimated Fund Revenues $340,000
2016 Fund Balance $245,391
Total Funds Available $590,000
Capital CostS2 $0
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $590,000
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
zlnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Convention Center
Convention Center: Dedicated Revenues
The Convention Center Capital Projects Fund (Fund 370) historically received an average of $2.00 per
capita annually in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015 (see Exhibit 11). The
assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model are $2.00 annually. The model assumes
inflation growth of 3% annually.
May 2017 10
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 11. Historical and Projected Convention Center Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
500 K —.
1
450 K
1
400 K 1
1
350 K 1
1
300 K 1
250 K 1
1
200 K
150 K
1
100 K
1
50 K 1
1
0 1
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2916; BERK, 2017
Exhibit 12 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 12.
YOE$
Estimated Revenues 1,250,000 $6,080,000 $7,330,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Convention Center: Operating Transfers
The Convention Center Capital Projects Fund historically received an average of about $72,200 annually
in operating transfers between 2011 and 2015 (see Exhibit 13). The assumed transfer revenues used in
the model are $70,000 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
May 2017 11
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 13. Historical and Projected Convention Center Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
160 K
1
140 K
1
1
120 K 1
I
100 K
80 K
60 K
40 K
20 K
0 1
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Exhibit 14 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 14. Projected Convention Center Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$
$470,000
$2,170,000
$2,640,000
Convention Center: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 15 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for convention center capital projects over
the planning period, including operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about
$584,000 in its convention center capital fund. These funds are also available to cover convention center
projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
Exhibit 15.
For Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$
$1,720,000 $8,090,000 $9,810,000
$10,400,000
Convention Center: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Convention Center revenue sources with its planned
project costs forthe six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
Exhibit 16. Estimated Convention Center Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
Convention Center I - Revenue Gap
May 2017 12
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Estimated Fund Revenues
$1,720,000
2016 Fund Balance
$583,975
Total Funds Available
$2,300,000
Capital CostS2
$0
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit)
$2,300,000
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
zlnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Fire
Fire: Dedicated Revenues
The Fire Capital Fund (Fund 332) historically received an average of $1.53 per capita annually in non -
transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita
used in the model are $1.50 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
450 K
400 K
350 K
300 K
250 K
200 K
150 K
100 K
50 K
0
Exhibit 17. Historical and Projected Fire Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
R
1
I
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 18 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 18. Pro
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
YOE$
Fire: Operating Transfers
The Fire Capital Fund historically received an average of $125,000 annually in operating transfers between
2011 and 2015. The conservative assumption for annual operating transfer revenues is $100,000 annually,
with 3% inflation growth.
May 2017 13
300 K
250 K
200 K
150 K
100 K
50 K
0
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 19. Historical and Projected Fire Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
I
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 20 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 20.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
ting Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Fire: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 21 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for fire capital projects over the planning
period, including grants, contributions, other dedicated sources, and operating transfers. Additionally,
Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $34,000 in its fire capital fund. These funds are also available to
cover fire projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
Exhibit 21.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Fire: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Fire revenue sources with its planned project costs
for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated
capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs
are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
May 2017 14
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDfTIE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 22. Estimated Fire Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022). YOE$1
Fire
Revenue Gap
Estimated Fund Revenues
$1,610,000
2016 Fund Balance
$34,097
Total Funds Available
$1,640,000
Capital CostS2
$420,000
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit)
$1,220,000
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Law and Justice
Law and Justice: Dedicated Revenues
The Police Capital Fund (Fund 333) historically received an average of $3.47 per capita annually in non -
transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita
used in the model are $3.45 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
Exhibit 23. Historical and Projected Law and Justice Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
onn k
800 K
700 K
600 K
500 K
400 K
300 K
200 K
nn
K 1
1
0 1
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 24 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 24. Projected Law and Justice Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Dedicated Revenues Subtotal Subtotal
2017-2022 040 041
Estimated Revenues $2,160,000 $10,480,000 $12,640,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
May 2017 15
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Law and Justice: Operating Transfers
The Police Capital Fund historically received an average of $188,667 annually in operating transfers
between 2011 and 2015. The assumed operating transfer revenues used in the model are $185,000
annually, with 3% inflation growth.
Exhibit 25. Historical and Projected Law and Justice Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
400 K
1
I
350 K I
I
300 K
250 K
1
200 K
150 K
100 K
r,n K
1
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 26 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 26.
Estimated R?venues
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Law and Justice Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$
$1,240,000 1 $5,330,000 1 $6,570,000
Law & Justice: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 27 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for police capital projects over the planning
period, dedicated sources and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about
$548,000 in its police capital fund. These funds are also available to cover police projects during the 2017
— 2040 period.
Exhibit 27.
ted for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
In addition to the dedicated revenues and operating transfers, over the historical period observed (2011
— 2015) there was around $1.4 million in grant revenues and $4.5 million in loan proceeds for capital
May 2017 16
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
spending on law and justice. The City will need to consider what sources are available to fill potential
funding gaps in the future.
Law & Justice: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Law & Justice revenue sources with its planned
project costs forthe six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
E)
Airport
hibit 28. Estimated Law & Justice Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE
Law & Justice Revenue Gap
Estimated Fund Revenues
2016 Fund Balance
$3,390,000
$547,718
Total Funds Available
$3,940,000
Capital CostS2
$0
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit)
$3,940,000
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
$1
Airport: Dedicated Revenues
The Airport Capital Fund (Fund 422) historically received an average of $1.98 per capita annually in non -
transfer and non -grant revenues between the ownership years of 2013 and 2016. There were no revenues
in years 2011 and 2012 The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model are $1.98 annually.
The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
Exhibit 29. Historical and Projected Airport Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
500 K
450 K
400 K
350 K --
300 K
250 K
200 K
150 K
100 K
50 K
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
May 2017 17
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAT4E
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 30 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 30. Projected Airport Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Subtotal
Dedicated Revenues 7W202
2017-2022 3-2
040 ]1%040
Estimated Revenues $1,240,000 $6,020,000 $7,260,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Airport: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 31 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for airport capital projects over the
planning period. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $48,000 in its airport capital fund.
These funds are also available to cover airport projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
Exhibit 31. Projected Dedicated Ai
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011— 2015) there was almost
$1.7 million in grant revenues Air Terminal capital spending. The City will need to consider what sources
are available to fill potential funding gaps in the future.
Airport: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Airport revenue sources with its planned project
costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
Exhibit 32. Estimated Airport Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
4F P11111111M�
Airport
Estimated Fund Revenues $1,240,000
2016 Fund Balance $48,065
Total Funds Available $1,290,000
Capital CostS2 $9,620,000
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) ($8,330,000)
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Parks and Recreation
Revenues for parks capital projects and land acquisitions come from state and federal grants,
contributions, and inter -fund distributions. In November of 2014, citizens approved a City Charter
Amendment to dedicate $750,000 per year for parks capital improvements.
The Tahoma Cemetery in Yakima is part of the Parks Department. Revenues include charges for grave lots
and other services. Expected 2017 resources in the Cemetery Fund were $300,426, with expected
May 2017 18
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
expenditures of $281,000. These costs and revenues include capital and operations. The financial situation
for the cemetery is monitored by Parks (City of Yakima, 2016).
Parks: Operating Transfers
The City of Yakima contributes funds to the Parks and Recreation Capital Fund through operating
transfers. Historical transfers -in range in size from $50,000 to $950,000 but do occur every year. Average
annual transfers between 2011 and 2015 were $264,000. Historically, it has been the policy of the City to
transfer $100,000 from the Operating Fund to the Parks Capital Fund (City of Yakima, 2016).
The $950,000 transfer was an outlier compared to the prior years of historical data, and was used
specifically for the SOZO project debt service. There has been a historical policy to transfer $100,000 from
the operating fund, but a $400,000 annual transfer is expected to pay off debt service on the SOZO project
through 2035. As a result, the model assumes an annual transfer of $400,000. No growth in transfers
beyond inflation (3%) was assumed.
$ 1.0 M
$ 0.9 M
$ 0.8 M
$ 0.7 M
$ 0.6 M
$ 0.5 M
$ 0.4 M
$ 0.3 M
$ 0.2 M
$0.1M
Exhibit 33. Historical and Projected Parks Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
$ 0.0 M 1
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 34 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 34.
Estimated Revenues
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Parks: Grants
Parks Ooeratine Transfers
$2,590,000
7—
$11,190,000 1 $13,780,000
State grants have historically been received from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO) and are supplemented by community donations. Since parks grants are competitive on a
state or national level, this analysis estimates these revenues on a per capita basis, using the assumption
that over time a jurisdiction generally receives its "fair share" of available grant revenues. Since 2011,
Yakima has received around $2.26 per capita annually in combined grant and donation revenues. Given
May 2017 19
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAV
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
the fluctuating nature of grants, and a large outlier grant in year 2011, a value of $2.00 per capita was
used to project potential future grant revenues. The analysis assumes no additional growth beyond
inflation.
Exhibit 35 shows historical revenues to the left of the dotted line and an estimated future revenue trend
to the right of the dotted line. An average annual dollar amount is assumed in each year for this analysis.
In reality, annual revenues will vary greatly due to the lumpy nature of grant funding and are likely to
resemble more of a peaks and valleys trend as shown in the historical data. While the annual average
cannot fully represent future receipt of grant dollars, it approximates how many total dollars may be
received over a period of time.
Exhibit 35. Historical and Projected Parks Grants and Contributions Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
700 K
600 K
500 K
400 K
300 K
200 K
100 K
t
1
1
I
0 1
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 36 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 36.
Estimated Revenues
JUUr CC: L.ILy UI TdKlrTld, L1110; DCKK, /U -LD
Parks: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 37 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for parks capital projects over the planning
period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund
balance of about $1.2 million in its parks capital fund. These funds are also available to cover parks projects
during the 2017 — 2040 period.
Exhibit 37.
1 1 •
Total with 2016
Fund Balances
May 2017 20
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Estimated Dedicated Revenues
$2,590,000
$11,190,000
$13,780,000
$15,030,000
Estimated Grant Revenues
$1,250,000
$6,080,000
$7,330,000
$7,330,000
Amount Committed to Debt
Service
Available Revenues
$2,400,000
$5,200,000
$7,600,000
$7,600,000
$190,000
$5,990,000
$6,180,000
$14,760,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Parks: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Parks revenue sources with its planned project costs
for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated
capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs
are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
Exhibit 38. Estimated Parks Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
Parks Revenue Gap
Estimated Fund Revenues
$190,000
2016 Fund Balance
$1,240,543
Total Funds Available
$1,430,000
Capital CostS2
$18,678,691
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit)
($17,248,691)
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
This section considers all revenues dedicated to capital projects for streets. The assumptions used in the
Capital Facility Plan revenue analysis differ from those used in the Transportation Plan, which results in
some differences in the projected revenues. These projections are meant to act as a guide based on
historical revenues, and are not meant to represent reality.
Streets capital revenues in Yakima are funneled into the two funds, described below:
Fund 142 — Arterial Street Capital. This fund is used for street improvement projects that are
included in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The majority of the revenues to Fund
142 come from an allocation of the gas tax and the funds are used to provide a local match to gap
funding sources, pay for debt service, or to fund certain projects in full.
Fund 344 — Street Capital. This fund is used to accomplish the goal of investing at least $2 million
annually on the restoration and reconstruction of Yakima streets as a response to 72% of voters
supporting a City Charter amendment in 2013 that requires the City to invest at least $2 million
annually. This has increased the City's Average Pavement Index since 2013.
Streets: Dedicated Revenues
The Arterial Streets Capital Fund (Fund 344) and the Arterial Street Fund (Fund 142) combined historically
received an average of $10.88 per capita annually in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011
and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model is $10.00 annually. The model
assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
May 2017 21
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 39. Historical and Projected Streets Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
$ 2.5 M
$ 2.0 M
$ 1.5 M
$ 1.0 M
$ 0.5 M
1
$0.0M 1
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 40 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 40.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
YOE$
Streets: Operating Transfers
The arterial streets capital funds historically received an average of $627,300 annually in operating
transfers between 2011 and 2015. The assumed operating transfer revenues used in the model are a
conservative $500,000 annually, with 3% inflation growth. The conservative assumption is made due to
an inconsistency in transfers and to acknowledge a large outlier transfer of $2.75 million in 2014.
May 2017 22
$ 3.0 M
$ 2.5 M
$ 2.0 M
$ 1.5 M
$ 1.0 M
$ 0.5 M
$ 0.0 M
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 41. Historical and Projected Streets Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 42 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 42. Proiected Streets
Estimated Revenues
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Transfers (2017 —
$3,240,000 1 $13,980,000
YOE$
$17,220,000
Streets: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 43 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for streets capital projects over the
planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016
fund balance of about $760,000 in its streets capital fund. These funds are also available to cover streets
projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
Exhibit 43.
JUUIL:C. LILY UI TdKIITItl, LUlO, DERK, LUlD
YOE$
In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011— 2015) there was about
$19.5 million in grant revenues dedicated to streets capital projects. The City will need to consider what
sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future.
Streets: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
See the Transportation System Plan for information on Streets projects, costs, and funding gaps.
May 2017 23
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD,�JE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Transit
The assumptions used in the Capital Facility Plan revenue analysis differ from those used in the
Transportation Plan, which results in some differences in the projected revenues. These projections are
meant to act as a guide based on historical revenues, and are not meant to represent reality.
Transit: Dedicated Revenues
The Transit Capital Fund (Fund 464) historically received an average of $12.74 per capita annually in non -
transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita
used in the model is $12.00 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
Exhibit 44. Historical and Projected Transit Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
$ 3.0 M
i
1
1
$ 2.5 M 1
1
$ 2.0 M
$ 1.5 M
$ 1.0 M
$ 0.5 M
1
1
$ 0.0 M
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 45 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 45. Pro
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
YOE$
Transit: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 46 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for transit capital projects over the
planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016
fund balance of about $4.7 million in its transit capital fund. These funds are also available to cover transit
projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
May 2017 24
Exhibit 46. Pro
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDNE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
YOE$
In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011— 2015) there was about
$630,000 in grant revenues dedicated to transit capital projects, with another $800,000 in grants expected
in 2016. The City will need to consider what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future.
Transit: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
See the Transportation System Plan for information on Transit projects, costs, and funding gaps.
Stormwater
Stormwater: Dedicated Revenues
The Stormwater Capital Fund (Fund 442) historically received an average of $0.52 per capita annually in
non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per
capita used in the model is $0.50 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
Exhibit 47. Historical and Projected Stormwater Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
f
1
120 K
I
1
100 K
80 K
60 K
40 K
20 K
0
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 48 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 48. Projected Stormwater Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
May 2017 25
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Stormwater: Operating Transfers
The Stormwater Capital Fund historically received an average of $561,000 annually in operating transfers
between 2011 and 2015. The assumed operating transfer revenues used in the model are a conservative
$550,000 annually, with 3% inflation growth. The conservative assumption is made due to an
inconsistency in transfers and to acknowledge a large outlier transfer of $1.2 million in 2015.
Exhibit 49. Historical and Projected Stormwater Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
$ 1.2 M
$ 1.0 M
$0.8M
$ 0.6 M
$ 0.4 M
$ 0.2 M
$ 0.0 M
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 50 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 50. Projected Stormwater Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Stormwater: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 51 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for transit capital projects over the
planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016
fund balance of about $4.7 million in its transit capital fund. These funds are also available to cover transit
projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
Exhibit 51.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
May 2017 26
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDfTiE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011 — 2015) there were
around $300,000 in grant and loan revenues for stormwater capital projects. The City will need to consider
what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future.
Stormwater: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Stormwater revenue sources with its planned project
costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
E
Wastewater
(hibit 52. Estimated Stormwater Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE!
Stormwater Revenue Gap
Estimated Fund Revenues
2016 Fund Balance
$3,980,000
$3,044,907
Total Funds Available
$7,020,000
Capital CostS2
$453,200
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit)
$6,566,800
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
zlnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
>1
The following section includes all revenues spent on capital. The city separates capital revenues for
wastewater into three different capital funds:
Fund 472 — Wastewater Capital Facilities. This is a contingency fund for major facility repairs,
industrial coating, or minor equipment replacement. This capital spending category may include
required maintenance and replacement work.
Fund 476 — Wastewater Capital Construction. This funds wastewater system planning and
collection system capital improvements. Construction projects related to accommodating service
area growth and upgrades to capacity, as well as repair and replacement of the existing system are
paid out of this fund.
L Fund 478 — Wastewater Capital Project. Fund 478 directs funds to costs associated with the
planning, installation, rehabilitation, expansion, and modification of the Wastewater Treatment
Facility and the Rudkin Road Lift Station.
Wastewater: Dedicated Revenues
The Wastewater Facilities Capital Fund (Fund 472) and Wastewater Capital Construction (Fund 476)
historically received a combined average of $1.49 per capita annually in non -transfer and non -grant
revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model is $1.25
annually (based on the 2015 population for the wastewater service area), which is a conservative
assumption accounting for high outlier revenues from the State Revolving Fund in 2012. The area that is
provided with wastewater services does not include the whole city of Yakima, but does include the cities
of Union Gap and Terrace Heights. The State Revolving Fund provides funding through the federal Clean
Water Act's Clean Water State Revolving Fund program and is funded through the EPA to provide low
May 2017 27
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDffi4E
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
interest and forgivable loan funding for wastewater treatment construction projects, nonpoint source
pollution projects, and Green project. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
Exhibit 53. Historical and Projected Wastewater Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
700 K
600 K
500 K
400 K
300 K
200 K
100 K
I
0 -'
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 54 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 54. Pro
Wastewater Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Estimated Revenues I $950,000 I $4,730,000 I $5,680,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Wastewater: Operating Transfers
The wastewater capital funds historically received an average of $3.6 million annually in operating
transfers between 2011 and 2015. The assumed operating transfer revenues used in the model are a
conservative $3.6 million annually, with 3% inflation growth.
May 2017 28
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDffiE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 55. Historical and Projected Wastewater Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
$ 8.0 M
1
1
$7.0M 1
1
$ 6.0 M 1
1
1
$ 5.0 M
$ 4.0 M
$ 3.0 M
$ 2.0 M
$ 1.0 M
$ 0.0 M
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 56 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 56. P
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
YOE$
Wastewater: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 57 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for wastewater and sewer capital projects
over the planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima
has a 2016 fund balance of about $12.1 million in its wastewater and sewer capital funds. These funds are
also available to cover wastewater and sewer projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
Exhibit 57. Projected Dedicated Wastewater Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Estimated Revenues I $24,270,000 I $105,510,000 I $129,780,000 $141,900,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011 — 2015) there were
around $6.5 million in grants and loan proceeds to Fund 478 and almost $1.4 million in loan proceeds to
Fund 476. The City will need to consider what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future.
Wastewater: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated wastewater revenue sources with its planned project
costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
May 2017 29
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD, V
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 58. Estimated Wastewater Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
Wastewater
Revenue Gap
Estimated Fund Revenues
$24,270,000
2016 Fund Balance
$12,117,199
Total Funds Available
$36,390,000
Capital CostS2
$181,680,000
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit)
($145,290,000)
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
The City of Yakima provides water services to portions of the City, which is supplemented by Nob Hill
Water. Water capital is funded by transfers from the Water Operating Fund and grants. The fund pays for
all capital projects that are related to drinking water and its resources, including treatment, wells,
transmission, distribution, pumping stations, storage, fire suppression, and more.
Funding sources for water capital projects include grants, transfers from the operating fund, loans, and
bond financing.
Water sales have been down for several years, as of 2017, due to the economic downturn and water usage
reductions because of conservation efforts. From 2013 to 2017, four years of planned rate increases were
delayed. The 2017 budget proposes to increase rates by 5% in both 2017 and 2018 to make up for the
delayed rate increases. This would allow for transfers to the Water Capital Fund to be reduced to $675,000
in 2017 and $400,000 in 2018. The average residential water customer would experience an increase of
around $1.79 every two months in 2017 and $2.01 every two months in 2018. (City of Yakima, 2016)
Water: Operating Transfers
The City of Yakima contributes funds to the Water Capital Fund through operating transfers. Five-year
Historical transfers -in range in size from $725,000 to $1.8 million. Average annual transfer between 2011
and 2015 was $958,000 and the model's assumed annual transfer is $950,000. There is an annual inflation
rate of 3%.
May 2017 30
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD, 7
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 59. Historical and Projected Water Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
$2.5M
1
1
1
$ 2.0 M 1
1
1
$ 1.5 M
$ 1.0 M
$ 0.5 M
$ 0.0 M
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 60 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 60.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Water: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
YOE$
Exhibit 61 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for water capital projects over the planning
period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund
balance of about $4.5 million in its water capital fund. These funds are also available to cover water
projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
Exhibit 61.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
(2017 — 2040), YOE$
Yakima receives state and federal grants to help fund water system capital projects. Grants tend to be
project -specific in nature and do not occur on a consistent basis. The Water Capital Fund received $9.1
million in grants and loan proceeds between 2011 and 2015, and a grant of about $57,000 in 2015. The
City will need to consider the types of gap funding available to meet its needs for water capital
investments in the future.
Water: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
May 2017 31
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDffiE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Water revenue sources with its planned project costs
for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated
capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs
are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
Exhibit 62. Estimated Water Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
Estimated Fund Revenues $6,330,000
2016 Fund Balance $4,555,143
Total Funds Available $10,890,000
Capital CostS2 $0
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) j $10,890,000
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Irrigation
Irrigation: Dedicated Revenues
The Irrigation Capital Fund (Fund 479) historically received an average of $23.18 per capita served annually
(based on the 2015 service area population) in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and
2015. The service area for irrigation only includes a portion of Yakima, with the majority of service focused
around the downtown area and the area just to the west. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita
used in the model is $20.00 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually.
$ 1.4 M
$ 1.2 M
$ 1.0 M
$ 0.8 M
$ 0.6 M
$ 0.4 M
$ 0.2 M
$ 0.0 M
Exhibit 63. Historical and Projected Irrigation Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 64 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
May 2017 32
Exhibit 64.
JOurce: UTY OT YaKlma, zuib; btKK, zuib
Irrigation: Operating Transfers
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDffiE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
YOE$
The City of Yakima contributes funds to the Irrigation Capital Fund through operating transfers. Five-year
historical transfers occurred in 2014 and 2015, in amounts of $500,000 and $210,000. Average annual
transfer between 2011 and 2015 were $142,000 and the model's assumed annual transfer is $140,000.
There is an annual inflation rate of 3%.
Exhibit 65. Historical and Projected Irrigation Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$
500 k
400 K
300 K
200 K
100 K
0
..........................
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 66 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods.
Exhibit 66.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
YOE$
Irrigation: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues
Exhibit 67 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for irrigation capital projects over the
planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016
fund balance of about $2.5 million in its irrigation capital fund. These funds are also available to cover
irrigation projects during the 2017 — 2040 period.
May 2017 33
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
There have been some loan and grant revenues for irrigation in the past, but they are not a consistent
source. In 2011 there was $225,000 in loan and grant money and in 2012 there was $85,000 in loan
proceeds from the Department of Ecology.
Exhibit 67. Projected Dedicated Irrigation Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$
Total Irrigation Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 20'_
2017-2022 040 040 Fund Balancz
Estimated Revenues $8,370,000 $27,150,000 $35,520,000 $37,570,000
Amount Committed to Debt
Service $2,650,000 $6,190,000 $8,840,000 $8,840,000
Available Revenues $5,720,000 $20,960,000 $26,680,000 $28,730,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Irrigation: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Irrigation revenue sources with its planned project
costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
Exhibit 68. Estimated I
Estimated Fund Revenues
2016 Fund Balance
Total Funds Available
Capital CostS2
on Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit)
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
$8,370,000
$2,049,953
$10,420,000
$13,100,000
($2,680,000)
zlnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
2.5 General Capital Revenues
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues are collected on property sales at the point of sale. They are
required by law to be spent on capital projects. REET is based on the total value of real estate transactions
in a given year, and the amount received annually can vary significantly based on fluctuations in the real
estate market and trends in the economy.
Yakima is authorized by the state to impose two separate REET levies. REET I and REET II each allow for a
levy of 0.25 % on the assessed value of a sale, for a total tax of 0.5 % of total assessed value. All proceeds
must be used for capital spending, as defined in RCW 35.43.040. REET 11 is more restricted than REET 1, as
it may not be spent on acquisition of land for parks, recreation facilities, law enforcement facilities, fire
protection facilities, trails, libraries, or administrative or judicial facilities (RCW 82.46.035). REET 11,
specifically, can only be levied by those cities and counties that are planning under GMA. For REET 11, the
capital projects must be those specifically listed in RCW 82.46.035(5):
May 2017 34
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads,
highways, sidewalks, streets and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic
water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, constructions,
reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks.
Within the parameters defined by law, REET I and REET II can be spent at the discretion of the City of
Yakima. A portion of REET revenues in Yakima are already committed to bond payments, but this analysis
estimates that there will be additional revenues to spend for capital purposes.
Since home sales and values can fluctuate significantly depending on factors of the economy, this analysis
assumes annual turnover of 4.0% for residential properties and 2.0% for commercial properties. Exhibit
69 shows historical REET revenues to the left of the dotted line and projected revenues to the right of the
dotted line. Actual revenues will have some peaks and valleys due to the natural cycles of the real estate
market and the economy.
$3.5M
$ 3.0 M
$2.5M
$ 2.0 M
$ 1.5 M
$ 1.0 M
Exhibit 69. Annual Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$
1
1
$ 0.5 M
1
1
$0.0M
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Exhibit 70 shows the estimated total REET revenues for the next six years and for the 23 -year planning
horizon (2040). In 2016, REET I and REET II had an ending balance of just over $700,000, which is also
available for general capital spending during the planning period. Existing debt service commitments are
also shown.
Exhibit 70. Projected Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues (2017 -2040), YOE$
Estimated Revenues
Amount Committed to
Debt Service
Available Revenues
511,220,000
550,160,000 561,380,000
562,090,000
$4,200,000
$10,500,000 $14,700,000
$14,700,000
$7,020,000
$39,660,000 $46,680,000
$47,390,000
May 2017 35
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
General Capital: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated General Capital revenue sources with its planned
project costs forthe six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future
dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future
capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
Exhibit 71. Estimated General Capital Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
Estimated Fund Revenues $7,020,000
2016 Fund Balance $705,887
Total Funds Available $7,730,000
Capital CostS2 $0
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) j $7,730,000
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
2.6 Total Capital Revenues
Exhibit 72 summarizes projected total capital revenues available over the planning period, including fund
balances.
Exhibit 72. Projected Total Capital Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$
W Total Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal• • 1
2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balance,
Estimated Revenues $80,510,000 $351,140,000 $431,650,000 $437,370,000
Amount Committed to Debt
$9, 250, 000 $21, 890, 000 $31,140, 000 $31,140,000
Service
Available Revenues $71,260,000 $329,250,000 $400,510,000 $406,230,000
Total Revenues: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated revenue sources with its planned project costs for
the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated
capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs
are larger than future dedicated capital revenues. The comparison of total revenues and costs does not
include Streets or Transit, which are analyzed in the 2040 Transportation System Plan.
Exhibit 73. Estimated Total Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$'
All Capital Revenue Gap
Estimated Fund Revenues* $56,460,000
2016 Fund Balance* $25,180,000
Total Funds Available* $81,640,000
Capital CostS2 * $317,090,000
May 2017 36
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
*Does not include Streets or Transit, which are analyzed under the 2040 Transportation
System Plan.
'Year of Expenditure = YOE$
2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Policy Options and Other Funding Sources
Bonds. The City uses Bonds to support capital facilities funding. Yakima has a rating of AA -from
Standard and Poor's on its water and wastewater utilities, and its general obligation bonds. This
rating is credited to careful staff preparation, good audits, high levels of fiscal responsibility, and
comprehensive financial policies.
Establish Transportation Benefit District. The City is considering creating a Transportation Benefit
District that would fund the Street Construction Fund. Revenues are expected to be between
$685,000 and $1.3 million, depending on a car tab fee of $10 - $20.
Impact Fees. Impact fees are a financing tool allowed under state law that requires new
development to pay a portion of the costs associated with infrastructure improvements that are
related to the development. GMA allows agencies to implement a transportation, parks, fire, and
school impact fee program to help fund some of the costs of capital facilities needed to
accommodate growth. State law requires that impact fees be related to improvement that serve
new developments and not existing deficiencies, that they're assessed proportional to the impacts
of new development, that they're allocated for improvements that reasonably benefit new
development, and that they're spent on facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Plan.
Local Improvement District/Road Improvement District (LID/RID). A LID or RID is a new taxing
district that the City has the statutory authority to create. A district could be used to levy additional
property tax to cover debt service payments on the sale of bonds purchased to finance projects
within the district. Revenues from the levy must be used for local, clearly-defined areas where the
land owners are being assessed the additional tax benefit. LID, by law, can be used for water, sewer,
and stormwater projects. RIDS may be used for road funding and street improvements.
Other. The City could lobby state legislators to restore some of the funding levels once available to
local governments for road improvements. Although local jurisdictions receive a certain percentage
of collected MVF Tax funds, a combination of factors such as decreasing gas prices and a reduction
in both vehicle miles driven and vehicle fuel efficiency has resulted in local MVF Tax allocations that
are generally not keeping pace with inflation. In order to restore funding levels, the City could
encourage legislators to follow the recent gas tax increase with measures that raise the tax rate
alongside cost inflation and increase the tax rate over time with fuel efficiency improvements.
c.a Other Service Providers
Funding information for service providers other than the City of Yakima are summarized in the capital
facility detail in Section 4.0.
May 2017 37
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAT4E
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
3.0 COMPREHENSIVE CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN
3.1 Inventory
An inventory for each service provider is included in Section 4.0.
3.2 Level of Service Consequences
The CFP lays out the level of service (LOS) consequences of growth for the City through 2040. LOS
consequences are summarized for each service. Exhibit 74 shows the LOS consequences for each facility
and adopted LOS standard policies through 2040. The 2040 policy identified indicates the level of service
that the City expects to be able to fund during the planning period.
Exhibit 74. Current LOS and Target LOS by City Service
Public Buildings • 2,400 square feet per 1,000
Population.
Fire and Emergency • Response time in 2015 was just over 8
Services minutes on avera e
Law Enforcement
Parks
Wastewater
Stormwater
Water
Irrigation
Air Terminal
mma_
Solid Waste
g•
• The current LOS for YPD is 1.6 officers
per 1,000 population.
• .64 acres per 1,000 population for
neighborhood/mini parks.
• 2.67 acres per 1,000 population for
community parks.
• 342.8 pounds of organic loading per
day per 1,000 population.
• Maintain per Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Eastern
Washington or equivalent as
determined by the Stormwater
Management Program for the City of
Yakima.
• 233 gpd per ERU.
• 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 population.
• Reliable and safe air service at a facility
that is compatible with the community.
• Compliance with the Airport Master
Plan 2015, or as amended.
• Providing solid waste services that are
efficient, cost effective and
environmentally responsible.
• No adopted policy.
• To maintain existing level of service
through 2036, the LOS policy would need
to be 2,400 square feet per 1,000
population.
• To maintain the current public building
space without adding capacity through
2040, the LOS policy would need to be
1,900 square feet per 1,000 population.
• Adopted LOS for response time is 8
minutes, 90% of the time.
• Adopted LOS for YPD is 1.8 officers per
1,000 population.
• 2 acres per 1,000 population for
neighborhood/mini parks.
• 5 acres per 1,000 population for
community parks.
• 342.8 pounds of organic loading per day
per 1,000 population.
• Maintain per Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Eastern
Washington or equivalent as determined
by the Stormwater Management Program
for the City of Yakima.
• 233 gpd per ERU.
• Minimum design pressure of 20 psi.
• Reliable and safe air service at a facility
that is compatible with the community.
• Compliance with the Airport Master Plan
2015, or as amended.
• Provide solid waste services that are
efficient, cost effective and
environmentally responsible.
May 2017 38
Facility
3 T Projects
3=1F
1.23 tons per household per year
collected.
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
• Set level of service consistent with
existing service of collecting 1.23 tons per
household per year.
• Set service standard for percent of solid
waste diverted to recycling. J
A list of planned projects for each service provider is detailed in the inventory section. The lists include
summaries of six-year capital plans and, where available, projects for the long-term 2022 — 2040 planning
period.
4.0 CAPITAL FACILITY DETAIL
4.1 Public Buildings
Overview
The City manages municipal and cultural buildings including City Hall, Capitol Theatre, and the Convention
Center, of which the latter two are managed by the Capitol Theatre Committee and the Yakima Valley
Visitors and Convention Bureau. The City identifies capital maintenance, replacements, and other needed
investments in its City Budget that help develop the capital improvement program and identify available
revenues. The City does not have a level of service standard for public buildings, and facilities are
anticipated to be adequate to meet the needs of current population and future growth.
Inventory
Public buildings by City Council district are listed below. Most of the public buildings are in District 4, which
includes the community's historic downtown.
Exhibit 75. Public Buildings Inventory (2016)
Facility Location Size (Sq Ft)
District 1
Convention Center 10 N 8th St 68,344
YPAL 602 N 4th St 10,472
District 2
ON DS Office
112 S 8th St
2,352
Probation Office
207 E Spruce
5,376
Henry Beauchamp, Jr. Community Center
1211 S 7th St
19,352
District 4
City Hall
129 N 2nd St
61,230
Capitol Theatre
19 s 3rd St
55,700
Trolley Barn
404 S 3rd Ave
13,572
YPAC
124 S 2nd St
6,160
City Gas Island
302 N 1st St
15,000
District 5
Public Works
2301 Fruitvale Blvd
93,565
May 2017 39
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAV
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Total
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Level of Service
There is no established level of service (LOS) standard for public buildings in Yakima. Exhibit 76 shows
potential LOS standards based on the assumption that the city is currently meeting an appropriate
standard (2,400 square feet per 1,000), as well as an adjusted standard indicating what the LOS standard
would need to be in order to continue to serve through 2040 with the current inventory (1,900 square
feet per 1,000).
Exhibit 76. LOS Analysis - Public Buildings
PeriodYakima Sq Ft to Meet Current Sq Ft Net Reserve or
Time Population Target LOS
Standard
LOS Standard = 2,400 Sq Ft per 1,000
2016
93,410
224,184
227,079
21895
2022
100,094
240,226
227,079
-13,147
2040
116,431
279,434
227,079
-52,355
LOS Standard = 1,900 Sq Ft per 1,000 IL
2016
93,410
177,479
227,079
49,600
2022
100,094
190,179
227,079
36,900
2040
116,431
221,219
227,079
5i860
Note: Calculations do not include the Convention Center or the Capitol Theatre in the inventory of Public Buildings square
footage.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
The City should designate an LOS standard for capital facilities deemed necessary for the operations of
the City. The current effective level of service for public buildings is around 2,400 square feet per 1,000
residents. To maintain this level of service through 2040, an additional 38,000 square feet will need to be
added to the public building inventory, with around 6,500 square feet added by 2022 if the standard is to
be consistently maintained during the 6 -year planning period. If LOS for public buildings were around
1,900 square feet per 1,000 residents, there would be capacity for public buildings through 2040, with an
additional 6,000 square feet of capacity remaining.
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
There are currently no capacity or non -capacity projects planned for the six or 23 -year period.
4L i Fire and Emergency Services
Overview
The City of Yakima Fire Department (YFD) provides emergency and non -emergency fire, rescue and
medical services to the City. The Fire Department operates under the mission of "provid(ing) all-risk
emergency and non -emergency services to the community"; "commit(ing) to serving with courage and
compassion as stewards of public trust"; and, "leav(ing) a positive and genuine impact on all who call upon
(the Department)." (Mission Statement, 2016).
May 2017 40
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
As of January, 2015 the YFD provides services to the cities of Union Gap and Yakima County Fire Protection
District 11 (Broadway) through an interlocal agreement (YFD, 2016).
YFD does not provide EMS transport. Two private ambulance operators, ALS and AMR, provide these
services to those needing transport (Soptich, 2016).
Inventory
The facilities used by YFD include 6 active stations, 2 inactive stations, a maintenance shop, and a drill
facility. In total, the Department operates out of 67,255 square feet with 9 engines, 1 ladder truck, and
various other fleet vehicles that support the Department's work. The facilities host 104 FTEs and 12
reserve personnel. (Soptich, 2016)
Exhibit 77 summarizes the capital facilities for the YFD.
Exhibit 77. Current Facilities Inventory—Yakima Fire Department (2016)
Station 95 & Drill 807 East Nob Hill Blvd. 10,939 2 Engines, tech rescue, utility
Facility
Station 96 by 107 W. Ahtanum Rd.
5,470 2 Engines and 1 bush unit
agreement Union Gap
Maintenance
Shop 2200 Fruitvale Blvd. 6,500 Maintenance truck
Race Station 4,988 1General storage
Fruitvale Station 2200 Fruitvale Blvd. 3,000
Total 67,255
Source: Deputy Chief Mark Soptich, City of Yakima Fire Department, personal communication, 2016
The Fire Department is staffed with a total of 115 employees, with the following range of positions:
1 Chief
2 Deputy Chiefs
2 Administrative Positions
8 Day Positions
90 Firefighters
12 Reserve Positions
May 2017 41
2 Engines, ladder truck, rescue, 2 command,
Station 91 401 North Front Street 12,540
brush, multiple staff units
Station 92
7707 Tieton Drive
8,032
Engine and brush
Station 93
511 North 40th Ave.
9,188
Engine, platform truck, rehab unit, utility
Station 94
2404 West
6,568
Engine, tender, 2 ARFF units
Washington Ave.
Station 95 & Drill 807 East Nob Hill Blvd. 10,939 2 Engines, tech rescue, utility
Facility
Station 96 by 107 W. Ahtanum Rd.
5,470 2 Engines and 1 bush unit
agreement Union Gap
Maintenance
Shop 2200 Fruitvale Blvd. 6,500 Maintenance truck
Race Station 4,988 1General storage
Fruitvale Station 2200 Fruitvale Blvd. 3,000
Total 67,255
Source: Deputy Chief Mark Soptich, City of Yakima Fire Department, personal communication, 2016
The Fire Department is staffed with a total of 115 employees, with the following range of positions:
1 Chief
2 Deputy Chiefs
2 Administrative Positions
8 Day Positions
90 Firefighters
12 Reserve Positions
May 2017 41
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Level of Service
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. Response time is defined as the amount of time
between the initial call for assistance and the arrival of the full first alarm response to an incident. The
department also measures turnout times (the time between a call and when apparatus are mobilized) and
travel times (the time before the first engine company arrives) (YFD, 2016). The length of response time
is mitigated by distributing stations throughout the city strategically, the type of equipment available at
each of the facilities, and the level of staffing.
Exhibit 78 shows the response time policies and the 2015 recorded average response time, as well as how
often the Department met the policy.
Exhibit 78. Response Times — Yakima Fire Department
Fire Suppression
Turnout Time*
Travel Time **
First Full Alarm Assignment***
120 seconds, met 90% of the time
240 seconds, met 90% of the time
480 seconds, met 90% of the time
110
64%
238
58%
429
69%
EMS
Turnout Time
90 seconds, met 90% of the time
240 seconds, met 90% of the time
85
62%
Travel Time
208
71%
Note: The Fire Department also measures turnout and response times for special operations, aircraft rescue and firefighting,
and wildland fires.
*Time between the initial call for assistance and the departure of the initial response apparatus.
**Time of travel between the turnout and arrival of the first engine company or EMS response.
***The time it takes for arrival of the full complement of a first alarm response to a fire suppression incident.
Source: City of Yakima Fire Department, 2016 Annual Report, 2017
The current adopted level of service for response time is 8 minutes. In 2016, the department met this
level of service 69% of the time, with an average response time of just 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). As calls and incident types increase, the
department could experience pressure on its ability to provide services at the identified LOS standard,
leading to a need for changes to the operations and facilities.
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
There is currently one project planned for 2017, which is the construction of an apparatus and equipment
storage building at Station 95 with an estimated cost of $407,000.
In 2014, the Fire Department commissioned a local architectural firm to provide a cost estimate for
remodeling and modernizing the city's 2 circa 1973 fire station facilities. At the same time, an evaluation
was completed on failing concrete and asphalt surfaces at all 5 city -owned fire station facilities. Together,
the estimate totaled approximately 10 million dollars - with nearly 1 million of that estimate representing
May 2017 42
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
the concrete and asphalt projects. Small projects relating to the identified needs have been undertaken,
but otherwise there have been no additional steps taken.
4— Law Enforcement
Overview
Yakima's Police Department (YPD) occupies its main facility in Downtown Yakima, the Law and Justice
Center, which is shared with courts, legal, and corrections. The department has 185 uniformed and
support personnel (Seely, 2016). The Department responds to almost 80,000 calls for service each year,
and does patrol, detective, and special operations work with officers working in the Gang Unit, K-9 Patrol
Unit, Narcotics K -9's, SWAT, Traffic, Narcotics, and School Resource Officers (About YPD, 2016).
The City Jail, which began operations in 1996, has 13 employees (three Corrections Sergeants and ten
Corrections Officers). The full-service jail facility has capacity for 78 prisoners. (YPD, 2015)
Inventory
The Department is in need of a new facility downtown and a satellite facility in the west side precinct in
order to efficiently provide police services to a growing city. The ideal location was found to be near 64'
and Nob Hill or Tieton Drive. The current overall space need was found to be 70,500 square feet, in a
Space Needs Assessment prepared in 2014. This contrasts the existing 26,000 square feet that YPD is
currently operating out of (see Exhibit 79). (Seely, 2016)
Exhibit 79. Current Facilities Inventory—Yakima Police Department (2016)
Source: Captain Jay Seely, City of Yakima Police Department, personal communication, 2016
Level of Service
LOS standards for law enforcement operations in Yakima are based on the ratio of officers to population.
The number of officers employed relates to the capital investments of the Department, since increasing
the staffing levels will have implications for the space and equipment used by the officers. The LOS policy
is generally impacted by location, socio -economy characteristics, demographics, size of a city, and other
local dynamics.
The current LOS policy for YPD is 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents (see Exhibit 80). Using the LOS of 1.8
officers per 1,000 residents, the department currently has a deficit of 20 officers. Since population growth
will lead to increased demand for police services, with current staffing levels there would be a deficit of
62 officers by 2040 (when population is expected to increase to over 110,000). Given that YPD is already
operating out of a constrained space, the addition of 60 officers will add to the need for new and expanded
capital facilities.
The effective LOS in Yakima is currently just under 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents. With this LOS, the
current deficit is one officer. If this LOS is considered acceptable, 38 additional officers would need to be
added by 2040. Although the addition of 38 new officers would require less new facility space and vehicles
than the LOS of 1.8 officers per 1,000, significant capital investments would still be needed.
May 2017 43
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 80. LOS Analysis — Yakima Police Department
OfficersYakima Officers to Meet Current
PeriodTime Population Target LOS
Available Deficit
Standard
LOS Standard = 1.8 Officers Per 1,000 Population
2016
93,410
168
148
-20
2022
100,094
180
148
-32
2040
116,431
210
148
-62
Effective LOS Standard = 1.6 Officers Per 1,000 Population
2016
93,410
149
148
-1
2022
100,094
160
148
-12
2040
116,431
186
148
-38
Source: Captain Jay Seely, City of Yakima Police Department, personal communication, 2016
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
There are no short- or long-term capital projects currently identified for law enforcement. It has been
identified that the police department needs a new facility in the downtown area as well as a standalone
facility in the west side precinct to ensure efficient police services as the city continues to grow. The Space
Needs Assessment conducted in 2014 by Loofburrow/Wetch Architects and Moyer and Associates found
that there is a current need for 70,500 square feet of space (significantly larger than the current 26,000
square feet). In addition, the best location for a west side precinct was determined to be 64th Avenue near
Nob Hill or Teiton Drive with a facility size between 15,000 and 20,000 square feet.
To date, a search of potential existing buildings to be remodeled in the downtown area was completed.
Three buildings were identified, but engineering studies determined that costs associated with bringing
those buildings up to code would be too great. The 2014 study included a $100 million recommendation
to expand the existing police facility footprint. Since the process occurred in 2014, no additional steps
have been taken. The department's future strategy includes investing in a larger facility and a west side
precinct, but no projects have been budgeted or planned for.
4.4 Pa rks
Overview
The City of Yakima Parks system includes Parks, Pathways, a Golf Course, a Cemetery, and Parkways. The
facilities are managed by Yakima's Parks & Recreation Division. Parks & Recreation serves within the city
limits. The Tahoma Cemetery, which is part of the Parks Department, has been in business since 1889 and
was added to the Washington Heritage Register of Historic Places in 2004.
Inventory
Yakima has 401.82 acres of parks and recreation facilities. Exhibit 81 provides a list of parks facilities in
Yakima, broken down by district and classified by park type. Park types include Regional, Neighborhood,
Community, Mini, Pathway, Parkway, Golf Course, and Cemetery.
May 2017 44
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 81. Parks Inventory by District (2016)
Facility Location
Park Type
Size (Acres)
12.23
District 1
Milroy Park 16th and Lincoln
Neighborhood Park
3.63
Cherry Park
4th and Cherry
Mini Park
0.5
McGuinness Park
14th and Swan
Mini Park
1.91
Miller Park
4th and E
Neighborhood Park
3.96
Walter Ortman Parkway
Willow St: 10th -6th
Pathway
0.7
5th Ave Roundabout
5th and Fruitvale
Mini Park
0.13
Naches Ave Parkway
Parkway
1.4
District 2 m
104.6
Kiwanis Park
Fair and Maple
Community Park
34.3
Yakima Area Arboretum
1-82 and Nob Hill
Community Park
60
MLK Park
9th and Beech
Neighborhood Park
4.01
SE Community Park
8th and Arlington
Neighborhood Park
3.63
S 2nd Park
2nd and Race
Mini Park
0.52
Naches Ave Parkway
Parkway
1.84
Fair Ave Islands
Fair Ave near Kiwanis Park
Mini Park
0.3
District 3
114.33
Gardner Park
Pierce and Cornell
Neighborhood Park
9.13
Perry Soccer Complex
16th and Washington
Community Park
10
Tahoma Cemetery
S 24th Ave
Cemetery
60
Kissel Park
32nd and Mead
Community Park
17
Fisher Golf Course
40th and Arlington
Golf Course
18.2
Sozo Sports Complex
District 4
32.28
Raymond Park
1st and Arlington
Mini Park
2.17
Lions Park and Pool
5th and Pine
Neighborhood Park
4.38
Portia Park
12th and Yakima
Mini Park
0.52
Larson Park
12th and Arlington
Neighborhood Park
4.4
Rosalma Garden Club
16th and Tieton
Mini Park
0.45
Franklin Park
21st and Tieton
Community Park
17.66
Tieton Terrace Park
26th and Walnut
Mini Park
0.42
S 6th Parkway
6th and Tieton
Parkway
0.17
Naches Ave Parkway
Parkway
2.11
District 5
53.1
Elks Memorial Park
8th and Hathaway
Community Park
12.66
Chesterley Park
40th and River Rd
Community Park
31.2
Powerhouse Canal Pathway
Powerhouse Rd
Pathway
8
Summitview Park
11th and Summitview
Mini Park
0.76
River Rd Pump Station
40th and River Rd
Mini Park
0.48
District 6
16.81
Gilbert Park
49th and Lincoln
Neighborhood Park
11.62
May 2017 45
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Exhibit 82 lists the total park acreages by park types.
Exhibit 82. Park Acres by Park Type (2016)
Or Park Typellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll`
Acres 'W
Mini Park
10.2
Neighborhood Park
49.3
Community Park
249.3
Pathway
8.7
Parkway
6.2
Golf Course
18.2
Cemetery
60.0
Tota I
401.8
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016
Additional information about parks and recreation in Yakima, including more specific information about
park properties, is available in the 2017 Yakima Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
Level of Service
The Yakima Parks and Recreation Department level of service analysis is included in Exhibit 83. Only the
Neighborhood and Community Parks are assigned levels of service standards.
Exhibit 83. Parks Level of Service
PeriodTime Yakima Population Target LOS
Standard Available Deficit
LOS Standard = 2 acres per 1,000 for Neighborhood/Mini Parks
2016
93,410
186.8
59.5
-127.4
2022
100,094
200.2
59.5
-140.7
2040
116,431
232.9
59.5
-173.4
LOS Standard = 5 acres per 1,000 for Community Parks
2016
93,410
467.1
249.3
-217.8
2022
100,094
500.5
582.2
249.3
249.3
-251.2
2040
116,431
-332.9
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016; City of Yakima 2025 Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, 2006
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, and will have a deficit of 173 acres by 2040 if no additional Neighborhood
May 2017 46
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Parks are added. Based on a 5 -acre per 1,000 population standard for Community Parks, the City has a
current deficit of 217 acres and will have a deficit of over 300 acres by 2040 if no additional Community
Park lands are added.
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
Exhibit 84 contains a list of parks capacity and non -capacity capital projects planned through 2040.
[The Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan is currently under update and this project list is subject to
change.]
Exhibit 84. Parks Projects (2016$)
Description 201?-,, .9 2020 —2022 040
Category I (Capacity)
Bonds/ Grants/
Land Acquisition Donations / Parks 0 6,000,000 0 6,000,000
Capital
r Bonds/ Grants/
Outdoor Pool Donations/ Parks 5,000,000 0 0 5,000,000
Capital
Bonds/ Grants/
Land Acquisition Donations/ Parks 0 3,000,000 0 3,000,000
Capital
Spray Park - W.V. Grants/ Donations/ 0 400,000 0 400,000
Community Parks Capital
Category II (Non -Capacity)
Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ 125,000 0 0 125,000
McGuinness Parks Capital
Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ 100,000 0 0 100,000
Cherry Parks Capital
Basketball Court - Donations/ Grants/ 0 75,000 0 75,000
Cherry Parks Capital
Picnic Shelter - MLK Jr. Donations/ Grants/ 50,000 0 0 50,000
Parks Capital
Replace Parking Lots - Donations/ Grants/ 150,000 0 0 150,000
Randall Parks Capital
Replace Walkways - Donations/ Grants/ 100,000 0 0 100,000
Randall Parks Capital
Replace Filtration Donations/ Grants/ 150,000 0 0 150,000
System - Lions Pool Parks Capital
Restroom - MLK Jr. Donations/ Grants/ 175,000 0 0 175,000
Parks Capital
Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ 0 125,000 0 125,000
MLK Jr. Parks Capital
Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ 125,000 0 0 125,000
Gardner Parks Capital
May 2017 47
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAT4E
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
City of Yakima Parks and Recreation Department, 2016; BERK, 2016
4.5 Transportation: Streets and Transit
Streets and Transit
See the 2040 Transportation System Plan under separate cover.
Street Lights
The 2040 Transportation System Plan also includes projects related to street lights. Street lights are one of
many of Yakima's expenses each year. The City of Yakima maintains 4,925 street lights. The approximate cost
for power consumption is around $300k per year which works out to about $61 per light per year. The City is
in the process of converting street lights to energy-saving LED lights. There is no adopted level of service
standard.
4.6 Wastewater
Overview
The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (YRWWTP) processes wastewater from homes and
businesses in Yakima, as well as Union Gap, Terrace Heights, and Moxee. The plant currently receives a
May 2017 48
Donations/ Grants/
'
I
Playground -Raymond
Parks Capital
0
100,000
0
100,000
Replace Playground -
Donations/ Grants/
Chesterley
Parks Capital
125,000
0
0
125,000
Replace Playground -
Donations/ Grants/
Miller
Parks Capital
0
125,000
0
125,000
Basketball Court - S/E
Donations/ Grants/
Community
Parks Capital
75,000
0
0
75,000
Picnic Shelter - S/E
Donations/ Grants/
Community
Parks Capital
0
50,000
0
50,000
Donations/ Grants/
Picnic Shelter - Kissel
Parks Capital
0
50,000
0
50,000
Irrigation Filtration
Donations/ Grants/
System - Tahoma
Parks Capital
25,000
0
0
25,000
Cemetery
Donations/ Grants/
Replace Bulkhead -
Lions Pool
Parks Capital
0
100,000
0
100,000
Replace Slide -
Donations/ Grants/
Franklin Pool
Parks Capital
250,000
0
0
250,000
Donations/ Grants/
Playground -Larson
Parks Capital
0
125,000
0
125,000
Replace Picnic Shelter Donations/ Grants/
- Larson
Parks Capital
0
50,000
0
50,000
Resurface Walkways - Donations/ Grants/
W.V Community Parks Capital
0
100,000
0
100,000
City of Yakima Parks and Recreation Department, 2016; BERK, 2016
4.5 Transportation: Streets and Transit
Streets and Transit
See the 2040 Transportation System Plan under separate cover.
Street Lights
The 2040 Transportation System Plan also includes projects related to street lights. Street lights are one of
many of Yakima's expenses each year. The City of Yakima maintains 4,925 street lights. The approximate cost
for power consumption is around $300k per year which works out to about $61 per light per year. The City is
in the process of converting street lights to energy-saving LED lights. There is no adopted level of service
standard.
4.6 Wastewater
Overview
The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (YRWWTP) processes wastewater from homes and
businesses in Yakima, as well as Union Gap, Terrace Heights, and Moxee. The plant currently receives a
May 2017 48
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
monthly flow of around 13 millions of gallons per day (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.
There are pockets of land in the City that are not served by sewers due to the land being vacant,
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, engineering, and the cost of new
lines.
The City conducted a sewer system plan update in 2016, which considers future land use and growth.
Although the YRWWTP has capacity for anticipated growth, the System Plan focuses on maintenance and
expansion of the conveyance system. See the Capital Facility Plan Appendix for additional information.
Inventory
Yakima has a total capacity of 21.5 million gallons per day at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is in
District 2. Exhibit 85 shows an inventory of the system, including the treatment plant, pipe miles, lift
stations, and maintenance appurtenances. In 2009, the facility was upgraded to remove gas chlorination
disinfection and install ultra violet disinfection capabilities. Continued upgrades will allow for the re -use
of resources, expanded capacity, improved environmental performance, and reduced electrical costs (City
of Yakima, 2016).
Exhibit 85. Inventory of Wastewater Facilities (2016)
wastewater
Maintenance
Yakima Sanitary Industrial Lift Maintenance Treatment
Appurtenances
Wastewater Sewer Pipe Waste Pipe Stations Appurtenances Plant,
Y (miles) (miles) ( ) (count of ( pipe) System Facilities miles miles count manholes, etc.) mile of i e MGD
capacity)
463 16
District
District
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Level of Service
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, shown in
Exhibit 86, indicated that there is capacity for hydraulic loading through 2074, organic loading through
2043, and solids loading through 2052. Capacity expansions are mandated when loading reaches 85% of
the plant's rated capacity for a particular loading parameter for three consecutive months.
May 2017 49
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAV
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
I
2014 Population
Hydraulic
Organic
110,413
Solid
110,413
110,413
2014 Maximum Unit Loading
100 gpcd
0.35 Ibpcd
0.23 Ibpcd
Service Area Population at 100% Capacity
215,000
152,571
167,826
Year at 100% Capacity
2074
2043
2052
Permitted Maximum Month Loading
21.5 MGD
53,400
38,600
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Mike Price, Wastewater/Stormwater Manager, City of Yakima, 2016
Exhibit 87 provides the LOS analysis for wastewater treatment, focusing on the capacity for treating
maximum monthly pounds of organic material. The YRWWTP has capacity to treat up to 53,400 pounds
of organic material. With current maximum monthly load levels of 342.8 pounds of organic loading per
day per 1,000 population, the facility will have surplus treatment capacity of over 3,000 pounds in 2040.
Exhibit 87. Wastewater LOS An
LOS Standard = 342.8 pounds of maximum monthly organic loading per 1,000 population
2016
111,696
38,175
53,400
15,225
2022
121,102
41,390
53,400
12,010
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
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
Although the YRWWTP has capacity to accommodate the additional service area population through
2040, it is anticipated that there will be conveyance and treatment capital projects. 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). In additional, more stringent National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System restrictions may contribute to capital needs if system upgrades are needed
to comply with limits on discharge quality.
Exhibit 88 shows the planned wastewater projects through 2040.
Exhibit 88. Wastewater Planned Proiects (2017 — 2040)
Project Category Revenue Cost Cost Cost Total Cost
Sources 2017-2019 2020 —2022 040
Category I (Capacity)
Conveyance
Fees/Bonds
4,000,000
9,000,000
70,000,000
83,000,000
Treatment
Fees/Bonds
6,000,000
5,000,000
70,000,000
81,000,000
Category II (Non -Capacity) EL ha—
Conveyance
Fees/Bonds
35,200,000
36,000,000
238,000,000
309,200,000
Treatment
Fees/Bonds
31,000,000
37,000,000
238,000,000
306,000,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016
May 2017 50
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
4.7 Stormwater
Overview
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. See the Capital Facilities
Plan Appendix for additional information.
Inventory
Yakima has a total of 135 miles of storm pipe and 5,300 catch basins. The full inventory of stormwater
facilities by Council District are listed in Exhibit 89.
Exhibit 89. Stormwater Facilities Inventory (2016)
Facility
Storm Pipe
(miles)
Catch Basins
(count)
UIC Wells
(count)
Manholes
(count)
Swales
(count)
District 1
12.53
165
27
80
4
District 2
12.76
598
57
103
14
District 3
27.95
647
51
227
3
District 4
22.03
1,025
16
202
1
District 5
16.88
565
66
146
14
District 6
19.04
1,185
289
59
4
District 7
23.57
1,115
235
114
22
TOTAL
134.76
5,300
741
931
62
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Mike Price, Wastewater/Stormwater Manager, City of Yakima, 2016
Level of Service
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.
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
There is one stormwater improvement project planned at the North 49th Avenue drainage from from
Englewood Avenue to Gilbert Park. The capital project is planned for the years 2017 through 2019, and
will cost $440,000 (2016$).
May 2017 51
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
4.8 Water
Overview
Water and irrigation services in Yakima are provided by the Yakima Water/Irrigation Division, which is
owned and operated by the City of Yakima, and the non-profit Nob Hill Water Association (which is
partially located within the City) (Nob Hill Water, 2016). Some areas are under served; water service is
extended on request and new development pays for the extension of infrastructure.
Yakima Water/Irrigation Division
The City's water system generally serves central and eastern Yakima. The City's Water System Plan Update
for 2017 estimates a service population of 70,800 in 2010 growing to 72,624 in 2015. Yakima
Water/Irrigation Division is supplied by a surface water treatment plan on the Naches River and four active
wells that are used for seasonal emergencies and to meet peak demands. The City has developed a draft
Water System Plan Update (pending 2017) that is designed to meet the target growth and land use plan
of this Comprehensive Plan. The Water System Plan Update estimates 233 gallons per day (gpd) per
equivalent residential unit (ERU), and applies that to the projected land use and associated population
growth. With the Comprehensive Plan Update, one-third of the expected population target is anticipated
in the City's water service area and the rest in the Nob Hill Water Association service area.
Inventory
The City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division is serving over 73,000 customers with the facilities identified
in Exhibit 90. There are a total of 2,464 fire hydrants, 1,590,619 feet or pipe, and 6,755 valves.
Exhibit 90. Water
Facility
Facilities Inventory — City of Yakima Water Division (2016)
Fire Hydrants (count) Pipe (feet)
Valves (count)
District 1
283
169,883
830
District 2
394
247,456
1,159
District 3
504
307,576
1,429
District 4
406
245,620
1,167
District 5
554
350,506
1,539
District 6
56
45,165
203
District 7
115
75,025
339
Out Side City Limits
137
149,388
89
Total
2,449
1,590,619 6,755
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; David Brown & Mike Shane, Water Department, City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Level of Service
The Yakima Water Division works to provide water to those in the service area, targeting capacity at or
above the maximum day demand (MDD). The Yakima Water System Plan projects future water demand
in order to identify needed system improvements, including supply, pumping, storage, and piping. The
system considers the different demands associated with different land uses (such as single-family, multi-
family, commercial, industrial, and government).
One measure used is the MDD since it helps with understanding what the maximum demand on the
system may be at any given time. Exhibit 91 shows the projected MDD for 2015 through 2040. The current
system capacity is 21.6 millions of gallons per day (MGD), and in 2040 there will be an additional 1.7 MGD
of capacity beyond the projected MDD.
May 2017 52
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 91. Water LOS Analvsis — Millions of Gallons oer Dav (MGD)
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Draft City of Yakima 2017 Water System Plan, 2016; HDR, 2017; BERK, 2017
Projects, Cost, and Revenut
Currently the only capacity project planned for the water system is an Aquifer storage and recovery
project, which includes work on two wells. The project is anticipated to occur in the 2023 — 2040 time
frame and will cost $10 million (2016$). Non -capacity water capital projects for the 2017 — 2040 planning
period are still pending.
Nob Hill Water Association
The West Valley area of Yakima is served by the Nob Hill Water Association. The Association's residential
population, estimated at around 30,000 in 2015, is expected to grow at 1.4% throughout the planning
period to a population of over 40,000 in 2040. This growth will have a proportionate effect on the
Association's water demands. The Association's average day demand is expected to increase from 4.43
MGD in 2015 to 6.87 MGD in 2035. Its maximum day requirement is expected to increase from 6,160
gallons per minute (gpm) in 2015 to 9,550 gpm in 2035. The Association has sufficient water rights to
serve its entire water service area through buildout, provided that it can continue to provide a majority
of new developments with separate irrigation systems using water from the Yakima Valley Canal Company
and Yakima Tieton Irrigation District. To formalize this strategy, the Association has entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the irrigation providers, the City of Yakima, and Yakima County. The
Water System Plan identifies a need to drill a new well in the 6 -year planning period (2016-2022) and to
add another well in the 23 -year planning period. Other improvements include the need for standby
storage and booster pump station improvements. The Water System Plan uses a standard of 309 gpd/ERU.
Inventory
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).
Level of Service
The Nob Hill Water System Plan has an average day demand that 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. Exhibit 92 shows the Nob Hill Water District's
estimated population according to the Comprehensive Plan's analysis, as well as the Nob Hill System Plan's
estimated population to serve. The System Plan estimates greater growth in the water district than this
Plan does, indicating that the Water Association is sufficiently planned for future growth, and will have a
surplus of capacity.
May 2017 53
Service Area
Projected
Current Water
Net Reserve
Time Period
Maximum Day
Treatment Plant
or
Population
Deficit
Demand (MGD)
Capacity (MGD)
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Draft City of Yakima 2017 Water System Plan, 2016; HDR, 2017; BERK, 2017
Projects, Cost, and Revenut
Currently the only capacity project planned for the water system is an Aquifer storage and recovery
project, which includes work on two wells. The project is anticipated to occur in the 2023 — 2040 time
frame and will cost $10 million (2016$). Non -capacity water capital projects for the 2017 — 2040 planning
period are still pending.
Nob Hill Water Association
The West Valley area of Yakima is served by the Nob Hill Water Association. The Association's residential
population, estimated at around 30,000 in 2015, is expected to grow at 1.4% throughout the planning
period to a population of over 40,000 in 2040. This growth will have a proportionate effect on the
Association's water demands. The Association's average day demand is expected to increase from 4.43
MGD in 2015 to 6.87 MGD in 2035. Its maximum day requirement is expected to increase from 6,160
gallons per minute (gpm) in 2015 to 9,550 gpm in 2035. The Association has sufficient water rights to
serve its entire water service area through buildout, provided that it can continue to provide a majority
of new developments with separate irrigation systems using water from the Yakima Valley Canal Company
and Yakima Tieton Irrigation District. To formalize this strategy, the Association has entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the irrigation providers, the City of Yakima, and Yakima County. The
Water System Plan identifies a need to drill a new well in the 6 -year planning period (2016-2022) and to
add another well in the 23 -year planning period. Other improvements include the need for standby
storage and booster pump station improvements. The Water System Plan uses a standard of 309 gpd/ERU.
Inventory
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).
Level of Service
The Nob Hill Water System Plan has an average day demand that 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. Exhibit 92 shows the Nob Hill Water District's
estimated population according to the Comprehensive Plan's analysis, as well as the Nob Hill System Plan's
estimated population to serve. The System Plan estimates greater growth in the water district than this
Plan does, indicating that the Water Association is sufficiently planned for future growth, and will have a
surplus of capacity.
May 2017 53
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4%IE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Exhibit 92. Nob Hill Svstem Growth
2015
28,151
31,000
2,849
2040
41,066
51,536
10,470
Difference
12,916
20,536
7,620
Growth Rate
1.52%
2.06%
0.54%
Source: (Gray & Osborne, Inc., May 2015); BERK Consulting 2017
Projects, Cost, and Revenu(
Nob Hill Water had a 6.0% rate increase and the addition of new service fees in January of 2016 to help
pay for new infrastructure, including a new well, new reservoir, and mainline replacements. The
Comprehensive Plan determined that a new well will need to be drilled and a new reservoir will need to
be constructed by 2022 for around $5 million. From 2012 to 2015, over 8,500 feet of main line was
replaced (Nob Hill Water Association, 2015).
4.9 Irrigation
Overview
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
Water/Irrigation Division 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. Some areas are served by deteriorating steel mains that require frequent
repair. Service is provided by a staff of seven and one-half (7.8) employees which amounts to 0.709 FTE
per 1,000 accounts. The level of service has increased to an acceptable level after the refurbishment of
over 32 miles of pipe line. The City has invested over $15,000,000 into the irrigation system. The level of
service has been developed providing minimum design pressure of 20 psi.
The Nelson Dam, an irrigation diversion structure, is in failing condition and is under review for the most
cost effective refurbishment. This review is through a partnership with Yakima County Flood Control Zone
District, Yakama Nation, Washington Fish and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife, US Bureau of Reclamation
and National Marie Fisheries.
Inventory
The City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division maintains over 85 miles of pipe and 545 valves. The inventory
of facilities, identified by district, is identified in Exhibit 93.
Exhibit 93. Irrigation Facilities Inventory (2016)
District 1
127
18.1
District 2
88
13.9
District 3
71
9.8
May 2017 54
District 4
71
District 5
151
District 6
0
District 7
37
Total
545
Note: District 6 is not served by City irrigation
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDNE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
19.4
14.7
mg
9.4
85.4
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; David Brown, City of Yakima Irrigation, 2016; BERK, 2017
Level of Service
The City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division currently serves irrigation 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 in order to bring the system up to an acceptable level of service. The
level of service standard provides for minimum design pressure of 20 psi.
Currently, there are 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 customers served. Assuming this is an appropriate level of
service, 6.24 miles of pipe will need to be added to maintain this level of service through the addition of
new customers by 2040.
Exhibit 94. Irrigation LOS A
LOS Standard = 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 served
2016
53,297
85.27
85.35
0.08
2022
541420
87.07 A
.1L85.35
(1.72)
2040
5 7, 246
91.59
85.35
(6.24)
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; David Brown, City of Yakima Irrigation, 2016; BERK, 2017
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
Current Council policy calls for the refurbishment of the irrigation systems, the cost of that alternative is
bonded debt, loans and cash from rates. If a grant were to become available then the amount of debt to
be borne by local constituents would be reduced. Routine operations and preventive maintenance
activities for the supply, storage, pumping, and distribution components are discussed in the 1999
Irrigation Master Plan.
Exhibit 95 shows the irrigation planned projects, both of which are non -capacity projects that will be
funded through a combination of bonds and rates.
Exhibit 95. Irrigation Planned Pro
Category II (Non -Capacity)
Nelson Dam Refurbishment
and diversion consolidation Bond/Rates $10,000,000 $0 $0
Steel Pipe Replacement Rates $600,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
$10,000,000
$4,200,000
May 2017 55
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4g
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
4.10 Schools
Overview
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).
Yakima School District
Inventory
Exhibit 96 provides a list of the Yakima School District facilities inventory.
Exhibit 96. School Inventory—Yakima School District (2016)
Students Teachers Student -
Facility Location (May, 2016) (May, 2016) Teacher Ratio
District 1
Barge -Lincoln Elementary
219 E I St
628
41
15.3
Garfield Elementary
612 N 6th Ave
548
31
17.7
District 2
Adams Elementary
723 S 8th St
713
44
16.2
Washington Middle
510 S 9th St
749
47
15.9
YV-Tech
1120 S 18th St
76
5
15.2
District 3
Ridgeview Elementary
609 W Washington Ave
638
38
16.8
McClure Elementary
1222 S 22nd Ave
617
34
18.1
Nob Hill Elementary
801 S 34th Ave
496
26
19.1
Lewis School and Clark Middle
1114 W Pierce
825
44
18.8
District 4
Hoover Elementary
400 W Viola
788
35
22.5
McKinley Elementary
621 S 13th Ave
471
27
17.4
Franklin Middle School
410 S 19th Ave
847
42
20.2
A.C. Davis High School
212 S 6th Ave
2101
108
19.5
District 5
Roosevelt Elementary
120 N 16th Ave
537
31
17.3
Robertson Elementary
2807 W Lincoln Ave
532
29
18.3
Discovery Lab
2810 Castlevale Rd
206
13
15.8
Stanton Academy
802 River Rd
300
19
15.8
District 6
Gilbert Elementary
4400 Douglas Dr
594
36
16.5
District 7
Whitney Elementary
4411 W Nob Hill Blvd
543
31
17.5
Wilson Middle School
902 S 44th Ave
836
43
19.4
Eisenhower High School
702 S 40th Ave
1932
95
20.3
May 2017 56
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4%JE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Source: Yakima School District, personal communication, 2016
Level of Service
Levels of service for schools are typically based on student capacity and student generation. Future growth
is anticipated to require improvement or expansion of existing facilities. Assuming that the current service
level of a student -teacher ratio of 18.3 is maintained, by 2040, 142 additional teachers will be needed to
serve the additional students coming to the school district. In order to accommodate 142 additional
teachers, more space will need to be added to the district's facilities to continue serving at the current
level.
Exhibit 97. Yakima School District LOS Analysis
LOS Standard = 18.3 Student -Teacher Ratio
2016 28,178 14,977 819 819 0
JW 30,186 16,044
2040 I 33,081 I 17,583 I 961 I 819 I -142
*Number of households based on a calculation using school district population estimates and the 2014 ACS household size of
2.73.
**Student generation rates per household are calculated based on the current ratio of .51 students per household in the school
district.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Yakima School District, 2016; BERK, 2017
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
In 2017, around 38 cents of every dollar of property tax revenue in the City of Yakima will go to the Yakima
School District. Another 18 cents of every dollar goes to State of Washington Schools.
Per pupil revenues and expenditures in the Yakima School District were about $10,000 in 2016. Per pupil
revenues and expenditures in the West Valley School District were just under $9,000 in 2016 (OSPI, 2015).
West Valley School District
Inventory
Exhibit 98 shows the inventory of schools in the West Valley School District. The District has schools in
District 6, District 7, and outside the city boundaries. There is a total of 843,000 square feet of school
facilities.
Exhibit 98. School Invento
School District (2016)
May 2017 57
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4%T4E
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Facility
Location
or Deficit
Students
(May,
2016)
Teachers
(May,
2016)
Student/
Teacher
Ratio
Size (SqFt)
Apple Valley Elementary
7 N 88th Ave
324
20
16.2
Wide Hollow Elementary
1000 S 72nd Ave
372
23
16.2
L33,848
Summitview Elementary
6305 W Chestnut Ave
315
23
13.7
District 7
West Valley Junior High
7505 Zier Road
840
45
18.7
127,977
West Valley Middle School
1500 S 75th Ave
778
40
19.4
108,415
Outside City Boundaries
NEW—
T
Cottonwood Elementary
1041 S 96th Ave
431
25
17.2
60,021
Mountainview Elementary
830 Stone Rd
183
17
10.7
30,600
Ahtanum Elementary
3006 S Wiley Rd
260
22
11.8
46,449
West Valley High School
9800 Zier Rd
1,040
51
20.4
239,691
Freshman Campus
9206 Zier Rd
398
21
18.9
97,547
Total M
4,941
287
1 JW
842,784
Source: West Valley School District, personal communication, 2016; OSPI 2015-2016
Level of Service
Level of service for schools is generally based on student capacity. Assuming that the current service level
of a student -teacher ratio of 17.2 is maintained, by 2040, 152 additional teachers will be needed to serve
the additional students coming to the school district. In order to accommodate 152 additional teachers,
more space will need to be added to the district's facilities to continue serving at the current level.
Exhibit 99. West Valley School District LOS Analysis
vvest y urrent
Net Reserve
Time Period District Estimated Student meet current Teachers
or Deficit
Households* Count** LOS Available
LOS StandardRatio
*Number of households based on a calculation using school district population estimates and the 2014 ACS household size of
2.73.
**Student generation rates per household are calculated based on the current ratio of .59 students per household in the school
district.
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2017; BERK, 2017
Projects, Cost, and Revenuc
The 2016 – 2017 budget included around $22 million in capital projects. Additional West Valley School
District capital projects are pending.
Exhibit 100. West Valley School District Projects, 2016 – 2017 (2016$)
Project -L'" dMEWS
Central Office Modifications $550,000
May 2017 58
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4%JE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Construction of New Buildings
$20,550,000
High School HVAC Replacement
Amount of Original Issue
$500,000
Mountainview Site Improvements
$1,400,000
$1,020,000
$8,975,000
$355,000
Total Expenditures
$21,955,000
Source: West Valley School District, 2016
The West Valley School District had six outstanding bonds in 2016, which included a high school bond levy
and construction bonds (Exhibit 101). The debt is paid with revenues from taxes.
Exhibit 101. Outstandine Bonds
Source: West Valley School District, 2016
4.11 Airport
Overview
The Yakima Air Terminal covers 825 acres and is owned and operated by the City. There are two active
runways located at McAllister Field, which provide primary air transportation for the City and County.
Many of the planned capital projects in the Master Plan address expansion and upgrades to meet FAA
criteria.
Additional information about the Air Terminal can be found in the 2015 Airport Master Plan.
Inventory
Existing airport facilities at the Yakima Air Terminal include the following:
■ Two active runways and a full parallel taxiway system
Runway and taxiway lighting systems
Visual and electronic navigational aids
General aviation hangars and tiedown aprons
A passenger terminal building
Support facilities
Airport offices
May 2017 59
Amount Outstanding
Date of Issue
Amount of Original Issue
7/15/2016
$24,500,000
$27,800,000
$1,400,000
$1,020,000
$8,975,000
1/1/2007
12/1/2012
$9,330,000
6/1/2013
$9,225,000
$9,010,000
$9,020,000
4/23/2014
$9,300,000
1/6/2015
$13,575,000
$13,575,000
Total Bonds $93,730,000
$43,000,000
Source: West Valley School District, 2016
4.11 Airport
Overview
The Yakima Air Terminal covers 825 acres and is owned and operated by the City. There are two active
runways located at McAllister Field, which provide primary air transportation for the City and County.
Many of the planned capital projects in the Master Plan address expansion and upgrades to meet FAA
criteria.
Additional information about the Air Terminal can be found in the 2015 Airport Master Plan.
Inventory
Existing airport facilities at the Yakima Air Terminal include the following:
■ Two active runways and a full parallel taxiway system
Runway and taxiway lighting systems
Visual and electronic navigational aids
General aviation hangars and tiedown aprons
A passenger terminal building
Support facilities
Airport offices
May 2017 59
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4%V
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
■ Maintenance building (City of Yakima, 2015)
Level of Service
The facility assessment in the Yakima Airport Master Plan identifies that the passenger terminal will need
to be expanded by 2020 or sooner to maintain an acceptable level of service for passenger air service.
Commercial, cargo, and passenger air service is expected to continue to have a growth in demand.
The Master Plan identifies the mission of developing and maintaining an airport that serves the region
with reliable and safe air service at a facility that is compatible with the community.
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
The Airport Master Plan includes a CIP through 2030, with implementation planned in the following
phases:
Phase I: Short-term five-year period from 2015 to 2020. Projects assigned to Phase I are shown on a
year -by -year basis, consistent with the FAA's (CIP) format.
Phase II: Mid-term five-year period from 2021 through 2025. Projects are allocated to specific years.
Phase III: Long-term period from 2026 through 2030. These projects are grouped together (City of
Yakima, 2015).
Exhibit 102 provides the identified air terminal projects from the Airport Master Plan and Exhibit 103
describes the identified funding sources for the Air Terminal CIP.
Exhibit 102. Identified Air Terminal Proiects
Category I (Capacity)
West Itinerant Apron
$1,460,000
$0
$0
$1,460,000
East Itinerant Apron
$0
$1,160,000
$0
$1,160,000
Land Acquisition $900,000 $0 $0 $900,000
Terminal Building $0 $500,000 $15,000,000 $15,500,000
ARFF Vehicle $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000
Category II (Non -Capacity)
Lighting replacement and pavement marking
$221,890
$1,250,000
$0
$1,471,890
Lighting replacement project
SIRE Blower
$75,000
$500,000
$0
$575,000
$1,040,000
$0
$0
$1,040,000
Security Gates
$650,000
$0
$0
$650,000
Wildlife hazard assessment
$0
$50,000
$0
$50,000
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Airport Master Plan, 2015
Over the 20 -year period, about $59 million of capital projects are planned. Funding sources for the
projects include:
AIP Entitlement Grants and Discretionary Grants from the FAA. Entitlement grants are granted
using a formula based on the annual enplaned passengers at an airport. The Yakima Air Terminal is
May 2017 60
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4%7
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
also eligible to receive discretionary grants based on specific projects and the ranking method used
by the FAA to allocate a specific grant.
WSDOT State Aviation Grants. WSDOT Aviation provides project -specific grant funding. Typically,
WSDOT Aviation requires a 50% match.
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs). Commercial service airports may impose a passenger facility
charge of up to $4.50 per passenger. PFCs can be used for AIP eligible projects, as well as debt
service payments on eligible projects.
Private Financing. Private businesses can finance improvements that benefit that business. Privately
financed projects include hangers, cargo facilities, and privately used parking aprons.
Other airport revenues include direct revenues derived from fuel taxes, aircraft storage fees, and other
facility use fees, such as landing fees and rental fees. Exhibit 103 shows the anticipated funding sources
for the $61 million in total project costs for the 2015 20 -year CIP.
Exhibit 103. Air Terminal Anticipated CIP Funding Sources for 20 -Year CIP (2013$)
Project Type Federal WSDOT Local Funding Total Cost
Funding Funding
Airfield Projects $10,068,321 $250,000 $3,328,011 1 $13,646,332
Terminal Construction
$19,167,525
$0
$2,276,340
$21,443,865
General Aviation Projects
$6,690,022
$0
$814,786
$7,504,808
Pavement Management Projects
$15,087,258
$946,797
$2,200,999
$17,735,055
Total Projects
$51,013,126
$1,196,797
$8,620,136
$61,330,059
Source: Airport Master Plan, 2015
4.12 Solid Waste
Overview
The City of Yakima's Refuse Division provides weekly garbage collection to over 26,000 households located
within the City of Yakima. Customers are charged weekly by the size of their bin, with additional charges
incurred for items placed outside of the bin, overfilling bins, additional collection trips, yard waste, and
temporary metal bins (City of Yakima, 2016). All refuse is collected by refuse and recycling division staff
of the department of public works or a licensed collector or taken to the sanitary landfill for disposal (YMC
4.16, 2016). All solid waste collected is taken to Yakima County facilities in accordance with interlocal
agreements and the Yakima County Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan (January
2017).
Inventory
The refuse division has 20 employees and 22 refuse trucks. The Division operates 12.5 daily routes, which
include 10 refuse routes and 2.5 -yard waste routes. Customers can pay for 96 -gallon refuse carts, 32 -
gallon refuse carts, and 96 -gallon yard waste carts. Annually, around 32,000 tons is collected, with around
90% of the tonnage categorized as garbage and around 10% categorized as recycled yard waste.
May 2017 61
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4%JE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Level of Service
The Solid Waste and Recycling Division operates under the mission of protecting the public health and
safety of the City of Yakima and its residents through providing solid waste services that are efficient, cost
effective, and environmentally responsible.
If the current rate of garbage per household is steady (about 1.23 tons per household), and there is an
increase of about 5,985 households, there would be an increase of garbage of 7,365 tons, a 16.8% increase
(see Exhibit 104).
Exhibit 104. Refuse LOS Analvsis
LOS Standard = 1.23 Tons per Household Per Year
2016
37,719
46,394
46,016 0.8%
20221
39,619
48,731
46,016 5.9%
2040
43,704
53,755
46,016 16.8%
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017
Projects, Cost, and Revenue
Planned capital projects over the 2017 — 2040 period for the Solid Waste and Recycling Division are not
yet identified.
The Solid Waste and Recycling Division is an enterprise fund so rates are set to ensure reliable,
competitively priced service for the customers. An operating reserve of 12% (or 45 days) is maintained
and reserves allow for replacement of trucks without interruption of service. At this time, no new trucks
are planned to be purchased. Existing trucks will be replaced with newer trucks in accordance with their
replacement schedule.
May 2017 62
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD4%IE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
REFERENCES
About YPD. (2016). Retrieved from Yakima Fire Department: https://yakimapolice.org/about/
AKEL Engineering Group. (August 2013). 2013 Draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Fresno,
California: Prepared for the City of Yakima.
Cascade Natural Gas. (2014). Integrated Resource Plan.
Cascade natural Gas. (2016). About Us. Retrieved from Cascade Natural Gas:
http://www.cngc.com/utility-navigation/about-us
Cascade Nautral Gas. (2015). About Us. Retrieved from cngc.com: http://www.cngc.com/utility-
navigation/about-us
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). Airport Master Plan: Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field.
City of Yakima. (2016). 2017 Preliminary Budget Summary.
City of Yakima. (2016). Refuse Division. Retrieved from City of Yakima:
https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/refuse/
City of Yakima. (2016). Wastewater Operations/Maintenance. Retrieved from City of Yakima:
https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/wastewater-treatment-plant/operations-maintenance/
Gray & Osborne, Inc. (May 2015). Nob Hill Water Association Draft Water System Plan. Yakima,
Washington: Nob Hill Water Association.
MDU Resources Group, Inc. (2014). 2014 Annual Report Form 10-K Proxy Statement.
Mission Statement. (2016). Retrieved from City of Yakima Fire Department:
https:Hyakimafire.com/mission-statement/
New Vision. (2016). Utilities. Retrieved from New Vision: Yakima County Development Association:
http://www.ycda.com/why-yakima/utilities.html
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.
Pacific Power. (2016). Pacific Power. Retrieved from https://www.pacificpower. net
PacifiCorp. (2015). 2015 Integrated Resource Plan Volume II -Appendices.
Seely, J. (2016, August). Captain, Yakima Police Department.
Soptich, M. (2016, August 19). Deputy Chief, Support Services City of Yakima Fire Department.
Williams. (2016). Northwest Pipeline. Retrieved from Williams: http://co.williams.com/operations/west-
operations/northwest-pipeline/
WUTC. (2016). Washington Utilitiesand Transportation Commission. Retrieved from Regulated Industries:
http://www.utc.wa.gov/regulatedindustries/Pages/default.aspx
YFD. (2016). 2015 Annual Report. City of Yakima Fire Department.
YMC4.16. (2016). Retrieved from Yakima Municipal Code: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Yakima/
May 2017 63
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAJE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
YPD. (2015). 2014 Annual Report. City of Yakima Police Department.
May 2017 64
411
We atw
comprehensive plan 2040
T -FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
Draft: March 2017
Final: June 2017
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE P 41
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FACT 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 Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (Pra#tFinal 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: 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.
The Final SEIS Preferred Alternative is consistent with Action Alternative 2 with adjustments often in
response to comments:
■ Land Use Map: Consistent with Action Alternative 2 provided that approximately 1.2 acres would
change from proposed Mixed Residential to Commercial Mixed Use.
■ Cultural Resources Policies: Shoreline policies regarding cultural resources protection are added to
the citywide Historic Resources Element.
■ Natural Environment Policies: Policies are included addressing conserving native vegegation, and to
sustain levee vegetation or enhance it.
■ Transportation System Plan: Map and text changes that show greater integration with the Bicycle
Master Plan, Airport Master Plan, and Transit Development Plan, correct maps of traffic features
such as signals, and adjust bike routes, pedestrian routes, and truck routes. A policy is added to
support development of a long-range transit plan.
■ Stream Regulations: Stream typing would be retained but descriptions of stream types would be
based on fish and salmonid presence. Buffers for Type 2 streams would be increased to 100 feet.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE P 41
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Unless otherwise stated the impacts of the Preferred Alternative are considered identical to those of
Action Alternative 2.
f—
Proponent and Lead Agency
City of Yakima; 129 N 2"d 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
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
509-575-6042
ioseph.calhoun@vakimawa.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
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE P AtJ
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(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
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 W&PDraft SEIS Comment Period
May 16, 2017 to May 16, 2017.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET iv
.....
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET iv
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PW
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
92 -
Date and Location of Draft SEIS Public Meeting
April 11, 2017: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session. Location: City Hall Council
Chambers, 129 N 2"d St., Yakima, WA, 98901.
April 11, 2017: Public Open House, Yakima Valley Technical Skills Center
Date of Final SEIS Issuance
June XX, 2017 [within 10 days of integrated Plan/EIS adopton consistent with WAC 197-11 and RCW
36.70A.
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 -
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 Final SEIS Availability
The document is posted at the City's website at:
https://www.vakimawa.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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET v
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PIN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Table of Contents vi
TABLE
OF •
1.0
Environmental Summary....................................................................................................
1-11 P1 I
1.1
Purpose of Proposed Action...........................................................................................
1-11 P1 1
1.2
State Environmental Policy Act Process..........................................................................
1-11 P1 1
1.3
Public Involvement.....................................................................................................................1-2
1.4
Summary of Proposed Alternatives...........................................................................................1-2
1.5
Summary of Impacts of the Proposal and Mitigation Measures...............................................1-2
1.6
Citizen Amendment Requests..........................................................................................
1-154
1.7
Major Conclusions, Areas of Controversy or Uncertainty, and Issues to be Resolved....
1-1645
2.0
Alternatives.........................................................................................................................2-1p
PP 1
2.1
Introduction and Purpose...............................................................................................
2-1P P2 1
2.2
Description of Planning Area..........................................................................................
2-1p P2 1
2.3
State and Regional Planning Requirements...............................................................................2-2
2.4
SEPA Process...................................................................................................................
2-3P PP R
2.5
Objectives and Alternatives............................................................................................
2-5P P2 5
2.6
Summary of Alternatives.................................................................................................
2-162-44
2.7
Future Alternatives..........................................................................................................
2-162-14
2.8
Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal .....................
2-162-44
3.0
Concise Analysis of Alternatives.........................................................................................
3 -IR PR 1
3.1
Natural Environment.......................................................................................................
3 -IR PR 1
3.2
Air Quality.......................................................................................................................3-5R
PR 5
3.3
Land Use Patterns...........................................................................................................
3-7R PR :7
3.4
Population, Housing, and Employment...........................................................................
3-1140
3.5
Plans and Policies.............................................................................................................
3-133
3.6
Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................
3-234-24
3.7
Transportation.................................................................................................................
3-284-,q
3.8
Public Services..................................................................................................................
3-374-34
3.9
Infrastructure...................................................................................................................
3-434-4;�
3.10
Power and Telecommunications......................................................................................
3-514-54
4.0
Citizen Amendment Requests.............................................................................................
4-14-P4-1
4.1
Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests ...............................................
4-14-P4-1
5.0
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References.........................................................................
5-15 X5-1
5.1
Acronyms and Abbreviations..........................................................................................
5-15 PS 1
5.2
References.................................................................................................................................5-2
DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Table of Contents vi
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE P M
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
6.0 Distribution List................................................................................................................... 6-16- 6 1
7.0 Appendix A: Scoping Notice and Comments...................................................................... 7-1:-X-1
8.0 Appendix B: Critical Areas Ordinance Gap Analysis............................................................ 8-19 P9 I
%RLF OF FXHIF
Exhibit 1-1. Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests.................................................................. 1-154-44
Exhibit 2-1. Yakima Council Districts...............................................................................................
2-1P PP I
Exhibit 2-2. Yakima UGA and City Limits Map............................................................................................2-2
Exhibit 2-3. Yakima Integrated SEPA/GMA Plan and EIS................................................................
2-4p P2 4
Exhibit 2-4. No Action and Action Alternative Comprehensive Plan Elements ..............................
2-7p P2 6
Exhibit 2-5. Future Land Use Map: Current 2016...........................................................................
2-7p P2 :7
Exhibit 2-6. Future Land Use and Implementing Zoning by Alternative .........................................
2-8p P2 9
Exhibit 2-7. Action Alternative: Proposed Land Use Designation Area Changes ............................
2-8p P2 9
Exhibit 2-8. Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests......................................................................
2-9 22-3
Exhibit 2-9. Action Alternative Future Land Use Map.....................................................................
2-102-46
Exhibit 2-10. No Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District ......................
2-112-44
Exhibit 2-11. Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District ............................
2-122-42
Exhibit 2-12. Alternative Growth Comparison.................................................................................
2-142-44
Exhibit 2-13. Share of Growth in Eastern and Western Yakima ......................................................
2-152-4-5
Exhibit 2-14. Summary of Alternatives............................................................................................
2-162-46
Exhibit 3-1. Land Use Categories, Properties and Acres.................................................................
3-8R PR :7
Exhibit 3-2. Alternative 1 No Action Future Land Use Share..........................................................
3-9R PR 9
Exhibit 3-3. Alternative 2 Action Future Land Use Share................................................................
3-9R PR 9
Exhibit 3-4. Population, Housing, and Employment Affected Environment (2015 and 2040) ........
3-114-44
Exhibit 3-5. Consistency with Growth Management Act Goals .......................................................
3-154-44
Exhibit 3-6. Western Yakima UGA Land Use Designations..............................................................
3-201
Exhibit 3-7. City of Yakima Proposed Land Use Plan - Western Yakima UGA.................................
3-214-20
Exhibit 3-8. Predictive Model of Cultural Resources Presence........................................................
3-243
Exhibit 3-9. Properties Listed in Registers........................................................................................
3-254-24
Exhibit 3-10. Potentially Eligible Properties.....................................................................................
3-2646
Exhibit 3-11. Level of Service Criteria..............................................................................................
3-294-28
Exhibit 3-12. Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary ......................................................
3-294-28
Exhibit 3-13. Alternative 1 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary .............................
3-324-324
Exhibit 3-14. Alternative 1 (No Action) LOS Map.............................................................................
3-343
Exhibit 3-15. Alternative 2 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary .............................
3-354-34
Exhibit 3-16. Demand for Parks based on Growth 2015 -2040 ........................................................
3-384--24
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Table of Exhibits vii
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PW
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Exhibit 3-17. Net Population Growth Distribution by School District ..............................................
3-394-39
Exhibit 3-18. School District Estimated Student Growth, 2015 - 2040 ...........................................
3-404-39
Exhibit 3-19. Demand for Officers based on growth, 2015 - 2040 ..................................................
3-404-39
Exhibit 3-20. Demand for Fire Facilities, 2015 - 2040.....................................................................
3-414-49
Exhibit 3-21. Water Service Area within the Yakima City Limits by Transportation Analysis Zones
X3 42
... 3-433-
Exhibit 3-22. Yakima Sewer Service Area.........................................................................................
3-454-44
Exhibit 3-23. Sewer -Served Properties in Yakima City Limits..........................................................
3-464-4-5
Exhibit 3-24. Yakima Service Area Water Demand by Alternative -Growth Rate Impact on ADD
and MDD
.........................................................................................................................................................
3-474-4r,
Exhibit 3-25. Nob Hill Water System Growth...................................................................................
3-474-4C
Exhibit 3-26. Irrigation Pipeline Improvement Demand..................................................................
3 -484 -44 -
Exhibit 3-27. Sewer LOS Analysis.....................................................................................................
3-494-49
Exhibit 3-28. Stormwater Service Area - City Limits - Growth by Alternative ................................
3-504-49
Exhibit 3-29. Franchise Utilities Service Area - City Limits - Population Growth by Alternative....
3-524-54
Exhibit 3-30. Franchise Utilities Service Area - City Limits - Population Growth by Alternative....
3-524-54
Exhibit 4-1. Citizen Amendment Requests - Programmatic Environmental Review.................................4-2
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Table of Exhibits viii
419
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 jobs 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.
.L.A- 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 uocument?
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 eawas held with ##the integrated Draft SEIS. Comments ffNay-laewere
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 provides responses to comments on the Draft SEIS. See Appendix C.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-1
420
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 jobs
and housing.
The Final SEIS Preferred Alternative is consistent with Action Alternative 2 with adjustments often in
response to comments:
■ Land Use Map: Consistent with Action Alternative 2 provided that approximately 1.2 acres would
change from proposed Mixed Residential to Commercial Mixed Use.
■ Cultural Resources Policies: Shoreline policies regarding cultural resources protection are added to
the citywide Historic Resources Element.
■ Natural Environment Policies: Policies are included addressing conserving native vegegation, and to
sustain levee vegetation or enhance it.
■ Transportation System Plan: Map and text changes that show greater integration with the Bicycle
Master Plan, Airport Master Plan, and Transit Development Plan, correct maps of traffic features
such as signals, and adjust bike routes, pedestrian routes, and truck routes. A policy is added to
support development of a long-range transit plan.
■ Stream Regulations: Stream typing would be retained but descriptions of stream types would be
based on fish and salmonid presence. Buffers for Type 2 streams would be increased to 100 feet.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-2
421
Unless otherwise stated the impacts of the Preferred Alternative are considered identical to those of
Action Alternative 2.
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:
■ 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 40th 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-3
422
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). The Preferred Alternative would
further amend the Type 2 stream buffer to be 100 feet, similar to Yakima County and would be more
protective.
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. The Prefererd Alternative would add
additiona policies regarding native vegegation, open space, and levees.
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 11.04. 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.
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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-4
423
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 PM1oand taking necessary steps to stay in attainment status
for PM2.s•
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,
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.
As an implementatation action to its land use infill strategy and energy conservation policies in the
Comprehensive Plan, the City could consider planning for climate change such as by integrating climate
adaptation measures into its plans, policies, or programs. Sources of adaptation measures could include
guidance developed by the Washington Department of Ecology. University of Washington Climate Impacts
Group, and the Yakama Nation, which has developed a Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of the
Yakama Nation (April 2016).
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;
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-5
424
■ 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 jobs. 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.
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-6
425
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?
■ 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
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).
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-7
426
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;
■ 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-8
427
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 joint 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.
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-9
428
What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts?
Federal, state, and city regulations protect historic resources and archaeological resources under all
alternatives; however, under the Preferred Alternative that builds on Action Alternative 2, cultural
resources policies in the Shoreline Master Program would be applied citywide to protect archaeologic
resources and promote consultation with tribes. 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.
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-10
429
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.
■ 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.
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 1.8 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-11
430
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.
Schools
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
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-12
431
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.
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 join the system as population grows.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-13
432
■ 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
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-14
433
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 1.6-1 were
recommended to move forward in the process.
Exhibit 1-1. Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests
1 Datal Properties, LLC Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use
2 Landon Glenn Industrial to Commercial Mixed Use
3 Jeff Baker Regional Development to Commercial Mixed Use
4 Jay Sentz Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use
5 TM Rentals Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential
6 Gail Buchanan Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential
7 Supercold Storage Large Convenience Center to Industrial
8 Jerry Hand Medium Density Residential to Commercial Mixed
Use
9 William and Linda Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use
Beerman
10 SOZO Sports of Central Industrial and Low Density Residential to
WA Commercial Mixed Use
11 Gary Delaney Medium Density Residential to Community Mixed
Use
12 Mark Hoffmann Industrial to Low Density Residential
113 & 115 N 56th Ave
203 & 207 Oak St
Vic. Of E Nob Hill Blvd &
S 18th St
4201 Summitview Ave
Vic. Of S 38th Ave and W
Logan Ave
408, 410, & 412 S 88th
Ave
1415 River Rd
1406 S Fair Ave & 909
La Follette
419 & 421 S 16th Ave,
1513 Tieton Dr
Vic. Of S 36th Ave and
Sorenson Rd
1414S2 d Ave
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
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-15
434
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
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;
■ 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-16
435
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 jobs 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.
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
Lr-
the Cotnnl Dlnnnsshownah Memaparcdon dfrom Mevoil diU tsenabinhWtM,ghthe Yakima COLmy Rudim"sofhtp.thacetallswrtnmNcd—ts provlee statlNtal dasa for ite tol,n db-mbm'
the ameml mb1c and ather policy and dedpon makers. fie On— arc drawn over the City's sweet system to show toyemae and MIs strtlnkal data is for lnlormat—1, and planrina or prosemaaon purposes
anly
Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-1
YAKE1 A 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Yakima Council Districts
Council District
02
E3
■a
17
to Yakima City Limits
_- Urban Growth Area
436
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
,--e Urban 010 Area Bountl.ry
Ov Rima city Limas
Vawnt/Developed
Developed
V—rt
-'.+.
Partially Vacant
Zonel3roop
R..idantal
Comm .W
I—W.1
Community Parcel.
Env ronmerHHlly Corya reared
N
u c:a,
Date: 6182018 11–A
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.
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:
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-2
•� �,
.1
..........
Source: (Yakima County, Public Services Department, Planning Division, 2016, July 13)
Yakima UGA Analysis 2016
,--e Urban 010 Area Bountl.ry
Ov Rima city Limas
Vawnt/Developed
Developed
V—rt
-'.+.
Partially Vacant
Zonel3roop
R..idantal
Comm .W
I—W.1
Community Parcel.
Env ronmerHHlly Corya reared
N
u c:a,
Date: 6182018 11–A
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.
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:
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-2
437
■ 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 joint 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.
&..-r 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-3
438
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 SEIS document is structured as shown in Exhibit 2-3.
Exhibit 2-3. Yakima Integrated SEPA/GMA Plan and EIS
Document Section
Contents
Volume I. Yakima
Comprehensive Plan—A Policy
Contains all policies and plans.
Document
Volume II. 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
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-4
439
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.
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 jobs -housing balance.
The Final SEIS Preferred Alternative is consistent with Action Alternative 2 with adjustments often in
response to comments:
■ Land Use Map: Consistent with Action Alternative 2 provided that approximately 1.2 acres would
change from proposed Mixed Residential to Commercial Mixed Use.
■ Cultural Resources Policies: Shoreline policies regarding cultural resources protection are added to
the citywide Historic Resources Element.
■ Natural Environment Policies: Policies are included addressing conserving native vegegation, and to
sustain levee vegetation or enhance it.
■ Transportation System Plan: Map and text changes that show greater integration with the Bicycle
Master Plan. Airport Master Plan. and Transit Development Plan. correct maps of traffic features
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-5
440
such as signals, and adjust bike routes, pedestrian routes, and truck routes. A policy is added to
support development of a long-range transit plan.
■ Stream Regulations: Stream typing would be retained but descriptions of stream types would be
based on fish and salmonid presence. Buffers for Type 2 streams would be increased to 100 feet.
Unless otherwise stated the impacts of the Preferred Alternative are considered identical to those of
Action Alternative 2.
t—
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.
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
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 Praft Final 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-6
Exhibit 2-4. No Action and Action Alternative Comprehensive Plan Elements
Land Use
Economic Development
Housing
Transportation
Capital Facilities
Utilities
Parks and Recreation
Natural Environment
Land Use
Historic Preservation
Economic Development
Housing
Transportation
Capital Facilities
Utilities
Parks and Recreation
Natural Environment
Energy
441
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
The No Action Alternative retains the currently adopted Future Land Use Map and associated
implementing zoning as illustrated on Exhibit 2-5 below.
exhibit 2-5. Future Land Use Map: Current 2016
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Future Land Use
Law Density Residential
- - a Medium Densty Resdenllal
High Denslyentzal
A. S. Protessionaloffica
' ¢' - �� Neighborhopd Commerual
-- Community Commercial
^� a General Commertial
CBD Core Canxnemal
-ra .........
_-._ ___� .o -"� ■ Regenel Commeriel
_.._...•
ad - ■Industrial
I
Yet .. City Lirrit,
r a�
urnan Growth arca
u -a
__ � t. 0 0.5 1 Miles
L__
to
Yak' GIs
—_•euvuxws�• Ap i 2016 - it
Theil.ture Lantl Use Map'lluxtmtesthe canb'nsnon of ccrrent lantl use, current zori ng, crop luwre uses of each parcel of landwth'n tFe Ciry of Yakma. The mapcategory's necessary p -tl - y the _
unrymembers, resecnts, and prppttry owners about what type of land use wil be locatedaround them.And, where to expect tucurc scrvlcez, and development Wsed on the ¢owls, pokes andobtecdves �' -
ot[M1isPIan20A0.
Source: City of Yakima 2016
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives
2-7
442
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.
Exhibit 2-6. Future Land Use and Implementing Zoning by Alternative
Low Density Residential I SR, R-1, R-2 I Low Density Residential I SR, R-1
Medium Density
Residential R-1, R-2, R-3
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
B-1, B-2, SCC, LCC, GC, M -
General Commercial 1
CBD Core Commercial I CBD I CBD Commercial Core I CBD
Regional Commercial LCC, CBD I Regional Commercial RD
Industrial M-1, M-2 I 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
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-8
North of Fairgrounds Area
Washington Fruit and Produce Packing Plant
Old Fruitvale Drive -In Site/Area
Congdon 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
FLU doesn't match the established zoning; align the
current zoning with FLU.
443
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.
txhibit z -a. summary of Citizen Hmenament Requests
ir It
. 111M Name mma dll� Descrg tion Mh AME. Location
1 Datal Properties, LLC Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use 113 & 115 N 561h 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
g p
181h St
4
Jay Sentz
Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use
4201 Summitview Ave
Vic. Of S 381h Ave and W
5
TM Rentals
Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential
Logan Ave
408, 410, & 412 S 88th
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 36th Ave and
10
Central WA
Commercial Mixed Use
Sorenson Rd
11
Gary Delaney
Medium Density Residential to Community Mixed
1414S2 d Ave
Use
12
Mark Hoffmann
Industrial to Low Density Residential
3109 W Washington Ave
Source: City of Yakima, 2016
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 Alternatives 2-9
444
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.
rxhibit 1-9. Action Alternative Future Land Use Map
[This map has been updated from the version provided in the DEIS.]
U
1 \ ...u�...n
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Fvture Land Use
e
4 GenemlizedCalegones
* Low Density Residential
Mixed Residential
. Central Bu sine as Core Commeraal
Commercal Wild Use
■ Regional Commercial
Community Mixed Use
Induelrial
E3 Yakzma -V l,mits
-- lI Urban Growth Area
I—�...iusen.svv' 1 May, 201
Th[futurr Lane Use Map Illustrates thecombination ofcurrent lane ,currentzoning,andfuture uses of each -0 of landwithin the City of Yakima. The map o,ego unucossaryte provide certainty to[hc
unity members, residents, and property owners about what type of land use will be located around them. Antl, where to erpen future services, and tlevalopment basec on the goals, policies artl obkctivet
ofthiis Plan 2040.
N
A
0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles
I I I I
1
r it
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 jobs
under each land use plan (current or proposed). The Action Alternative has a greater capacity for housing
growth and job growth given the land use map changes and greater emphasis on infill development.
�U,�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-10
Exhibit 2-10. No Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District
District
Capacity: Vacant J Agriculture J
Infill
New Hames 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 HOMES 1
2
-3 7/ 3
6%4
3%
5
8%
7
58
6
15%
NEW JOBS
7
27%
F
6
w
8%
4
6% 3 2
10% 11%
Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-11
1
38
445
446
Exhibit 2-11. Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District
District
Capacity: Vacant/ Agriculture/
Underutilized
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
Cituwide
16.413
28.481
44.806
NEW HOMES
1 2
9%
3
6% 4
2%'
5
7 8%
57%
6
15%
NEW JOBS
7
27% 1
34%
6
0%
5
8%
4fth-
2
1< 7% 3 12%
12%
Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-12
447
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 jobs 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-13
448
Exhibit 2-12. Alternative Growth Comparison
Population: Net Growth
I-NoAction ■Action
Growth Target 17,167
17,167
EIS and Capital Facility Plan Assumption: City 18,700
Limit Share .of TAZ 23,211
Transportation Assumption: By TAZ 22,124
26,626
City Limit Growth Capacity 42,364
44,806
Housing: Net Growth
No Action ®Action
Housing Growth based on Population Target 6,288
- 6,288
EIS and Capital Facility Plan Assumption: City 6,850
Limit Share of TAZ 8,502
Transportation Assumption: ByTAZ 8,104
9,753
City Limit Growth Capacity 15,518
6,413
Jobs: Net Growth
., No Action ■ Action
8,556
Growth Target
8,556
14,783
Transportation and EIS Assumption: ByTAZ
15,318
'
City Limit Growth Capacity 24,837
,481
Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016
DDA 4 -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-14
449
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
jobs.
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-15
450
2.6 Summary of Alternatives
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
analysis
The alternatives present a range of policy and growth options. Future alternatives that are consistent with
the range of alternatives studied in ##the Draft SEIS and that are consistent with the plan objectives
may be identified by decision -makers and Beare considered in the Final SEIS.
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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-16
451
■ 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-17
452
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 Manual 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Concise Analysis of Alternatives3-1
453
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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Natural Environment 3-2
454
Alternative 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.
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
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 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.
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.
QRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Natural Environment 3-3
455
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:
o 9.1 Enhance and protect surface, storm, and groundwater quality and quantity.
o 9.3 Manage floodplains to protect public health and safety, and to support ecological function.
o 9.4 Preserve and enhance terrestrial and aquatic habitats to maintain viable populations of
plants and animals.
o 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 11.04. 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Natural Environment 3-4
456
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.
Air Quality
Affected Environment
General Conditions
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 (PM1o).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases that trap heat in
the atmosphere. Sources of greenhouse Bask emisions include burning of fossil fuels such as for energy
and transportation. (Environmental Protection Agency. 2017)
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1Air Quality 3-5
457
These gases can warm the climate, and have implications for water supply, water quality, fire incidences,
flood events, and other concerns for humans and natural ecosystems and species. For example, according
to the March 2012 Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, the "lalverage annual air temperature is expected to increase, with
accompanying increased water temperatures, according to the Climate Impact Group (CIG), and more
precipitation is expected to fall as rain rather than snow." This was predicted to affect endangered and
threatened fish species.
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Under both alternatives, current regulations and strategies would be implemented to maintain
attainment status for Carbon Monoxide and PM1oand taking necessary steps to stay in attainment status
for PM2.5-
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. There could
be an increase in short-term construction emissions and long-term traffic generation.
-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.
As quoted in the US EPA March 2010 draft paper Smart Growth: A Guide to Development and
Implementing Greenhouse Reduction Programs, "(clompact development reduces the need to drive by
putting destinations closer together and making walking, biking, and using mass transit easier. Any given
increment of compact development could reduce vehicle miles traveled up to 20 to 40 percent compared
to dispersed development on the outer fringe of an urban area."
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.
Pnliri, c
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)
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1Air Quality 3-6
458
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. Alternative 2 would also provide an energy element that
promotes energy conservation.
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.
Certain large facilities and transportation fuel suppliers must report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
to the Washington State Department of Ecology: 1) Facilities that emit at least 10,000 metric tons of
greenhouse gases per year in Washington; or 2) Suppliers of liquid motor vehicle fuel, special fuel, or
aircraft fuel that provide products equivalent to at least 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in
Washington. Between 2012-2015, two operators in Yakima have rported emissions, a paper packaging
operation and a landfill.
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
As an implementatation action to its land use infill strategy and energy conservation policies in the
Comprehensive Plan, the City could consider planning for climate change such as by integrating climate
adaptation measures into its plans, policies, or programs. Sources of adaptation measures could include
guidance developed bythe Washington Department of Ecology. University of Washington Climate Impacts
Group, and the Yakama Nation. which has developed a Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of the
Yakama Nation (April 2016).
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.
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.
11D�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Land Use Patterns 3-7
Exhibit 3-1. Land Use Categories, Properties and Acres
Agriculture and Resource
Government/ Education
Industrial
Manufacturing
Multi -Family Residential
Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Professional Offices and Services
Retail Commercial
Single Family Residential
Transportation
Vacant/Underdeveloped/Open Space
TOTAL
Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Yakima County Assessor's Office, 2016
108
154
49
207
2,485
139
1,199
801
21,836
675
1,639
29,292
1,617
522
187
544
977
790
1,028
765
5,274
801
1,857
14,363
459
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.
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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Land Use Patterns 3-8
Exhibit 3-2. Alternative 1 No Action Future Land Use Share
Professional Office
3%
Neighborhood
Commercial
3%
Community
Commercial
0.4%
Medium Density
Residential
14%
Regional Commercial
4%
11
Low Density
Residential
44%
General Commercial
9%
CBD Core Commercial
1%
High Density
Residential
7%
Industrial
15%
460
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: Actio
Alternative 2 Action combines several future land use designations to provide a streamlined rezoning
process to help spur infill development.
Exhibit 3-3. Alternative 2 Action Future Land Use Share
Low Density Residential
7,726
44%
Mixed Residential
3,709
21%
Community Mixed Use
1,082
6%
Commercial Mixed Use
1,902
11%
Regional Commercial
562
3%
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Land Use Patterns 3-9
Central Business Core Commercial 266 1%
Industrial
Total Gross Acres
Source: City of Yakima, 2017; BERK, 2016
2,509 14%
17,756 100%
461
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 Measure
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,
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Land Use Patterns 3-10
462
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 job 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 jobs 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.
Exhibit 3-4. Population, Housing, and Employment Affected Environment (2015 and 2040)
Population
r4 ko
%0 Q1
m 00
.--1 m 00 ry nJ
1D
~ N
Lna
t
r:
m
Housing
Employment
■ Base Year (2015) ■ 2040 No Action Alternative N 2040 Action Alternative
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Population, Housing, and Employment 3-11
463
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; CFM, 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).
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 jobs 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Population, Housing, and Employment 3-12
464
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
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.
,.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:
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-13
• 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
465
• Reduce sprawl
• Encourage a variety of affordable housing
types ; ,.IWdi..g aff,..d. ble i.,.,,..in
• R_eegzc Protect 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;
■ 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-14
466
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
GMA Goal Discussion
(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.
(2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate
conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development.
(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient
multimodal transportation systems that are
based on regional priorities and coordinated
with county and city comprehensive plans.
(4) Housing. Encourage the availability of
affordable housing to all economic segments
of the population of this state, promote a
variety of residential densities and housing
types, and encourage preservation of existing
housing stock.
Both alternatives provide for urban densities. However, Alternative
2 provides for a greater focus on infill development and more
efficient land use patterns such as Mixed Residential and a variety
of mixed commercial -residential areas.
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 transit
modes of travel as well as address road congestion, airport needs,
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
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 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
Both alternatives encourage economic development. Alternative 2
economic development throughout the state
updates the Economic Development Element and is based on a
that is consistent with adopted comprehensive
new Economic Development strategy, and will help advance the
plans, promote economic opportunity for all
vision for Downtown revitalization, a diverse employment base,
citizens of this state, especially for
and attracting and family -wage jobs.
unemployed and for disadvantaged persons,
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-15
promote the retention and expansion of
existing businesses and recruitment of new
businesses, recognize regional differences
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
compensation having been made. The
property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory
actions.
(7) Permits. Applications for both state and
local government permits should be processed
in a timely and fair manner to ensure
predictability.
(8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and
enhance natural resource-based industries,
including productive timber, agricultural, and
fisheries industries. Encourage the
conservation of productive forestlands and
productive agricultural lands, and discourage
incompatible uses.
(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open
space, enhance recreational opportunities,
conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase
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.
467
Both alternatives provide for a reasonable use of private property.
City regulations provide for development standards to promote
fair and consistent regulation of property; avenues to request
variances and to grandfather existing legal uses remain.
Both alternatives would retain regulatory procedures that evaluate
permits consistently with permit procedures and criteria.
Alternative 2 includes policies to adjust land use designations to
create a more predictable land use pattern.
Both alternatives would retain current UGA boundaries and would
not alter designated resource lands of long-term commercial
significance. While agricultural activities are present in UGA and
city territory, they were not designated as lands of long-term
commercial significance and are anticipated to convert to urban
uses over the planning period 2017-2040.
Both alternatives include parks plans. Alternative 2 updates the
Parks and Recreation Element and associated functional plan to
address more recent park needs and the City's equity analysis.
Alternative 2 also provides for critical areas regulations updates
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.
11D�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-16
(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
468
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;
■ Aligning public facilities levels of service and revenues and projects in a capital facility plan update.
Updates to joint 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 jobs. 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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-17
469
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, jails, 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
transit modes of travel as well as address road congestion, airport needs, and freight routes, to align
with YVCCG 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
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-18
470
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:
■ Coordinated planning for land use, capital facilities and infrastructure within urban growth areas;
■ 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-19
Exhibit 3-6. Western Yakima UGA Land Use Designations
04,
+q
x:11
1�+
L
Source: Yakima County GIS, 2017
N
D Dr 3 Tieton Dr m
a a
D r W Nob Hill Blvd
Cn m o
v
> c N
Q A Oi
a s s
ti y D
.� � CD Com— I
471
Urban Growth
Boundary
Yakima County
Zoning
YCC Title 19
Waters
friculture (AG)
Remote/Extremely
Limited (R/ELDP)
Rural Transitional
(RT)
Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HTC)
Mining (MIN)
Canned
elopment (PD)
Suburban
Residential(SR)
Single Family
Residential (R-1)
Two Family
Residential (R-2)
Multi -Family
Residential (R-3)
Professional
Business (B-1)
opcal Business (B-2)
Small Convenience
Center (SCC)
T`eneral Commercial
(GC) A
Yakama Nation
Closed Area
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-20
Exhibit 3-7. City of Yakima Proposed Land Use Plan — Western Yakima UGA
YAKIMA 2040
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE
Future Land Use
Categories
. Central Business Core Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
t.s Industrial
Low Density Residential
Mixed Residential
■ Community Mixed Use
■ Regional Commercial
Yakima Counul District
rJ Yakima City Limits
U Urban Growth Area
N
A
005 1 1.5 Miles
I l r i l i f i l i i i l
S
472
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
jobs. As the center of an agricultural economy many jobs in the City's industrial and manufacturing
areas will still be associated with agricultural processing and other activities.
�Ut�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-21
473
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
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Plans and Policies 3-22
474
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.
QRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Cultural Resources 3-23
475
Exhibit 3-8. Predictive Model of Cultural Resources Presence
February 11, 2017 1:97,653
0 0.75 1.5 3 rn
■ Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters: Low Risk LJ Survey Highly Advised: High Risk�i i
0 1.25 2.5 5 km
■ Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters: Moderately Low Risk ❑ Survey Highly Advised: Very High Risk w_s:.,,. _e. alpine. 1Ilmv. hemmeet P co,p., Geac0.
OSurvey Recommended: Moderate Risk USCG, PAO.NPS, NN N, Oeolase, CN,1 x4 r R.OMaea S,mey.
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 (NRHP); 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.
QRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Cultural Resources 3-24
476
Exhibit 3-9. Properties Listed in Registers
Legend
Listed historic properties (# listed) ♦ Heritage barns (3) Tribal boundaries
40 YRHR WHR and National Register (14) Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood historic district E7_3 City limits
WHIR and National Register (22) NRHP listed sites (2)
VJHR only (5) - Old North Yakima Historic District
Removed from Listing (1) Railroad survey priorities
courtesy of
ESRI
•w N
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.
QRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Cultural Resources 3-25
477
Exhibit 3-10. Potentially Eligible Properties
ik
��
'� ' 1. _'a-•ti'r�:.i a it, d
• ai, -'.
Vit_^. - . i'•- • st: ..*�
•_~. raii%wti�
���t'�T1!! it's ,
-? :r
nl�� • �t . -' �• r' -r \•11,. '�'j�C•
1=;f. a r�•s Tai! `<•�', `a, �:••
�.,`
-
-: 12:•. � �,
i
1
_tea.
���, __r:>r- _-
IJ V
i jr
Legend Base map
Tribal boundaries Modeled values showing eligiblity potential courtesy ofESRI
t •'� City limits 1A
Eligibility findings from previous surveys 1B
• NRHP individually eligible (52 properties) 1c
NRHP eligible, individual and potential district contributor (28 properties) - to
l
NRHP potential district contributor (213 properties) 2A
2B
Legend
• 1A: potentially individually eligible to the National Register of Historic Places
• 113: potentially contributing to a National Register of Historic Places eligible historic district
• 1C: potentially eligible for local designation, but not to the National Register
• 1D: potentially contributing to a local historic district
• 2A: not eligible, with conditions
• 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.
�Uv,sA -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Cultural Resources 3-26
478
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 11.62 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.
Under the Preferred Alternative that builds on Action Alternative 2, cultural resources policies in the
Shoreline Master Program would be applied citywide to protect archaeologic resources and promote
consultation with tribes.
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 11.62 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Cultural Resources 3-27
479
■ 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
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 WHIR 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
■ Cultural resources policies in the Shoreline Master Program could be applied citywide to protect
archaeologic resources and promote consultation with tribes."' ad -d -;t;,.... l .flitigat;,... iS PF9P,.Sed
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.. 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
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-28
480
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.
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 unsignalized intersections.
Exhibit 3-11. Level of Service Criteria
A
0-10
0-10
B
>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 Q. All of the
intersections are signalized with the exception of S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr which is two-way stop controlled.
.inion 3-1L. txisiing i M Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
ID Location Traffic Control LOS Delay (seconds)
1 N 72nd Ave & Summitview Ave
Signal
C
31
2 S 72nd Ave & Tieton Dr
Signal
C
27
3 S 72nd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
C
25
4 S 72nd Ave & W Washington Ave
TWSC
D
30
5 S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr
TW&6SignaI
F -A
8
6 W Washington Ave & S 64th Ave
Signal
B
17
7 N 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
C
26
8 N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave
Signal
C
22
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-29
481
9
N 40th AVE & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
C
22
10
N 40th Ave & W Summitview Ave
Signal
D
37
11
S 40th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
C
34
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, 20164).
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-
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-30
482
motorized users. The Powerhouse Canal Pathway, Yakima Greenway, and several unnamed neighborhood
connector paths support pedestrian travel in Yakima.
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-31
483
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
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 I
130
5
S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr
TW6Signal
C
2346
6
W Washington Ave & S 64th Ave
Signal
C
28
7
N 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
E
59
8
N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave
Signal
E
56
9
N 40th AVE & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
D
44
10
N 40th Ave & W Summitview Ave
Signal
E
61
11
S 40th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
E
65
12
S 40th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
F
94
13
W Washington Ave & S 40th Ave
Signal
E
61
14
S 24th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
44
15
N 16th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
Signal
D
52
16
N 16th Ave & W Lincoln Ave
Signal
F
84
17
N 16th Ave & Summitview Ave
Signal
D
39
18
N 16th Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
C
23
19
N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr
Signal
F
120
20
N 16th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
65
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-32
484
21
N 16th Ave & W Washington Blvd
Signal
F
-
22
S 3rd Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
B
23
S 3rd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
24
N 1st St & W I St
Signal
E
25
N 1st St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
C
26
E Nob Hill Blvd & S 1st St
Signal
i E
27
W Washington Ave & S 1st ST
Signal
D
28
N 3rd St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
B
29
S Fair Ave & E Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
F
30
S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
E
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 is removed because it is out of date. Refer to tables provided.l
11
65
59
27
62
46
13
86
65
DRAFT–FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-33
Legend
Signal
D LOS A- C
LOS D
LOSE -F
Two -Way Stop
Q LOS D
D LOS F
i,j+ City Limits
UGA Boundary
Park I Open Space
- i - --,------ I
0 0.5 Mile
2040 No Action Level of Service
r
485
i]RdFT FIGURE
City or Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan
transpogroup T%
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-34
486
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 jobs 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 3-14F-whm-hm+ -R , 4 F-xhibit 9 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. Q -the-- *haR the iRterse-e-Ame...,+ N 40'4 Ave & IiRgleweed Ave, the .. iR Exhibit
Exhibit 3-1414.15. 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
61
3
S 72nd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
D
52
4
S 72nd Ave & W Washington Ave
TWSC
104
5
S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr
TWSC-2gnal
C
2246.,
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
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-35
487
22
S 3rd Ave & W Yakima Ave
Signal
B
11
23
S 3rd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd
Signal
64
24
N 1st St & W I St
Signal
59
25
N 1st St & W Yakima Ave
Signal
C
28
26
E Nob Hill Blvd & S 1st St
Signal
1W
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:
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Transportation 3-36
488
■ 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. , Public Services
Affected Environment
Parks and Recreation
Yakima has around 401.82 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.
Schools
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.
Police
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-37
489
The current LOS policy for YPD is 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents. Using the LOS of 1.8 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 just 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 3-1546. Demand for Parks based on Growth 2015-2040
L 'I No Action Action
Population Growth 2015-2040 18,700 23,211
Neighborhood/Mini Parks 37.40 46.42
Community Parks
Source: BERK, 2017
Alternative 1: No Action
93.50 116.05
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
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-38
490
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.
Schools
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 3-16Exh .
Exhibit 3-163. 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%
Source: Yakima School District, 2016; West Valley School District, 2016; BERK, 2017
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. LTlIILAL 3-17 E��t 3 1-9 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-39
491
Exhibit 3-1748. School District Estimated Student Growth, 2015 — 2040
14,977
16,126 16,849
�
5,034
E
7,414 7,551
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; OSPI, 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 3-17lEx"9). The West Valley
School District could expect around 7,414 students, which is an increase of around 2,380 from 2016 (see
Exhibit 3-17lEx"9).
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 3-17E)("9). The West Valley School
District could expect around 7,551 students, which is an increase of over 2,500 from 2016 (see Exhibit
3-17r),ti9)
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 3-1841. Demand for Officers based on growth, 2015 - 2040
No Action Action
Am
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
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-40
492
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 3-18Exh ). 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 3-18Exh ).
riic oc r-iiicigency services
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 3-19Exhibit R 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 3-1920. Demand for Fire Facilities, 2015 — 2040
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 3-19Exh ). It is possible that additional facilities would need to be sited to meet turnout
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-41
493
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.
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 3-19Exh ). 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 Measure:
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Public Services 3-42
494
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 3-2024. Water Service Area witnin the Yakima City Limits by Transportation Analysis Zones
- Nob Hill -
- Other
- Union Gap
-, Yakima 411
10.
Sources, Esh, HERE, DeLome. Intermap, Increment P Corp., GESCO. USGS. FAO. NPS. NRCAI
IGN. Kadaster NL. Ordnance Survey. Esn Japan. METI, Esn China (Hong Kong). swisstopo, Mapr
OpenStreatMap mmnbuters, and the GIS User Community
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).
�U,�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-43
495
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-bervea k
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-44
496
Wastewater
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 3-2124. Yakima Sewer Service Area
VA— Sena Service
�+ vakma city Limas 0 maid. city tsni� Yakima Urban Area
tlll'I
Yakicomprehensive Plan
+ma Uib.nGmrrtAArea Sena Service
0 o„m d. city omits Figure 1-7
- - - 0 a,eade Lkba GrMth AM, 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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-45
497
Exhibit 3-2224. Sewer -Served Properties in Yakima City Limits
INGRO M
Sources: Earl, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp, &6CO, USGS, FAO,`NP9;'NRCAN1GeoBase,
IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Ear! Japan, METI, Esd China (Hong Kong). swiw6po, Mapmylndia. (03
OpenStreetMap oontnbutom, and the GIS User 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-46
498
Impacts
Water and Irrigation
Impacts Common to All Alternativer-
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 3-23-24. 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
11.6
11.8
Difference
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
MDD (0.33%)
18.4
18.8
19.1
19.4
19.6
19.9
MDD (0.51%)
18.4
18.9
19.3
19.8
20.3
20.8
Difference
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.9
Treatment Capacity
21.6
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 3-2424. 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 2.06% 1.44% 1.52%
Source: (Gray & Osborne, Inc., May 2015) and BERK Consulting 2017
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-47
499
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 3-2524. Irrigation Pipeline Improvement Demand
LOS Standard = 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 served
2016 53,297 85.27 85.35 0.08
Alternative 1: 2014 55,727 89.16 85.35 (3.81)
Alternative 2: 2040 57,246 91.59 85.35 (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
Water
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.e. 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 21.6
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-48
41
Irrigation
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 3-26lExhibit R 27 provides the LOS analysis for wastewater treatment, identifying the conservative
analysis of population in the 2015 Waste Load Assessment (growth rate of 1.24% over a 60 -year period)
greater than both Alternatives 1 and 2, and focusing on the capacity for treating pounds of organic
materials.
Exhibit 3-2624. 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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-49
Stormwater
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 3-2728. Stormwater Service Area — City Limits — Growth by Alternative
L- I No Action Action
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
Source: OFM 2015 and BERK Consulting, 2017
Alternative 1: No Action
111,920 116,431
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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Infrastructure 3-50
502
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 bythe use. The broad distribution of land uses provided by the Future Land Use Map will help
determine where upgraded facilities may be necessary.
Natural Gas
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Power and Telecommunications 3-51
503
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 3-2821. 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.
.xnibit 3-29-39. rranchise Utilities service Area — City Llmlis — ropuiavon Growth by Alternative
Employment 2015: By TAZ City Limit Approximation 47,578 47,578
Transportation and EIS Assumption: By TAZ 14,783 15,318
Tota 12040
Source: City of Yakima and BERK Consulting, 2017
62,361 62,896
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.
�U�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Power and Telecommunications 3-52
504
Alternative 2: Action
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 projects. 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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Power and Telecommunications 3-53
505
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.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Citizen Amendment Requests 4-1
Datal Properties,
LLC
Low Density
Residential to
Commercial Mixed
Use
113&115N56'Ave
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.
9RAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 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.
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.
2. Landon Glenn
Minimal effect to the natural
environment. The existing residential use
Industrial to
at 203 Oak St is completely built out.
Commercial Mixed
Commercial development on the vacant
Use
207 Oak Avenue Parcel would more
203 & 207 Oak St
consistent with the neighborhood.
3. Jeff Baker
Regional Development
to Commercial Mixed
Use
Vic. Of E Nob Hill Blvd
& S 18t' St
4. Jay Sentz
Low Density
Residential to
Community Mixed Use
4201 Su m m itview Ave
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
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.
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.
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.
9RAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-3
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.
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.
5. TM Rentals
Low Density
Residential to Mixed
Residential
Vic. Of S 38' Ave and
W Logan Ave
6. Gail Buchanan
Low Density
Residential to Mixed
Residential
408, 410, & 412 S 88th
Ave
7. Supercold Storage
Large Convenience
Center to Industrial
1415 River Rd
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.
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.
9RAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-4
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.
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 16t' Ave,
1513 Tieton Dr
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 Ih 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 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
419S16 Ih 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.
9RAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-5
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
16th which is less than 100 -feet from the
intersection. Stormwater management
will be important if the parking lot is
expanded.
10. SOZO Sports of
Central WA
Industrial and Low
Density Residential to
Commercial Mixed
Use
Vic. Of S 36t' Ave and
Sorenson Rd
11. Gary Delaney
Medium Density
Residential to
Community Mixed Use
1414S2 nd Ave
12. Mark Hoffmann
Industrial to Low
Density Residential
3109 W Washington
Ave
This area is currently being constructed
as a soccer complex and public park
(currently Low Density Residential).
Environmental considerations for the
complex were reviewed in SEPA#035-15.
Other parcels outside of the complex are
changing from Industrial to Commercial
Mixed Use. Future development will
undergo environmental review as
appropriate. Commercial uses will likely
have less environmental impact 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.
The soccer complex and park area
comprises the majority of this request,
which was approved by the City of
Yakima by CL2#014-15. Parcels outside
of the complex that are changing from
Industrial to Commercial will be able to
provide 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.
9RAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-6
The 6 -year TIP includes a project to widen
S36 1h Avenue from Spring Creek Road to
Sorenson Road, and classify 36th as a
Collector. Utility connections and other
considerations will be required for future
development.
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.
-11
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADD — Average Day Demand
ADT — Average Daily 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
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-1
512
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
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)
neigh borhoodscout.com. (2016, May 9). Yakima housing market information. Retrieved from
neigh borhoodscout.com: http://www. neigh borhoodscout.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
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-2
513
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.ziIlow.com/research/local-market-reports/
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-3
514
The following agencies and interested parties have received a notice of availability of ##the Draft and
Final 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 AgencieF-
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.
All 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
provided on the fact sheet.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Distribution List 6-1
515
Other
Commenters on the Draft SEIS. See Appendix C.
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Distribution List 6-2
DRAF4-FINAL MARCH 2017 1Appendix A: Scoping Notice and Comments 7-1
517
old 11 CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE
We axe `Ya6itna PLAN UPDATE
comprehensivo plop 21.140
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 (SEIS) will
evaluate alternatives. The range of alternatives is likely to be similar to the following:
• Alternative 1 No Action — Current Comprehopsive 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 plan) and zoning at a level above growth targets.
• Action Alternative 2 — Plan Update — Infill, Mixed Use, qnd 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 Weil -designed and compatible land use pattern,
This alternative would also implement the individual parcel rezone/ Future Land Use amendments
recommended for evaluationby 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
518
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 2nd Street; Yakima, WA 98901;
or joseph.calhouri@)vakimawa.gov by 5:00 pm on November 4, 2016.
Please visit http5://www_yalc awa.gov/servi(:es/planninL;,/cofyiprEherisive-pliii-_uL)date 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: 1� 13- Signature:
October 2016
519
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.
October 2016
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
8oth to South 64th 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 . y Yours,
Jerry D. Talbott,
Attorney for Ahtanum Irrigation District.
RECEIVED
NOV 0 7 2016
CITY OF YAKIMA
PLANNING DIV.
520
521
_ - x
Y��, LS P+9 JUy
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
1250 W Alder S! • Union Gap, WA 98903-0009 • (509) 575-2490
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 EnvironinentAVetlands/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 function (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 from 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,
522
Mr. Calhoun
November 1, 2016
Page 2
(360) 407-7172 or dbun461c,ecy.wa. ov, 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/Enviromnental
Assistance comments, please contact Catherine Reed at (509) 575-2616 or email at
catherine.reedgecy.wa. ov. .
Sincerely,
A'U� &e (& Ll '
Gwen Clear
Environmental Review Coordinator
Central Regional Office
(509) 575-2012
crosepacoordinator,,ecy.wa.gov
5935
523
his STA7' Ot
0
Y
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.
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 vegetation on levees can have many positive benefits.
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
httDS://www.co.Dierce.wa.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/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
524
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.
525
Joseph Calhoun
Notice of Scoping, Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
November 4, 2016
Page 3
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications you may require. My
phone number is 457-9310.
Sincerely,
'! -; �- 4!! �- �- - - - /
Eric Bartrand
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Area Habitat Biologist
1701 S 24th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
EB, SD: eb
526
Joseph Calhoun
Notice of Scoping, Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
November 4, 2016
Page 4
Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation
November 4, 2016
Sent via Email
Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
City of Yakima
129 North 2"1 Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Email: joseph.calhoun@yakimawa.gov
527
Established by the
Treaty of June 9, 1855
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 Yakama Nation Archaeologist Jessica Lally at
Jessica—Lally@yakama.com with questions.
Respectfully,
PHILIP RIGDON
DNR SUPERINTENDENT, YAKAMA NATION
Yakama Nation, Post Office Box 151, Toppenish, WA 98948 (S09) 86S-5121
528
529
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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
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
Amend as follows: "The purpose of this chapter is to establish a single, uniform system of procedures and
standards for development within designated critical areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction within the
incorporated city of Yakima and OtS WFbaR gFOWth ^ ^ "
15.27.120 Purpose
of chapter
Amend as follows: "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any new development, construction, or use
15.27.140.A within the incorporated portion of the city of Yakima and OtS WFbaR gFGWth aFea outside of shoreline
Applicability jurisdiction designated as a critical area..."
15.27.140.6 Update as needed.
Applicability I
Part Two. Definitions
Amend as follows: "...The physical structure of a sloe bank stabilization structure shall not be considered
Fill fill...."
Clarifies that these
regulations are not
applicable in
shoreline
jurisdiction;
shoreline critical
areas regulations are
separately addressed
in Chapter 17.09
Yakima Municipal
Code (YMC).
Change to avoid
confusion with
shoreline regulations
in Title 17.
Change to avoid
confusion with
shoreline regulations
in Title 17. J
DRAFT, September 2016 2
Fish and wildlife
habitat
conservation
Fish and wildlife
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Add this definition: Fish and wildlife habitat conservation means land management for maintaining
populations of species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that the habitat
available is sufficient to support viable populations over the long term and isolated subpopulations are not
created. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but it does mean not
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
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.
Habitats of local Add this definition: "Habitats of local importance" are designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation
importance
areas based on a finding by the city that they are locally important.
Hydrologically Delete this definition as it's no longer in use.
related critical area
(HRCA)
Add the following definitions:
"Priority habitat" means a habitat type with unique or significant value to one or more species. An area
classified and mapped as priority habitat must have one or more of the following attributes: comparatively
high fish or wildlife density, comparatively high fish or wildlife species diversity, fish spawning habitat,
Priority habitat and important wildlife habitat, important fish or wildlife seasonal range, important fish or wildlife movement
species corridor, rearing and foraging habitat, refuge, limited availability, high vulnerability to habitat alteration,
unique or dependent species, or shellfish bed. A priority habitat may be described by a unique vegetation type
or by a dominant plant species that is of primary importance to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may also be
described by a successional stage. Alternatively, a priority habitat may consist of a specific habitat element
DRAFT, September 2016
Definition taken
from Washington
Administrative Code
(WAC) 365-190-
130(1).
Definition taken
from WAC 365-190-
030(6)(a and c).
Definition adapted
from WAC 365-190-
030(6)(b).
These definitions
were taken from
Washington
Department of Fish
and Wildlife's
(WDFW's) Priority
Habitat and Species
List (2008). WDFW's
I
for
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
(such as talus slopes, caves, or snags) of key value to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may contain priority
and/or nonpriority fish and wildlife.
"Priority species" means species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their
persistence at genetically viable population levels. Priority species are those that meet any of the criteria
listed below:
A. Washington State (State) Listed or State Proposed Species. State -listed species are those native fish and
wildlife species legally designated as endangered (WAC 232-12-014), threatened (WAC 232-12-011), or
sensitive (WAC 232-12-011). State proposed species are those fish and wildlife species that will be
reviewed by WDFW (POL-M-6001) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive according
to the process and criteria defined in WAC 232-12-297.
B. Vulnerable Aggregations. Vulnerable aggregations include those species or groups of animals susceptible
to significant population declines, within a specific area or statewide, by virtue of their inclination to
congregate.
C. Species of Recreational, Commercial, and/or Tribal Importance. Native and nonnative fish, shellfish, and
wildlife species of recreational or commercial importance and recognized species used for tribal
ceremonial and subsistence purposes that are vulnerable to habitat loss or degradation.
D. Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as either proposed, threatened, or endangered.
Replace with the following (adapted from the definition used in YMC 17.01.090): "Restore," "restoration" or
"ecological restoration" means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired functions, such as those listed in
YMC 15.27.504, that have been lost or destroyed through natural events or human activity. This may be
accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive structures,
Restore and and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the site
Restoration to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions.
designating Priority
Habitats and Species
(PHS), and providing
recommendations
for management of
those habitats and
species, is an
important element
of best available
science that guides
protection of the full
range of fish and
wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
The current
regulations
thoroughly address
aquatic species and
habitats, but other
habitats and species
are not covered.
Consistency with
definition in Title 17.
This definition
includes the
appropriate
acknowledgment
that "restoration" is
a continuum from
any upgrade to full
reestablishment.
DRAFT, September 2016 4
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Species of local Add this definition: "Species of local importance" are those species that are of local concern due to their L Taken from WAC
importance population status or their sensitivity to habitat alteration or that are game species. 365-190-030(19).
Add this definition: "Waters of the state" are all lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground
Waters of the state waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of
Washington.
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
15.27.401
Principles
Taken from Revised
Code of Washington
(RCW) 90.48.020.
Part Three. Application and Review Procedures
Update section title to: Documented exemptions for fish and wildlife habitat conservation hydF,�„ o:es;Ga;1y Greater consistency
+� ,.r0t0 .aI areas and wetlands. with WAC
classification of
critical areas.
Modify as follows: If an alteration to a critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to that critical area and Critical area -specific
its buffers shall be mitigated for in accordance with an approved mitigation plan and mitigatieR fep wefland mitigation guidance
should be located
MitigatieR OR WashiRgteR State, Paks-1a„d2 (MaFei 2006 9F ast;pdate4T. within that critical
area's regulations
section for ease of
staff and public use.
Modify as follows: Greater consistency
A. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area s-Stre .... Ge -Frig- When a critical areas report is required for a with RCW and WAC
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areastFea.... GGFFO dGF BF by dFGl,.,.iGaI1y Fellated- eritie_al -aF it shall include classification of
the following: critical areas.
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 1 81111111B
Modify as follows: Part Four recognizes the right and need of #4e river and stream channels to periodically This sentence's
carry more than the normal flow of water.... reference to "the
river" implies that
DRAFT, September 2016 5
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
• Consider curtailing certain permitted uses (particularly new development) in the floodway fringe and
expanding the list of prohibited uses in the floodway fringe so that treatment is more similar to floodway
regulations.
• Consider prohibiting new dikes in the floodway.
15.27.409-
15.27.412
Floodway fringe
and floodway
permitted and
prohibited uses
there is only one
feature in the City of
Yakima (City) that
has designated flood
hazard areas. Two
rivers and a number
of streams have
mapped floodway
and/or floodplain.
RCW 36.70A.172
requires that the City
"give special
consideration to
conservation or
protection measures
necessary to
preserve or enhance
anadromous
fisheries." WDFW
(Knight, 2009) and
many other sources
emphasize the
importance of
floodplains in
providing physical
habitat for
salmonids, as well as
supporting
watershed -/basin -
level processes that
help form and
maintain phvsical
DRAFT, September 2016 6
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
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,
amon.Q others.
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 habitatI See comment below.
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:
-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;
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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
B.D.PFOVide ^^«i"'^ Require consideration of alternatives for necessary development, construction, and uses
within fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas a desig^^ted stp^^^, a.Rd ^t"^p hydF^'^^m^al y
C€. Prevent decline in the quantity and quality of surface and subsurface waters;
D€. Conserve, restore, and protect fish and wildlife habitats, vegetation, and ecological relationships;
Ems. Protect seRsitive apeas of the stpeam ^^""m^'^r fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas from the
potential negative effects of development through coordinated land use planning; and
F#. Protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas T -through voluntary agreements or government
incentives.). ide . ^t^,.t;^., of „.,ti -Fal , ,^ti.,Rd fi-R .tieRs a.Rd ..,i„ and
Revise the Protection Approach section as shown below:
"A.—To maintain fish and wildlife habitat, there must be adequate environmental conditions for reproduction,
foraging, resting, eeveFand dispersal of animals. Factors affecting both habitat and its quality include
the presence of essential resources such as food, water, and cover nest building mateFials, and lack of
15.27.501 disturbance and diseases. The city of Yakima protects fish and wildlife habitat through:
Protection PFG -t.,.,+0..., O f habitat f9F aq atiG
1. Designation of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas ,
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. °F^t^^ti^^ Of habitat f9F S^ -^i^9
habitats and species
that require those
upland habitats to
support some part of
their life cycle.
Accordingly,
language is
recommended to
address the full
range of potential
fish and wildlife
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.
Modified A for
technical accuracy
and to provide
greater clarity of
protection
mechanisms.
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 theState's
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 15.27.503.13 here]
this section of code
3. [Modify existing 15.27.503.0 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 .„, (--* the ..+..„,,.,Fdr, hPlA;.• . '' . +" comply with the applicable
recommended,
development standards in YMC 15.27.508 through 15.27.521, unie ... FeviewRPPdPd fAF R
consistent with
"••&919giGal y Felate^' ^ri+i^^' ^l'^^. In addition, 42projects shall be designa-ted 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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
The current water -typing system does not provide a clear, scientific basis to distinguish the different water
types. The City should consider switching to either WAC 222-16-030 (Water typing system) or WAC 222-16-
031 (Interim water typing system). Either of these systems would support application of the buffer scale in a
way that more closely matches the actual functions and values of a given waterbody.
Streams, Lake and
Ponds Typing
System
15.27.505
include PHS
minimally, and then
include the process
for nominating
additional species or
habitats. _
RCW 36.70A.172
requires that the City
"give special
consideration to
conservation or
protection measures
necessary to
preserve or enhance
anadromous
fisheries." Although
the current typing
system's linkage to a
suite of specific
functions (in the case
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
Remove this section regarding the wetland rating system.
15.27.506 Wetland
rating system
an inappropriately
smaller buffer.
If the City elects to
switch to the system
in WAC 222-16-030,
Type 1 would be re-
named Type S.
WAC 222-16-030 or -
031; WDFW, 2016
Title 17 provides all
of the necessary
detail regarding
which waters may or
may not be
considered a
shoreline (Type 1).
Recommendation for
clarity. This
important regulation
should be in the
wetlands regulations
section.
DRAFT, September 2016 11
Amend as follows: Type 1 waters tpeams are those waters, within their ordinary high water mark (OHWM),
15.27.505
meeting the criteria as "shorelines of the state" and "shorelines of statewide significance" under RCW Chapter
Streams, lakess and
90.58. Other Wwaters-associated with Type 1 waters st.,.......s as d-eafiRead- ;R R 04 Gh..pteF 90.59 ..., net
ponds typing
;..�, dt-dare not considered Type 1 waters. Type 1 waters are regulated exclusively under Title 17 of the
system
Yakima Municipal Code.
The delineation of perennial streams into Type 2 (listed in current Appendix B) and Type 3 waters as currently
defined seems particularly vague and subjective. If the City does not wish to switch water typing systems
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
15.27.505.6
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 ee-As+deFed "stye....... lakes and AGF
PO„as Of 19eadOMPGrtaRee," as listed OR Appee this -title.,,
Delete this provision.
15.27.505.F.3
Streams, lakes and
ponds typing
system
Remove this section regarding the wetland rating system.
15.27.506 Wetland
rating system
an inappropriately
smaller buffer.
If the City elects to
switch to the system
in WAC 222-16-030,
Type 1 would be re-
named Type S.
WAC 222-16-030 or -
031; WDFW, 2016
Title 17 provides all
of the necessary
detail regarding
which waters may or
may not be
considered a
shoreline (Type 1).
Recommendation for
clarity. This
important regulation
should be in the
wetlands regulations
section.
DRAFT, September 2016 11
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Suggest relocating this section to a consolidated early section on critical areas maps in general, perhaps in Part
15.27.507 Maps One or Part Two, Article II. The text and list should be modified accordingly, considering the actual content of
the updated map sets.
15.27.510-.513
Use classifications
etc.
15.27.514
Vegetative buffers
Delete these provisions.
Amend as follows:
The establishment of a vegetative buffer system is necessary to protect the functions and values of reptaiR
hydFGlag+eal;y Felated GFit+eal-areas. S4 d-a.d- -and-Anininnumn b iffersf&Fstreams, lakes, and ponds
i.A.Aptlands ape listed OR jTables 27.5-1ffd-'�z1. Buffers associated with wetlands are listed in YMC
15.27.XXX.
Table 27.5-1
S# a2n; Water
Buffer Width—standard/(minimum
Buffer Width (if City chooses to
Type
adjurAme,twidth)l
switch to one of the WAC rating
systems)
Type 1 shopeliRe
3494!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.P.
stFeap%,,1akes,,-
1 The buffer modifications suggested below are recommended if the City does not change its current rating system definitions.
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-
arid Riparian
Functions and
Associated
Regulatory
Protections to
Support Shoreline
Master Program
Updates (Anchor
QEA, LLC, 2013) and
aerial photographs.
Note that as J
DRAFT, September 2016 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;
^d fFem the edge of the weflands. The width of the buffer shall be determined according to the stpeam
d water type. Buffer width may be reduced through an adjustment permit process (YMC
15.27.317).
B. Type 1 waters StFea s 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 ^^d X7 5z 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
Recommendation
Type 2 mss,
lakes, and pends
75'/056.25')
Type 2 or 3 /Type F 57-,11
Type 3 stpeams
(peFennial), lake -9,
X865'/(2548.75')
Type 3 or 4 /Type Np = 50'
Type 4 5eapAs
.s �,,A d pa„as
2§50'/(3537.5')
Type 5 / Type Ns = 25'
Type 5stpeams
No buffer standards. Type 5 streams are not
Not Applicable
(^al)
regulated as streams, but may be protected
under geologically hazardous area,
floodplain, stormwater, construction, grading
or other development regulations.
A. Vegetative buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark for streams, lakes, and ponds;
^d fFem the edge of the weflands. The width of the buffer shall be determined according to the stpeam
d water type. Buffer width may be reduced through an adjustment permit process (YMC
15.27.317).
B. Type 1 waters StFea s 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 ^^d X7 5z 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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
2. Where the use is being intensified, a degraded buffer may be revegetated to maintain the standard
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:
1. The water or its riparian corridor has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat
functions.
2. The buffer is increased adiacent to the hieher-functionine 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 averaeine to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the followine
conditions are met:
1. There are no feasible alternatives to the site desien that could be accomplished without buffer
averaging.
2. 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 professional.
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
This activity seems likely to be only pursued in shoreline jurisdiction. If that's the case, this section could be
deleted.
15.27.520
Commercial mining
of gravel
Change would
eliminate
redundancy and
minimize
unnecessary
lan.Qua.Qe.
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
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 rk warp
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
deleted.
15.27.520
Commercial mining
of gravel
Change would
eliminate
redundancy and
minimize
unnecessary
lan.Qua.Qe.
DRAFT, September 2016 15
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
15.27.521 Retitle this section to "Restoration," as Reclamation is a term more commonly associated with post -mining
Reclamation activities.
Part Six. Wetlands Replace 15.27.601-.605 with 17.09.040.6-.G, with the following exceptions:
1. Substitute appropriate cross-references in 15.27.XX for the equivalent references in Title 17 (e.g., in
17.09.040.6.2, substitute 17.25.200 for the reference to 17.01.090).
2. Replace "shoreline administrator" with "administrative official."
3. Replace references to shoreline permits with the equivalent non -shoreline permit.
4. Replace "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is
applicable to the issues of concern" with "best available science."
General
Revise 17.09.040.6.1 as follows: '�r^.,s;s*^.,* ,.,;+" kninr 1:72n34 ,.,Wetlands "^F^' ^^ s^' ^* ^^ shall
17.09.040.6.1 be delineated..."
Revise 17.09.040.D.2 as follows: "Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington, revised
October 20104ar 07 (Ecology Publication Number 14-06-03094 96 15, or as revised)..."
17.09.040.D.2
Consistency with
current terminology.
I
As part of the recent
SMP update, the
wetland regulations
section was
incorporated into
the SMP, but
updated to reflect
the most current
scientific
information. Much
of the SMP version
of these regulations
can then be used I
wholesale, except
where there were
shoreline -specific
modifications.
Update to remove
inapplicable
shoreline reference.
Ecology's most
recent wetland
rating system
represents the best
available science
(Hruby, 2014).
DRAFT, September 2016 16
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Replace Sub -sections F and G with Section XX.070 from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Eastern
Washington Version (Bunten and others, 2016).
17.09.040.F and G
Wetland Guidance
for CAO Updates
Eastern Washington
Version (Bunten and
others, 2016). While
lengthier than the
current language,
this more detailed
section will provide
DRAFT, September 2016 17
Replace 17.09.040.D.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
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 11 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 11 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 Guidance for CAO Updates Eastern
Washington Version (Bunten and others, 2016).
17.09.040.F and G
Wetland Guidance
for CAO Updates
Eastern Washington
Version (Bunten and
others, 2016). While
lengthier than the
current language,
this more detailed
section will provide
DRAFT, September 2016 17
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
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).
Part Seven. Geologically Hazardous Areas
Modify A.2.d as shown: Channel migration zones and s -Stream undercutting. Updated WAC
Modify C as shown: The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the language and
15.27.701 Mappingreferences.
and designation
city s critical area map titled Geologically Hazardous Areas of the City of Yakima. The following geologically
hazardous areas have been mapped and classified using the criteria found in WAC 365-190-120}
thFGWgh (h):
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 s4Ar ...watpr AARR,-a'
(WIDOPEcology 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, and hGFelin iFiSd;6t;GH
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
15.27.703.B.2
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
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 isswaRee of a 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/WebSoilSurvey.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 MANUSCRIPTS/washington/yakimaWA1985/yakimaWA1985-
I.pdf
• City of Yakima Wellhead Protection Plan http://www.yakimacountV.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
15.27.820
Protection
Approach
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Existing .820.13 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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
A. 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.
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 81.88;
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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
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);
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;
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.
i. 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.
ii. 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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
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:
i. 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 may be 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
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
i. Vertical cross -connection of aquifers normally separated by confining units;
DRAFT, September 2016 25
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
ii. Migration of contaminated surface water along improperly sealed well borings or casings;
iii. Introduction of electrolytes or related solutions into the subsurface; and
iv. Any of the above conditions caused by improperly abandoned cathodic protection wells that are no longer in use.
i. 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.
j. 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 injection 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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
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:
i. 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.
iii. 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/sir2OO65116.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.usgs.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 MANUSCRIPTS/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
YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
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.yakimacounty.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
NDIX C: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DEIS
PRAF-T-FINAL Yakima Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 9-1
562
Responses to Comments
..................
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement I Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 2017
Introduction
This appendix to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) contains public
comments provided on the Draft SEIS during the 60 -day comment period and provides response to
those comments. The comment period for the Draft SEIS extended from March 17, 2017 to May 16,
2017. In total 14 comment letters were received during the comment period. In addition to letters
received during the published comment period, one additional letter was received late from the
Yakama Nation. The City of Yakima has voluntarily included responses to comments to the letter.
Written comments appear at the end of this appendix, with individual comments marked. See
Responses to Written Comments below with corresponding replies to numbered comments.
A public hearing was held on May 10, 2017, with hearing testimony summarized and responses to
comments appearing in Responses to Public Hearing Testimony later in this document. Minutes of the
hearing are available from the City of Yakima Planning Division. See the Fact Sheet for the Contact
Person.
Comments that state an opinion or preference are acknowledged with a response that indicates the
comment is noted and provided to the appropriate decision maker(s). Comments that ask questions,
request clarifications or corrections, or are related to the Draft SEIS analysis are provided a response
that explains the SEIS approach, offers corrections, or provides other appropriate replies.
Responses to Written Comments
Written comments appear in the order dated. If letters were received on the same date, they appear in
order of the agency or individual name alphabetically.
Exhibit 1. Written Correspondence Received
Date Agency/Individual Name Letter No.
563
Date
Agency/Individual Name
Letter No.
4/11/17
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................
Ed Lisowski: Public Open House Comment Sheet
5
4/10/17
Valley Quality Homes: Tisha Busey
6
4/18/17
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................
Talbott, Simpson & Davis: Jerry D. Talbott
7
4/18/17
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................
Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
8
4/26/17
Central Washington Home Builders Association: Joe Walsh, Government
9
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................
Affairs Director
...........................................................................................................
5/8/17
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................
Carole Skolrud
10
5/10/17
Central Washington Home Builders Association: Joe Walsh, Government
11
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................
Affairs Director
5/16/17
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................
Joshua Hicks
12
5/16/17
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................
Phil Hoge
13
5/16/17
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
14
5/22/17
Yakama Nation: Phil Rigdon, Superintendent, Yakama Nation Department
15
of Natural Resources. Received Post comment period.
Exhibit 2. Responses to Written Comments
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
1-1
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
In favor of zoning
changes and Action
Alternative 2.
.........................................................................................................._............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2-1
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Support use of YVT
The Utilities Element promotes coordination and co -location of utilities. See
rights of way for bike
proposed policy:
and pedestrian
transportation.
8.2.1. Use land use, design, and construction policies and regulations to manage
placement and construction of utilities, encouraging the efficient use of land and
...........................................................................................................
co -location of facilities where feasible.
3-1
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Bike paths and
sidewalks should be
level grade.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 2
564
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
3-2 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Protect parks and
................................_ .............................._
greenbelts.
4-1 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see the
Sports Complex Area Transportation Plan for proposed transportation improvements designed to
on Ahtanum needs address the City's levels of service. Individual developments are also subject to
signals environmental review at the time of permit, and concurrency requirements to
maintain levels of service.
4-2 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see the
Bring back parks and proposed Parks and Recreation Element. The City desires to meet needs of the
pools for healthy community within the resources available.
community.
4-3
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see the
New development
Transportation Plan for proposed non -motorized improvements. The City also
should provide
considers routes to schools and other destinations through its environmental and
sidewalks and
subdivision review, and street frontage requirements.
connections.
4-4 The City considers annexations of land by willing property owners. See the
Consider Annexation proposed Land Use Element policies regarding annexation.
near Ahtanum.
4-5 Please see the proposed Land Use and Housing Elements for strategies to increase
Lincoln & Chestnut, the supply of different housing types affordable to different income levels.
have more than one
family per home.
More cars. More
crowding.
4-6 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. See the Land Use
Area Near 44th & Element for policies and a land use map showing proposed areas for residential
Tieton good for new uses.
households due to
new school.
4-7 The Yakima and West Valley School districts were contacted through the
Prepare School Comprehensive Plan Update process in order to share proposed population
District for growth. estimates and land use plans.
4-8 Please see response to comment 4-3.
Provide safe routes
to schools.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 3
565
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
4-9 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The City does not
SE Yakima - Aquatics operate the YMCA. Please see the proposed Parks and Recreation Element. The
with YMCA — make City desires to meet needs of the community within the resources available.
for whole
Community.
4-10 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The City has
Effect of Amazon on prepared an Economic Development strategy and desires a successful downtown.
Downtown Retail. Projected retail trends are accounted in the strategy and in prior downtown
studies. Increasing infill housing as promoted in the Land Use and Housing
Elements can help bring customers to downtown retail.
4-11
See Kansas Industrial
Power and Light
District for a
successful
redevelopment.
4-12
Connect Yakima with
the Tri -cities —
wineries, commuters.
4-13
Flooding near
Ahtanum. Protect
property value. Solve
repetitive loss.
4-14
Have a good
connection between
agriculture and
community.
5-1
Ensure adequate
sidewalks on 16th
Avenue between
Fruitvale and Lincoln.
6-1
Opposed to changing
parcels from Arterial
Commercial to Mixed
Residential.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The City has developed flood hazard regulations consistent with the State model
ordinance and best available science to protect public health and safety. Please see
proposed critical area revisions available with public hearing materials (Planning
Commission and City Council.)
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see the
Transportation Plan for proposed non -motorized improvements.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 4
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
7-1 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Hugh.._Bowman Ditch
should be correctly
labelled on
City/County Maps.
7-2 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Utility projects
Utility trenches can are subject to environmental review, stormwater regulations, and critical aquifer
affect surface and recharge area regulations. Specific impacts can be addressed through the permit
ground waters. process with these regulations.
7-3 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. New
New developments development is required to provide for adequate potable water supply.
continue irrigation
water but do not
switch from potable
to irrigation water.
7-4 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see the
Concerned about Transportation Plan for proposed transportation improvements designed to
auto traffic in address the City's levels of service. Individual developments are also subject to
Ahtanum area. environmental review at the time of permit, and concurrency requirements to
maintain levels of service.
8-1
2040 Plan does not
assume growth in
transit from 2016-
2021. Only capital
acquisitions are
planned.
8-2
See literature about
improving physical
and mental health by
using transit.
9-1
Priority habitats and
species definition is
broad. Is there
expertise to interpret
it?
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The 2040 Transportation System Plan incorporates the Yakima Transit 6 -year plan.
The summary of the transit plan states "Yakima Transit's 6 -year TDP identifies a
variety of investments targeted at bringing back service."
Please also see Transportation Element policies that support transit and alternative
modes. A policy was added in response to the comment as follows:
6.5.23 and 6.5.30 Support the development and adoption of a Long Range
Transit System Plan.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Priority habitats and species is a program developed by the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife. That Department publishes lists of priority
habitats and species that meet that definition.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 5
567
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
9-2 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The standards
Appreciate changes meet federal standards as well as state rules to consider best available science.
.............................t- '11o. dway fringe
uses. However, study
would require a cost
and time. Prefer
federal building code
standard.
9-3 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The City's current
Water Typing is water typing system is proposed to be retained in format but amended to address
optional and should best available science.
be rejected.
9-4 The report "Final Draft Semi -Arid Riparian Functions and Associated Regulatory
Vegetative Buffer Protections to Support Shoreline Master Program Updates" dated June 2013 is
should rely on available at this link:
published best http://www.grantcountywa.gov/Planning/Shoreline-Master-Program/
available science. Archive-July%202013%20Submittal%20to%20Ecology/
Ripa ria n%20Functions%20and%20ReguIatio ns%20Report/
Grant County Riparian Functions 2013 07 03.pdf
While the document has not been reissued as final, it was prepared and revised per
close coordination with (and funding from) Washington Department of Ecology. It
would qualify as Best Available Science under state rules. It would be considered
"Synthesis. A comprehensive review and explanation of pertinent literature and
other relevant existing knowledge by a qualified scientific expert." See Best
Available Science Rules at: (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=365-
195-905).
9-5 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The changes are
Wetland Buffers — recommended to implement the Washington State Department of Ecology
section is lengthy. guidance and best available science.
9-6 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Aquifer Maps —
appreciate additional
reference maps.
9-7 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The changes are
Aquifer Protect recommended to implement best available science.
Regulations section is
lengthy.
9-8 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The Growth
Additional Management Act requires consideration of best available science in critical area
regulations add cost regulations. The Act also requires consideration of affordable housing. The City has
to new housing. addressed greater flexibility in land use to allow a greater variety and supply of
housing.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 6
Comment Number/
Summary
10-1
Sgp.port Additional
Sidewalks proposed
in plan.
11-1
Support for infill
strategy.
11-2
Think summary of
GMA goals in
Introduction could be
better stated.
11-3
Comments on critical
areas and cost of
regulations.
12-3
Please overall with
plan.
12-2
Suggests several
fiscal policies.
12-3
Street and
stormwater
recommendations.
12-4
Support Bicycle
Master Plan.
12-5
Fifth generation
Yakima family;
support a thriving
City.
568
Response
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The sidebar notes that the Growth Management Act goal language is summary in
nature. Some adjustments were made in the City Council hearing draft as part of
responses to comments:
■ Encourage a variety of affordable housing types ;RrIWdiRg a49Fdable ",.,,. iRg
■ ReeegRiie Protect property rights
Please see responses to comments in Letter 9.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The City's Comprehensive Plan Update does include new policies emphasizing infill
development for efficient use of existing infrastructure.
Please also see the Capital Facility Plan Element and appendix for a summary of the
City's expected revenue. Please also see the City's annual budget for fiscal policies.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Please see the City's municipal code and development standards for street and
stormwater standards.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 7
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
13-1 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
............................. Support ....B -PAC and
Yakima Planning
Commission
Recommendations.
13-2 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Support bike and
sidewalk
improvements to Zler
Road.
13-3 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Add bike and
sidewalk
improvements to N
68th Avenue between
Summitview and
Cowiche Canyon
Road.
14-1 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. See the following
Management and proposed policy added in response to comments:
Removal of
Vegetation on 9.4.5 Sustain existing levee vegetation to promote and retain functional
Yakima River Levees: habitat. Enhance levee vegetation during maintenance projects, where
suspend feasible.
management of
levee.
14-2 The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The City requires
Promote habitat buffers to protect wetlands and riparian areas. Regarding parks, see the following
protection in urban proposed policy added in response to comments:
setting.
9.4.6 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.
14-3 The policy is designed to promote low intensity uses such as parks in flood hazard
Goal 9.3.5 Unclear areas:
9.3.5 Within frequently flooded areas, encourage and support the retention
of natural open spaces or land uses, such as parks, that can maintain
important hydrologic function with minimal risk to property damage from
floodwaters.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 8
570
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
................................................................................
14-4 The comments are noted. A revised wetlands map has been prepared and included
Wetlands Map may in the Natural Environment Element.
be missing
information.
14-5 The phrase urban natural open space is from the Washington State Department of
Urban Natural Open Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species mapping. The additional explanation
Space less clear than that urban natural open space contains shrub -steppe is added to the Existing
Shrub Steppe. Conditions Report.
14-6 The map referenced is the current land use based on Assessor land use codes. The
Groupings of vacant future land use map in the Land Use Element guides future land uses. No change is
and agricultural land proposed.
on map may be
counter-productive.
15-1 The comment is noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Support for
Alternative 2.
15-2 Please see responses to specific comments in body of letter.
Apply best science to
cultural resources
protection and water
supply.
15-3 Please see responses to specific comments in body of letter.
Protect cultural
resources, protect
groundwater, and
ensure adequate
water supplies.
15-4 The comment is noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Support for
Alternative 2.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 9
571
Comment Number/ Response
....................................................
Summary
15-5 The pattern for land use distribution and Urban Growth Area size is consistent with
Land use patterns. Yakima County's 2016 UGA Phase 2 Review —Yakima County Ordinance 14-2016.
The County staff report for the UGA update estimated future population growth
and included a land capacity analysis by land use type.
Yakima County is responsible for permitting in the unincorporated UGA. The
application of the County's proposed YCWRS to the UGA should be a comment
directed to Yakima County.
Both the City of Yakima water plan and Nob Hill Water identify sufficient water
rights to serve expected growth during the planning period.
Regarding whether exempt wells are allowed, the City of Yakima limits density
when a well in employed. See YMC § 15.05.030 — Creation of New Lots —
Subdivision Requirements, subsection C. For development in the Nob Hill Water
area, adequate water supply is assured through the development process. Water
system hookup is required with all new subdivisions.
The City's plan focuses on the city limits, as stated in multiple places. The City has
not requested any additional UGA territory. The City has included policies
regarding coordination with Yakima County regarding annexation (see Land Use
Element Policy 2.1.9). The City is focusing on infill strategies to direct growth in
already developed areas.
15-6 Please see Response to Comment 15-5. Also, the following proposed Land Use
Coordination with Policies promote coordination with the County:
Yakima County
needed. 2.1.8. Work with other jurisdictions and agencies, educational and other
organizations, and the business community to develop and carry out a
coordinated, regional approach for meeting the various needs of Yakima
County communities, including housing, human services, economic vitality,
public safety, utilities, infrastructure, parks and recreation, transportation,
and environmental protection.
2.1.11 Continue to coordinate with Yakima County on future
land use, shoreline, critical area, and infrastructure policies,
plans, and permit reviews in the Yakima UGA.
2.1.12 Work in collaboration with Yakima County and cities through
regional forums such as the Yakima Valley Council of Governments and the
Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 10
572
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
15-7 The polices contained in the Shoreline Element (and still retained therein) have
Cultural resources. been generalized and implemented in the Historic Preservation Element, as
follows:
12.2.6. Maintain active communication with the Confederated Tribes and
Bands of the Yakama Nation and formalize a consultation process for
archaeological reviews.
12.2.7. Identify areas classified as "high risk and/or very high risk" for
archaeological resources based on the Washington State Department of
Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive model and require a site inspection
or evaluation by a professional archaeologist.
12.2.8. Require the protection and restoration of areas and site in the
City of Yakima having historic, archaeological, cultural, educational or
scientific value consistent with local, state, and federal laws.
12.2.9. Development permits should contain conditions of approval
which require developers to immediately stop work and notify local
governments, the DAHP, and the Yakama nation if any archaeological or
historic resources are uncovered during excavation.
12.2.10. Development that would destroy archaeological, cultural, and/or
historic sites or data will be delayed for an appropriate amount of time as
determined by the City in consultation with interested parties that would
allow an appropriate entity to protect or mitigate the affected resource.
12.2.11. Establish and implement procedures that protect cultural and
historic resources by designing projects to avoid impacting resources to the
greatest extent possible or identifying and implementing mitigation
measures when avoidance or preservation is not possible.
Due to receiving these comments outside of the 60 -day SEIS comment period,
collaboration with the Yakama Nation cultural resources staff will be difficult to
accomplish prior to plan adoption. We would be amenable to future meeting(s)
with the Yakama Nation cultural resources staff to identify areas that may be
updated in future amendment processes.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 11
573
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
15-8
The Final SEIS includes adjustments to the Draft SEIS Air Quality Analysis to:
Climate change.
■ Reference the Comprehensive Plan and policy features that promote energy
...................................................
and water conservation, and a mixed use and infill development pattern and
reduced vehicular trips that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
■ Provide a reference to the Yakama Nation's Climate Adaptation Plan in the SEIS
as a document of local importance.
■ Reference the Yakima Basin Integrated Water Management Plan analysis of
.........................................................................................................._.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
climate change.
15-9
The City of Yakima doesn't have land use categories for Open Space or Parks. The
Future Land Use Map
land use categories along streams, floodplains, etc. are not substantively changing
and development
from previous plans. Parks and open space are an allowed use in all future land use
along channel
designations and zoning districts. Identifying these areas as only suitable for parks
migration zones and
and open space could result in a regulatory taking. Private land must have a
floodplains.
reasonable use and the City cannot zone something solely for public or park uses
without it being in public ownership.
The City does employ measures to protect critical areas, such as allowed uses and
buffers. The City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) addresses channel migration zones, floodplains, and other critical areas, and
has specific use environments and regulations to address no net loss to shoreline
and critical area ecological functions. The allowed uses in the Floodway Fringe
areas have been reduced, consistent with best available science.
15-10 ■ Water Quality: The identified section includes a brief discussion on the
SEIS Section 3.1 environment. Water quality planning is discussed in further detail on page 3-5.
Natural Environment. Frequently Flooded Areas: The City of Yakima utilizes the FEMA FIRM maps to
depict frequently flooded areas. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat map identifies the
riparian areas. Also, see CAO and SMP regulations. Furthermore, see existing
code section YMC § 15.27.419 that allows utilization of best available data.
■ Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA): The Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas map
includes high vulnerability areas and time of travel. The City has obtained the
Yakima County CARA data for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Natural
Environment Element.
15-11 Industrial development may be consistent with CARA designated areas, per YMC
Industrial. §15.27.820 which limits certain uses in these areas and also includes performance
standards.
15-12 Redevelopment of the mill site is an on-going process that will require extensive
Cascade Mill Site. environmental review when development is proposed. Existing environmental
reports can be found here: https.11www.yakimawa.gov/serviceslstrategic-
proiects/cascade-mill-district-development-proiect/
15-13 See response to comment 15-7.
Historic preservation.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 12
574
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
15-14 Please see response to comments 15-10.
....................................................
Water Quality and
Critical Areas
15-15 A table of priority fish species is found in the Natural Environment Element.
Wetlands and Additional map products identifying anadromous fish can be produced in the
streams. future.
15-16 This map was created using Priority Habitats and Species data. Only those items
Wildlife that show up in Yakima were identified in the Map and Legend. See also the
Existing Conditions Report.
15-17 This table identifies species and location based upon Washington State
Sensitive Fish Species Department of Fish and Wildlife data. The title is misleading to state "Mapped."
The rivers and streams are already mapped separately, it would be confusing to
create several map layers for each identified species. "Mapped" will be changed to
"Identified."
15-18 Please see response to comments 15-10.
Critical aquifer
recharge area.
15-19 Please see response to comments 15-8.
Climate change.
15-20 New stormwater facilities are required to implement best management practices,
Challenges and consistent with the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual. Existing septic
opportunities, policy systems can continue until failure and then connect to sewer if available. All new
10.1.1. construction is required to connect to sewer. To state the existing stormwater
facilities and septic systems degrade water quality is overly broad. As noted, there
are current code(s) in place that dictate what can and cannot be built.
15-21 This policy fully supports the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan. To include additional
Policy 10.1.3. text from the plan would be redundant.
Regarding adding climate change analysis from the basin plan, please see response
to comment 15-8.
15-22 The policies supported by Goal 10.3 all set strong policy for the protection of
Goal 10.3 floodplain ecological functions.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 13
575
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
15-23 It should be a goal and policy to protect fish and wildlife general, not just those
Policy 10.4.1 species that have special local, state, or federal status. The protection of fish and
wildlife outside of species that have local, state, or federal status is not specifically
required. However, current zoning standards for lot coverage, setbacks, building
height, etc., in addition to floodplains, geohazard areas, and other protections
under the SMP and CAO, all provide additional areas for habitat conservation.
Proposed changes to YMC 15.27.502(B) state that all habitats identified in
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species
program that are found in the City are designated as fish and wildlife conservation
areas.
.........................................................................................................._...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
15-24 See Response to Comment 15-7.
Shoreline Element.
15-25 The comment is noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. See also response to
Energy Element. comment 15-8.
15-26 See Response to Comment 15-16.
15.27.502 and
15.27.503
15-27 The Planning Commission did not recommend to move forward with the interim
Stream typing. typing system. The typing system will not change as originally proposed. However,
the typing system is not required, and substantive protective measures are
proposed for amendment consistent with best available science.
15-28 The Type 2 stream buffer is changed to 100'. Other buffers changed consistent with
15.27.514— Yakima County CAO.
Vegetative Buffers.
15-29 The comment is noted and forwarded to City decision -makers.
Wetlands.
15-30 See responses to comment 15-10. Regarding wells, the Nob Hill and City water
Aquifer mapping. system plans address private wells and pollution prevention programs within
wellhead protection areas.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 14
576
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
15-31 ■ 15.27.409(C) — Floodway Fringe. Encroachment in residential zone greater than 1
Flood regulations. unit per acre. This provision acknowledges that the floodway fringe is already
compromised. New development will still need to comply with current
standards, including certification from a registered professional engineer.
■ 15.27.317 — Adjustment. The process being administrative simply means the
Administrative Official is the decision maker. 15.27.317(B) specifically states the
adjustment will be processed as a Type 2 review, which includes public notice
and a 20 -day comment period.
■ 15.27.502 — Designation — Removal of floodplains, etc. The Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area specifically includes "waters of the state, including
any required buffers and associated FEMA -mapped floodplains and floodways."
Floodplains are not de -designated. Furthermore, it also includes "lakes, ponds,
streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity."
15-32 The text specifically states that all habitats identified by Department of Fish and
Habitats of Local Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species program that may be found within the city
Importance are designated. As mentioned previously, the Wildlife map reflects this. To further
provide a list that may change in the future would be redundant and is not needed.
15-33 Please see response to comment 15-27.
Water Typing System
15-34 As noted previously, the Wildlife map includes all priority habitat and species data
15.27.507 Maps that is in the City limits. Also, sensitive fish species are identified in Exhibit 10-5 of
the Natural Systems Element. The City of Yakima includes regulatory FEMA maps as
required. The remaining maps are informational and are intended to identify areas
that may or may not need additional review under the CAO or SMP, as appropriate.
15-35 As noted previously, the Type 2 buffer is changed to 100' and other buffers
Stream Buffer changed for consistency with Yakima County CAO.
Requirements
15-36 ■ 15.27.601 B, subsections 1 and 2: This section is consistent with 15.27.200, RCW
Wetlands 36.70A.030(2), and the SMP — 17.09.040(B).
■ 15.27.604 Wetland Buffers: While this does increase complexity, the standards
herein also promote greater flexibility.
15-37 The commenter believes there is an inconsistency with 15.27.701 and 702 —
Geologically designations and provisions for geohazard areas.
Hazardous Areas There is no inconsistency. The document provided only shows specific sections
that were changed. Appropriate designation and provisions exist for all areas —
erosion hazards, landslide hazards, channel migration zone and stream
undercutting, seismic hazards, volcanic hazards.
15-38 Please see Response to Comment 15-10.
Aquifer maps.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 15
577
Comment Number/ Response
Summary
15-3.9 ............................ See prior responses. The updates to both the SMP and CAO are consistent.
Shoreline master
program.
Responses to Public Hearing Testimony
Public hearing testimony comments appear in the order received.
Exhibit 3. Public Hearing Comment Summaries and Responses
No. Speaker Name Summary of Comments Response
1 Joe Walsh (Central
Audience member Joe Walsh of the
The Growth Management Act
Washington
Central Washington Home Builders
Goals were not written as a
Homebuilders
Association (CWHBA) suggested
part of the Yakima
Association)
changes to the wording of some of the
Comprehensive Plan Update
Growth Management Act Goals listed
process and are applicable to
in the Comprehensive Plan.
all jurisdictions planning under
GMA. See also response to
..............................._.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
comment 11-2 in Exhibit 2.
2 Rob Strader
Audience Member Rob Strader of
The comments are noted and
(Yakima Bikes and
Yakima Bikes and Walks spoke on the
have been provided to City
Walks)
Blue Zone presentation that was
decision -makers.
recently made at the Yakima Chamber
please see the Transportation
of Commerce covering topics on
Element Goals and Policies that
healthy communities. He encouraged
support healthy communities,
the Commission to include language in
including Active Transportation
the plan that would support some of
policies 6.5.15 through 6.5.23.
..............................._.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
the concepts that were presented.
3 Shirley Strater
Audience member Shirley Strader of
The comments are noted and
(Yakima Bikes and
Yakima Bikes and Walks echoed the
have been provided to City
Walks)
previous comments made about the
decision -makers.
Blue Zone presentation, and
Please see the Transportation
commented on the Bike Master Plan
Element Goals and Policies that
and multi -modal transportation
support transit and alternative
methods.
modes, including Goal 6.1 and
the Active Transportation
Policies 6.5.15 through 6.5.23.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 16
578
No. Speaker Name Summary of Comments Response
4 Phil Hoge
Audience member Phil Hoge echoed
The comments are noted and
previous comments regarding multi-
forwarded to City decision -
modal transportation and urged for
makers.
development standards to be created
or revised to better support goals in
the Comprehensive Plan 2040 such as
See Figure 4-8. Bicycle System
goal 2.3.3. which states, "create
Plan for Primary and Secondary
walkable residential neighborhoods
Bike Routes.
with safe streets and good
connections to schools, parks, transit,
and commercial services." Hoge also
expressed that he would like the
recommendations made by the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to
be incorporated into the plan. He then
pointed out that in the Transportation
Systems Plan it is incorrectly indicated
that there are bike lanes on Lincoln
Ave between 24th Ave and 40th Ave, as
well as on Fruitvale Blvd between 23rd
Ave and 40th Ave. Lastly, he suggested
that primary and secondary bike
..............................._.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
routes be defined in the plan.
5 Tony Sandoval
Audience member Tony Sandoval
The comments are noted and
emphasized the need to make areas
have been provided to City
like downtown more bike and
decision -makers.
pedestrian friendly.
Please see the Transportation
Element Goals and Policies that
support alternative modes,
..............................._.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
including Goal 6.1.
6 Bill Hordan (Hordan
Audience member Bill Hordan of
The comment is noted and has
Planning Services)
Hordan Planning Services expressed
been provided to City decision -
his support of the key amendments to
makers.
the land use elements which were
listed in the staff report.
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update I Responses to Comments Final SEIS 11 17
579
Calhoun, Joseph
From: Landon Elandonglenn@grnail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:04 PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: Zoning changes
Hi Joseph,
1 am writing as part of the public to state I am in fact in favor of the proposed zoning changes. Action alternative 2 1 I 1-1
believe is the name.
Thank you.
Jay Glenn
580
Calhoun, Joseph
From: barbsg2@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:03 PM
To; Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: 2040 plan
Hello,
Please utilize the 4$ miles
of city -owned Yakima Valley Transit (YVT) rights-of-way for bike/pedestrian transportation.
An inter -connected system of paths/trails is beneficial for-
-Economic development
-Health ( obesity reduction) 2-1
-Carbon reduction
-Gar traffic reduction
-Tourism (+connection to Greenway & Cowiche Canyon Conservancy & Wm 0 Douglas trails) -Quality of lif for residents
This system should be coordinated with UGA utilities (laying sewer, water, electrical & broadband lines whi le
constructing bike/pedestrian paths) & should be included as a key component in the transportation master plan.
For more information on routes & funding coordination-- perhaps contact Yakima Bikes & Walks, Phil Hoge or Yakima
Valley Conference of Governments, Larry Mattson.
Thank you.
Barb Smith Gilbert
Sent from my iPhone
Comprehensive Pian 2040 — Public Comments
City of Yakima
Comprehensive Plan 2040 Community Visioning Open House
Yakima Valley Technical Skills Center -1120 S 18th Street, Yakima
,AW..... t
i�A0.anng
Tuesday April 11, 2017
4:00 p.m. - 8.00 p.m.
*PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY*
s tri cl�c ,�'C .ac . ell- l k o!�', 3-1
��✓� r ��� �(��� �(t r -f- 5 � GlV yLC� ��..��-f'SY}t �' CLCi,L�. �'}i7 4�
Name:
Email:
Mailing Address:
3-2
04/11/2017 — Comp Plan 2040 Visioning Open House
INN A 0 a mid a mamn
I A —WA Igo I
Comprehensive Plan 2040 — Public Comments
City of Yakima
Comprehensive Plan 2040 Community Visioning Open House
Yakima Valley Technical Skills Center -1120 S 18th Street, Yakima
Tuesday April 11, 2017 „4--
!�`a a� ►'� 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.R�
ariFY'
1 J *PLEASE WRITE EEG
IBLY
L o1 > -s
65,
911 '1-vL hC..V rpt- 4
�k `it,, D v,.esz�
V UVIYI-1
w vwl-v- C-+�
J'C-tet{ n)
I Ar + I r 11
4-3
C] vu -c --v, A-Gi474
",+— V�.P [A�a—�
Ill Ci vii- e-
4-5
�,L �Vw" 0,5 gq .fl- -t 7(Ltm — �LC cou� l r-- t14-61
SC&p\ Lj�;Cj- OkUWp-� V-61 VAX)S V � —(�
4-71
7-1
4-8
Name: C 4 A 9 U b( Mailing Address:
4F A
Email: -a-��� Ct���{s u�. S't� � �� It r
04/11/2017 — Comp Plan 2040 Visioning Open House
I�e �- C�S -+ �L 1� V .+ sa 4-9
(,OLS u 1 k' C• V\ Vu-�A k t.
(��W( aLQ,?- rf,oi�vvs t-
6L�
I s VI -S -� �� e�� o (j) .0
- �T
COV) L' �vo f
Sc CI
vsLos
L Vl l LVl_f 4 )-f2`C� 5• tr to
t1 -e
t -e S r3
vi
n vi VL c ! wv I 1 v G�� �j 1 �.�. � i�- � (� ICJ �� -� � i•'1 �' L` � j � ��
Comprehensive Plan 2040 — Public Comments
City of Yakima
Comprehensive Plan 2040 Community Visioning Open House
Yakima Valley Technical Skills Center -1120 S 18th Street, Yakima
�R A N Tuesday April 11, 2017
��� ■ :�= 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
'angP *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY'
K L
c. 9 f�.w r: .n_ CD I
QQr11rYA< �-
Le
d �, to a, .
4-L,,.+A7
5-1
�1
r
Name: Ll st u! sjc� Mailing Address: 'ZZ0 s ' 7 � yl Gf 4 f�� 70
Email: [ f�rDLcf �l Gc��t �1.�•
04/11/2017 -- Comp Plan 2040 Visioning Open House
585
Palley Quality Homes
1830 SOUTH FIRST STREET • YAKIMA, WA 98903 • BUS: (509) 453-8937 • FAX: (509) 575-7702
April 10, 2017
Mr. Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
City of Yakima
129 North Second Street
Yakima, Washington, 98901
CITY �F Yj`X1PV-A
C❑OE X.)lViN, 01VIS1 :phi
APR 11 2017
PIECIVr 1-'r CEl) [I
AD FYI El
RE: Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update & Draft Supplemental SEIS
Dear Mr. Calhoun:
This letter is in response to your request for written comments on the above proposal. For the
record, Valley Quality Homes of Spokane, LLC is the owner of Parcel Numbers 191320-33429,
33430, 33431, 33432, 33433, 33434, 33435 and 33441. These parcels will be affected by the
proposal that contemplates changing the underlying comprehensive pian designation from
Arterial Commercial to Mixed Residential. This letter is being written in OPPOSITION to that
proposal.
This property was purchased in 2407 for the sole purpose of future commercial endeavors that
would be compatible with the Yakima Speedway which abuts this property to the east. The
property was purchased from the owner of Yakima Speedway and is intended to be developed in
conjunction with that property once the current land use ceases and a new land use emerges. The
property is currently vacant and is not a good site for residential housing. Specifically, the
intensity of the existing land uses in the surrounding area is incompatible with residential
housing. The noise, dust, light, glaze, long hours of operation and high volumes of traffic that
are generated by surrounding land uses are just a few of the adverse impacts that make
residential housing and commercial uses within this neighborhood incompatible with one
another.
Since the subject properties are on the "cusp" of the City's proposal for the Future Land Use
Map Change between the proposed Mixed Residential designation and the exiting Arterial
Commercial designation, we would suggest that the change be made west'of W properties. This
would permit our property to +act:as,a.buffer between the expected comrtiQ,� es lying east of
us and the expected.residenti�l u iyirig we
�1 r •-S. Y.f•�' .•��-;^. + .I r�n..,:,1 � ��G .�. i I is yy 1'• d!
A':���� j'1�� 1; ..{i.{� ';'iC,y: {�
.� •i,,j!lJil;y 41 :•SI P4
21
586
Based on all the above, we are requesting that all our property be removed from the above 6-1
proposal. Cont.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at 509-453-
8937.
Sincerely,
a Busey
April 18, 2017
Joan Davenport
AiCP Director
Department of Community Development
129 N. Second Street. 2"d Floor
Yakima, Wa. 98901
Re: Comprehensive Plan 2010 Comments
We represent the Ahtanum Irrigation District and wish to comment on the
proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan in regard to water and utilities.
I . We want to be sure the Hugh Bowman ditch is correctly labeled on
the City/County maps. George Marshall, our stream patrolman will 7-1
be happy to supply maps and information in this regard.
2. When utility trenches, and their associated granular pipe bedding
and backfill materials are placed through areas of surface water
and/or shallow ground water, they can impact surface/groundwater
conditions by providing a higher permeability pathway for
surface/ground water to flow. In some cases, trenches can act as
surface/ground water drains and result in lowered surface/ground
water elevations compared to pre -trench conditions, which in turn
can negatively impact environmental conditions( wetlands, springs,
streams) as well as local surface and ground water users. When
trenching in the vicinity of irrigations ditches, other surface waters, or
through ground water, cutoff trench dams of impermeable material
(clay) will be required to be placed across pipe trenches, as
587
RECEIVED
JERRY D. TALBOTT
APR 2 G ?pry
TALBOTT, SIMPSON & DAVIS
1,'tTY of YAdif Nrl
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
308 N. 2N° STREET
Yakima_, Wa. 98901
(509) 575 7501
FAX (509) 453 0077
Email: jtolbott(( taitiotti iw.eotii
April 18, 2017
Joan Davenport
AiCP Director
Department of Community Development
129 N. Second Street. 2"d Floor
Yakima, Wa. 98901
Re: Comprehensive Plan 2010 Comments
We represent the Ahtanum Irrigation District and wish to comment on the
proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan in regard to water and utilities.
I . We want to be sure the Hugh Bowman ditch is correctly labeled on
the City/County maps. George Marshall, our stream patrolman will 7-1
be happy to supply maps and information in this regard.
2. When utility trenches, and their associated granular pipe bedding
and backfill materials are placed through areas of surface water
and/or shallow ground water, they can impact surface/groundwater
conditions by providing a higher permeability pathway for
surface/ground water to flow. In some cases, trenches can act as
surface/ground water drains and result in lowered surface/ground
water elevations compared to pre -trench conditions, which in turn
can negatively impact environmental conditions( wetlands, springs,
streams) as well as local surface and ground water users. When
trenching in the vicinity of irrigations ditches, other surface waters, or
through ground water, cutoff trench dams of impermeable material
(clay) will be required to be placed across pipe trenches, as
588
necessary, to prevent the movement of water along the outside of
the pipe within granular bedding and backfill materials. Trench dams 7-2
are required to be installed using proper construction specification, Cont
materials and frequencies for the conditions encountered by
particular projects. Utility project planning and design should
consider and address any potential impact on surface and ground
water conditions.
3. All new developments in AID within the City limits are required to
continue the use of existing irrigation water (where available) rather 7.3
than allowing developments to switch to irrigation from potable water
sources. We will be examining this when asked to approved plats
within the District.
4. We continue to be concerned about the automobile traffic in the 7-4
Ahtanum area. As new developments are built, the traffic becomes an
increasing problem.
Very truly yours, I.
Jerry D. T Mott
RECEIVED
APR 2 C 2017
CITY OF YAf?CNA
F,L 4" M
589
`,r T
vy (' rJ , 7 .:. �J ( �r C'
April 18th 2017 ( c}. +� ��► f
4.4 TRANSIT and TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
I have noticed in the 2040 transportation plan there are reference to the General and Safety policy,
1."Multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely through the city."
Other points of interest:
2."To encourage enhanced community access and promote healthy fife styles"
3."To be responsive to the needs of passengers (Transit) getting to work and schaal."
a."This schedule re -alignment (Transit) offered more direct routing and maximize transfer point
connections(?), as well as overall frequency(?)of transit service within the community."
5."Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through TRANSIT, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION! AND OTHER
COMMUTE REDUCTION STRATEGIES."
6."2040 plan indicates NO growth for transit from 2016 — 2021" other than capital acquisitions.
This plan reads in cover fetter style with laudable endeavors, generalities and meets the
bureaucratic requirements; however, there are no plan specifics for developing Transit as one of the
multimodal transportation systems, Listed Below are questions a developing Transit plan would include
making it a viable part of the comprehensive plan to growth.
How does this plan encourage non-traditional users? 8-1
How does this plan make transit service more appealing and convenient for non-traditional users?
How does this plan intend to educate non-traditional users of it health benefits and advantages?
How does this lead non-traditional users into using transit as the gateway to Active Transportation
modes as well as for example, the last mile concept.
How does Transit encourage non-traditional users to reduce growth in vehicle travel demands?
The above point #4 appears effective on paper only, customers using the system find it otherwise.
Overall service has been reduced and peak service (to/from work) scaled back, contrary to Table2-1
(2015) giving the appearance of expansive service throughout the week. The trend in ridership is falling
figure 2-7 Historical Transit Ridership.
How does transit build frequency which builds ridership by non-traditional users?
How does this transit plan build AM to PM service (duration) for non-traditional users for work, school
and general daily destinations?
Is this a Transit Development Plan? 18-4
590
What if improving your physical and mental health was as easy as riding the bus?
Breathing fresh air, driving safely, being physically active, and avoiding excessive stress are a
few of the well-known steps toward Iiving a healthy life style. Actually, using transit supports
all of the above! The Victoria Policy_ In stit itis and The American Public Imrlsportal tion
l_ssoc:iation explored the health impacts of transit, and here is what they found;
1) Public transit users are more active.
Individuals who use public transportation get over three times the amount of physical activity
per day of those who don't (approximately 19 minutes, rather than six minutes) by walking to
stops and final destinations. The U.S. Center for Disease Control recommends 22 minutes of
moderate physical activity, such as brisk walking, per day for 150 minutes per week). Getting
active helps Cower the risk for many serious diseases, such as: heart and vascular diseases,
strokes, diabetes, hypertensive diseases, osteoporosis, joint and back problems, colon and
breast cancers, and depression.
2) Buses are safer than individual vehicles.
Bus related accidents have one -twentieth the passenger fatality rates of automobile travel. Car
accidents are responsible for approximately 40,000 deaths (and many snore injuries) per year,
snaking them one of the largest causes of death for people aged 1-44. Traveling on public
transit significantly diminishes this threat. Moreover, areas with high public transit movement
tend to have better overall security and reduced crime rates.
3) Public transportation reduces stress.
Public transportation improves access to education and employment, which in turn leads to
better- long-term economic opportunities. In fact, 12 percent of transit riders are traveling to
schools and almost 60 percent are going to work. It also provides access to social and
recreational activities, allowing individuals to participate in events they otherwise couldn't.
Furthermore, public transit benefits coininunity cohesion by promoting positive interactions
between neighbors.
1,ezi1.11 1) ow .Seven-a11S1t a=ndes were unified with lust one a
4) Public buses keep air cleaner.
Pollution is estimated to cause as many deaths per year as traffic accidents. However, buses
(especially newer diesel and electrically powered vehicles) produce less pollution than cars per
passenger mile by utilizing advanced technologies and higher standards. in fact, from 1992-
2009, buses using alternative fuels (such as natural gas) jumped from 2 to 30 percent and
electric rail transit increased from 29 to 34 percent of passenger miles.
591
5) Riding public transportation saves money.
"Affordable transportation" generally means that an individual's total travel expenses make tip
less than 20% of their household finances. Car payments, gas prices and parking can be a major
budget drain, but public transportation lessens those financial burdens by alleviating the need
to purchase and operate individual vehicles (saving a household around $6,251 annually) and
helping riders avoid parking fees, This supports public health by leaving riders with more
money for better living arrangements, healthy food, and medical services.
6) Public transportation provides access to essential needs later in life.
A survey of Americans aged 65 and ❑Ider found that non -drivers take 15% fewer trips to the
doctor, 59% fewer shopping trips and restaurant visits, and 65% Fewer trips for social, family,
and religious activities than those using an individual vehicle. Public transportation is a way for
these non -drivers (particularly low-income seniors and disabled individuals) to gain access to
important services and activities that improve public health such as: healthcare appointments,
basic shopping, banking, education, and employment opportunities.
The benefits of public transportation are expansive, ranging from public health to household
finances. If you'd like to learn more about public transit's positive of€ec
CWHBA 592
City of Yakima Planning Commission April 26, 2017
104 North 15t Street
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: Yakima Critical Areas Ordinance Update (YMC, Chapter 15.27)
Honorable Planning Commission Members:
On behalf of the many members of the CWHBA, I would like to thank
you for this opportunity to comment on this current update to
Chapter 15.27, the Critical Areas Ordinance. I understand the
complexity of this endeavor and I appreciate the time and energy you
have invested in this process.
The following is a list of suggestions and observations:
15.27.200 Definitions generally - Priority habitat and species The
language recommended is broad to the point of being worrisome.
Does staff have the expertise to interpret the meaning and intent of EJ
the language in the references? If not, we would prefer not including it
and allow the SEPA process to reveal all that applies to a particular
project.
15.27.409 Permitted Uses. We appreciate the modifications to the
initial draft allowing for some development in the floodway fringe.
However, it comes with a price - a "Study" produced by a qualified 9-2
professional in accordance with YMC 15.27.314. Studies take
additional time and can be costly. We prefer being held to the federal
minimum building code standard.
15.27.505 Water Typing B. This section is recommended for I 9-3
change. It is optional and should be rejected.
15.27.514 Vegetative Buffers The basis for the recommended
changes is an unpublished document. We suggest any update here be
based upon published BAS.
15.27.604 Wetland Buffers This section is ,recommended to grow, I 9-5
from 2 pages in length to 10 pages. Not required.
CARR (15.27.810) Mapping. We support the additional reference 9-6
maps.
CARA (15.27.820) Protection Approach. This section is
recommended to grow from 1 page in length to 5 pages. Not required.
Phone:(509) 454-4006 Fax:(509) 454-4008 1 www.cwhba.org I socia! media @cwhba
593
The Central Washington Home Builders Association is all about affordable housing. Housing
that is affordable to all wage-earning groups, not just a few. Pointing out the consequences of
governmental regulatory action is one way we hope to keep a damper on unnecessary costs.
In the most recent NAHB study of the cost of regulation, (March 2016), averaged for the entire
country, it was determined that government regulation (federal, state and local) accounted for
24.3% of the total consumer cost in the purchase of a new home, in real dollars, that was $84,671
on top of costs directly related to construction and sales. But because we live in Washington
State, we are saddled with an additional $.2% in regulatory costs. This brings the total direct cost
of government to over $105,000 for the average hornebuyer purchasing a $300,000 home in the
State of Washington, Regulations have consequences - they come with a price!
As you deliberate on the content of this 2017-2022 CAO update, please remember consequences.
If we truly expect to safely house our community as laid out in the Comp Plan Housing Goals
and Policies, we must be cautious with adding more regulation than absolutely necessary. Thank
you for this opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerely,
Joe Walsh
Government Affairs Director
0
d
Q
594
CL)°
D
Cri
Q)
0
U
roL
ti.
N
0<
U)
Z]
c
(D
D
L
N
p
'0
E
o
`°
4-J
*
!)
w
T
•.-
ld
�—
2
(n
(9
lD
to
V7
:3
II)
i
a
00
3
N
(D
m
Ec
m
a
o
a
Ep'llro
c
°J
c
m
E
Q
m
V)
n
�r
°)
a)
o
O
p)
O
a
NCD
—
}
E
o(L)
C
'c
iv
m
E°
(aQ
"-
m
D
`x°
V)
m
w
Q)
a
V)
�,�
�N
m
�
mQ
�N
Nx-
C
Q)
0
'"
o
V
C
Q
V7
Q]
N
r
4--J
N
c�
c4
m
2i
O
N
v
`)
o
q)
c
N•�
4f
rn
Q
LD
Q
v'
ZI
L
vim)
U
O
.g
tr
cu
C
ED
m 3
0
a
Emmmi
m cl��,
c
:t—
-1:)ao
m
c
L
ro
i
o
m
Q
rll
aj D
G
9J
c
i-
E
CL
N
O
Q)
!1
Y
Q
5
N
U
a
M
R
o
m°
W
o
°
'�
C)
CT)
O.
Fj
4
n
tr,
Q
N
(`
L
N
c)
U
U
°
o
+-
C3
-°
ro
r0
a
C
vi
70
v
CU
o
O
U)
e
O
_
7D
q5
o
lf3
0)
Q
C
pd
(9
Q
(j
U
00
`
O
U
Q?
ij
.i?
-0
1p
o
ai
cr,°
°
a)
o
o
E
w
Q
Q
c
Q,
�
p
c_
G
U
m
c)
r)
o
a)
� �/
yL�
n
U
Ami
[
N
CDC1
1_,F
Stiff
C7
[U
Q
q
C
d
Q
594
595
Calhoun, Joseph
From: Carole Skolrud <carole.skolrud@a gmail.corn3
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 7:10 PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS, ETC TO 88TH AVE NE BETWEEN SUMMITVIEW & TIETON
Dear Mr. Calhoun,
I have actively advocated for the improvements to be made in this location for a number of years. i was 10-1
encouraged to see its inclusion on the 2040 plan.
As this is a potentially serious safety issue, with many schoolchildren walking along a busy street with lit rally
no shoulder (let alone sidewalks), I strongly recommend the completion of this project as soon as possibl
Thank you for your consideration,
Carole Skolrud (509) 853-5759
til. W33
CWHBA
City of Yakima Planning Commission
129 N 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040
RACEi VED
*Y i 0 2017
CITY OF Y VKIIWA
PLA..,..... j SIV.
May 10, 2817
On behalf of the many members of the CWHBA, I would like to thank
you For this opportunity to comment on this current update to Yakima
Comprehensive Plan 2840. I understand the complexity of this
endeavor and I appreciate the time and energy you have invested in
this process.
First of all, we would like to thank Planning staff for their willingness
to look beyond new development as the sole source of growth. Infill 11-1
and re -development haven't received much attention in Yakima until
now. We appreciate its inclusion in Plan 2040.
We do have a few thoughts to share on the Growth Management Act
Goals listed in the Introduction section of the Comp Plan on page
INTR-4. For comparison, I've attached a copy of the GMA Planning
Goals directly from the RCW 36.70A.020 to these comments.
In my view, there are some on this list of goals that misconstrue the
meaning and intent of the RCW. The first is the Housing element. To
quote the RCW: (4) "Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable
housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, ..."
The Comp Plan version of this is: "Encourage a variety of housing
types including affordable housing." This reads as if "affordable
housing" were a type of housing intended for a particular economic
segment. It is clearly a misinterpretation of the RCW. It should. read
"Encourage a variety of affordable housing types.
The RCW Goal (6) Property rights, "Private property shall not be
taken for public use ... The property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions." This is a bold
statement calling for a defensive approach to property rights.
However, the stated Comp Plan goal is: "recognize property rights."
That almost sounds Iike a reluctant admission that Yes, they exist, and
there's not much we can do about it. My recommendation is that the
action word be changed; it should read Protect property rights.
Then there is RCW Goal (8) Natural Resource Industries. "Maintain
and enhance natural resource-based industries, ... timber, agriculture,
Submitted: 5/6/17
AC Hcar inq
Phore:(509) 454-4005 Fax: (509) 454-4008 1 www.cwhba.org i social media @cwhba
tJ 1. IU30
CWHBA RECOVED
Ciro OF YAKIMA
;� oiv.
fisheries." Again, this reads as an aggressive call to action. To my way
of thinking this requires much more jurisdictional creativity than just
a basic Protect approach as indicated in the Comp Plan. The RCW
identifies these natural resource-based "Industries" as productive
enterprises, and calls on the jurisdiction to creatively work toward the
Enhancement of them.
Finally, we would just like to point out there is no RCW planning goal
called "Support parks and recreation." This is a subset of the previous
goal of Open Space. It's like the third goal on the list - "Protect rural
character"; it is also subset of both goal 1 and 2, Pulling them out
separately is somewhat misleading in that they are not stand alone
goals,
The remainder of our comments are suggestions and observations for
the Critical Areas Ordinance (Ch. 15.27).
15.27.200 Definitions generally - Priority habitat and species. The
language recommended is broad to the point of being worrisome.
Does staff have the expertise to interpret the meaning and intent of
the language in the references? If it is not mandatory that this be
included, we would prefer eliminating it,
15.27.409 Permitted Uses. We appreciate the modifications to the
initial draft allowing for some development in the floodway fringe.
However, it comes with a hefty price -a "Study" produced by a
qualified professional in accordance with YMC 15.27.314. Studies take
additional time and can be costly. We prefer being held to the federal
building code standard.
15.27.505 Water Typing B. This section is recommended for change,
It is optional and should not be included.
15.27.514 Vegetative Suffers. The basis Far the recommended
changes is an unpublished document. It is our position that only
published Best Available Science should be referenced.
15.27.604 Wetland Buffers This section is recommended to grow
from 2 pages in length to 10 pages. It is not required and should not
be included.
Phone; (509) 454-4006 Fax; (549) 454-4008 1 www.cwhba.org I sada I media @cwhba
— tsi. ts55
��n►u RA DECEIVED
MAY ' 0 2017
CITY DF Y'AKIMA
. 2 I v
FLA,14...
CARA (15.27.810) Mapping. We support the additional reference
maps. Additional information like this is always an asset.
CARR (15.27.820) Protection Approach. This section is
recommended to grow from 1 page in length to 5 pages. It is not
required and should not be included,
The Central Washington Home Builders Association is all about
affordable housing. Housing that is affordable to all wage-earning
groups, not just a few. Pointing out the consequences of governmental
regulatory action is one way we attempt to keep a damper on
unnecessary costs.
In the most recent National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
study of the cost of regulation, (March 2016), averaged for the entire
country, it was determined that government regulation (federal, state
and local) accounted for 24.3% of the total consumer cost in the
purchase of a new home. In real dollars, that was $84,671 on top of
costs directly related to construction and sales.
But because we live in Washington State, we are saddled with an
additional 8.2% in regulatory costs. This brings the total direct cost of
government to over $105,000 for the average homebuyer purchasing
a $300,000 home in the State of Washington. Regulations often have
consequences - sometimes it's big!
As you deliberate on the content of this Yakima Comprehensive Plan
2040, please remember the consequences. Ifwe truly expect to safely
house our community as laid out in the Comp Plan Housing Goals and
Policies, we must be cautious with adding more regulation than
absolutely necessary. Thank you for your hard work and this
opportunity for us to provide comment.
Si6celeiy,
Joe,Walsh
Government Affairs Director
Phone:(509) 454-4006 Fa x:(509) 454-4008 f www.cwhba.org I social media @Cwhba
RCW 36,700.020. Piaiminogoals
RCW 36.70A.020
Planning goals.
RECEIVE[ t'at, E o i
PAAY 10 2017 599
Ci7Y OF YAKIi' A
DIV.
The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive
plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to
plan under RCW 36.710A.r;.+ ). The following goats are not listed in order of priority and shall be
used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and
development regulations:
(1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
(2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development.
(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based
on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive pians.
(4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and
encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
(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 unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention
and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional
differences 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
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from
arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
(7) Permits Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed
in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
(8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries;
including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation
of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities,
conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase 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.
http:llapp,leyg,wa.gov/RCW/cleIaul t.aspx?cite=36.70A.02_0 5/10/2017
AM
Calhoun, Joseph
From: Joshua Hicks ajoshuadavidhicks@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:53 PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: Comprehensive Plan 2040 input
Hi Joseph,
I'd like to weigh in on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to do so.
As a whole I am very positive about the plan and the direction it provides .For our city over the next 23 years.
Even projects of which I was skeptical, namely the Mill Site development, I now feel more positive about. El
Since I largely agree with the content of the plan, my feedback is primarily concerned with prioritization/focus
and sustainability_ I encourage Yakima to focus on the following:
• Map out the city's revenue streams and expenses by parcel (this presents the city and the public with
hard data on what investments will be most sustainable and have the greatest return; improving what's
already profitable will help us grow and endure as well as provide the funds for improving those areas
the city that are not profitable) Organizations such as Urbana specialize in this type of analysis
• Emphasis on maintenance and improvement of existing infrastructure first and foremost
■ Emphasis on maintenance and improvement of sections of the city older than 75 years
• Set a target of 40 to 1 private to public investment dollars for all future new development (current
projects such as Downtown Plaza exempt; future projects such as Mill Site non-exempt)
• Set a minimum of 20 to 1 private to public investment dollars for all future new development (current
projects such as Downtown Plaza exempt; future projects such as Mill Site non-exempt)
■ Ensure city finance practices accrual accounting rather than cash accounting
• Remove parking minimums city-wide (not just downtown)
Some other items worth consideration:
■ Whenever possible, use permeable pavement
■ Reduce posted and non -posted speed of residential streets to 20 mph based on National DDT collision
survival rates
■ Encourage reduction of actual automotive speed via reducing lane width on streets designated for
increased pedestrian and bicycle use
• Enforce pedestrian crosswalk laws
12-
3
With regards to the Bicycle Master Plan, I am very excited about the prospect of actual bicycle infrastructure i
Yakima, I think it is an important step in providing greater accessibility and mobility to lower income segmen s
of our population or those seeking financial independence, along with health and quality of life improvements
to the rest of the population. It will also help Yakima save money long-term on infrastructure maintenance.
12-
1 currently commute to and from work via bicycle as much as possible. The route I have settled on takes me 4
briefly north across Tieton Dr through residential streets to the intersection of Yakima Ave and 16th Ave in
order to safely and reliable cross 15th Ave. From there I take Yakima Ave all the way to Naches Ave where I
turn left to get to Lincoln Ave. I find Yakima Ave provides a very pleasant view of the city. and the6�6sted
automobile speed a better fit for cycling than other routes (although I wish the stretch from 16th Ave to
Summitviewl7th Ave was also posted 25 mph).
Going home I must take Lincoln Ave initially, but given the posted and actual automotive speeds I get off
this thoroughfare as quickly as possible—typically 3rd St or 2nd St. From there I take Sgt Pendleton Way
Front St to Yakima Ave through the intersection with 16th Ave and wend my way through the residential
back to the south side of Tieton Dr (the evening crossing being quite a bit more difficult).
Most of the proposed routes and changes look promising. As I am a comparatively inexperienced cyclist, Pi ii
sure the Toole Design Group can plan better routes and infrastructure for cyclists safety better than 1. As a
resident, however, i think cycling infrastructure along Yakima Ave would be at least as desirable if not mo so
than the other routes. Lincoln and MLK were originally designed for automotive throughput for those needi ng
to quickly bypass downtown, and I would personally not choose to bicycle along those routes. Additionally I'm
very concerned about the Chestnut/ I 6th Ave crossing. It just seems dangerous and unreliable tome, and Pnot
sure how that would change without a signal (yet a signal might be odd/difficult so close to another signal).
As a 5th generation native of Yakima descended from the owner of the first building moved to North Yakirr a, I
love this city. I've lived in Seattle and Los Angeles, and I always planned to return and raise a family here a well. I am happy to be doing just that, and equally happy to find so many others have realized what a specia 5
place this city is and the potential it has to be even better. It is my aim to help Yakima be a place where my
can also grow and thrive and be a part of what makes this one of the best places in the world.
Best regards,
Joshua Hicks
602
Calhoun, Joseph
From: Phil Hoge <philhoge@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11;25 PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph
Subject: Comments on Comp Pian 2040
Joseph,
When I testified to the Yakima Planning Commission on May 10, 1 said that I might provide written comments by May 16
(the deadline for comments) after seeing the BPAC's comments. Here are my supplemental written comments -
1. 1 support the BPAC's and the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendations as you provided in your email below. I n13
2. 1 support Yakima Planning Commissioner Peter Marinace's comments at the YPC's 5110 meeting regarding Zier Road
needing bike lanes and sidewalks due to the school children "traffic". I urge you to revise the Draft 2040 Transportation El
5 st_yem Plan to incorporate the plans of the WVNP, which recognized that the plan for Zier - between the juniorimiddle
school campus and the 9th/high school campus - should include bike lanes.
3 N. 66th Ave. -- ! urge that the section of N. 66th Ave. between Summitview and Cowiche Canyon Rd be designated
appropriately for Biking and walking. As indicated in the 1NVNP, this section is a key leg in the Greenway Master Plan's 13 -
"West Side Loop". It is also the only way for connecting west Yakima residents with the Cowiche Canyon Conservancy 3
trail.
-Phil Hoge
-----Original Message -----
From: Calhoun, Joseph <Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV>
To: phil hoge <philhoge@aol.com
Sent: Thu, May 11, 2017 8 00 am
Subject: RE Comp Plan 2040
Phil.
The YBPAC's recommendations, and other changes, are contained in the text below. The ADA transition plan is not
completed at this time. I will check with Engineering on the progress.
Page 8
1. New Section 1.4.2 - talks about the connection to the Bicycle Master Plan
2. New Section 1.4.3 - talks about the connection to the Airport Master Plan
3. New Section 1.4.4 - talks about the connection to the Transit Development Plan
Page 10
4. Section 1.6.3 - Added language regarding historic transit ridership that can be found in the Transit Development Plan
Page 13
5. Section 2.1.1 -Clarified grade separated crossing for Valley Mall Boulevard only
Page 15
6. Figure 2-1
a. Add a Traffic Signal at 64th and Tieton.
b. Add a Traffic Signal at 72nd and Mead.
c. Add a Traffic Signal at 96th and Wide Hollow Road.
Page 28
7. In the second paragraph under 2.2.1, change the number of intersections that don't meet City LOS standards to two
and delete the reference to the S. 64th Ave 1 Tieton Dr intersection.
Paae 29
8. Figure 2-9 603
a. Change the Two -Way Stop F at the intersection of 64th and Tieton to a Signal B or C.
Page 46
9. Figure 4-3
a. Yakima Ave from Interchange to 16th Ave - Shared Priority
b. North 1 st Street from "I" St to Interchange - Shared Priority
c. Nob Hill from 64th Ave to 3rd Ave - Shared Priority
d. Tieton Drive from 72nd Ave to 5th Ave - Auto Priority
e. Fruitvale from 40th Ave to 5th Ave - Shared Priority
f. New EastfWest Corridor - Future Shared Priority
g. Identify streets outside of city limits as a different color. regardless of priority
Page 50
10. Figure 4-4
a. Remove Yakima Ave as a Truck Route
Page 53
11. Figure 4-6
a. East/West Corridor as future Primary Pedestrian Route
b. North 6th Avenue from Fruitvale to City limits - Primary Pedestrian Route (same as on Fig 4-8)
Page 54
12. Figure 4-8
c. Add East/West Corridor as future Primary Bike Route
Page 61
13. Figure 4-9
d. Add project R-1 (H Street Extension) to the map.
14. Project List:
e. A-13 - Clarification of X project
Joseph Calhoun
-----Original Message -----
From: Phil hoge;mailto:phiihogetc7r._aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:01 PM
To: Calhoun, Joseph <Joseph Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GQV>
Subject: Comp Plan 2040
Hi Joseph,
Could I get a look at.
1 BPAC's recommendations,
2. ADA Transition Plan (mentioned on page T-9, policy 6.5.18)?
---PH
604
nsi
�w
M
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
South Central Region 3 —1701 S. 24th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902-5724
Telephone: (509) 575-2740 • Fax- (509) 575-2474
May 16, 2017
Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
Community and Economic Development
City of Yakima
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, Washington 98901
Subject: State Environmental Policy Act Document, Comments on SEIS for
Comprehensive Plain 2440 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 May 15, 2017, and offers
the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered as the project progresses.
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.
"Conditions and Trends" in, the draft Comprehensive Plan - Natural Environment section state
The loss of riparian vegetation and the associated shade that it provides has also had an impact
on water temperatures. Yakima River is listed "of concern" for elevated temperature.
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 vegetation on levees can have many
positive benefits.
We recommend that the City immediately suspends its current management of vegetation on the
levee system and adopt a policy under Goal 10.4 of sustaining that vegetation and approaching
levees as fully part of the Riparian - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. That policy
would be consistent with Policy 10.4.3 and 10.4.4. 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
h ttps ://www. co. p ierce.wa. u s/Arch i veCen ter/ V i ewF i l e/Item/4622 .
605
City of Yakima OCED
Comments on SEIS 1 Plan 2440
May 16, 2Q 17
Page 2
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 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,
manicured, and non-complex should be discouraged.
--Examples of haw 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 rind 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, 14-3
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 14-4
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 14-5
"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 14-6
background on these groupings is unknown, but some of this verbiage may be counterproductive
in designating floodplain and riparian habitat.
City of Yakima DCED
Comments on SETS 1 Plan 2040
May 1 G, 2017
Page 3
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please feel tree to contact me with
any questions or clarifications you may require. My phone number is 457-9310.
Sincerely,
Eric Bartrand
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Area Habitat Biologist
1701 S. 24th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
EB,SD:eb
Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation
May 16, 2017 Received 5/22/17 by
Joseph Calhoun,
Sent via Email City of Yakima
City Of Yakima
c/o Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner
129 N 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Email: joseph.calhoun(ayakimawa.gov
Established by the
Treaty of June 9, 1855
RE: Comments on the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Planning Official,
I write on behalf of the Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources ("YN DNR") to
provide comments on the City of Yakima's ("City") Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update (the
"Comprehensive Plan") Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (the "Draft
SETS"). The Draft SEIS includes updates to the comprehensive plan, transportation plan, and
development regulations, including the City's Critical Areas Ordinance ("CAO"). YN DNR
looks forward to the opportunity to work with the City to strengthen the Draft SETS, the
Comprehensive plan, and its associated regulations prior to their finalization.
YN DNR supports the Action Alternative 2, which emphasizes infill, mixed use, and higher
growth development in the city core, and associated updates to the City's Comprehensive Plan
and CAO. The YN DNR also supports the inclusion of new Historic Preservation and Energy
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Urban sprawl in the City and its UGA has historically
contributed to significant adverse impacts to the Yakama Nation's treaty reserved resources,
including fish, game, traditional foods and medicines, and associated time immemorial water
rights.
Broadly, YN DNR is concerned that the SEIS fails to use, consider, and appropriately
incorporate best available science and information regarding (a) the identification and protection
Yakama Nation, Post Office Box 151, Toppenish, WA 98948 (509) 865-5121
AM
608
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CrrY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLA\ 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SETS
MAY 16, 2017
of cultural resources, (b) ensuring that adequate water supplies are legally and physically
available for residential development in the UGA, and (c) the acknowledgement and planning for 15-2
climate change. Further, YN DNR is concerned that the probable environmental impacts of the Cont.
Draft Plan cannot be adequately assessed as required under the State Environmental Policy Act
("SEPA") in the absence of such information.
Because the Draft SEIS is not based upon sufficient information regarding the above elements of
the environment, YN DNR is concerned that the proposed action alternatives for the Plan do not
sufficiently address or provide clear policies and procedures for:
The protection of cultural resources through cooperative action with the Yakama Nation
The protection and management of groundwater quantity.
Ensuring adequate water supplies are legally and physically available for residential
development within resource lands and Urban Growth Areas (UGA).
These concerns, and others, are addressed more specifically in the section -by -section analysis
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
YN DNR appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIS, and looks forward to
working with the City of Yakima to ensure that proposed land use plans and regulations promote
sustainable development, and protect the environment the Yakama Nation's Treaty resources.
Please contact YN DNR's John Marvin at jmarvin(da,yakama.com with any questions regarding
these comments.
Sincerely,
PHIL RIGDON, SUPERINTENDENT
YAKAMA NATION DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. RESOURCES
PAGE 2 OF 12
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SETS
MAY 16, 2017
EXHIBIT A
YNDNR Comments, Questions, Concerns: A Section -by -Section Analysis
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement — March 2017
Scoping —1.4 Summary of Proposed Alternatives — Action Alternative 2 pg. 1-2. 15-4
The YN DNR supports the Action Alternative 2, which emphasizes infill, mixed use, and
higher growth development In the city core, Including updates to the Comprehensive Plan
and the Critical Areas Ordinance ("CAO"), and the inclusion of new Historic
Preservation and Energy elements to the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Patterns — YN DNR recently submitted comments to Yakima County
concerning proposed edits to their comprehensive plan and associated designations of
Urban Growth Areas ("UGA'), including concerns about the lack of a clear plan to
ensure legal water availability for UGA growth dependent upon permit -exempt -wells. As
you may know, Yakima County is preparing to implement the Yakima County Water
Resource System ("YCWRS'). YN DNR is encouraged by Yakima County's proactive
approach, and supports YCWRS. However, there are important questions and issues with
YCWRS that impact the City of Yakima, and should be considered in the SEIS and City
Comprehensive Plan. Critically, the YCWRS, as proposed, only applies to "rural
domestic" development. Therefore the YCWRS appears not to address water availability
in the UGA.
While the Draft SEIS does analyze municipal and Nob Hill Water Association water
availability within the city limits on page 1-13, it is unclear if exempt wells are
considered a potential allowed water source for development within the UGA. Absent a
clear plan and process to ensure both the physical and legal availability of water for such
permit -exempt -wells, they should not be allowed, because the withdrawals could illegally
impact senior water users.
The lack of a clear proposal to ensure adequate water supplies for proposed development
within the UGA is particularly concerning due to the large amount of anticipated
residential development in the UGA. According to Yakima County projections, more
than twice the amount of County residents will reside within the 14 cities UGA within the
next twenty years, yet the YCWRS does not serve the UGA. In Section 5.8.5.2
(Countywide Urban Growth Area Land Capacity Analysis Results) of the Yakima
County draft comprehensive plan, the County has determined the amount of land
necessary for development over the 20 year planning period in the UGA for all 14 cities,
including the City of Yakima. Table 5.8.5.2-2 of the draft Yakima County
PAGE 3 OF 12
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPRFHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS
MAY 16, 2017
comprehensive plan shows an excess of residential land in each of the fourteen cities and
towns within Yakima County, including the City of Yakima. The current planning period
is 20 years, yet most of the cities within the County exceed these requirements.
Specifically, the City of Yakima has enough land allocated within its UGA for 98 years
of development. Section 2.2 of the Draft SETS states the UGA consists of about 9,660
acres, or approximately 55% of the 17,385 acre city limits. Section 2.2 of the Draft SETS
clearly states that it addresses cumulative growth patterns and demands for services, such
as water within the city and the UGA, however, no such analysis for the UGA can be
found. In Section 3.3 Land Use Patters (pg. 3-7), the SEIS indicates that the city
currently has 3,577 acres of developable land, plus the 9,660 acres of UGA equals 13,134
acres of developable land; this appears excessive.
The Draft SEIS states that countywide planning policies and coordination with Yakima
County may be necessary [emphasis added]. It is quite clear that these policies and
coordination need to occur now. The YN DNR finds the excess amount of UGA
residential development to be inconsistent with other goals and policies within the draft
Yakima County comprehensive plan and the City of Yakima's SEIS. These include (but
are not limited to):
• Yakima County LU -U 1.1 Areas designated for urban growth (including
commercial, industrial, residential, public facilities, etc.) should be determined by
preferred development patterns, residential densities, and the financial and
technical capacity of the community to provide urban governmental services.
• Yakima County LU -U 1.3 Sufficient area should be included in the urban
growth areas to accommodate the 20 -year low population forecast. Additional
land may be included to allow for market choice and location preferences not to
exceed 10 percent or 80 acres, whichever is larger.
• Yakima County Countywide Planning Policies
o "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."
o `'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."
o `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."
COY Plan 2040 LU 2.1.7. pg. LU -7 Allow new development only where
adequate public services can be provided.
COY Plan 2040 2.7.7. pg. LU -30. Establish resource protection and
sustainability goals, monitor development to track success in meeting those goals,
and refine the implementation strategy as needed to help meet goals.
PAGE 4OF 12
HE
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CrrY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLA,,, 2040 t.IPDATE DRAFT SYN
MAY 16, 2017
It is recommended that the City of Yakima and Yakima County review the excess lands 15-6
reserved for residential development within the UGA, and also develop a pian to ensure Cont.
adequate water supplies are legally and physically available for residential development
within the UGA.
• Cultural Resources — page 1-8. Section 3.6. YN DNR strongly supports the inclusion
of a Historic Element and cultural resources policies in the Comprehensive Plan to
identify and protect cultural resources. However, the Draft SEIS and associated
plans/regulations woefully underrepresent the Yakama Nation's history and relationship
to the lands where the City of Yakima now sits. YN DNR also supports the inclusion of
the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) predictive model and
the protection of sites identified in DAHP's database per YMC 17.05.010.
However, YMC 17.05.010 only applies in Shoreline jurisdiction, which is a small
fraction of the City of Yakima. Shoreline cultural resource policies cannot themselves
serve as a protective strategy for the more comprehensive impacts of development
allowed throughout the City under the proposed Comprehensive Plan update and
associated regulations, whose geographic impact extends well beyond the shoreline
YN DNR recommends a more robust set of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and 15-7
CAO or other regulations to identify and protect cultural resources. Risk factors to
consider In the development of specific policies and regulations may Include, but are not
limited to, the amount of proposed ground disturbance, the development site's risk rating
in DAHP's statewide archaeological predictive model, the DAHP database of known
archeological sites, and the presence of high-risk soil types and nearby historic features.
For high-risk projects, professional cultural resources investigations or surveys may be
warranted. Cultural resource surveys are specifically requested by the Yakama Nation
for projects proposed within ''a mile of a known site. Notification and the opportunity to
comment on all professional cultural resource surveys completed should also be provided
to both the Yakama Nation and DAHP to ensure professional survey and reporting
guidelines are followed. YN DNR encourages the city to work with the Yakama
Nation's cultural resources staff to develop specific revised language for the Draft SEIS,
Comprehensive Plan, and associated regulations.
• Section 1.7 Major Conclusions, Areas of Controversy or Uncertainty, and Issues to
be Resolved - pg. 1-15. An issue not addressed in the Draft SEIS is climate change and
potential to contribute to or exacerbate the environmental impacts of proposed 15-8
development. The Yakama Nation's Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of the
Yakama Nation was published in April, 2016. The Climate Adaptation Plan represents
the first collective effort by the Yakama Nation to identify (1) important resources and
cultural components most likely to be impacted by climate change, (2) work we are
currently undertaking that recognizes and will help to reduce climate change impacts, and
PACE 5 OF 12 1
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CiTy OF YAKIMA CO:MPRFHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS
MAY 16. 2017
(3 ) specific recommendations for deeper analyses of vulnerabilities and risks to our most
important interests and adaptation actions that we should implement now. The Climate
Adaptation Plan's goal is to be a starting point for the conversation about climate change
and planning for adaptation throughout all of the territories of the Yakama Nation. It is
derived from the experience of the Yakama Nation people, its tribal programs, and
findings from regional experts on these important topics. This document is one way we
can educate ourselves and our neighbors about current vulnerabilities and future risks and
share ideas about actions that we may need to take to build climate resilience. It is a
living document that will be revisited and adjusted over time to reflect new information,
new understandings, and new priorities. YN DNR suggests that the City of Yakima
review and incorporate either text from or a reference to the Yakama Nation's Climate
Adaptation Plan. (Attached).
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map - Exhibit 2-9. Action Alternative Future
Land Use Map — pg. 2-10. YN DNR is concerned with development along streams and
within floodplains and channel migration zones, not only for impacts to the natural
environment, but because of the high likelihood of the presence of cultural resources. It
appears from the map that that a residential designation has been applied along streams
and their floodplains and channel migration zones. The city should consider more
appropriate land use designations, such as parks or open spaces, for these lands.
Avoiding development in the floodplain protects residents and industry, saves the City
future resources that would be expended to defend such vulnerable developments, and
also protects the unique and critical ecological and cultural values of these areas.
Moreover, such designation would assist the City in resolving the deficit in parklands and
open space noted in the Draft SEIS.
• Section 3.1 Natural Environment — pg. 3-1
o Water Quality. This section fails to include a discussion on the requirement to
protect water quality as part of planning for and protecting water resources
through comprehensive planning efforts.
o Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas are greater than depicted
on the FEMA FIRM maps referenced. Just this year the City had flooding where
it has not seen flooding in a very long time. FEMA FIRM maps are the minimum
to consider under GMA. Floodplains are also fish and wildlife habitat, and should
be considered thusly in the Draft SEIS.
o Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas - pg. 3-3. Why is the City not utilizing data
from Yakima County? Yakima County produced aquifer susceptibility maps for
its CAO, and has recently conducted aquifer analysis for its proposed
groundwater utility. YN DNR suggests obtaining and utilizing such data from
Yakima County.
We are Yakima — Comprehensive Plan 2040 — Volume I: Draft Comprehensive Plan —
March 2017
PAGF 6 OF 12
IN
15-8
Cont.
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVF PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAM '�T14
MAY 16, 2017
• 2.2.7 Industrial - pg. LU -14. Is the designation and the protection of Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas consistent with the designation of industrial lands?
• 2.5.6 Cascade Mill redevelopment - pg. LU -27. YN DNR previously reviewed SEPA
notification on a proposed redevelopment of the Cascade Mill. At that time there was
concern with the potential for water quality impacts of the old landfill and the legacy
contaminants of the mill itself. Have these issues and potential environmental impacts
been addressed?
• Historic Preservation Element. Pg. HP -1.
As previously stated above, the Draft SEIS woefully underrepresents the Yakama
Nation's history and relationship to the lands where the City of Yakima now sits.
The plan references RCW 36.70A.020(13), yet the plan barely acknowledges the
Yakama Nation and its significant cultural and archaeological presence in the
region. We would also ask that you not use the term "Indian" when referring to
"Natives", "Indigenous People" or the Yakama People in official documents.
3.6 Goals and Policies - pg. HP -5. YN DNR encourages the city to work with
the Yakama Nation's cultural resources staff to develop specific revised language
for the comprehensive plan.
• Natural Environment Element- pg. NE -1.
Water Quality - pg NE -2. The plan fails to acknowledge and plan for the
protection and enhancement of water quality.
Critical Areas - pg. NE -3. Floodplains are more than the FEMA FIRM
designated. Floodplains are fish and wildlife habitat, and the protection and
restoration of floodplains is essential for restoring anadromous fish.
o Exhibit 10-3 Wetlands and Stream - pg. NE -6. It is recommended that a
map/maps displaying the presence and use by anadromous fish be included in the
exhibits.
o Exhibit 10-4. Wildlife -- pg. NE -7. This does not look like a complete display of
WDFW PHS data. PHS data contains both habitat types and species use, in
addition to individual occurrences.
o Exhibit 10-5. Sensitive Fish Species Mapped in the Citys Streams and River -
pg NE -8. This exhibit references a map/maps, yet no map:'maps are displayed.
This table is inaccurate and the supporting text inadequately describes the historic
and current use of sensitive fish species. Chinook have no federal status in the
Yakima River Basin. The Yakama Nation had already begun its supplementation
program for Chinook when the federal government began assessing species
viability. Coho and Sockeye were historically extirpated from the Yakima River
Basin; sockeye in the early 1900's with the construction of irrigation dams on
their glacial spawning lakes, and the Coho in the 1980's with cumulative habitat
destruction of their spawning tributaries. Both Coho and Sockeye have been re-
introduced into the Yakima by the Yakama Nation. Steelhead and rainbow trout
are the same species, with different life cycles; anadromous versus resident.
Pacific lamprey are another anadromous species in the Yakima that also has a
significant cultural significance to the Yakama Nation.
PAGE 7 OF 12
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SETS
MAY 16, 2017
0
0
n
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas — pg. NE -11. As previously stated, it does not
appear that the City is utilizing all available data, and fails to acknowledge
existing individual wells and protection of groundwater quality.
10.3 Challenges and Opportunities — NE -13. As previously stated, the plan
fails to acknowledge climate change and its impacts. Please see The Yakama
Nation's Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of the Yakama Nation
(2017).
GOAL 10.1. Enhance And Protect Surface, Storm, And Groundwater
Quality And Quantity — pg. NE -13. As previously stated, the plan fails to
adequately plan for and protect both water quantity and quality to ensure that
senior water users rights are protected.
■ Policy 10.1.1. pg. NE -13. Existing Stormwater facilities and individual
septic systems are currently degrading water quality. The plan should
acknowledge the existing issues and plan to address them.
■ Policy 10.1.3. pg. NE -13. The plan should incorporate more information
and data from the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan.
Goal 10.3. Manage Floodplains To Protect Public Health And Safety, And To
Support Ecological Function — pg. NE -14. We do not see a strong policy set for
the protection of floodplain ecological functions. Such policies should be
developed, with input from the YN DNR. To the extent this work cannot be
completed prior to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, it should
expressly set the goal and expectation for the development of such a policy, and
provide for its incorporation as a portion of the Comprehensive Plan upon
completion.
614
0 Policy 10.4.1— pg. NE -15. It should be a goal and policy to protect fish and
wildlife generally, not just those species that have special local, state, or federal
status. At a minimum, consider including for local protection species that have a 15-23
special cultural significance to the Yakama Nation. Please consult with YN DNR
and cultural resources staff for further information regarding such species.
Shoreline Element — pg. S-1.
10.6 Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources Sub -element.
■ As noted above, these goals, policies and principals should apply citywide,
not just in the Shoreline, if they are to truly address the GMA goal to 15-24
identify and protect cultural resources through the Comprehensive Plan
and throughout the City.
Energy Element — pg. E-1.
c, Please see The Yakama Nation's Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of 15-25
the Yakama Nation (2017).
8.0 Aanendix B: Critical Areas Ordinance Gan Analysis.
The existing City of Yakima CAO was copied from the Yakima County CAO (2007) before the
final version as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and before the CAO went 15-26
through appeal at the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB).
While the two are similar, there are some very stark and important differences, especially for
PAGE 8 OF 12
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS
MAY 16. 2017
buffers and CARA. Yakima County is also currently adopting edits to its CAO, and YN DNR
recommends that the City review those proposed edits and incorporate where appropriate for
consistency.
YN DNR generally supports the proposed updates to the City's CAO, however, we provide the
following comments and issues for consideration and action:
Sections 15.27.502 and 15.27.503. Habitats and Species of Local Importance.
YN DNR supports the overall edits to make the City's CAO more consistent with
the GMA, and the inclusion of WDFW Priority Habitats and Species ("PHS") as
Species and Habitats of local Importance, which Yakima County is also proposing
in its current update process. The City's CAO should contain the PHS lists. The
PHS data can be displayed as habitat types, species use, and individual
occurrences. The Draft SEIS does not fully depict the full extent of PHS data for
the City.
Section 15.27.505 Streams, Lakes and Ponds Typing System. The YN DNR
does riot support the proposed new water typing system. This is where the
Yakima County CAO and City of Yakima CAO are inconsistent. The proposed
typing system is overly complicated for a City that has four known fish bearing
streams outside SMP jurisdiction. Wide Hollow is specifically called out for its
contributions to anadromous fish. It seems like a fairly simple GIS exercise could
type the known fish bearing streams, and make a preliminary typing for all other
streams. The proposed edits also make the CAO inconsistent with the Yakima
County CAO.
Section 15,27.514 Vegetative Buffers. YN DNR does not support the existing or
proposed stream buffer for Type 2 fish bearing streams. Anything less than 100
feet for a fish bearing stream is inconsistent with Best Available Science
("BAS"), and findings by the EWGMHB on the Yakima County CAO appeal by
the Yakama Nation (2013). In addition, YN DNR does not support the minimum
buffer widths or approval criteria for adjustment, because they are also
inconsistent with the findings by the EWGMHB on the Yakima County CAO
appeal by the Yakama Nation. Buffer adjustments, if allowed, should be the
minimum necessary to afford relief, while adhering to mitigation sequencing, with
an emphasis on buffer averaging.
YN DNR supports the update of the wetland sections consistent with BAS. YN
DNR is not familiar with the reference to Brunten et. al. 2016, and would
recommend a reference to the Washington Department of Ecology's wetland BAS
below, with emphasis on Appendix 8-D.
■ Granger, T., 1. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S.
Stanley, F. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State -
Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Publication 905-06-008. Olympia, WA.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) — Why is the City not utilizing data
from Yakima County? The Yakima County CAO produced aquifer susceptibility
maps that were found compliant by the EWGMHB. In addition, the Yakima
PAGE 9 OF 12
YN DVft COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COA1PRE11kNSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT' SETS
MAY 16, 2017
County water utility has recently completed a groundwater model for the entire
County that may aid in designating and protecting CARA. It appears the CAO is
only concerned with public water supply wells. Has there been an inventory of
individual wells within the city? it is common knowledge that there are still
individual wells as well as individual septic systems within the city that provide
negative impacts to the environment. The proposed regulations fail to
acknowledge and protect existing individual wells.
City of Yakima 2017 GMA Updates
o YMC Chapter 15.27 Critical Areas
The YN DNR supports most of the proposed edits to Article III
Floodway Fringe to better protect floodplains and their function. In
Section 15.27.409.C, subsection 2 allows encroachment if located in a
residential zone greater than 1 unit per acre. YN DNR does not support
this provision; all developments within the floodway fringe must adhere to
the new standards.
a Section 15.27.412.H. The YN DNR supports the prohibition of new dikes
in the floodway.
■ Section 15.27.317 Adjustment — pg.9. Subsection A describes the
adjustment process as "administrative". YN DNR requests notice and an
opportunity to comment on all critical areas permits. These types of
permits have the potential to negatively impact Yakama Nation's Treaty
resources, including, but not limited to fish and wildlife, their habitats, and
Yakama Nation water rights.
0 Section 15.27.502 Designation. By switching to a new designation
system, the City now has un -designated floodplains as fish and wildlife
habitat. The YN DNR requests that floodplains be included as a FWHCA.
The BAS is clear that these features are in fact habitat. The FEMA
standards in the flood hazard section are intended to protect people and
structures from flooding, and do not acknowledge the habitat functions.
The de -designation of floodplains appears inconsistent with the list of
functional properties of aquatic fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
in Section 15.27.504.
■ Section 15.27.502.B. Habitats of Local Importance ("HOLT"). The YN
DNR supports the inclusion of WDFW PHS as a HOLT. The CAO should
also include the PHS lists, consistent with the Yakima County CAO and
comprehensive plan (2017).
■ Section 15.27.505 Water Typing System. Again, the YN DNR does not
support to proposed water typing system, as it seems overly complicated
for a relatively small landscape that has known fish and non -fish bearing
streams. Further, it does not appear that any streams in the City would
qualify as a Type 2 stream based on the proposed designation criteria for
diversion, therefore the known fish bearing streams in the City would
likely fall under a Type 3 designation, which provides inadequate
protection for Treaty reserved resources. Water typing systems should
PAGE. 10 OF 12
NEV
15-30
Cont.
Yid' DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SETS
MAY 16, 2017
properly protect known fish bearing streams and associated Treaty
resources.
■ Section 15.27.507 Maps. This section needs to be updated. The proposal
is to include WDFW PHS as HOLI, and the associated maps are now more
regulatory than informational. A simple GIS exercise to designate stream
typing based on fish use could also create maps that are more regulatory.
■ Article IV Buffer Requirements. Section 15.27.510 Vegetative Buffers,
The YN DNR does not support the existing or proposed stream buffer for
Type 2 fish bearing streams. Anything less than 100 feet for a fish bearing
stream is inconsistent with the BAS, and findings by the EWGMHB on
the Yakima County CAO appeal by the Yakama Nation. In addition, the
YN DNR does not support the minimum buffers widths or approval
criteria for adjustment as also inconsistent with the findings by the
EWGMHB on the Yakima County CAO appeal by the Yakama Nation.
Buffer adjustments, if allowed, should be the minimum necessary to afford
relief, while adhering to mitigation sequencing, with an emphasis on
buffer averaging.
• Part Six. Wetlands. The YN DNR generally supports the proposed edits
to the wetland provisions, consistent with BAS.
• In Section 15.27.601.B, subsections 1 and 2 are inconsistent with
BAS and the definition in section 15.27.200 and RCW
36.70A.030(2 t), and should be deleted.
• Section 15.27.604 Wetland Buffers. The buffer section generally
looks consistent with BAS, but appears to be overly complicated.
While it can be assumed that most proposed development in the
city will be of a high intensity, not all will. In subsection 1 there
are provisions for maintaining corridors and association with
WDFW AHS, which results in narrower buffers for maintaining
connectivity. While this is admirable, it appears that these may
only occur in Shoreline jurisdiction. A simple GIS exercise could
indicate the potential outside SMP jurisdiction. It appears that
most proposed developments will be subject to Table 27.6.3. This
still looks overly complicated. There are probably not any alkali,
vernal pool, or bog wetlands in the city. The YN DNR is not
familiar with the reference to Brunten et. al. 2016, and would
recommend a reference to the Washington Department of
Ecology's wetland BAS (Granger et. al. 2005, which includes the
2004 updates), with emphasis on Appendix S -D.
• Section 15.27.604(1). The YN DNR supports the use of signs for
educating the public on the location of protected wetland areas,
however, permeant signs should be required for all approved
critical areas permits.
• Section 15.27.605 Compensatory Mitigation. This section
generally looks consistent with the SAS, but there are missing
PAGE 1 I OF 12
617
15-33
Cont.
618
YN DNR COMMENTS ON CrrY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 204-0 UPDATE DRAFT SETS
MAY 16, 2017
categories or mitigation that are represented in Granger et. al. 200515-36
Appendix 8-D.
Cont.
■ Part Seven. Geologically Hazardous Areas.
• There appears to be an inconsistency between Section 15.27.701
that designates the geologically hazardous areas, yet the protection
15-37
approach in 15.27.702 only protects for erosion and stream
undercutting.
■ Part Eight. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The YN DNR generally
15-38
supports the proposed CARA edits, based on BAS. Please see the previous
comment above on CARA data availability and individual wells.
■ YMC Title 17 Shorelines. It is assumed that the critical areas edits
proposed are the same as proposed in the SMP. All comments on
proposed edits to the CAO would apply to the SMP as well.
• Table 09.030-1 Standard Stream Buffers. This table seems
overly complicated, not consistent BAS, and not consistent with
the known landscape. As previously stated, the minimum buffer
15-39
width for fish bearing streams, as established by the EWGMHB for
Yakima County, is a minimum 100 feet. The controlling provision
for development in the SMP is the designation of the
Floodway CMZ Shoreline environment, with the exception of
Cowiche Creek that does not have a designated Floodway`CMZ.
There should be no non -water oriented development with the
floodwayCMZ designation of the Naches and Yakima Rivers. It
is recommended that a 100 foot buffer from the Floodway,CMZ of
said rivers be established to fully protect that environment. The
Cowiche Creek should, at a minimum, be protected with a
minimum 100 foot buffer. The YN DNR is generally not
concerned with the ecological integrity of gravel pit lakes on the
landward side of Highway 12. However, when Buchanan Lake
does become a Shoreline, it will require a higher level of protection
due to its ecological connectivity with the Yakima River.
PAGE 12 OF 12
M
City of Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) City Hall Council Chambers
Meeting Minutes of May 10, 2017
Call to Order
Vice -Chair Patricia Byers called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
Roll Call
YPC Members Present: Vice -Chair Patricia Byers, Bill Cook, Al Rose, Peter
Marinace, Jacob Liddicoat, Gavin Keefe
YPC Members Absent: Chairman Scott Clark (excused)
Staff Present: Joseph Calhoun, Planning Manager; Lisa Maxey, Planning
Specialist; Sara Watkins, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Others: Sign -in sheet in file
Staff Announcements
None noted.
Audience Participation
Audience member Pat Moran addressed the Commission regarding curb cuts within
the city that are not well-suited for mobility devices like wheelchairs due to the
improper angling.
Approval of Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2017
Commissioner Marinace asked if staff was able to conduct an interview with a news
station to communicate how the Comprehensive Plan 2040 update will affect the
community after noting that this was included in the minutes of the previous meeting as
a suggestion from the Commission. Planning Manager Joseph Calhoun indicated that this
was not able to be completed but described the other means of notification provided to
the public about the plan update. Commissioner Cook motioned to approve the minutes
of April 26, 2017. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marinace and carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update
Joseph Calhoun provided a summary of the staff report on this matter.
Audience member Joe Walsh of the Central Washington Home Builders Association
(CWHBA) suggested changes to the wording of some of the Growth Management Act
Goals listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Audience Member Rob Strader of Yakima Bikes and Walks spoke on the Blue Zone
2
presentation that was recently made at the Yakima Chamber of Commerce covering
❑
topics on healthy communities. He encouraged the Commission to include language in
the plan that would support some of the concepts that were presented.
Audience member Shirley Strader of Yakima Bikes and Walks echoed the previous
comments made about the Blue Zone presentation, and commented on the Bike Master
Plan and multi -modal transportation methods.
Audience member Phil Hoge echoed previous comments regarding multi -modal
El
transportation and urged for development standards to be created or revised to better
support goals in the Comprehensive Plan 2040 such as goal 2.3.3. which states, "create
walkable residential neighborhoods with safe streets and good connections to schools,
-1-
620
parks, transit, and commercial services." Hoge also expressed that he would like the
recommendations made by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to be
incorporated into the plan. He then pointed out that in the Transportation Systems Plan
it is incorrectly indicated that there are bike lanes on Lincoln Ave between 24th Ave and
40th Ave, as well as on Fruitvale Blvd between 23rd Ave and 40th Ave. Lastly, he suggested
that primary and secondary bike routes be defined in the plan.
Audience member Tony Sandoval emphasized the need to make areas like downtown
more bike and pedestrian friendly. El
Audience member Bill Hordan of Hordan Planning Services expressed his support of the
key amendments to the land use elements which were listed in the staff report. 6
After receiving all public comments, vice -Chair Byers closed the public testimony portion
of the hearing. Discussion took place amongst commissioners regarding the public
testimony received. They had consensus to change one of the Growth Management Act
Goals stated in the draft Comprehensive Plan 2040, so that the goal reads, "encourage a
variety of affordable housing types" rather than, "encourage a variety of housing types
including affordable housing", and to change another goal to read, "protect property
rights" rather than, "recognize property rights." The Commission also agreed to have
staff revise the language in Policy 2.1.9 in Appendix A - Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to remove the language which reads, "the City should give priority
consideration to annexation proposals that are financially self-sufficient or those where
the fiscal impact can be improved. The City should develop a variety of service delivery
or revenue enhancement options to increase the feasibility of annexation. The City may
request a fiscal analysis of the annexation proposal by annexation proponents," and
replace it with, "the City will prepare a fiscal analysis of the proposal prior to
annexation."
Calhoun announced that suggestions from the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
and from the public will be included in the Transportations Systems Plan, the incorrect
bike lanes locations will be fixed, and 80th Ave from Nob Hill Blvd to Zier Rd and Zier
Rd from 72nd Ave to 96th Ave will be added as bike and pedestrian priorities. He further
commented that the definition of primary and secondary bike routes will be inserted.
A few comments were made on grammatical and formatting issues in Appendix D - 2017
GMA Updates.
Calhoun presented staff's response to suggested changes received on April 26, 2017 by
CWHBA in regards to the Critical Areas Ordinance update. After discussion, the
Commission had consensus to reject the incorporation of the Interim Water Typing
System found in WAC 222-16-031, and instead make minor revisions to the definitions of
the stream types in the water typing system that is currently being used.
Commissioner Cook motioned for staff to modify the findings of fact and draft ordinance
to include the changes as discussed and agreed upon at this meeting and to forward a
recommendation of approval to City Council for final consideration. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Marinace and carried unanimously.
-2-
621
Follow-up Discussion on Sign Code Amendments Remand
Senior Assistant City Attorney Sara Watkins presented a memo to the Commission
outlining options on how to regulate trailered signs, as discussion on this topic was
initiated at the Council public hearing in which the sign code amendments was remanded
back to the Planning Commission for further review.
Discussion ensued regarding what constitutes a trailered sign and the necessity to keep
trailered signs from obstructing the view of traffic.
The Commission had consensus to ask staff to research and report back on what the
average size of a portable sign is, how many companies in Yakima manufacture trailered
signs, and what the penalty would be for violating the sign code. They also requested
staff to collect any pictures they can find of trailered signs in Yakima, to invite local sign
manufacturers to the next Planning Commission meeting, and to revisit the requirement
of having portable signs no further than 10 feet from the primary building of the business
and come up with possible alternative language while considering how other
jurisdictions regulate this.
Other Business
Discussion
Adjourn
A motion to adjourn to May 24, 2017 was passed with unanimous vote. This meeting
adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
FA
Chairman Scott Clark
Date
This meeting was filmed by YPAC. Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Lisa Maxey, Planning Specialist.
-3-