Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2017-071 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2040; Transportation Systems Plan 2040; Capital Facilities PlanA RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. R-2017-071 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 April 29, 2015* May 19, 2015 June 25, 2015 September 15, 2015 October 6, 2015 February 17, 2016: February 23, 2016. February 23, 2016: March 31, 2016 May 25, 2016 July 27, 2016 August 31, 2016: September 28, 2016. October 12, 2016 October 26, 2016 November 9, 2016 December 14, 2016 January 10, 2017 January 11, 2017 January 25, 2017 February 15, 2017 Exhibit "A" 1 Public Participation and Timeline Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) reviewed, discussed and recommended approval of the Public Participation Guide Public Participation Plan adopted by Resolution R-2015-071 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) made available for consultant selection for Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Systems Plan Updates 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 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. Visioning survey made available Visioning Open House at YV Tech Skills Center Request for Consideration made available for resident Comp Plan Amendment requests Visioning survey closes — 185 responses received Planning Commission Outreach Workshop YPC study session on suggested land use changes and resident amendment requests YPC study session on land use designations and resident amendment requests YPC study session on resident amendment requests YPC study session on Plan Foundation and Vision YPC study session on Natural Environment, Housing, and Utilities elements YPC study session on Parks and Recreation element YPC study session on Land Use element Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (YBAPC) study session on Transportation Systems Plan YPC study session on Economic Development, Historic Preservation, and Energy elements Yakima Historic Preservation Commission study session on Historic Preservation element YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan and Bicycle Master Plan March 17, 2017* March 17, 2017 March 22, 2017: March 23, 2017 March 28, 2017 March 29, 2017 April 11, 2017 April 11, 2017 April 12, 2017 April 12, 2017. April 13, 201T April 26, 2017: May 9, 2017 May 10, 2017. May 16, 2017 May 30, 2017. June 6, 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 El Sol newspapers Draft documents and notice of intent to adopt sent to Department of Commerce YPC study session on Development Regulations and Critical Areas Best Available Science Yakima Economic Development Committee study session on Economic Development Element YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan Yakima Neighborhood and Community Building Committee study session on Comprehensive Plan Joint Yakima City Council and YPC study session on Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Development Regulations Public open house at YV Tech Skills Center YPC study session on Critical Areas Best Available Science Yakima Parks and Recreation Commission study session on Parks and Recreation Element YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan YPC study session on Transportation Element and Transportation Systems Plan YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan YPC Open Record Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Development Regulations YPC findings signed by chair Preliminary Final SEIS issued at least 7 days prior to Council Consideration. City Council public hearing on the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2040, Transportation Systems Plan 2040, Capital Facilities Plan, and Development Regulations. 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. SeverabilityNalidity. 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 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDASTATEMENT 1 Item No. 9. For Meeting of: June 6, 2017 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 Joan Davenport, Al CP, 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 D Resolution 5/31/2017 Resolution D YPC Recommendation 5/26!2017 Backup Material D Comments Received 5/26/2017 Cmer Memo D Comprehensiw Plan 2040 5/26/2017 Backup Material D Transportation Systems Plan 2040 5/262017 Backup Material D Capital Facilities Plan 5/26/2017 Backup Material D Preliminary Final SEIS 5/31/2017 Backup Material DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Joan Davenport, AICP, Director Planning Division Joseph Calhoun, Manager 129 North Second Street, 2"d Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www,yakimawa.gov/services/planning YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION 8 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT UPDATES: CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN 2040, CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS May 16, 2017 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, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS Notice of all amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 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 are scheduled to be adopted by City Council, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS All required public notice for these amendments were provided in accordance with the provisions of YMC Ch. 16.10; and WHEREAS The City of Yakima sought community -wide participation in the update by providing specific notice of opportunities to provide comment to an extensive list of local and state agencies and other parties of record, a complete list can be found in the SEIS appendices; and WHEREAS The City of Yakima established goals and policies within this Plan to facilitate and guide the development of new regulations, based upon "Best Available Science" (as defined within the GMA), to protect and enhance both critical areas and shorelines, as required; and 9 WHEREAS 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; and WHEREAS These updates are considered to be a non -project application without a specific use or site plan to be considered; and WHEREAS SEPA Environmental Review for these updates was considered under a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the Final SEIS will be issued at least seven days prior to council consideration; and WHEREAS The Yakima Planning Commission concluded its consideration of the GMA update process on May 10, 2017. Now therefore, the Yakima City Planning Commission presents the following findings and recommendation to the Yakima City Council: Based upon a review of the information contained in the application, staff report, exhibits, testimony, and other evidence presented at an open record public hearing held on May 10, 2017, the Planning Commission makes the following: PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The purpose of the proposed Growth Management Act updates. Proposed Amendments: The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will: 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 Management Act, RCW 36.70A; The amendments to YMC Titles 14, 15, and 17 will: a. Amend YMC 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 21115 1994 10 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 opportunities 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 2040 supersedes the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2025 and Transportation Plan 2025, and subsequent amendments; and, 4. The proposed amendments to YMC Ch. 15.27 and Title 17 are consistent with the Best 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 the changes noted in the minutes of this afternoon's public hearing, and with these changes move 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. 2015 1994 11 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 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 proposed Growth Management Act Updates: Comprehensive Plan 2040, Transportation Systems Plan 2040, Capital Facilities Pian, and Development Regulations, and forwards the proposed ordinance to the Yakima City Council. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May 2017. Scott Clark, Chairman Yakima Planning Commission 2015 1994 April 29, 2015: May 19, 2015: June 25, 2015: September 15, 2015: October 6, 2015: February 17, 2016: February 23, 2016: February 23, 2016: March 31, 2016: May 25, 2016: July 27, 2016: August 31, 2016: September 28, 2016: October 12, 2016: October 26, 2016: November 9, 2016 December 14, 2016: YPC study session on Land Use element January 10, 2017: 12 Planning Commission Findings — Exhibit A Public Participation and Timeline Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) reviewed, discussed and recommended approval of the Public Participation Guide Public Participation Plan adopted by Resolution R-2015-071 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) made available for consultant selection for Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Systems Plan Updates 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 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. Visioning survey made available Visioning Open House at YV Tech Skills Center Request for Consideration made available for Citizen Comp Plan Amendment requests Visioning survey closes — 185 responses recieved Planning Commission Outreach Workshop YPC study session on suggested land use changes and citizen amendment requests YPC study session on land use designations and citizen amendment requests YPC study session on citizen amendment requests YPC study session on Plan Foundation and Vision YPC study session on Natural Environment, Housing, and Utilities elements YPC study session on Parks and Recreation element January 11, 2017: Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (YBAPC) study session on Transportation Systems Plan 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: March 17, 2017: March 22, 2017: March 23, 2017: March 28, 2017: March 29, 2017: April 11, 2017: April 11, 2017: April 12, 2017: April 12, 2017: April 13, 2017: April 26, 2017: May 9, 2017: May 10, 2017:, 13 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 El Sol newspapers Draft documents and notice of intent to adopt sent to Department of Commerce YPC study session on Development Regulations and Critical Areas Best Available Science Yakima Economic Development Committee study session on Economic Development Element YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan Yakima Neighborhood and Community Building Committee study session on Comprehensive Plan Joint Yakima City Council and YPC study session on Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Development Regulations Public open house at YV Tech Skills Center YPC study session on Critical Areas Best Available Science Yakima Parks and Recreation Commission study session on Parks and Recreation Element YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan YPC study session on Transportation Element and Transportation Systems Plan YBAPC study session on Transportation Systems Plan YPC Open Record Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Development Regulations DI. IJJD CWHBA City of Yakima Planning Commission 129 N 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 9gCEI VED 111-7- CITY OF YAKI141A PLA';:.,..3 DIV May 10, 2017 RE: Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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 2040. 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 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 like 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/ItV/7 (QC Hearin Phone:(509) 454-4006 Fax:(509) 4.54-4008 www.cwhba.org 1 social media c©cwhba IU33 CWHBA RECEIVED -MAT- . 2017 WY OF YAKIM DIV. 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 Buffers. The basis for 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:(5 454-4006 Fax 509) 454-4006 1 www.cwhba.org 1 socia media {ci)cwhba bI.1i CWHBA 2ECEIVED 16 MAY 1Gz017 ITV OF Y 1Kfil A CARA (15.27.810) Mapping. We support the additional reference maps. Additional information like this is always an asset. CARA (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. 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 your hard work and this opportunity for us to provide comment. Sincerely, Joe/Walsh Government Affairs Director Phone (509) 454-4006 ,Fax: (509) 454-4008 1 wvvw.cvvhba.org soci mec la hba ' RCW 36.70A.020 Planning goals. ��������� "~~°°~.m��� MAY 1 0 2017 CITY OF YAKIMA Page 1 o[z 17 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 RCVV38.7O/\,040.The following goals are not listed inorder Ofpriority 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, Iow-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. (5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive p|8OS, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this otate, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged penaono, 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 naoourcea, 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 hobitat, 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 St[uCtUr8S, that have historical or archaeological significance. kVn://opp]cg.vvo.gov/RCW/jc[aultuuox?citc=38.70A.020 5/10/2017 Yakima Office 3301 W. Nob Hill Blvd. Yakima, WA 98902 (509) 454-4006 North Central Office 123 Ohme Garden Road, Suite 5 Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 421-1803 Kittitas Office 1206 N. Dolarway, Suite 216 Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 856-4844 CJI. IS33 CWHBA City of Yakima Planning Commission 104 North 1" Street Yakima, WA 98901 April 26, 2017 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. 18 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 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 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 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 from 2 pages in length to 10 pages. Not required. CARA (15.27.810) Mapping. We support the additional reference 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 social media @cwhba 19 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! As you deliberate on the content of this 2017-2022 CAO update, please remember consequences. If we tmly 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 Report: Govern prices 'nent regulations add $84,671 to new home Washington Free Beacon Government regulations are responsible for adding $84,671 to the final price of a new single-family home, according to a report from the National Association of Home Builders. According to the report, regulations implemented during the lot's development are responsible for 14.6 percent of the total, while 9/ percent is due to costs that accrue after the builder has purchased a finished lot. "Regulations come in many forms and can be imposed by different levels of government," explains the report. "At the local level, jurisdictions may charge permit, hook-up, and impact fees and establish development and construction standards that either directly increase costs to builders and developers, or cause delays that translate to higher costs," "The federal government can also impact the price of a home --for example, by requiring permits for stormwater discharge on construction site, which may lead to delays inaddition to the hard cost of filing for a permit." The association appliedl the percentage increase due to reguation to home pnces from Census data and found that regulatory costs in a home went from $65,224 in April of 2011 to $84,671 in March 2016 a 29.8 percent increase. Regulatory costs during construction increased the fastest from $22,535 to $33,784 during that same time period—an increase of 50 percent. Regulatory costs during development increased by 19.1 percent. Remember in Washington State you need to add another 8.2% to the cost: Example: On a $300,000 home add another $23,000 Making the total direct cost of government over $105,000. 21 Calhoun, Joseph From: Phil Hoge <phi|hooe@ao|zom> 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, I said that might provide written comments by May 16 (the deadline for comments) after seeing the BPAC's comments. Here are my supplemental written comments: 1. I support the BPAC's and the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendations as you provided in your email below. 2. | support Yakima Planning Commissioner YPC's 5/10 meeting needing bike lanes and sidewalks due to the school chiidren traffic 1 urge you to revise the Draft 2040 Transportation System Plan to incorporate the plans of the VVVNP, which recognized that the plan for Zier - between the junior/middle schooi campus and the 9th/high school campus - shouid inciude bike lanes. 3. N. 66th Ave. -- | urge that the section of N. 66th Ave. between Summitview and Cowiche Canyon Rd be designated appropriateiy for biking and walking. As indicated in thmVVVNP. this section is a 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 -Phil Hoge Original Message From: Calhoun, Joseph <Jooeph.Ca|houn@YAK|MAVVA.GOV~ To: phi|huge<phi|hoge@aoioom> Sent: Thu, May 11, 2017 8:00 am Subject: RE: Comp Plan 2O40 Phi[ 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 - taiks about the connection to the BicycieK8msterP|an 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 ianguage regarding historic transit ridership that can be found in the Transit Development Pian, 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 Signai at 96th and Wide HoIiow 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 G. 64th Ave / Tieton Dr intersection. Page 29 1 8. Figure 2-9 a. Change the 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 l6th Ave - Shared Priority b. North 1st Street from ''|^ 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 4Oth Ave to 5th Ave - Shared Priority f. New EaobNVeotCunidor- 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/Vvest Corridor as future Primary Bike Route Page 61 13. Figure 4-9 d. Add project R-1 (H Street Extension) to the map. 14. ProjecList: e. A-13 - Clarification of X project Joseph Calhoun Original Message Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:01 PM To: Calhoun, Joseph <Joseph,CalhounnYAKIMAWAGOV> Subject: Comp Plan 2040 Hi Joseph, Could 1 get a look at: 1. BPACs recommendations, 2. ADA Transition Plan (mentioned on page T-9, policy 6.5.18)? 2 22 23 Cahoun, Joseph From: Joshua Hicks <joshuadavidhicks@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. 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 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 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 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 1 take Yakima Ave all the way to Naches Ave where 1 turn left to get to Lincoln Ave. I find Yakima Ave provides a very pleasant view of the city, and the Posted 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 Sgt 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 I. As a resident, however, I think cycling 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. It just seems dangerous and unreliable to me, and Pm 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. Best regards, Joshua Hicks 2 25 Calhoun, Joseph From: Carole Skolrud <carole.skolrud@gmail.com> 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 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 literally no shoulder (let alone sidewalks), I strongly recommend the completion of this project as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration, Carole Skolrud (509) 853-5759 26 Calhoun, Joseph From: barbsg2@gmail.com Sent: Monday, April 1(l2U1T3i8Pk4 To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: 2040 plan Hello, Please utilize the 48 miles of city -owned Yakima VaIIey Transit (YVT) righfor bike/pedestrian transportation. An inter -connected system of paths/trails is beneficial for: -Economic development - Health ( obesity reduction) - Carbon reduction -Car traffic reduction - Tourism (+connection to Greenway & Cowiche Canyon Conservancy & Wm 0 Douglas trails) -Quality of life for residents This system should be coordinated with UGA utilities (Iaying sewer, water, electrical & broadband lines while 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 VaIIey Conference of Governments, Larry Mattson. Thank you. Barb Smith Gilbert Sent from my iPhone 1 27 Calhoun Joseph From: Landon<|mndong|enn@gmai|zom> 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 I believe is the name. Thank you. Jay Glenn 1 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 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 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 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 https://www.co.pierce.wa.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFilentem/4622. 29 City oFYakima DCBD Comments onSB1S/Plan 2U4U May 16, 2017 Page 2 In urbaenvironments where wildtife presence is encouraged it is vital that small patches of habitat be preserved and enhanced. In this environment, wildlife habitat; particu!arty for birds and smal! 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-comptex should be discouraged. —Examplesofhow this can be done is to keep riparian vegetationintact and enhance it in areas, such as along the greenway and loca! lakes and ponds. Birds typically use these areaboth for nesting and as important migration corridors. - -In our parks and opcn spaces, native vegetation should be planted as landscaping when possible. We should find opportunities to encourage brushy habitat areas in our parksnot 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 polimight be adopted, such as: "Conserve, protect and enhancc 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. 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/strcam 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 Iayer. 2. Areas listed as 'Urban Naturat 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 deveSpace". We also see that some ofthe 74uchcuRiver floodplain iudesignated oo"Agriculture oodRcsourcc" The background on these groupings is unknown, but some of this verbiage may be counterproductive in designating floodplain and riparian habitat. 30 City of Yakima DCED Comments on SEIS / Plan 2040 May 16, 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 457-9310. Sincerely, Eric Bartrand Department of Fish and Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist 1701 S. 24th Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 EB,SD:eb April 101 2017 !As? 0, 4.4 TRANSIT and TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT 'n 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 life styles" 3."To be responsive to the needs of passengers (Transit) getting to work and school." 4."This schedule re-alignmerit (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 [OW1K4UTEREDUCT|ON5TRAJE6|E5." 6."2040 plan indicates NO growth for transit from 2016 — 2021" other than capital acquisitions. 31 /-p-e�__ This plan reads in cover letter style with laudable endeavors, generalities and meetsthe 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 as well as for example, the Iast 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 TabIe2-1 (2015) giving the appearance of expansive service throughout the week. The trend in ridership is failing 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? 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! The Victoria Policy. institute and The American Public. Transportation Associalion 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 (or 150 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. 2) Buses are safer than individual vehicles. 13us related accidents have one -twentieth the passenger fatality rates of automobile travel. Car accidents are responsible for approximatel)f 40,000 deaths (and inany 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. 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 Flirthermore, public transit benefits community cohesion by promoting positive interactions between neighlzors. that11 tikitaiterectieszverounittedaffitivinSteawalkpi 4) Public buses keep air cleaner. Pollution is estimated to cause as many deaths per year as traffic accidents. Hovvever, buses (especially newer diesel and electrically powered vehicles) produce less pollution than cars per passenger 'wide 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. 33 5) Riding public transportation saves money. "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. 6) Public transportation provides access to essential needs later in life. 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, 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 mare about public transit's positive effec SIGN -IN SHEET City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Community Review Open House Yakima Valley Technical Skills Center - 1120 S 18th Street, Yakima Tuesday April 11, 2017 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY* #71 i irZx OF 11:!, P CinOnTinba CH-4-12trr nAtt rtt9 (.11 CSLutTns _ t vS 90 2- Mtirphy • chtrlefe- ateriv- id/14k - rNa___ Fq 6 r L_C7 k.) J c -C -C Pe„1, *-f-ackeq Irv\ q`6Q1D—S cct 04/1 V2017 -Comp Plan 2040 Community Review Open 1 -louse 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 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY* /�� C071 f Name: Mailing Address: Email: 04/11/2017 — Comp Plan 2040 Visioning Open House 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 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY* . %_ Pl'di nn'in`g e Name: (jl tA R C.(;; J /l? t,( Mailing Address: Email: pi urf � . c "at f ler c ak' 14 S' cJ1 oc) t f or) 04/11/2017 — Comp Plan 2040 Visioning Open House 37 Comprehensive Flan 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 447 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Pia n'nyi`'rib *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY* u 4q- b Au QQ,,\ LL Q. Lt,, crp LA ta\l►u'4ce.9-- c 'i d Q c.J a0c.S,. Y fM sig ' Cv J ctLiaJ RA 49 Name: Email: Mailing Address: 2-20 S 04/11/2017 — Comp Plan 2040 Visioning Open House 39 Qvall eY Quality Homes 0 SOUTH F BST STREET YAKIMA, WA 98903•BU (509) 453-89 7•F 509 575-7702 April 10, 2017 Mr. Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner City of Yakima 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington, 98901 DR/Isic.:4\1:4 APR 201/ .4•••• F;6,XE1) • ••,••1•'PAID. Fv1 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 plan designation from Arterial Commercial to Mixed Residential. This letter is being written in OPPOSITION 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 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, 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. 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 existing Arterial Commercial designation, we would suggest that the change be made west iirnr properties. This would permit our property to. sag Miniff, er betweenShe expected romnigro' *es lying east of us and the expeetedgesid ' ' Ing w otogn. ., :cgs, .2'. orl Latilyki 1. 5;45 40 Based on all the above, we are requesting that all our property be removed from the above proposal. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at 509-453- 8937. JERRY D. TALBOTT TALBOTT, SIMPSON & DAVIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 308 N. 2ND STREET Yakima, Wa. 98901 (509) 575 7501 FAX (509) 453 0077 Email: ltalhottatalbottlaw,rom April 18, 2017 Joan Davenport AICP Director Department of Community Development 129 N. Second Street, 2"d Floor Yakima, Wa. 98901 Re: Comprehensive Plan 2040 Comments We represent the Ahtanum Irrigation District and wish to comment on the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan in regard to water and utilities. 1. 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. 3. 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, RECEIVED APR 2 C 2017 CITY OF YAKIMA ,1 DIV 43 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation City Of Yakima c/o Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner 129 N 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Email: joseph.calhoun(yakimawa.gov RE: Comments on the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2040 Update Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement May 16, 2017 Sent via Email Established by the Treaty of _June 9, 1855 Dear Planning Official, 1 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 SEIS"). 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 SEIS, 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 VGA 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 44 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE P A 20 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 SETS, 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'yakama.com with any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, PHIL RIGDON, SUPERINTENDENT YAKAMA NATION DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PAGE 2OF12 45 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA "0 REHENSIVE PLAN 20 MAY 16, 2017 EXHIBIT A UPDATE DRAFT SEIS YN DNR Comments, Questions, Concerns: A Section -by -Section Analysis Draft Supplemental Environmental I pact Statement'— arch 2017 Scoping —1.4 Summary of Proposed Alternatives — Action Alternative 2 pg. 1-2. 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 46 YN DNR COMMENTS ON Crrt' OF YAKIMA COMPRFHENSIVE PLAN 2 MAY 16, 2017 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS 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 SEIS 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 SEIS 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 4 OF 12 47 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE P MAY 16, 2017 AN 20 UPDATE DRAFT E1 It is recommended that the City of Yakima and 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, 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 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 1/4 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 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 PAGES OF 12 YN DNR COMMENTS MAY 16, 2017 48 N CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS (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. c 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 PAGE 6 of 12 49 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2 MAY 16, 2017 UPDATE DRAIN E1n 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. o 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. c 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 50 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 20 MAY 16, 2017 UPDATE DRAFT SELS • 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. • 103 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). o 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 10.13. pg. NE -13. The plan should incorporate more information and data from the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan. o Goal 103. 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. • 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 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. o 10.6 Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources Sub -element. • As rioted above, these goals, policies and principals should apply citywide, not just in the Shoreline, if they are to truly address the GMA goal to identify and protect cultural resources through the Comprehensive Plan and throughout the City. Energy Element — pg. E-1. o Please see The Yakama Nation's Climate Ad ptation Plan for the Territories of the Yakama Nation (2017). 8.0 Appendix B: Critical Areas Ordinance Gap 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 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 51 YN DNR COMMENTS ON C OF YAKIMA 0 REHEN'SIVE PLAN 20 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 SEES 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 not 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., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (C ) 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 PACE 9 OF 12 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CFFY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2 MAY 16, 2017 UPDATE DRAFT SEES County water utility has recently completed a groundwater model for the entire County that may aid in designating and prote ting 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. ■ 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. ■ 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 ("HOLI"). The YN DNR supports the inclusion of WDFW PHS as a HOLI. 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 52 53 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREH ' VE PLAN 2 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 15.27.601.13, subsections 1 and 2 are inconsistent with BAS and the definition in section 1527.200 and RCW 36.70A.030(21), 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 PHS, 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 8-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 1527.605 Compensatory Mitigation. This section generally looks consistent with the BAS, but there are missing PAGE 11 OF 12 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS MAY 16, 2017 categories or mitigation that are represented in Granger et. al. 2005 Appendix 8-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. ■ 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 09.030-1 Standard Stream Buffers. This table seems overly complicated, not consistent BAS, and not consistent with the known landscape. As previously stated, the minimum buffer 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 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. PAGE 12 OF 12 54 Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of the Yakama Nation Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of the Yakama Nation Version 1 The Yakama Nation acknowledges and greatly appreciates support from the following partners in preparation of this Climate Adaptation Plan. Cascadia Consulting Group SAH Ecologia LLC University of Washington Climate Impacts Group Courtesy of Shyanne Pinkham Our Yakama People came after everything the Creator made, as we know it - the earth, water, foods, medicines, trees, and plants. He made the animals and gave them their place here From that time on, we knew where these blessings came from and we gave thanks to the Creator for all of nature and the elements that took care of them - the rain, snow, sun, moon, stars, wind, and earth! It is this belief, prayer, and following of our sacred ceremonies that have created a close relationship with these things, and they tell us when things are not right - not of this earth or the elements, but us as humansl This Climate Adaptation Plan is dedicated to you - our children - and to your children, and to all generations of Yakama to follow Our elders, leaders, and staff have gathered this information and present it here today We hope this knowledge will help our people understand what it will mean to be subject to climate change. Using this knowledge, we must begin preparations to maintain our community and our natural resources. We must carry forward ourculture and traditions for our tribes' future and for your own families' well-being For many generations, you will be challenged with a changing climate. But always remember, since time immemorial, we have looked to our elders for their wisdom and guidance, and within ourchildren wewill always see hope "Shxmyah" a k a Edwin "Arlen" Washines Yakama Table of Contents Tribal Chairman's Proclamation Executive Summary Introduction and Background Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts Community Resources Health and Public Safety Tribal Infrastructure Lands and Agriculture Environmental Resources Forestry Water and Wetlands Fisheries Shrub -Steppe and Rangelands Wildlife and Vegetation Toxics Appendix 1: Key Terms Appendix 2: References Notes 1 2 3 9 11 13 15 17 20 20 24 28 31 34 38 40 42 44 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff Tribal Chairman's Proclamation Our climate is changing. The effects of climate change are being noticed by our own people These changes, coupled with the rapid growth of cities throughout our homelands; dams across our rivers; and unsustainable forestry, rangeland, and agricultural practices have drastically altered our traditional way of life, our foods, and many aspects of our heritage and culture From the vast information now available concerning climate change, we understand that its impacts on our natural resources will continue and that our grandchildren will likelysee profound and ever-increasing changes within their lifetimes The issues in front of us are not unique to just the Yakama Nation, but can be seen across all Indian nations Although we find ourselves at a tipping point, it is not a time to decry our losses and bemoan our future We will work with other tribes, and we will learn together. We must learn how to adapt, as we have done for many thousands of years on these lands which have always been our home We cannot know and anticipate at this time all changes to come—but we can start. Contained within these pages is the Yakama Nation Climate Adaptation Plan This Plan provides a strong foundation for our next steps and sets them into motion This Plan is more than dust words and pictures. It describes much of our understanding of potential climate change impacts and establishes preliminary recommendations for our triba[ programs to consider and evaluate and for our tribal leadership to act upon appropriately The Yakama Nation Tribal Council directs all of our community and natural resource programs to carefully assess the vulnerabilities and risks identified in this Climate Adaptation Plan over the next year. In many cases, these considerations will go beyond our reservation lands and necessitate an evaluation of resources throughout the territories of the Yakama Nation We also direct our programs to prepare and present recommendations for addressing the vulnerabilities and risks—actions that will rebuild resilience and durability within these resources for generations to come These assessments and recommendations are not intended to be comprehensive, but they represent a substantial beginning on a long path forward. The Yakama Nation is strong, and our strength is growing. By continuing to blend our traditional knowledge with newer innovations, and by reshaping our long-established tribal community and natural resource programs, the Yakama Nation will continue to thrive amidst an ever-changing world. TRIBAL CHAIRMAN'S PROCLAMATION 1 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation are a diverse people from many areas. We are the Kah-miltpah, Oche- Chotes, Palouse, Wenatchapam, Klickitat, Pesquose, See-ap-Cat, Yakama, Klinguit, Shyiks, Sk'in-pah, Kow-was-say-ee, Li -ay -was, and Wish -ham. Our tribes are strong and resilient people. We have lived on these lands for countless generations, from time immemorial. We will continue to flourish on our homelands for countless generations to come This document is an acknowledgment that climate change is real and that it poses a threat to our grandchildren, our culture, and our way of living This document represents the first collective effort by our many governmental departments and programs 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 (3) specific recommendations for deeper analyses of vulnerabilities and risks to our most important interests and adaptation actions that we should implement now This Plan has four sections: 1, the Introduction and Background, is a brief overview of our history It provides a perspective on our relationship with the land and the diverse resources that the land has always provided to our people It reaffirms that our territories—where we have hunted, fished, and gathered our foods and medicines—are essential to us and always will be This section also summarizes the Yakama Nation climate adaptation planning process, which was used to obtain much of the technical information found within this document Section 1 concludes by emphasizing that our work now, and for many generations, will never be complete - but will be a continuing cycle 2, Summary of Climate Change Drivers and Potential Impacts, provides a technical backdrop of climate change and expected regional impacts Most importantly, we expect that both summer and winter temperatures will continue to increase and snowpack in the mountains will diminish We have observed that many of these changes are already being realized today 3, Community Resources, focuses primarily within the reservation lands of the Yakama Nation, outlining specific concerns and potential impacts on four general areas a) cultural heritage, b) human health and public safety, c) tribal infrastructure, and d) lands and agriculture In particular, we describe many issues related to excessive heat in the summer and moderated temperatures through the winter months Our planning must consider the need to add capacity to our emergency management, infrastructure, and health systems We must also look towards new technologies and efficiencies in the management of our tribal water and lands, particularly in our agricultural sector 4, Environmental Resources, provides a broad view of the landscape addressing issues and recommendations associated with forestry, rangelands, water, fisheries, wildlife and vegetation resources, and the toxic materials found throughout our ceded lands and our usual and accustomed places to hunt, fish, and gather our foods and medicines Throughout each of these sectors we note many potential issues that cross multiple jurisdictional lines Most of these issues will require increased and persistent local, state, federal, and tribal collaboration and coordination All of these issues will call for innovation and increased resources CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff "Climate change affects our everyday life, because we are connected to all of these natural resources. What affects them affects us." Workshop Participant Since time immemorial, the people of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation have lived on these lands and cared for the natural resources we share. Our ancestors' spirits live on and guide us. They live through our traditions and our religion, which have been handed down from one generation to the next. Our traditional knowledge and cultural practices reflect the natural cycles of our earth and reaffirm what we have learned from long -past elders. Climate change is real and, unfortunately, the effects appear to be in motion We are witnessing changes in the seasons. Our roots and berries must be gathered sooner, and salmon returns are less predictable. Our people notice less snow in the mountains now, and there is less coo[ water during the summer when it was once abundant The changes we see may not bode we[[ for our future. Over the years to come, we may lose natural resources that are important to ourculture and our heritage. Some of these losses may be irreversible The purpose of this document is to begin 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 our people, our tribal programs, and findings from regional experts on these important topics. This document is one way we can educate ourselves about currentvulnerabilities and future risks and share ideas about actions that we may need to take to build climate resilience. It is a living document that ME be revisited and adjusted overtime to reflect new information, new understandings, and new priorities This document is an important step for the Yakama Nation. It is a step in helping us prepare for an uncertain future where a rapidly changing climate will disrupt long -held traditional cycles. It represents the beginningofa continued and meaningful conversation between tribal leadership, tribal programs, and tribal members. Our people must consider these questions 1. How is climate change affecting our lives and we[[ -being? 2. How might climate change affect generations to come? 3. What can the Yakama Nation do now to prepare for and adapt to these changes? With this document, we begin to think about, develop, and enact solutions to address climate change impacts on our communities and our homelands INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION OVERARCHING GOALS There is much to be done. Our work must be guided by clearly stated and achievable goals. Our goals, listed below, call on all tribal members and our leadership to educate themselves and to act Our future is embedded within the lands and waters of our territories. • Tribal members will be educated on the present and future effects of climate change on our homeland and will continue to be engaged in our progress to adapt to these new challenges. • Tribalyouth will be involved in cultural education, and learn how to help the Yakama Nation adapt to climate change impacts. • The Yakama Nation will remain actively involved as a sovereign government in national and international climate change discussions and negotiations and continue to pressure national governments to reduce emissions • The Yakama Nation will continue to work with other indigenous nations to protect treaty rights in the context of a changing climate • The Yakama Nation will be prepared for impacts on culturally significant plant and animal species throughout the territories of the Yakama Nation. • The Yakama Nation will protect, enhance, and secure sources of fresh water now to meet the future needs of our tribal communities and economies. • The Yakama Nation will continue to develop and strengthen relationships with neighboring governments and communities regarding the protection and restoration of our resources Collaborative actions may include long-term and use planning and continued improvements in emergency management for future extreme weather events • The Yakama Nation will develop and implement strategies to unite tribes and communities around long- term resource utilization, habitat protection, and resource restoration in order to increase climate resilience while maintaining a strong economic base • The Yakama Nation will protect, enhance, and secure a future source of culturally important foods and medicines as well as long-term production and storage capabilities for important climate -resilient crops. • The Yakama Nation will continue to develop and strengthen alliances with local and regional governments to build renewable energy capacity and thereby contribute to climate change mitigation efforts. The impacts of climate change are being noticed by our people today, and our grandchildren will likely see profound effects upon our communities and our way of life. We cannot know and anticipate all changes at this time, but we can prepare. Together we must look ahead and blend our traditional knowledge and cultural insights with newer innovations to create a future where the Yakama Nation will continue to thrive despite the changing climate. Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff All this for future generations yet unborn according to teachings by our elders OUR HISTORY For generations before the rise of the modern world, the lands of the Yakama extended in a[[ directions. We used the entire and base, from the lowlands around the Columbia River to the snow - peaked Cascade Mountains We held our and as a trust given by the Creator for the use of the living and as a heritage to be held and protected for unborn generations. The Yakama people spent the coldest months in winter villages generally located on the valley floor, a place with a relatively moderate climate This area provided a reliable source of wood and water, and protection from cold winds. Villages were located on or near waterways, in places where a variety of resources could be obtained, including deer, elk, fish, and riparian and desert plants. CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Ceded Arca and Resrnatioo Boundary oldie Confederated Tribes and Bonds of the Yakama Nation In the springtime, as soon as the first edible greens appeared Figure 1. Ceded Area and Reservation Boundary above the ground, tribal people began moving across the countryside in search of fresh food resources. The people followed the melting snows upland and collected edible roots as they matured Some tribal people would go to the rivers to fish. Others would remain in the mountains, following the maturing plants ups[ope, until the huckleberry harvest in the fa[[. At that time, foods would be either stored or transported back to the winter village from both the mountains and the rivers, and people would settle in, once more living on stored foods and occasional fresh meat until the following spring. Today, the reservation lands of the Yakama Nation are located within the Yakima River basin The territories of the Yakama Nation—which consist of lands ceded by the Yakama Nation and a[[ of the usual and accustomed areas where we fish, hunt, and gather foods and our medicines—extend beyond the reservation boundaries. The territories are a[[ interconnected by Nch'i-Wana, the Big River Upriver, to the north, are the Methow, the Entiat, and the Wenatchee basins which drain the east slopes of the northern Cascade Mountains. Lower portions of Crab Creek and the Snake River come in from the east. The territories continue downstream to Rock Creek, the Klickitat River, and the White Sa[mon, Little White Sa[mon, and Wind Rivers and then extend to the Washougal, Lewis, and Cowlitz basins. Although much of the focus of this initial Climate Adaptation Plan is on the Yakima River basin and our reserved lands, the whole of the territories are contained within this document and within our long-term vision, as they are a[[ important to the welfare of our people INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 5 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 6 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION DESCRIPTION OF OUR ADAPTATION PLANNING PROCESS We recognize that the efforts of the Yakama Nation alone—or any one entity alone—will not be enough to address the challenges of climate change. Ultimately, it will require a concerted, collaborative effort between tribal, local, state, and federal governments Our planning approach rests upon this central idea We also recognize that many of our tribal programs have already begun considering aspects of climate change as part of program planning and implementation Our planning process not only considered newly available research and data, but also consolidated and highlighted these existing efforts Perhaps most importantly, our approach emphasizes the engagement oftribal members and our tribal natural and community resource programs Priorities and recommended actions come from all of these involved members and staff. The Yakama Nation leadership will use these inputs to consider and adopt both short-term actions and longer-term strategies and directtribal programs to lead implementation The diagram in Figure 2 below summarizes the management structure for our climate adaptation planning process and highlights the importance of engaging program staff from across a wide range oftribal departments. In this first year, seven technical workshops and planning workshops were held between May and September of 2015, which program managers from all departments were encou raged to attend. A list of the seven workshop topics is provided in Table 1 The technical workshops provided the basis for understanding climate science, climate change projections, and some of the anticipated impacts on key resources and habitats in our region The planning workshops enabled participants to brainstorm and discuss potential adaptation measures. Additional input was solicited through interviews, and departments also provided feedback on drafts of this plan Tribal Council General Council Department of Natural Resources Project oversite and administration Project Management Project implementation and coordination Core Team — Contracted Services Technical oversight and direction Community Health Public Safety Tribal infrastructure Cultural Heritage Foods and Medicine Tribal Lands Other Forestry Wetlands and Hydrology Wildlife Rangelands Fisheries and Aquatics Air Quality Other Figure 2. Management structure for the Yakama Nation climate adaptation planning process CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Table 1. 2015 workshop topics Finally, our approach takes a long-term view and follows a three-phase process Together, the three phases aim to cultivate a comprehensive vision, directing the capacity and sustained coordination from within the Yakama Nation towards continued development and implementation of necessary actions to address climate change over the next seven generations This initial Climate Adaptation Plan is the outcome of the first phase In 2016 and 2017, Yakama Nation staff ME carry out the second phase, which will involve working with tribal, local, and regional experts to develop a more detailed assessment ofvulnerabilities and risks for resources that are particularly important to the tribal community. The third phase will focus on implementing adaptation actions that are prioritized in Phases 1 and 2 It is important for a[[ to realize that the work we have identified in this first Climate Adaptation Plan is not complete. However, we have started this important process, which will now become a significant part of the Yakama Nation's work over many generations to come Every few years, we will revisit our progress, gather new information, and identify additional actions. Thus, over time, we will continue to strengthen our climate resilience and maintain a link between ourcultural past and our tribe's future A[[ climate change scenarios show a continued decline in snowpack in the mountains. This could be in the range of a 29 percent decrease in snowpack in the Cascades by the 2020s and a 44 percent decrease by the 2040s, compared to what we experienced in the last century (using a medium greenhouse gas emissions scenario) [7] Rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns ME also increasewildfire risk The area likely to burn in the Columbia River Basin is projected to double by the 2020s, triple by the 2040s, and increase by a factor of five by the 2080s, compared to the median observed between 1916 and 2006 [8]. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 7 Climate Change Impacts on Vegetation Management, Forestry, and Fire Risk (June 16) Climate Change Impacts on Wildlife and Shrub Steppe (June 17) Wetlands, Water and Fish (July 8) Tnbal Leadership and Engagement: Planning for Adaptation (May 27) Consequences and Building Resilience (July 22) Adaptation Actions to be Considered (August 13) Screening potentia[ adaptation strategies (September 24) Finally, our approach takes a long-term view and follows a three-phase process Together, the three phases aim to cultivate a comprehensive vision, directing the capacity and sustained coordination from within the Yakama Nation towards continued development and implementation of necessary actions to address climate change over the next seven generations This initial Climate Adaptation Plan is the outcome of the first phase In 2016 and 2017, Yakama Nation staff ME carry out the second phase, which will involve working with tribal, local, and regional experts to develop a more detailed assessment ofvulnerabilities and risks for resources that are particularly important to the tribal community. The third phase will focus on implementing adaptation actions that are prioritized in Phases 1 and 2 It is important for a[[ to realize that the work we have identified in this first Climate Adaptation Plan is not complete. However, we have started this important process, which will now become a significant part of the Yakama Nation's work over many generations to come Every few years, we will revisit our progress, gather new information, and identify additional actions. Thus, over time, we will continue to strengthen our climate resilience and maintain a link between ourcultural past and our tribe's future A[[ climate change scenarios show a continued decline in snowpack in the mountains. This could be in the range of a 29 percent decrease in snowpack in the Cascades by the 2020s and a 44 percent decrease by the 2040s, compared to what we experienced in the last century (using a medium greenhouse gas emissions scenario) [7] Rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns ME also increasewildfire risk The area likely to burn in the Columbia River Basin is projected to double by the 2020s, triple by the 2040s, and increase by a factor of five by the 2080s, compared to the median observed between 1916 and 2006 [8]. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 7 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION We know there are many existing pressures that are affecting the Yakama Nation's natural resources. Livestock, wild horses, and invasive plant species like cheatgrass, medusahead, and yellow starthistle are already having adverse impacts on the rangelands. The Hanford nuclear site and agribusiness runoff are affecting water quality in streams and rivers. Irrigation and lawn watering systems are putting heavy demand on available water. Fish passage has been hindered in places by dams and culverts Climate change adds another stress on top of these current pressures The remainder of this report describes some of the expected impacts of these changes on the community and natural resources important to the Yakama Nation Impacts include increased stress for salmon, affecting juvenilesurvival and migration to spawning grounds; changes in the area of suitable habitat available for a variety ofwildlife and plant species; increased water scarcity; issues concerning air quality and community health; and the potential for service disruptions and damage to Tribal infrastructure We also provide recommendations for future analysis and actions to help build our resilience in the face of these ongoing and emerging risks. Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff 1 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts The climate is changing in the Pacific Northwest. The average annual temperature increased by 1.3 °F between 1895 and 2011 [1]. We have seen changes in the mountains, over the last century, nearly a[[ of the glaciers in Washington State have retreated. Agricultural conditions have changed as we[[. The number of frost -free days has increased by more than a month, on average, and the growing season has lengthened accordingly [1] We are seeing changes in our rivers and streams Peak streamflows are coming earlier in the year than they used to in many locations, and late summer streamflows are declining. These changes are consistent with what we expect to see based on regional projections of climate change, although natural variability also continues to play an important role in what we experience from year to year. In 2015, the city of Yakima had the warmest June on record, and the Columbia River was the warmest it has been since 1950 [2]. Approximately one-quarter of a million salmon died, reportedly because of warm water and resulting diseases [3]. Wildfires brought "unhealthy" and "very unhealthy" air quality conditions to the communities of Toppenish, White Swan, and Yakima [4]. While the high temperatures and drought that we experienced in 2015 cannot be fully attributed to climate change, given the aforementioned role of natural variability and the influence of EF Nino, recent experiences give us a picture of what we are likely to experience more often in the future as the climate continues to change. FUTURE CHANGES There are a number of scenarios that scientists use to project what might happen as a result of climate change. The scenarios make different assumptions about future greenhouse gas emissions. However, a[[ of those scenarios project further warming in this century between 4 3 to 5 8 degrees F warmer on average in Washington State by the 2050s compared to the 1950-1999 period. In the Yakima Basin, average summer temperatures are expected to be 83 to 90 degrees by mid-century, depending on what choices are made— locally, regionally, and globally—that affect the trend of greenhouse gas emissions [5] Those would be the averages; our hottest summer days will likely be even hotter than what we are used to. OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 9 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION When it comes to rain and snow, precipitation projections are uncertain Climate scientists currently anticipate only slight increases in average annual precipitation, with more of that precipitation coming in the winter and in heavier downpours. Meanwhile, the Yakima Basin is a temperature -sensitive system, so warmer temperatures will mean less snow and more rain We expect to see increasing winter flows and decreasing summer flows in the rivers We also expect to see peak streamflows occurring four to nine weeks earlier in the 2080s than what we are used to seeing today [1]. Snowmelt runoff already happens two to three weeks earlier than it did historically in many streams in the Pacific Northwest [6] "We've seen the telltale signs of climate change for several years now. It will affect each and every living thing, including us. Everything depends on water for life - our foods, our salmon, our roots and berries. Many Tribes will be affected." Gerald Lewis, Tribal Council ce O 10 Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff ommunity Resources CULTURAL HERITAGE Introduction Within theYakama paradigm, five categories of resources are recognized: and, air, water, natural, and cultural resources The Yakama Nation's definition ofcu[tura[ resources is very broad and inclusive Tribal elders have defined significant cultural resource types including, but not limited to: Wa[ts'ats'as (legends), Wawkstimit (monuments), Pakstimit (ceremonies), Temani pashwa (petrog[yphs/pictographs), Yawatash (burial), ancestral use, and archaeological sites These are defined in the unwritten laws of the Yakama people in Ichi Skin Sinwit (the words we speak). They have been passed down from generation to generation since the beginning of time The protection, preservation, and perpetuation ofcultural resources cannot be complete without the utilization of Ichi Skin Sinwit Therefore, to meet the goals and objectives of the Yakama Nation Cultural Resources Program, professionally -trained archaeologists are partnered with fluent, traditionally -raised Yakama tribal members. This ensures that theYakama Nation's scientific and cultural paradigms are reflected in the management ofcultural resources The program carries out four main activities within the reservation, including inventory, evaluation, monitoring, and restoration cultural resources. Some projects are small-scale, and others involve large-scale Cultural Resource Management Plans The goal is to simplify the process of managing complex, sensitive resources with strong cultural significance. Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability It is difficult to predict exactly how c[imate change may affect our cuftura[ resou rces We have reason to be concerned, however, about the potentia[ increase in wildfire and the changes to our year[y water cyc[e Unchecked wildfire can inhibit access to and the use of our cu[tura[[yimportant sites Increased high-ve[ocityflooding cou[d deteriorate the integrity of current and historic sites. Also, ceremonial and ancestral use of key areas may be significant[y curtai[ed due to a rack of water during the summer and autumn months S3D21f1OS321 AllNf1WWOJ 11 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Potential actions and information needs To protect our cultural resources in the face of climate change and support the continued development of the Climate Adaptation Plan throughout the territories of the Yakama Nation, the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided Additional items may be included during the Phase 2 analysis as new information becomes available. MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Develop outreach and education materials thatwill inform the tribal community about near-term and longer- term climate change threats and ways that we can prepare and build resilience to these changes. 2. Protect and enhance priority wetlands, riparian areas, and other ecosystems in order to conserve culturally important foods and medicines that could be adversely impacted by climate change COMMUNITY RESOURCES 12 Photos courtesy of Emdy Washines HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY Introduction The well-being, health, and safety of the people of the Yakama Nation will be at greater risk due to climate change. Some of our tribal members may be more vulnerable than others; we share particular concern for the elders, the very young, the infirm, the economically disadvantaged, and those who must labor outdoors. Increased risks will come from many fronts, including longer and more intense periods of heat, decreased air and water quality, insect -borne disease and allergens, and increased flooding. Planning and responses in emergency managementwill need to be revisited from time to time to renew preparedness and coordination with local and regional partners Our preparations must include response training for emerging and continuing threats and also consider initial and longer-term steps towards recovery from future adversities Now is the time to consider, prepare, and act to address these newchallenges. Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability As we look forward and anticipate a changing climate, there are obvious risks that must be considered and contingencies to be identified CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Courtesy of Raynel Begay Rising temperatures will bring an increase in the potential for heat -related illnesses like heat rash, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke Because we have air conditioning in many of our homes and workplaces, we may be reasonably well-equipped to deal with some of these heat -related illnesses. However, our people spend a considerable time outdoors, where exposure is more of a concern Additionally, we may see a worsening of existing problems with renal failure, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory illness, pollen -borne allergens could increase due to a longer pollination season [9]. It is possible that there will be an increased risk of transmission of infectious, water -borne, and food -borne diseases Clearly evident from recent events, unsafe levels of smoke from local and regional wildfires will fill our sky with growing frequency We anticipate that we may see more years with large wildfires and that these fires may persist throughout the later summer months, possibly into the autumn Resulting impacts on our health may include increased cases of asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia. Children suffering from these problems could miss more school days Also, if these fires burn into our communities, we may see loss of property and disruptions that can impact the physical and mental well-being of those most directly affected It is likely that the problems discussed here will disproportionately affect the elderly and the children within our community, as well as the poor and people with underlying health issues Our responses must be well -targeted to help those who are mostvulnerable. S3D21f1OS321 AllNf1WWOJ 13 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Potential actions and information needs To protect our people from climate -related health and safety risks and to support the continued development of the Climate Adaptation Plan, particularly on the reservation lands of the Yakama Nation, the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided. Additional items may be included during the Phase 2 analysis as new information becomes available RESEARCH AND MONITORING 1. Work with the Washington State Department of Health, community hospitals, and health organizations to monitor and predict heat waves and smoke -related air quality issues 2. Work with the State of Washington Department of Ecology to evaluate existing and long-term air quality monitoring opportunities on tribal reservation lands MANAGEMENTAND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Inventory the availability of cooling centers for use on extreme heat days by community members who don't have air conditioning at home Consider offering additional public cooling spaces at tribal facilities Assess the capacity of local clinics to respond to emerging health threats and to integrate climate preparedness into their hazard response plans and daily operations. Talk to doctors and nurses about how climate change can affect allergen abundance and disease vectors and what they will need to be prepared. 3. Evaluate drinking water management plans in terms of long-term climate adaptation and potential for diminished supplies. 4. Evaluate the need to improve or retrofit tribal housing, especially for those most vulnerable to temperature or precipitation extremes 5. Develop local committees to help proactively implement climate change adaptation measures for the most vulnerable 6. Consider the need for expanded preparedness planning, which includes coordination, training, equipment, exercises, evaluations, and corrective measures. 7. Develop outreach and education materials that will inform the tribal community of the real and potential dangers of climate change and help the community prepare for these changes. For example, these materials could include information to help people know how they can protect their homes and property in the face of increased wildland and range fire hazards. Develop and implement a public awareness and outreach campaign that notifies people how to get information about, prepare for, and respond to extreme heat and wildfire smoke events. COMMUNITY RESOURCES 14 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION TRIBAL INFRASTRUCTURE Introduction The Yakama Nation spans approximately 1.2 million acres. Much of our and is either forested and managed for a variety of natural resource values and forestry products or consists of lower -elevation agriculture and community developments With such diversity, the Yakama Nation Economic Development Department has the directive to recommend and provide opportunities that create jobs and increase revenue for the Yakama Nation through advancement of a sustainable economy while preserving our traditional and cultural values Many tribal enterprises exist within our government. Two large tribal enterprises that may be affected by climate change are Yakama Forest Products and Yakama Land Enterprise The Yakama Nation Engineering Department manages much of the necessary infrastructure to support these enterprises and serve the collective needs of our people It also manages and maintains non -county roads, tribal property, and the Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) delivery system Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability As is discussed throughout this Climate Adaptation Plan, one of the most direct anticipated climate change impacts in our region is on water availability. From an infrastructure perspective, water supply is important for fire management and road construction, the reservation is mainly rural and spread over a mix of forest, range, and desert landscapes, and wildfires are also expected to increase both in forested and non -forested lands We need to have water available at withdrawal sites to enable fire response as well as dust prevention Water availability is also important to WIP's ability to provide water to lands leased by the tribe Meanwhile, changes in precipitation, runoff, and streamflow could lead to increased erosion or temporary flooding of roads in the wet season Stress from higher temperatures may reduce the lifespans of some infrastructure assets; thermal stress may also degrade asphalt pavements more rapidly and slow asphalt curing time, increasing the time needed to perform road repairs Demand for electricity is likely to go up in the summer as more intense heat leads to a need for more cooling capacity, this could increase operations costs at tribal facilities Courtesyof Tom Ring We need to continue to evaluate how climate change impacts could affect our enterprises, irrigated lands, and community infrastructure and develop plans to address these concerns. S3D21f1OS321 AllNf1WWOJ 15 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Potential actions and information needs To increase the resilience of our community infrastructure and support the development of the Climate Adaptation Plan, particularly on the reservation lands of the Yakama Nation, the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendationsforfuture actions be provided Additional items may be included during the Phase 2 analysis as new information becomes available RESEARCH AND MONITORING 1. Inventory water withdrawal sites for fire suppression and dust management use on tribal roads and lands. Describe their anticipated future capacity and availability with projected diminished watersupplies. 2. Develop a future workforce projection and action plan for workforce development within the Yakama Nation Identify job availability and training opportunities for Yakama youth to be educationally stronger and more culturally aware, ensure that the trainings cover anticipated climate change impacts and how planning, maintenance, and operations practices aim to build resilience MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Identify and prioritize transportation infrastructure improvements where necessary due to anticipated climate change impacts, such as enlarging road crossings and culverts to prepare for flooding 2. Consider climate change impacts when planning new assets or rehabilitating existing assets For example, use asphalt and concrete mixes and/or designs that perform we[[ under higher temperatures 3. Update operations and maintenance strategies. For example, conduct more frequent storm drain and culvert cleaning, debris removal, and performance monitoring. 4. Develop redundant transportation, power, and communications services to accommodate system disruptions due to flooding and more frequent storms. 5. Consider climate change adaptation benefits when determining the relative priority of proposed projects. 6. Align management decisions for Forest Products and Land Enterprise with what we know about the future climate, these enterprises depend heavily on the water budget and water availability 7. Include climate change considerations when proposing and assessing the viability of new ventures. Consider whether the proposed enterprise or infrastructure asset can reasonably be anticipated to be viable and sustainable in the coming decades as the climate changes, and plan for measures to increase its resilience. Factor climate change considerations into planned operations and management budgets for enterprises and assets that are expected to be vulnerable. COMMUNITY RESOURCES 16 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION LANDS AND AGRICULTURE Introduction The people of the Yakama Nation enjoy a variety of economic opportunities Many of those derived from our lands include forest products, dry and grazing, mining, and irrigated agriculture. Our lands have always provided a living for our people It is through this tradition that we are always mindful of our responsibility to manage our lands sustainably so that they are healthy and can be passed on and enjoyed by future generations The heart of the Yakama Nation reservation has productive, irrigated lands and a thriving agricultural sector Adjacent to the Yakima River, Satus Creek, and Toppenish Creek are nearly 72,000 acres owned by tribal members and leased to tenants that produce a wide variety of foods. It is estimated that roughly six to seven million dollars are annually collected by tribal members for the use or rental of these and other lands The secondary benefits to the local economy have not yet been precisely quantified, but it is clear that the agricultural activities on the reservation are essential to the economy of the Yakama Nation. Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability For these lands to continue to be productive and profitable, they must have a reliable and adequate supply of water. Climate change is likely to shift the patterns of rain and snow "As we consider improvements to in our mountains and lower -elevation reserved lands. Changes in the Wapato Irrigation Project, let's snowpack accumulation and melt rates, timing of runoff, streamflow, not retool a system from 1902. Let's summer drought, winter flooding, changes in water temperature, rebuild a system for 2020 and beyond." and sedimentation are a[[ important issues that must be considered. Workshop Participant Irrigation water shortages already occur in the Toppenish-Simcoe Unit west of White Swan and are likely to worsen. Irrigation distribution inequalities on the Wapato Irrigation Project ME likely also be exacerbated since the project infrastructure is antiquated and not designed to run at less than fu[[ capacity. These problems were apparent in the 2015 drought, when we had about 70 percent water supply for the project Clearly, these stresses can directly impact tribal revenues from our irrigated lands. Regulatory policies will become even more important and may have pronounced effects. Enforcement of the tribal water code, particularly in light of changes in watersupply, may lead to additional restrictions on irrigation wells and surface water pumping and more stress on existing irrigation systems A[[ of these things are complicated and will continue to require careful planning and implementation. Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff The 2015 drought may give us a glimpse into the future Certainly, members of our agricultural industry have deaft with and are mindful of the effects of periodic drought on annual water management practices. However, a prolonged exposure to reduced water supplies will necessitate changes in agricultural practices and water use efficiencies Water -thirsty crops may need to be exchanged for others that are more drought -tolerant Investments and innovations in water use and efficiency may offset many of these effects. If water shortage is pronounced S3D21f1OS321 AllNf1WWOJ 17 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION COMMUNITY RESOURCES 18 enough, it is possible that croplands will come out of production, which in turn will reduce rents paid to tribal members for use of their ancestral lands Economic consequences will ripple throughout our local economy Existing programs that contribute to resilience The Yakama Nation is currently doing many things to increase the efficiency of our water use and to build resilience within our developments and natural ecosystems. Water conservation plans have been completed and are being implemented in many areas of our reservation An aquifer recharge project implemented on Toppenish Creek has recently been expanded to Simcoe Creek. Implementation of the Toppenish Corridor Enhancement Plan, irrigation demonstration projects, and FEMAfloodplain and flood zone mappingwill continue to contribute to our long-term goals In particular, the continued implementation of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project and the Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan will guide improvements to infrastructure, thereby increasing available water supply and water conservation Potential actions and information needs To support the resilience of our agricultural lands and protect the local economy and to continue development of this Climate Adaptation Plan, the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided. Additional items may be included during the Phase 2 analysis as new information becomes available RESEARCH AND MONITORING 1. Conduct a groundwater study to determine the impacts of excessive aquifer draw down on flows to Toppenish and Simcoe Creeks Develop a plan to improve the network of real-time water and weather stations (e g , gaging stations, SNOTEL, local weather), which are fundamental for drought and flood warning and forecasting, water supply forecasting and monitoring, and long-term water resources planning =_ Develop watershed models to describe forestry and snowpack interactions in order to project changes in runoff, temperature, and precipitation and to inform changes in forest management practices to maximize water retention. "The irrigation districts are not floating in money, and our knowledge of what we need to know has outpaced our ability to do certain things, much less the ability to pay for them." Charles Burt, irrigation consultant, Ca[Poly Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff 4. Consider using models to improve seasonal water supply forecasts and thereby inform irrigation allocation, drought declaration, and planning and regulation of instream flows. Develop a plan to obtain stable funding for the collection and analysis of water data, consolidated stream gaging, and a networked database 6. Evaluate the potential for lost land and agricultural revenues due to climate change to highlight the challenge and motivate action 7. Study the potential for increases in pests, diseases, or invasive species that could affect crops and livestock. 8. Evaluate the climate change vulnerability of current and potential agricultural practices to understand and better prepare for potential impacts to—or opportunities for—land owners, resource groups, and communities. As part of this evaluation, consider the relative sensitivity of different types of crops and livestock. CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Update the 2011 Yakama Nation Water Resources Management Plan to further consider climate change Develop policy recommendations for the Water Code to specifically address irrigation wells and surface allocation on tribal lands 2. Evaluate the long-term adequacy of water delivery infrastructure to ensure that changes in hydrological patterns (e.g., increases in flooding frequency or reduction of late summer water availability) can be anticipated and managed effectively. 3. Evaluate opportunities to improve real-time forecasting of soil moisture content and local weather conditions to improve efficiencies in water delivery and other agricultural practices. Identify ways to improve retention ofsoil moisture, such as appropriate application of manure or other organic materials. 4. Develop a plan to improve water storage through continued and expanded recharge within the Toppenish and Simcoe Creek alluvial fans 5. Engage farmers in research and outreach efforts and develop educational programs and materials that can be distributed to members of the tribal and agricultural communities to provide information about potential climate change vu[nerabi[ities or opportunities These materials should include water conservation practices, opportunities for rain water correction, and use of gray water where appropriate Theyshould also explore alternative energy sources and distribution mechanisms such as the use of solar panels 6. Continue to evaluate and implement all best management practices to improve efficiencies in water use on crops, including choosing hybrids or other heat -resistant crop varieties best suited to arid and agriculture, using drip systems to optimize water and nutrient applications, using plastic cover between crops to reduce water loss and growth of noxious weeds, and making improvements to soil condition to increase water retention. 7. To support recharge of aquifers, evaluate the ability to apply water to croplands outside of the normal growing season in years when excess water is available. Decrease toxic materials released back into the rivers. As climate change intensifies and pest and disease incidence changes, farmers may apply more chemicals and pesticides in order to respond to the changing environment Environmentally -friendly alternatives should be considered Improve water efficiencies in diversion, conveyance, delivery, and use in order to minimize return flows and toxic materials back into rivers 9. Evaluate and implement a series of measures in the Wapato Irrigation District, including: a. Implement facility and operational improvements to increase efficiencies in water diversion, conveyance, and delivery. b. Install devices to accurately measure water use at all turn -outs and throughout the system at appropriate locations. c. Improve enforcement capabilities to control unauthorized water use throughout the District d. Recognize current under -staffing of District operations and evaluate long-term staffing needs that ME support a high level of efficiency in water delivery, system operations, maintenance, and enforcement e. Evaluate locations, costs, and benefits associated with building one or more re -regulating reservoirs in strategic locations within the District. Consider undertaking a storage assessment to understand the potential of the Wapato Irrigation Project or other sources (e.g., the Yakima River) to provided irrigation water to the Toppenish - Simcoe Unit. f. Evaluate the costs and benefits associated with implementing technological improvements that would automate the entire District to improve delivery timing, water conveyance, and use efficiency. g. Develop strategies that acknowledge potential future water savings and provide alternate uses for this additional water, including but not limited to community consumption, benefits to native fish and aquatic species, alternative crop production practices, and alternative options for industry and commerce. S3D21f1OS321 AllNf1WWO: 19 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 20 FORESTRY Introduction The western part of the 1.37 -million -acre Yakama Reservation has approximately 650,000 acres of productive forest and woodland. Generally situated on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Mountains, these areas contain stands of ponderosa pine (25%), pine and Douglas fir (23%), mixed conifer (such as grand fir, Douglas -fir, western larch and other species; 32%), and true fir and mountain hemlock (15%). The remaining area (5%) consists of lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, western red cedar, and other minor species Figure 3 maps the forested lands and identifies management emphasis areas. Over the last century, a number of changes in forest health have occurred on the Yakama Reservation—very similar to the changes that have occurred throughout the inland west. Selective timber harvesting removed large ponderosa pine trees; grand fir and Douglas - fir often regenerated in place of the pines Livestock grazing changed the amount and species composition of ground vegetation. Less ground vegetation resulted in reduced amounts of fine fuels, which prevented surface fires from burning across the landscape as they did historically Practices to suppress natural fires also prevented them from performing important ecosystem functions such as recycling nutrients, regulating species composition, and regulating forest stand densities. From a cultural perspective, forests provide foods and medicines that our ancestors have gathered and used since time immemorial. The Yakama timber resource, meanwhile, is essential to our economic, social, and cultural needs The Yakama Nation has the largest volume of forestlands within the Bureau of Indian Affairs, containing an estimated 10 billion board feet of timber. The Yakama Nation generates a significant amount of revenue directly from the sale of timber Timber is sold to Yakama Forest Products (YFP), a wholly owned Yakama tribal enterprise employing over 200 people; over 90 percent of these employees are tribe -affiliated. More than 2,000 jobs are directly related to the Yakama forest and an estimated five times that many people benefit indirectly "It is difficult fiicult to explain some of the intricate things that we know of the past and of the present. l think this is going to be a great test upon all of us." Workshop Participant z CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION YAKAMA NATION ADMINISTRATIVE FOREST Management Emphasis Areas ▪ Alpine • Traditional Use ▪ Canyon & Riparian • Safety Corridor ▪ General Forest [ Wildlife Winter Habitat ▪ Primuite 7 Tribal Fee • Tract "D" Recreation • Non -Trust z m R 11E. R 12E R 13E. ,. {_ :_...-.J J�• i c . ,.,............1. 10.• \ r'_ 4.-, •.i 1 n.`___ R 11E. R 15 R 16E R.17E R 18E R 19E Figure 3. Areas within the Yakama Nation Administrative Forest Rom el Ile 6.a nene 615 Name 1' Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability The climate influences nearly all aspects of our forests, and changes in the climate are therefore expected to directly affect forest ecosystems Temperature increases will be apparent, especially in winter Drought duration and intensity are projected to increase. Warmer and possibly drier summers in Washington may increase tree growth at higher elevations and decrease growth in lower elevations and drier areas [10]. Some forest species may not adapt well to anticipated changes and may therefore adjust their range or distribution northward or to higher elevations where the new climate is more suitable [11]. Increased mortality may occur in older forests. Changes in climate can affect forest pest and disease responses in two fundamental ways first, by lengthening or shortening the seasons when pests reproduce and complete their life cycles, and second, by weakening the host trees and leaving them more susceptible to insect attacks and plant disease. Specific effects in our region are difficult to predict at this time For example, in some places in the Pacific Northwest, mountain pine beetles are projected to decline, and in other places they are expected to become more prevalent. S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 21 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 22 Increased carbon dioxide within our atmosphere is also expected, which in turn could be beneficial to general plant growth and productivity Although speculative at this time, this condition might actually help protect trees from pests and disease Regardless, close monitoring and preparedness will continue to be an ever-increasing need as we move into an uncertain future According to the Washington State Department of Ecology, "rising temperatures, more frequent and longer lasting heat waves, and drier Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff summers are expected to contribute to larger, more severe wildfires. Researchers project that the area burned by fire each year in the Columbia Basin will double ortriple by the 2080s Wildfire risk to communities, the environment and wildlife and the costs of fighting those fires are expected to rise" [12] Models suggest an increase in both fire area burned and biomass consumed. One of the primary challenges for forest and wildfire managers today and in the future is to reduce the risk of stand replacement fires and the resulting catastrophic consequences After fire disturbance, seedlings need to take root. The impact of climate change on suitability for seedlings is therefore important Only 15 percent of the area currently suitable for ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and whitebark pine in Washington is projected to remain suitable for all three species by the 2060s [13] Existing programs that contribute to resilience The Yakama Nation has taken an active role in managing and improving its forested lands, using an ecosystem approach, by implementing a complex and comprehensive Forest Management Plan (FMP) Implementation of the FMP is intended to enhance and maintain a diversity of forest conditions, maintain sustainable production of commercial and noncommercial resources, and thereby maintain the forest resource as a dependable source ofspiritual renewal, food and medicinal plants, revenue, and employment for the Yakama people The FMP is a collaborative effort of the Yakama Nation and BIAnatural resources programs, including Archaeology and Cultural Resources, Environmental Quality, Fisheries, Forestry, Range, Roads, Soil, Vegetation, Water Code, Water Resources, and Wildlife The main topics within the FMP include, but are not limited to, big -game habitat, forest health, old growth, revenue and employment, threatened and endangered species, and water quality. An important element of the FMP is the identification and explanation of five specific and distinct programs, which together aim to protect and enhance the forestlands of the Yakama Reservation. These five programs are as follows: • Resource Protection Plan: Provides direction for protecting the Yakama Reservation forestland from fire, insects, diseases, and trespass • Timber Management Program: Provides direction for conducting timber management activities while protecting all resources • Forest Development Program: Provides direction for timber salefollow-up activities such as planting, pre- commercial thinning, fuel management, and prescribed burning. • Woodland Management Program: Provides direction for managing woodland resources outside of the Yakama Administrative Forest. • Human Resources Program: Recruits Yakama Nation members into the forestry program and promotes their development as technicians and professionals CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION It is through each of these programs that future actions, designed to address the effects of climate change, will continue to rebuild adaptability and resilience within Yakama Forest. Potential actions and information needs To support the increased climate resilience of our forests, particularly on the reservation lands of the Yakama Nation, the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided Additional items may be included during the Phase 2 analysis as new information becomes available MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Evaluate staffing needs and infrastructure support needs for each of the five FMP programs and how those needs will evolve as the climate changes. The primary drivers towards long-term ecosystem management are stand density management, species composition, and fuels reduction and management We need to have the capacity to continue long-term, sustainable forestry practices that will achieve high levels of forest health in all habitat types and priority management units 2. Continue to evaluate the Yakama sawmill, specifically its long-term needs and necessary changes to increase efficiency and prepare for changes in forest ecosystems and tree species. This may include adaptations to make use of new forest products that thrive in a changing climate. 3. Evaluate and develop a long-term monitoring strategy for exotic and invasive species within priority habitat types and management units. 4. Continue to implement and evaluate the success of various management approaches to maintain existing huckleberry fields and establish new ones as a routine component of forestry management J. Review the potential to apply newly developed climate change models when making decisions about long- term forestry practices and wildfire and fuels management The initial focus of these efforts should be on habitat types considered to be most vulnerable to future climate change effects, such as those along the eastern forested margins (ponderosa pine, Douglas -fir, and Grand fir associations) High elevation associates along the western perimeter of the Yakama Forest, such as the sub alpine fir, hemlock, and Pacific silverfir, should also be considered 6. Evaluate the use of hydrologic models to manage and increase water production as a specific outcome of timber harvest, fire management, and other forestry practices. 7. Develop strategies and methods to markedly increase the application of prescribed fire as a fundamental tool for forestry management and long-term ecosystem health. 8. Continue to collect seed stocks from locally successful timber stands and other desired and vulnerable tree or plant species (such as white bark pine or traditional foods and medicines) Evaluate collection strategies that will facilitate stand persistence or migration as needed due to climate change 9. Continue to build capacity and partnerships across jurisdictional boundaries to monitor and respond to climate changes and vulnerabilities in forested lands S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 23 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 24 WATER AN D WETLANDS Introduction Water is the very fabric of life for the Yakama Nation. Its importance cannot be overstated. Water is central to our religion, our culture, and our heritage, and it is essential to our health and our economy. The snow and the rain feed our streams and wetlands, which quench our thirst and sustain our fish, wildlife, foods, and medicines Water is all things to all that are living and all yet to be born. Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability Over the next 10 to 20 years and beyond, we could see many important changes to our water resources as a result of climate change Increasing temperatures, reduced snowpack, and earliersnowmeltwillelevate peakstreamflows in the late winter months while leaving many of our rivers shallow and warm in the summer months. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show anticipated changes in streamflow in the Yakima and Columbia rivers, respectively Manyvaluable wetlands and smaller streams may be dry in the months when water is needed most Low flows can put stress on salmon and increase the concentration of contaminates—from agrochemicals, wastewater, pollutants, and other runoff—in rivers and streams Wetland plants and animals are particularly sensitive to small, permanent changes in conditions because they are located in a transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial environments [14] As the climate changes, higher temperatures can lead to drying that reduces wetland size [15]. Shallow seasonal ponds, bogs, and fens that provide breeding grounds for amphibians and other animals may shrink or disappear [16] On the rangelands, the precious water remaining in streams and wetlands will be a magnet to unmanaged livestock, causing increasing abuse offragile aquatic and riparian ecosystems through overgrazing of the plants and trampling of the stream banks and wetlands Continued reductions in watersupply are likely, which will continue to cause competition for water between municipalities and agricultural interests. These issues are complicated by the ever-increasing populations and demands throughout the territories of the Yakama Nation Today, there are water shortages in the Yakima Basin in approximately 14 percent of years Towards the end of this century, we can expect that there will be water shortages for many irrigators in 43 to 68 percent of years if we don't change our management practices or take adaptive measures [1]. Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff Meanwhile, higher winter flows could produce more severe flooding in lower areas and a persistent challenge to infrastructure associated with our communities and transportation systems (e.g., roads, bridges, and culverts). Landslides may become more frequent and cause road closures, higher maintenance costs, and disrupted access in steep and vulnerable areas Heavier flows can also increase erosion and sedimentation Still, we must remember that climate change impacts are not the onlypressures onour naturalresources Since the time of our Treaty, there have been many changes. Land management practices, irrigation facilities and reservoirs, hydropower developments, and flood control measures have completely altered natural streamflow patterns well beyond what might be expected from climate change For example • The proliferation of roads in our forested areas has accelerated surface water movement on the road surface, intercepting and concentrating sub -surface flows, picking up sediments and pollutants, and carrying all quickly into the stream • Irrigation has dewatered some streams to the point of drying them entirely. Many other streams subject to irrigation diversions may someday be too low and too warm to sustain healthy populations of cool -water species. • Roads, railroads, and flood control dikes isolate overflowing streams from their floodplains. This not only accelerates runoff timing, but also reduces the ability for flooding rivers to recharge our dwindling aquifers. • Large reservoirs have long since been developed in the headwaters of the Yakima, Naches, and Tieton rivers, significantly changing natural flow patterns and severely damaging our natural resou rces CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Yakima Basin Hrstoncal AtB 2020s AIB 2040s AIB 2000s k / o • Oclober • • I `- �• •0f-- —J •• •1 • • 1 •• • ,1 April September OCI n0Y dIc r fib Ilt v u,. Sr NI Aly 'NO Naruratized flows jwifha,a the influerlei Figure 4. Anticipated changes in Yakima Basin streamflow timing and volumes in the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s [17]. it x 7 _ flew lit 2050's / i / — purila.d pwlrt llow Ott N0. iK An Ftb M6 v. Wh' l.n 1.1 h.g ..Q Figure 5. Changes in streamflow expected in the Columbia River Basin by the 2050s [18] In sum, land and water practices throughout our territories continue to alter water runoff f patterns and in turn affect natural biological and ecological cycles. Unfortunately, climate change will add to these concerns. Existing programs that contribute to resilience The Yakama Nation is already taking actions that help to conserve water and manage floods. These activities will be increasingly important in light of anticipated changes in the climate Relevant activities include • Buying floodplain and, moving dikes, and removing infrastructure from flood zones. • Working to minimize water losses along primary stretches of the Wapato Irrigation Project and setting up measurement mechanisms at delivery points to better understand usage (Yakima Tributary Access and Restoration Program). • Implementing an aquifer recharge effort on Agency Creek and Toppenish Creek, new as of 2014 If successful, this could be considered for replication elsewhere In the past couple of years, the Tribe has also been trying to raise watertables in the alluvial fan S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 25 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 26 • Undertaking drought contingency planning, including the use of drought decision -support tools • Implementing water conservation practices such as drip irrigation and reuse; this is being done by some of the farmers on Yakama Nation lands. The Tribe is also planning for irrigation upgrades and seeking funding for implementation. • Working in the tributaries to restore river -floodplain interactions and surface water -groundwater interactions. The Fisheries and Wildlife Programs turned a gullied flashy tributary into wetlands and beaver complexes. • Improving species diversity and hydrologic resilience through meadow restoration efforts, such as the recent Lincoln, Renchler, and Starvation projects • Making a commitment to put about 100 cubic feet per second of conserved water into the river, following 1994 enhancement legislation that established the Basin Conservation Program This will help nudge summer flows a bit higher, helping to offset the drops that could occur as a result of climate change • Pursuing a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to manage water in agricultural areas, in collaboration with the Water Resources, Fisheries, and Engineering programs. One outcome has been the Toppenish Creek Corridor Plan. • Noting climate change as an issue for consideration within the 2011 Water Resource Management Plan. • Working with Yakima County to manage the mainstem of rivers as they relate to floods The County puts together comprehensive flood zone management plans, climate change should be more explicitly integrated into those plans in the next update In addition, there is a Yakama Nation project to restore wetlands and riparian habitats along floodplains and streams in agricultural lands, which has received financial support from the Bonneville Power Administration [19] Plans laid out two decades ago include a goal to protect, restore, and manage 27,000 acres offloodplain lands along the Yakima River and Satus and Toppenish Creeks by purchasing large pieces of and and their water rights and establishing natural vegetation Between 1,000 and 3,000 acres have been secured annually Ongoing monitoring of vegetation and hydrology at these locations may help to provide early indications of climate change impacts and inform a discussion about management practices that may need to be adjusted Potential actions and information needs To support the continued reliable su pply of water resources for a variety of uses throughout the territories of the Yakama Nation, the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided Additional items may be included during the Phase 2 analysis as new information becomes available. RESEARCH AND MONITORING 1. Continue to inventory, identify, and prioritize stream reaches, floodplains, riparian areas, and wetlands for protection and for restoration in collaboration with fisheries and wildlife experts. Take into account areas that are expected to be particularly resilient or particularlyvulnerable in the context of a changing climate. 2. Continue to inventory, identify, and prioritize areas where aquifer recharge is feasible and effective. 3. Evaluate the need to modify existing integrated water resource management plans or develop new plans for each sub -basin, and incorporate climate change considerations into those plans CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION 4. Develop or work to improve existing models to help managers better anticipate, and where appropriate, control instream flows to protect and enhance beneficial uses 5. Improve understanding of water use and conservation potential by encouraging and incentivizing the use of meters. MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Work with the State of Washington, the U.S. Forest Service, and other appropriate entities to evaluate the need and establish priorities for removing roads which disrupt riparian and floodplain function or intercept precipitation and ground water and accelerate its movement into stream systems 2. Identify and prioritize transportation infrastructure where improvements are needed in light of climate change projections, such as enlarging road crossings. 3. Work with the State of Washington and the U.S. Forest Service to identify and implement forestry practices that would improve water -holding capacity within the watersheds, help maintain water quality, and reduce stream temperatures. 4. Prioritize and develop livestock water sources away from riparian, wetland, and other vulnerable and important areas. 5. Identify and encourage water conservation measures in residences and towns in collaboration with the public and local municipalities Water conservation measures may include, but are not limited to, promoting water reuse, converting existing landscaping, and establishing policies to encourage or require native and/or drought -tolerant landscaping, including replacing lawns 6. Increase coordination within the communities to understand the extent of exempt and emergency wells and their impact on flows. Promote tying such wells to mandatory conservation. Make use of the strategies and collaboration mechanisms in the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan; potentially expand the Plan to make sure climate change impacts are being considered. Continue to explore opportunities for increasing irrigation efficiency and returning diverted water back into stream channels during critical flow periods Look at the Wapato Irrigation Project and the Rosa Project, for example, as places that may have the largest difference in temperature between withdrawal and returns 9. Work with the public and local municipalities to identify additional actions to promote conservation of water resources in our cities and homes Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 27 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 28 FISHERIES Introduction Salmon are perhaps the most important of our First Foods. According to our creation story, the salmon was the first to agree to care for the Indian people The First Foods nourish us, and we must protect them and the habitats that support them We therefore have a reciprocal relationship with salmon The salmon's spirit has not changed over the years; what has changed is the environment that once sustained that powerful spirit. When we think about salmon in our cultural context, we think of a broad category of important species that includes steelhead, lamprey, freshwater mussels, trout, and other fish. We understand that bringing back our salmon, lamprey, and other fish important to the Yakama Nation will require us to restore a variety of important habitats that they need, this has become a high priority Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability StreamflowsthroughouttheterritoriesoftheYakamaNationarefughlydependentuponwintersnowpack. As temperatures warm and these mountain systems become more rain -dominated, late summer flows are expected to decrease rapidly, as we have witnessed in recent drought years Low f[ow conditions through summer and autumn will severely reduce and impair critical fish habitat. Low flows can also bring water temperatures to dangerous, if not lethal, levels Figure 6, from the Yakima Basin Storage Alliance, shows that the Lower Yakima is one of 16 basins that already has a critical water shortage for fish and that climate change is expected to have a severe impact on summer low flows by 2040. By the 2080s, 19 percent more stream locations in eastern Washington are projected to experience weekly summer stream temperatures stressful to adult salmon (in excess of67° F) [1] In the same timeframe, the duration of summertime stream temperatures that cause thermal stress and migration barriers to salmon is projected to at least double for many areas in eastern Washington and along the lower Columbia River [1] 22 60 58 53 N 2 59 Lowe-555ienc 54 I medic 599599 42 57 I 55 , 41 43 56 –7-121 z'` E:Cua[zel Coulee J�y/.: Lower 5" 33' J-32 Walla was Miles 0 12 5 25 50 75 100 ▪ Low impact on summer lowflows ▪ Significant impact on summer low Flows Severe impact on summer law flows OSgnifes one of the16 critical basins (basins with a current shortage of water for fish) Figure 6.2040 projected climate change impact on summer flows, by Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) [20]. For fish, direct consequences of these conditions include thermal stress, increased pre -spawning mortality, loss of egg and miff viability, and increased susceptibility to disease and parasites We will likely also observe changes in migration and life history patterns, increased competition for space and food with warm -water species such as bass and Northern Pikeminnow, and alterations in aquatic food webs An example of altering migration patterns is that sockeye migrations are happening earlier; the median passage date is advancing at a rate of 1.5 days per decade [21] Sockeye that come in later, when temperatures are warmer, return less successfully [22] It remains to be seen whether the fish can keep shifting their migration timing to adapt or whether they will eventually reach a point where they can no longer do so Earlier migration also means the sockeye spend less time in the ocean, leading to lower fat reserves CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Courtesy of Tom Ring With changes in river runoff patterns, we anticipate there will be increasing winter and spring floods that can reduce survival of fragile eggs, larvae, and very young age classes More frequent flooding may impact already -degraded fish habitat and destabilize channels Without healthy riverine and floodplain function, we can also expect a reduction in recharge to our important aquifers and wetlands. Increasingwildfire risk is also likely to lead to greater inputs of sediments into adjacent streams These sediments can smother eggs and aquatic foods important for overall stream ecology and fish abundance. Existing programs that contribute to resilience The Yakama Nation Fisheries Program and its partners have been working very hard throughout much of our territories towards fish recovery and stream restoration. These include activities to help salmon and other fish thrive despite stressors like physical obstructions and irrigation diversions. Considerable investments have been made in the Upper Columbia, the Yakima, and the mid -Columbia regions, not only in development of our hatcheries to support recovery ofsalmon and lamprey, but also in substantial and large-scale restoration actions that focus on holistic measures to protect and restore fish habitats and ecosystem function. Habitat restoration and salmon recovery actions are also occurring in the Lewis and Cowlitz sub -basins, consistent with the goals of the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Board and under the purview of hydropowersettlement and relicensing agreements. The Yakama Nation is an active participant in many regional forums working to ensure fish passage throughout the territories, whether it be through Columbia River hydroelectric dams, irrigation facilities, or culverts in smaller headwater tributaries. Examples of ongoing efforts include • Changing adult collection sites and release locations to corder water sources when temperatu res rise. • Keeping streams cool with shaded riparian zones • Improving fish passage atculverts and in the main stem of the Yakima • Piloting the innovative Whooshh system, which can help to enhance fish passage around barriers. • Collaborating with the Kittitas Reclamation District to get more water back into tributaries. S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 29 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 30 As the climate changes, we will need to expand these strategies and evaluate the need to implement new actions to help fish thrive. Potential actions and information needs To continue efforts to increase the climate resilience offish and acquatic resources throughout the territories of the Yakama Nation, the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided Additional items may be included during the Phase 2 analysis as new information becomes available. RESEARCH AND MONITORING 1. Use existing or new models to get more information on forecasted stream temperatures and changing hydrologic regimes in order to better understand potential climate change impacts to fishery resources. Critical impacts may include, but are not limited to, changes in life history patterns and overall productivity. 2. Develop a long-term integrated monitoring, evaluation, and reporting program—that clearly identifies the intended function and staffing requirements—in order to track the status and trends of fish, fish habitat, and hydrologic resources. 3. Identify seasonal refugia and fish use of those thermal refugia, in order to prioritize conservation efforts. MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Continue to evaluate—and adjust, as necessary—practices at hatcheries to manage fish stocks for increased resilience in the context of anticipated climate change impacts For example, change adult collection sites and release locations to colder water sources as needed, takejuveniles to facilities in cooler locations, vary release dates relative to streamflows, and develop guidance for hatchery facility managers that takes into account anticipated climate variability and change 2. Evaluate the need to increase restoration efforts in critical stream, side channel, riparian, and floodplain areas. Identify critical areas where restoration should be prioritized and summarize the types of actions most needed to maintain or reduce stream temperatures, return flow patterns to more normative conditions, improve the quality and quantity of both spawning and rearing habitats, and regain riverine function and resilience. 3. Continue to evaluate opportunities and means for improving irrigation efficiency and returning diverted water back into stream channels during critical flow periods. 4. Continue to develop management actions to control the abundance of excessive predators, non-native fish, or other aquatic organisms or aquatic plant species that thrive in warmer waters. Evaluate the feasibility and use of flow management at critical life stages as a potential new management tool 5. Identify opportunities for reallocation and redistribution of water in critical basins through water transfers, water transactions, water markets, and water banks, with the goal of increasingstreamflow to benefit fisheries and riparian habitats 6. Evaluate the potential to purchase water rights to be used exclusively for fishery benefits. 7. Continue to evaluate the use of the Whooshh System to facilitate fish passage, including around warm stream stretches. 0. Aggressively seek funding for restoration actions that focus on holistic measures to protect and restore fish habitats and ecosystem function CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION SHRUB -STEPPE AND RANGELANDS Introduction The shrub -steppe is a dominant and important landscape. It is also a key component of our culture, providing essential foods and medicines to the Yakama people The shrub -steppe is found throughout the eastern extent of the Yakama Nation territories, from the eastern foothills of the Cascade Mountains to the Columbia River and continuing up to the intensively cultivated lands of the Columbia plateau. Shrub -steppe vegetation types cover over 1.8 million acres in this region and contain unique ecological communities in riparian areas, wetlands, sand dunes, and other micro - environments [23] This landscape contains a variety of vegetative communities consisting of plants such as Wyoming big sagebrush, bitterbrush, currant, and serviceberry. The primary bunchgrasses include bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue The soils tend to be shallow, some areas are grasslands historically maintained by fire Stiff sagebrush and shrubby buckwheats are found together with Sandberg bluegrass These lands of sage and grass support rare shrub -steppe plants and wildlife, including 30 wildlife species identified as priorities for conservation by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and 47 species of rare plants [23] [24] Important rivers and streams flow through these lands, including the Methow, Entiat, Wenatchee, and Yakima Rivers, the Crab, Satus, Toppenish, and Rock Creeks; and many others. Typical climate in the shrub -steppe is relatively cold in the winter, with long periods of hot, dry days in the summer Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability Even in the absence of climate change, our shrub - steppe and rangelands have been subject to many pressures Because of the natural abundance of many grasses throughout the shrub -steppe, European settlers used these lands extensively for cattle, then later for sheep grazing Cultivation for agriculture followed where it was practical. Throughout the entire period of these developments, numerous non-native species were introduced and have since flourished As a result, these fragile plant and animal communities have changed drastically over the past 150 years Today, most of these lands continue to be used for agricultural purposes, with few large, connected areas left to persist in a naturalorsemi-naturalstate Courtesy ofJoel Geffen On our own reservation, our rangelands have been and continue to be substantially altered by the overabundance of feral horses and, in some cases, the mismanagement of cattle The 2015 horse census estimated that close to 10,000 horses roam freely about the reservation with little management Their grazing habits favor the production of cheatgrass at the expense of native grasses. Due to their numbers, they compete with and deplete the abundance of food for many of our wildlife species, such as sage grouse, deer, antelope, rabbits, and many others Cattle and horses that dwell in sensitive riparian areas trample stream banks, which in turn accelerates erosion and disturbs many areas where we find our cultural foods and medicines. S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 31 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 32 Frequent large wildfires are removing large areas of sagebrush Historically, natural fire occurred in these communities once every 30-100 years [25]. Today, cheatgrass and other invasive plants provide fuel for more frequent large fires Most of these fires are human -caused, occurring near roads, military training ranges, and residential developments located nearwildlands. We have a limited understanding of how climate change may affect the shrub -steppe and the rangelands, but we know that it will add to the other stresses already mentioned In general, we can expect that there will be a change in species composition, distribution, and abundance; changes in habitatsuitability and invasive species, and an increased frequency of disturbance (such as fire or disease) [26] However, we lack a clear understanding of how specific changes will be reflected on our landscape. CourtesyofJonalee Squeochs It is possible that climate change impacts on our rangelands will be minimal. Many of the vegetative species may already be well -adapted for the warmer, drier conditions expected in the future Climate change may actually benefit our rangelands in some ways Increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, may be favorable for many of the key species Rangelands at higher elevations may also find an advantage with higher temperatures because it gives them a longer growing season. But, these future conditions are unknown, and there is much to learn and prepare for Existing programs that contribute to resilience The Yakama Nation has36 range units, covering 900,000 acres of which approximately 400,000 are in open rangeland or shrub -steppe. The remainder is in forest [27]. The Range Program administers grazing permits and manages livestock in order to help preserve rangeland so that it can continue to provide a number of different services and values. For example, we are working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to decide how many cattle to permit About once every ten years, the BIA also updates the grazing regulations. The Yakama Nation continues to undertake efforts to manage the over -populated wild horses. Effectively managing cattle and horse impacts on rangelands can help make those lands more resilient to other pressures, like climate change The Yakama Nation is also engaged in shrub -steppe restoration, seeding native grasses, using herbicides to control cheatgrass, and planting native shrubs like sagebrush Effective management of non -climate stresses on the rangelands can leave them in a healthier condition to cope with emerging climate change stresses, although adaptation efforts to specifically manage climate change impacts may also be necessary. CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Potential actions and information needs To maintain the largest contiguous area of sagebrush country left in the state of Washington and support the development of the Climate Adaptation Plan, particularly on the reservation lands of the Yakama Nation, the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided Additional items may be included during the Phase 2 analysis as new information becomes available. RESEARCH AND MONITORING 1. Study how vegetation patterns in our region might change over time, drawing conclusions about how these changes may impact important non-native species and wildlife abundance and distribution. Use these findings to adjust rangeland management practices. 2. Develop a long-term integrated monitoring, evaluation, and reporting program to track the status and trends of important vegetative species and communities and inform management decisions As this program is developed, the function and staffing requirements should be made clear MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Accelerate the implementation of the Horse Management Plan to enhance environmental benefits and long- term resilience to climate change for severely depressed native species and plant communities throughout the areas where wild horses persist 2. Update and implement the 2009 Integrated Weed Management Plan to account for potential changes or increases in invasive species due to climate change impacts 3. Revise grazing policies, including timing and allotments, to increase the resilience of native sagebrush -grass and similar ecosystems. 4. Accelerate implementation of known rangeland best management practices such as preventing livestock from unplanned entry into riparian, wetland, and natural spring sites; providing designated water sources in uplands and othersuitable areas; and increasing protection measures and enhancements that will increase climate resilience. 5. Evaluate and identify areas where shrub -steppe communities are relatively healthy and warrant special protection and areas that should be prioritized for restoration Recommend general protection and restoration strategies and specific actions that could be employed, these could include the complete removal of livestock and horses from key sites 6. Consider designing a native plant nursery and seed bank to support long-term restoration efforts Identify focal species such as grasses, berries, and roots that are important for ecosystem health as well as sources of cultural foods and medicines 7. In restoration projects, emphasize the use of plant species that will be robust in the face of climate change. 8. Identify appropriate public outreach approaches and related materials to inform stakeholders of the rationale behind improved rangeland management practices that account for future climate change. 9. Develop appropriate materials to inform the tribal community and tribal leadership of the vulnerabilities of tribal rangeland and natural resources, climate change risks, and potential consequences of management decisions S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 33 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 34 WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION Introduction The territories of the Yakama Nation have a rich variety of ecosystems and a diversity of plant and wildlife communities. All native species are important to theYakama people and central to our religion, culture, and heritage. Although theYakama people are considered a salmon tribe, honoring both salmon and water, the Yakamas also value roots, berries, and deer as "First Foods" which are celebrated at the beginning of their respective seasons. Through the passing seasons of each year, our people move about the landscape, following the availability of these and other foods and medicines and using the various plants and animals for traditional clothing, tools, artistic works, and many other things essential to our culture. In addition, some animals and plants are important for economic reasons and/ or indicators of ecosystem health. Table 3. A sample of the plants and animals important to the Yakama Nation 11 of our native plant and animal species are culturally important. e need to watch and manage carefully for our important foods nd for the wildlife that has traditionally lived on these lands. At the orkshops, tribal program managers mentioned the following plants nd animals as particularly important: Huckleberries Currants Chokecherries Service berries Roots Quail Pheasant Eagles Hawks Sage sparrow Sage thrasher Cottonwood White Headed Woodpecker Deer Elk Bear Wolves Bats Coyote Mink Otter Antelope Bullfrog Tail frog Domesticated Ungulates Within the realm of our natural resources, everything is connected. The spring sun warms the and, insects appear, and the swallows return The osprey return from their winter homes, which coincides with the migrations of the fish. With the melting snow, deer and elk return to the cover of the forest and the fresh grasses and shrubs of the meadows. Essentially, all wildlife are connected to the vegetation of the riparian and wetland areas, theshrub- steppe, the forests, and the alpine areas As such, management of our vegetation communities is essential to management of our wildlife. CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability Past and ongoing management practices, coupled with the changing climate, present an ever-growing threat to our way of life Climate change impacts on wildlife and vegetation include potential loss of habitats, shifts in species ranges and diversity, invasive species, impacts on the food web and on our First Foods, and increased fire risk. We continue to work to restore and manage our lands to increase resilience, yet our approach may need to be modified in the face of future climate conditions The projected consequences of climate change are likely to magnify the existing primary threats to our ecosystems. All of these impacts can contribute to the slow decay of traditional Yakama culture In fragmented landscapes, climate change is altering habitat composition and the timing of plant development cycles Areas suitable for many plant communities are expected to decline in the future It is possible that a variety of plant and animal species will not be able to keep up with the climate and geographic shifts in these ecosystems Local declines or extirpations of wildlife and the loss of migration corridors and connectivity between summer and winter habitats may become increasingly severe Ecosystems and places that may be particurarlyvulnerable include: • Riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains essential for aquatic wildlife, waterfowl, other birds, beavers, otters, mink, and raccoons • Shrub -steppe communities that are home to numerous species, including sage- and sharp -tailed grouse, pronghorn, wintering elk and deer, and those that provide important foods and medicine. • Mountain meadows that are important for water storage, camas, beaver, and ungulates. • Forests communities, which harbor huckleberries, roots, oaks, western graysquirrels, spotted owls, fisher, bear, deer, elk, songbirds, and many other species • Alpine and subalpine ecosystems and headwaters that are important for water storage and home to local populations of whitebark pine, Clark's nutcracker, mountain goats, pikas, wolverines, ptarmigans, lynx, and the American marten Although some animals like deer and elk seem to be more resilient and survive across many landscapes, from rangelands to fringe and forest, they may see changes in their critical habitats (including wintering areas) driven by the expansion of invasives such as cheatgrass A resulting decrease in native forage may increase competition and lead to diminished populations. Animals may turn to less suitable forage such as riparian trees and shrubs, which may then be affected by overgrazing We have already observed earlier budding and flowering of plants and are concerned about potential impacts to migrating species, which depend upon the timing of these cycles Changes in plant calendars also affect the timing of our feasts, which have occurred earlier over the years Berries ripen quickly and die out faster than in the past, which affects not only our ability to gather, but also the broader food web. For example, if bears have less food available to them, they will be less able to store adequate fat for overwinter hibernation Our tradition has always been to periodically, yet routinely, use fire as a tool to protect the forest and refresh the many vegetative communities contained therein Now, for too many years fires have been suppressed, S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 35 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 36 which disrupts the natural cycles Fuels loads are too high, and summers are becoming unusually hot and dry Uncontrolled wildfire is now becoming too common, threatening the plant communities upon which many of our precious wildlife species depend. Meanwhile, we are also seeing increasing outbreaks of forest disease and bug infestations Existing programs that contribute to resilience The Yakama Nation has taken great steps towards holistic management approaches that are consistent with our heritage and cultural interests. This is demonstrated through our management plans as well as through our fish, wildlife, law and order, and other codes protecting these resources Progress has been made towards management of our riparian areas and controlling invasions of Russian olive. Restoration activities have restored thousands of acres of riparian and shrub -steppe habitats and have reconnected dozens of miles of anadromous streams to their floodplains and surrounding wetlands Integration of multiple resource interests continues to improve within our forestry practices. Ourwildlife program is re -introducing sage grouse and pronghorn, managing elk and deer, and monitoring migratorywaterfowl, horses, and bighorn sheep. Our ability to inventory and learn about the status and trends concerning our resources continues to improve Additional initiatives that the Yakama Nation Wildlife, Range, and Vegetation Resources Management Program is undertaking that are already contributing directly or indirectly to climate resilience (or that could be modified or expanded to help build climate resilience) include: • Conducting a meadow assessment to evaluatestressors and their impacts on meadow condition and continuing ongoing efforts to remove invasive trees Sporadic funding for this program has made itdifficultto ensure its robustness • Adjusting the terms of agricu[tu raF leases to include clauses that protectwildlife habitat • Managing riparian and wetland habitats with an eye to protecting local waterfowl and otherwetland creatures like beaver, otter, and mink. Climate change projections could be considered more explicitly within this project to ensure an understanding of how climate change could present additional risks to key species and their habitats. • Purchasing farm properties from willing landowners in order to convert agricultural and in riparian areas back into native habitat and shifting farmland to non -riparian zones. Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff • Protecting habitats and biodiversity bytackling invasive plant species through an Integrated Weed Management Plan for the Yakama Reservation and a Priority Invasive Plant List Key plants on this list include the scotch thistle, Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife, yellow starthistle, and Russian olive If we can better understand how climate change could intensify or counteract the spread of these and other invasive plants, it would help us optimize our management decisions The impacts of some invasive species—such as the Russian olive, which puts pressure on water reserves—may also be exacerbated by climate change impacts that affect water and other resource availability [28] • Assisting Tribal members in the rowervalley—White Swan, Wapato, and Toppenish—through the Nuisance Animal Management Program For example, the program can trap bears and release them farther away from populated areas [29] The program may need to be expanded if climate change impacts at other elevations and in primary habitats drive large mammals to make more inroads into human communities CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION These efforts are critical but will likely not be enough over time. We will need to continue integrating climate adaptation into all of our ongoing and future planning and implementation efforts. Potential actions and information needs To support the development of the Climate Adaptation Plan throughout the territories of the Yakama Nation (Planning Area) the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided RESEARCH AND MONITORING 1. Gather more detailed information to understand climate vulnerabilities and risks to native species and develop recommendations to address these issues In particular, consolidate and summarize the status and trend of the Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species found within the Territories and partner with agencies and universities on research to better understand how climate change will exacerbate threats to these species Develop an inventory and monitoring plan to continue tracking the range, distribution, and viability of important species in the context of a changing climate 3. Seek to better understand habitat connectivity needs in the context of climate change. Analyze the relationship between culturally important wild life "indicator species" and the associated vegetative characteristics on which they depend throughout the annual cycle. Relate this analysis to future climate change projections with an emphasis on understanding connectivity of various habitats through migration corridors and the overall projected ecological health of these communities. At a minimum, this analysisshouldconsider the followingvegetation- types: alpine/subalpine, mixed pine and fir dominant forests, shrub -steppe, prairie/rangelands and agricultural/ irrigated lands. 4. Monitor predators (e.g., bears and cougars) and develop a safety awareness campaign related to large predator interactions with communities, as they may interact more with human populations as development continues and their habitats are affected by climate change. MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 1. Protect and enhance priority floodplains and riparian areas that provide habitat for riparian -dependent species and important foods and medicines that could be adversely impacted by climate change. 2. Use beaver to help restore riparian habitat. Recognize the importance of beavers as a keystone species to the stream and riparian ecosystems and one that can help with water storage in the context of a changing climate and changing hydrology. Develop a comprehensive plan thatwill re -introduce, enhance, and maintain beaver populations on the reservation lands. Identify places throughout the Planning Area where these pilot efforts should be expanded. 3. Consider operating plant nurseries and seed banks that can support reseeding and reforestation efforts in response to future wildfires, ecosystem restoration actions, and other climate adaptation strategies Collect seeds of native plants and plants that are expected to be resilient to the future climate 4. Continue to work to address the issues associated with uncontrolled wild horse populations on the reservation lands, as these are an additional stressor that interacts with climate change pressures on vegetation and habitat 5. Incorporate climate change considerations into management plans for protecting sensitive and vulnerable species. 6. Continue to pursue efforts to implement a substantially increased controlled burn program in priority areas. 7. Evaluate long-term funding needs to staff and appropriately fund wildlife activities associated with climate change S1D21f1OS121 1V1N]WNO21VW3 37 CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 38 TOXICS Introduction Throughout the Columbia Basin, oursoil, ground water, and streams are contaminated from toxic chemicals. Some of these chemicals are naturally occurring but many were manufactured for use in industry, agriculture, and personal care Certain contaminants, such as PCBs, PBDEs, DDT, and mercury are found atelevated concentrations in many locations and are known to produce adverse effects on fish, wildlife, and humans. Negative effects of contaminants on reproduction, behavior, the immune system and other aspects of the biology of our fish and wildlife resources within the Columbia River Basin have been documented although not widely studied. Anticipated climate impacts and vulnerability There is a growing body of knowledge that climate change will have broad negative impacts on both the distribution and the toxicity of contaminants. Exposure to climate -related stress is likely to make fish and other organisms more sensitive to toxic contaminants, and exposure to contaminants is likelyto make organisms more vulnerable to changes in climatic conditions. Rising temperatures, more intense storms, and droughts are changing the way contaminants interact with the environment, and this may have serious consequences for ecosystems and organisms Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff The effects of climate change may also lead to an increased use of toxic chemicals in agricultural areas of the Columbia Basin Researchers have observed that, as air temperatures increase and winter temperatures become more mild, there may be related increases of agricultural pests such as insects, weeds, and fungi. As a result, growers may need to use more pesticides to respond to these pests With more intense storms and flooding, there will be greater runoff and erosion, increasing the input ofsediment- or soil -bound contaminants such as pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) into water bodies Moreover, increases in the intensity and frequency of storm events linked to climate change could lead to more severe episodes of chemical contamination of water bodies and surrounding watersheds Scientists predict increased fire activity as a result of increased drought. Fire damage from fire at locations where harmful chemicals are located could result in toxic chemicals leaching into the local environment through the air and soil CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR THE TERRITORIES OF THE YAKAMA NATION Potential actions and information needs To support the development of the Climate Adaptation Plan throughout the territories of the Yakama Nation (Planning Area), the Tribal Council directs that the following actions be evaluated and that recommendations for future actions be provided RESEARCH AND MONITORING 1. Identify cleanup sites and areas of toxic contamination where changes in surface and groundwater flow due to climate change (e g larger floods, erosion, fire) will result in new or greater releases of toxic substances to the environment 2. Identify problems that might occur in reservoir forebays with respect to toxics (e g , mobilization of contaminated sediments deposited behind dams and of industry contaminants located along those river reaches) MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION J.. Develop an education and outreach strategy focuse on the ongoing and potentia[ effects of increased exposure to toxic materials on the community and natural resources due to climate change. 2. Educate people about known contamination issues to prevent unintended consequences associated with land use conversion and climate change impacts. 3. Coordinate with local and regional toxics cleanup regulators to update climate change adaptation planning and implementation guidance 4. Partner with agricultural extension offices to encourage sustainable farming practices that are aligned with future climate conditions to prevent the overuse of pesticides and fertilizer Courtesy of Yakama Nation staff 39 Appendix 1: Key Terms APPENDICES 40 The following definitions are primarily derived from the EPA Glossary of Climate Terms, the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Glossary, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service TEK Fact Sheet (2011), Preparing for Climate Change A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments [31], and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Climate Adaptation Plan. Adaptation: Actions in response to actual or expected climate change and its effects, that lessen harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. It includes reducing the vulnerability of people, places, and ecosystems to the impacts of climate change Climate: The average pattern for weather over a period of months, years, decades, or longer in a specific place Climate change: Any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period of time (decades or longer). Climate change may result from natural factors and processes and from human activities that change the atmosphere's composition and and surface. Climate -resilient community: A community that takes proactive steps to prepare for (i.e., reduce the vulnerabilities and risks associated with) climate change impacts Exposure: The nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant climate variations Greenhouse gas (GHG): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere, examples include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Measure of resilience: A quantitative or qualitativejudgment that you make and track over time to determine how well your actions meet the preparedness goals you have set Peak streamflow: The maximum instantaneous discharge of a stream or river at a given location. Planning areas: The areas in which a government or community manages, plans, or makes policy affecting the services and activities associated with built, natural, and human systems. Planning areas can be as broad or as specific as necessary Preparedness action: The activity or activities that your government or community undertakes to achieve its preparedness goals Preparedness goal: What you want to accomplish in your priority planning areas through preparedness action. Priority planning areas: The planning areas which your community or government determines to be most important for focusing your preparedness efforts, based on your community's vulnerabilities to climate change and associated risks Projection: A potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Projections are different from predictions in that projections involve assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realized. Resilience: The ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, including through ensuring the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions Sensitivity: The degree to which a built, natural, or human system is directly or indirectly affected by changes in climate conditions (e.g., temperature and precipitation) or specific climate change impacts (e.g., sea level rise, increased water temperature) If systems in a planning area are likely to be affected as a result of projected climate change, then that system should be considered sensitive to climate change For instance, a community of coldwater fish at the southern edge of its range is highly sensitive to changes in climate, because even a slight warming may make its habitat unsuitable In turn, regional economies based on fisheries solely targeting those fish would also be highly sensitive to changes in climate Systems: The built, natural, and human networks that provide important services or activities within a community or region. Built systems are networks offacilities, buildings, and transportation infrastructure like roads and bridges. Natural systems are ecological networks of fish, wildlife, and natural resources like water Human systems are networks of public health clinics, courts, and government Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK): The evolving knowledge acquired by indigenous and local peoples over hundreds or thousands of years through direct contact with the environment. This knowledge is specific to a location and includes the relationships between plants, animals, natural phenomena, landscapes, and timing of events that are used for lifeways, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, trapping, agriculture, and forestry. Vulnerability: The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. It is a function of the sensitivity of a particular system to climate changes, its exposure to those changes, and its capacity to adapt to those changes Weather: The atmospheric conditions at a specific place at a specific point in time S]JIGN3ddV 41 Appendix 2: References APPENDICES 42 [1] A K Snover, G S Mauger, L C Whitely Binder, M Krosby and I Tohver, "State of Knowledge Report Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State,' University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, Seattle, 2013. [2] Yakima Herald -Republic and The Associated Press,"High temps add up to Yakima's warmest June on record,' Yakima Herald, 1 July2015. [3] D. Fears, "As salmon vanish in the dry Pacific Northwest, so does Native heritage,' The Washington Post, 30 July 2015 [4] R Courtney, "Hazy days Fires leave local skies a murky mess," Yakima Herald, 2 August 2015 [5] USGS, Climate Change Viewer. [6] Presentation by Dan Isaak, USFS , 2015 [7] H Adelsman and J Ekrem, "Preparing for a Changing Climate Washington State's Integrated Climate Response Strategy,' Washington State Department of Ecology, 2012. [8] J. S. Litten, E. E. Oneil, D. McKenzie, J. A. Hicke, J. A. Lutz, R. A. Norheim and M. M. Elsner, "Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change in Washington State, USA,' Climatic Change, 2010 [9] R. F. Noss, "Beyond Kyoto: Forest Management in a Time of Rapid Climate Change," Conservation Biology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 578-590, 2001. [10] A S Weed, B J Bentz, M P Ayres and T P Holmes, "Geographically Variable Response of Dendroctonus ponderosae to Winter Warming in the Western United States," Landscape Ecology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1075- 1093, 2015. [11] B J Bentz, J Regniere, C J Fettig, E M Hansen, J L Hayes, J A Hicke, R G Kelsey, J F Negron and S J Seybold, "Climate Change and Bark Beetles of the Western United States and Canada Direct and Indirect Effects," BioScience, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 602-613, 2010. [12] C L Raymond, D L Peterson and R M Rochefort, "Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the North Cascades region, Washington,' U S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 2014. [13] Washington Department of Ecology, "Climate Change and the Columbia River Basin," [Online] Available http //www ecy wa gov/programs/wr/cwp/cr_climate html [Accessed 2 February 2016] [14] V. Burkett and J. Kusler, "Climate Change: Potential Impacts and Interactions in Wetlands of the United States," Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol 36, no 2, pp 313-320, 2000 [15] National Wildlife Federation and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, "Climate Change Effects on Freshwater Aquatic and Riparian Habitats in Washington State," National Wildlife Federation and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011. [16] M Ryan, Modeling climate change effects on the hydrology of North Cascades wetland ecosystems, National Park Service. [17] Yakama Nation Wildlife, Range, and Vegetation Resources Management Program, "Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Project,"3 May2011 [Online] Available http//wwwynwildlifeorg/wetlandsmainpage php [Accessed 2 February 2016]. [18] Columbia River Inter -Tribal Fish Commission, "Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit Plan Update,' 2014. [19] Yakima Basin Storage Alliance, "Attempts at Drought Relief in the Yakima Basin,' [Online] Available http /1 ybsa org/ [Accessed 2 February 2016] [20] C. e. al., 2011. [21] K. e. al., 2008. [22] R aVR MP Yakama Nation Wildlife, "Vegetation and Invasive Plant Management," [Online] Available http://www.ynwildlife.org/invasiveplantprogram.php. [Accessed 2 February 2016]. [23] Yakama Nation Wildlife, Range and Vegetation Resources Management Program, "Nuisance Animal Management,' [Online] Available http //wwwynwildlife org/nuisanceanimalprogram php [Accessed 2 February 2016]. [24] A. K. Snover, L. Whitely Binder, J. Lopez, E. Willmott, J. Kay, D. Howell and J. Simmonds, "Preparing for Climate Change A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments," 2007 [25] J Kusler, "Common Questions Wetland, Climate Change, and Carbon Sequestering," Associaion of State Wetland Managers, Inc., and the International Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy, 2006. [26] J W Day, R R Christian, D M Boesch, A Yanez-Arancibia, J Morris, R R Twilley, L Naylor, L Schaffner and C Stevenson, "Consequences of Climate Change on the Ecogeomorphology of Coastal Wetlands,' Estuaries and Coasts, vol. 31, pp. 477-491, 2008. [27] Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Wildlife Federation, "Summary of Climate Change Effects on Major Habitat Types in Washington State,' 2011 S]JIGN3ddV 43 Wea4e comprehensive plan 2040 EHEIEHEI BBEHEI 11 11 2Ue � 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 :i11 BERK STRATEGY �� ANALYSIS �� COMMUNICATIONS I:T 1 FACTS =11! SHANNONE&WILSONsINC. MAKERS architecture • planning • urban design IadLo Te InR2ectmn of Ste Selection &Economic Development `jirranspoGRoup WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BC. Kirkland 1 Seattle 1 Boise 8.8$8 8'8'E8 II II TABLE OF CONTENTS Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II We aye Yakima 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 \II' ease ease 1111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 •• We aye Yakima 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 \II' ease ease 1111 111�i ! •• We aye Yakima 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 \II' ease ease 1111 Illril •• /MN We aye Yakima 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 •• We aye Yakima 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. 9999 ease II II T • • We aye Yakima 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 1'1_1'1' 111 111: I'111/�l"•, "^x' lY I NORTHYAKIMA —11'tt Y'P�LT tyTL }II h tro�il}°r sus 5: ram- ! JL H'HIF Mk+H I I••I , 1:L�••C H-414 'PF I"�i 11 I µcif ,F yIFWh W IF H11 7 r 1 Y Lf�ifl i C�7Gi6iC Nlr ` �•1 1 I, P 11ag�e�' N.t�f'iRr1 r Ii hli mr"�oem�3SI[1 11._-�. iJ� 1 H"IFlnlv�ll� t-�F1+iN' LIs�} L] ustN, omnraz�mmrr 1,'ffl IF;i.EFF. EIF3[i<' - F irii1'i^I iiV 4IS f-TFE N•`"N ��,, Fr II•SIh,E1 E1-7T1'�II•J•i••11:. 1N.. I.7 }FI•••?G111LLfA•I }Fl•r'IIY?� i' FITHFliI•.Nhi• Y ef��} �HI` r 0.Y-`4 `F1'uF 1 1�LN „ ly`7 IFNFI-Ne +I N; �C �r i• r I Source: City of Yakima, 1885 INTRODUCTION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 \II' Hale ease 11 11 T • • /M:k We aye Yakima INTR-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 6 l �l 141n`'_ I1 ca 7 Srn 5 i Ciir airost •.iaoakia& al JfflginiMIIMEnilogilkilirkoVelent i.! 4 2 10 Illiir 1°ei9ion 3r - L_. vi mm y, I ere GIS Ppm 2016 The Council Dldrads shorn an the map are denied ham Ne voting dlmxts established through the Yakima Sourly AudltoYs ofhe. The eetails within Ole districts provlee statlalrul data Mr Ne caundknembers. the general public, and other policy and deddan makers. The Districts are drawn over the City's street system to show coverage and this siotistical data is for informational, and planning or presemadon purposes only. Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016 YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Yakima Council Districts Council District ■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 I■ 4 fi lt� o Yakima City Limits Urban Growth Area A 01 05 1 1 Miles I 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 \II' ease ease 1111 AT • • /M:k We aye Yakima INTR-3 1A Yakima incorporated city limits. Yakima County is planning for the Yakima UGA in consultation with the City of Yakima. Exhibit 1-3. Yakima UGA and City Limits Map 11124. Ti -13 Yakima GS February 2017 Current Urban Growth Area and Yakima City Limit Boundary Source: (City of Yakima, 2017) YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Yakima Urban Growth Area and City Limits Map Yakima City Limits Urban Growth Area N A0 0.5 1 Miles I i i I 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 11111111 Mir ease ease II II • • We aye Yakima INTR-4 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. Percent Hispanic (2010 Census Blocks) < 10% 10.20% ▪ 20 -30% ▪ 30 -40% ▪ 40-50% ▪ 50 -60% ▪ 60.10% x,10% INTRODUCTION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 \II' ease ease 1111 T • • We aye Yakima INTR-5 1A 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, INTRODUCTION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Aged 65 and Older (2014) Yakima 3.7% United States • _3.7% Washington 13.2% 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% Tieton T7% Wapato 7.5% Toppenish 7.1% Moxee 5.3% Granger 3.7% Median Household Income (2011-2015 ACS) $53,889 National $61,062 State \II' ease ease II II T • • We aye Yakima $40,726 City of Yakima INTR-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. (OFM, 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 Jobs 2012-2040 8,556 Population 2015-2040 Eh 28,494 17,167 44,817 10,000 20,000 34,000 40,000 54,000 ■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, \II' ease ease 1111 T • • We aye Yakima INTR-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/ planning/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. \II' 9999 9999 II II T • • )11 We aye Yakima INTRODUCTION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 4111111IMF We • 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 \II' ease ease 1111 T • • We aye Yakima INTR-9 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. INTRODUCTION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 FlourishingYakima EnhanceRecreat i o n He tHUInesses ra �° althy Inclusive Nousingc� • ure Education Infrastructure • Work Designed Mobility_ :nte=Biking. SpaceswFeel Central Life •Dv a rDOWntOWn Diverse Play Community Safe Commercial Railroad CJ Options Connect Services. Prosperity safe CrieJci.id Diverse Encourage River Economy Cultural H ea rt nr,tr Retaining • . Welcomed ulb• er N2WI Well Opportunities Washington Affordable SefV1ng Celebrate rested Walking Agricultural Valley Residential InvestmentsEco n o m I C H istoric Va key Natural Recreation 11 Cccess Serving Quality CitY'Cars� `Dynamic Central. (Heart Public■ r■ Infill Participate Neighborhoods Attracting Region Development Quality People Today and in 2040 we see Yakima as a place that values: ■ Yakima's people — We are inclusive to all people. ❖ 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. \II' 13989 HHHH 11 11 T • • /M:k We aye Yakima 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 \II' ease ease 1111 T • • We aye Yakima INTR-11 A Az 14; • 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 \II' ease ease 11 11 T • • We aye Yakima 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 2 5. Housing 1 6. Transportation 1 7. Capital Facilities 1 8. Utilities 1 9. Parks and Recreation 2 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. Volume II Technical Appendices contains the Capital Facilities Plan. This Plan identifies levels of service and what improvements are needed to support the expected growth accommodated by the Land Use Plan and Element and potential revenue sources. An integrated State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is also part of the Technical Appendices and analyzes the environmental effects of growth alternatives and associated mitigation measures. \II' ease ease 1111 •• )10 We aye Yakima 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. Notes: 1 Required by GMA or other state law. 2 Required when the state provides funding; though funding is not available, these elements help Yakima seek grants. 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 \II' ease ease 1111 T • • IM lo We aye Yakima INTR-14 LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. 2.2 Conditions and Trends Yakima is an urban city with a rural character With a population of 93,410 (2016 OFM), 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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)) ease ease II II •• W e ate 2jaf �una 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf ma LU -3 LU -4 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf ma 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. LAND USE 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). LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. 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. LAND USE 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Exhibit 2-1. Future Land Use Map LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 r -j 828 111,111.111 1 L.. — r id Yakima 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 n e ra I i zed Categ o ries Low Density Residential Mixed Residential ■ Central Business Core Commercial Commercial Mixed Use ■ Regional Commercial . Community Mixed Use ■ Industrial 0 Yakima City Limits [f] Urban Growth Area N A 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles 1 i l l 1 l l l 1 l l l 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 Zoning District Density Residential SR R-1 R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 HB SCC LCC GC CBD M-1 M-2 RD AS Mixed Community Commercial Residential Mixed -Use Mixed -Use X X X X X X X X CBD Commercial Core X Regional Commercial X Industrial X X X The blue shaded boxes denote the implementing zoning district for the applicable land use designation. LAND USE 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. Implementing zoning districts: 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. 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 zoning districts: 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. Implementing zoning districts: B-1, B-2, SCC, HB & R-3 LAND USE 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. Implementing zoning districts: 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. Implementing zoning districts: CBD LAND USE 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 LAND USE 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. Implementing zoning districts: M1, M2, AS LAND USE 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) Standard single family. Continue to allow for detached single family dwellings in residential districts. Small 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 in applicable 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. 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. B. C. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. 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. LAND USE 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 4 r '9k 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 LAND USE 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. Policies 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 • 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 LONG-TERM STRATEGY c i ` r Ill Requi ed Ground -Floor Retail / Build -to -Lines Ciry Center Mixed Use BeeB ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una 4 ilk m 111 Itt A .i. '9' 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 long term 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 O,2..0:OCT CE/,, 17- - f 1 Exhibit 2-3: Fundamental Downtown Master Plan concept O\S.0OCT CEryT r Fourth Avenue IS J f - RADIUS (5MINUrf Wy 447, r CEN Lincoln A MLN Jr Boulevard Iki I; r— t �` r A Walnut Street Spruce Street L v N ui Pine Street 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 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. LAND USE 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Smaller scale lighting fixtures DO THIS 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 Sidewalk: 12' minimum yr eimerni. ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una LU -26 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 development that 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Coordinated development concept example that includes a focal point, a connected circulation system, careful siting of parking areas, and a mix of uses. 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 b Ao▪ c- :0▪ 44 ���� ,111 11111111 Iry=,,%� i'�I� t 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. 1. 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 1 r 'e 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 WSDOT 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Weather protection Roogtne modulation Repeating distinctive window features patterns at intervals less 50' Building modulation tied with change in roofline Recessed entries for each articulation interval / 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 b. Incorporate consideration of physical health and well-being into the location and design of public facilities. design/practice. 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Please see the Natural Environment Element for additional guidance on the natural environment, including 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. Policies 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 Niti 1 �; �v� iie Rho 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 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 GOAL 2.13. PROVIDE ADEQUATE LOCATIONS FOR SITING ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES. Policies 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. LAND USE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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: Aviation Industries Airport Related Uses Open Spaces Other Uses • 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 Terminal operations: uses considered incompatible with Yakima Air Residential Institutional Sanitary Wildlife Other Uses ■ Residential Development > 1 DU/Acre ■ Mobile/Manufactured Home Parks ■ Multi -Family Large Complexes • • • • • • School Church Hospital Outpatient Surgery Centers Nursing Home Day Care Facilities ■ Landfill ■ Sewage Pond ■ Transfer Station ■ Sludge Disposal ■ Water Reservoir ■ Feed Lot ■ Slaughter House ■ Waterfowl Production ■ Wildlife Refuge/Sanctuary ■ Fish Pond ■ Lake/Pond ■ Wetland Pond Sanctuary ■ Convention Centers ■ Sports Stadiums ■ Other Large Assembly Facilities that attract high concentrations of people 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 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 3.1 Introduction 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)) 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 February 11, 2017 ■ Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters: Low Risk Survey Highly Advised: High Risk ■ Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters Moderately Low Rlsk LI Survey Highly Advleed: Vey High Risk El Survey Recommended: Moderate 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Exhibit 3-1. Potentially Eligible Properties r"'iR Kt - i..t f 1 f 1_..� , �...._..� ▪ f_.._.._.._..�.._., c. i.._.. Legend E3Coy louts Modeled values showing ellplbllty potential - In Eligibility findings from previous survey: in • FIRM ]d .k IM W51Eb 152 p.upwlu•l IC MAMA el pies, MrvMual ane poien WM eelrci ca•Inbuior ISe ploperoeel - ID MAW paemel /Warm canlrWutor 1113 woperuetl 2A 2e Base map courtesy of ESRI 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 • 2B: not eligible Source: Artifacts Consulting Inc. 2016 BeeB ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una HP -3 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 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. Policies 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf ma HP -7 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 Implementation Item Action Type Results Historic Preservation Plan Long Range Plan ■ Inventory and best practices Fire Code Regulatory law ■ Rehabilitation ■ 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 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 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. 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)) ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una 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. 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Exhibit 4-1. Yakima Historical Population (1990-2016) 71,845 54,843 91,196 OON CO l OO OO OO Owl Owl Owl OO Owl Owl 0 0 N CO 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 - 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-i 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 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease —ammo— IIu •• We ate 2jaf �una ED -2 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 $79,195 $74,596 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Employment 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 I $65,43 $63,466 $61,322 $58,548 $ 55,294 $53,393 $52,293 $48,959 $47,693 I $47,372 $45,068 $42,049 I $40,502 $40,416 $37,724 $79,195 $74,596 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Employment 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 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 NAILS Industry Sector 2014 Count Share Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Management of Companies and Enterprises Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Other Services (excluding Public Administration) Public Administration Total Source: (US Census Bureau, 2014) 3,817 24 180 993 3,339 1,711 5,009 621 651 938 435 1,281 145 951 3,041 9,539 652 2,893 1,031 3,139 40,390 9.5% 0.1% 0.4% 2.5% 8.3% 4.2% 12.4% 1.5% 1.6% 2.3% 1.1% 3.2% 0.4% 2.4% 7.5% 23.6% 1.6% 7.2% 2.6% 7.8% 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 Exhibit 4-4. Jobs Density in Yakima in 2014 (All Workers) 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 • 254 - 798 • 799 - 1,949 Selection Areas w Analysis Selection jecare 0 $w Ems. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 II 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 Employers Employees Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital 2,200 Walmart -Yakima/Sunnyside/Grandview Zirkle Fruit Washington Fruit & Produce Borton Fruit Monson Fruit Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic Yakima Regional Medical Center A.B. Foods Yakama Nation Legends Casino 1,700 1,500+ 1,500+ 1,212 1,023 1,006 985 900 644 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. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Jobs 2012-2040 Population 2015-2040 Exhibit 4-6. Population and Jobs Capacity 8,556 17,167 28,494 II 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 NEW JOBS 6 0% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Capacity: Vacant / Agriculture / Underutilized District New Homes New Jobs New People 1 410 9,578 1,119 2 1,450 3,368 3,957 3 1,016 3,384 2,775 4 410 2,039 1,118 5 1,360 2,406 3,713 6 2,485 72 6,785 7 9,282 7,634 25,339 Citywide 16,413 28,481 44,806 ED -7 II 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 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 II 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. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ALLI E Y SERVI II 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 II 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." Policies: 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. Policies: 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. Policies: 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 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. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 II Exhibit 4-8. Economic Development Element Implementation Implementation Item Action Type Results Economic Development Strategic Plan 2017-2020 Implementation Plan ■ A plan to spur and sustain the growth ofYakima's Economy. 2013 Downtown Master Plan Implementation Plan ■ Actions and projects specific to downtown redevelopment. Development Review Regulatory Law/Permit Process ■ Streamlined permit process that encourages early applicant/staff interaction. Transportation Plan Long Range Plan ■ Identify key planned corridors and truck routes. Zoning Code Regulatory Law ■ Property zoning and use compatibility. State Environmental Policy Act Regulatory Law ■ Environmental review that establishes different thresholds based on development. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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)) 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 more units 7.4% 3 to 19 units 15.1% 1 Mobile home or 5.7% Boat, RV, van, etc. 0.2% 1 Unit 2 unitsIP illiii 63.8% 7.8% Housing Structure Shares and Types (ACS, 2014) 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 i (:.--0''' W44.,144.4... ..2-a.iiiif. 'L -- V -Ds:. 1.4- r may 1 A 1,`i',. tl �:eti - 111111" u y . - f•_ f Yelklna =11 The in ormatwn illustrated an the "Near Built' map 9 derived from the Yakima County Asscssor data. The entire parcel is shaded based on a range of dates attributed to the year when a primary structure was constructed. This information provides a visual representation of the progression and growth of the settlement pattern for Yakima. The Plat of Old North Yakima was recorded in 1885. Vacant lands without a primary structure are not assigned a data for this map. Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016 HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 YAHIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Properties by Year Bulk Properties by Year Bmll . 1890 1914 . 1915. 1926 7 1927- 1937 '338 - 1948 1a7- 1956 '957-1966 1969-1979 ▪ 1979-1989 ▪ 1990 - 2001 ■ 2002-2018 a Yakima City Limits Urban Growth Area N 0 0.5 1 Miles 1 1 il 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 Sunnyside 3.71 Tieton 3.71 Grandview 3.7 Harrah 3.45 Moxee 3.41 Zillah 3.07 Yakima... 3.04 Union Gap 3.02 Yakima 2.73 Naches 2.71 United... 2.63 Washingt... 2.55 Selah 2.45 Average Household Size in Yakima County and Communities (2014) Yakima Has Many Young Residents but the Majority of Yakima Households Have No Children Under 20 years 30.6% 20 - 64 years 55.8% As of 2014, the City of Yakima contained approximately 33,074 households. About 29 percent of 65 and older 13.8% households consist of single persons, and another 24 percent of householders are married with no children HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Age Category Percent 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 Population by Age (ACS, 2014) 0.0% 5.0% 10.090 15.0% Yakima 13.796 United States 13.796 Washington 13.2% Selah 12.5% Yakima County 12.1% Union Gap 11.1% Nat hes 10.4% Harrah 9.9% Grandy iew 9.6% Mabton 8.3% Sunnysiie 8.2% 2ilah 8.1% Tieton 7.7% Wapao 7.5% Toppenish 7.1% Moxee 53% Granger 3.7% Persons Aged 65 and Older as a Percent of Total Population (ACS, 2014) ease ease 1111 •• We ate 2jaf �.una A' Almost a Quarter of Yakima's Population Lives Below the Poverty Level About 22.822.823.5 percent of the City's population earns incomes below the federal poverty level. This is higher than the state as a whole (13.5% Statc shows up as '10.8?). 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. The tablc bclow sccms to havc thc jurisdictions flip floppcd in somc stranfic ordcr. Tcxt abovc says WA State is 13.5% but thc tablc shows '10.8%. HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Toppenish Wapato Percent of Population Below Federal Poverty Level Yakima County and Communities: 2014 Granger Grandview 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% United States Naches Washington State Zillah Moxee Selah 15.6% 14.5% 13.5% 12.5% 12.4% 12.1% 33.9% 40.8% 38.8% A' HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Washington State United States Selah I I Zil Ia h Moxee Yakima County Yakima Naches Harrah Sunnyside Tieton Grandview Granger Union Gap Toppenish Mabton Wa pato 15.6% 14.5% 1 13.5% 12.5% 12.4% 12.1% 23.5% 22.8% 22.5% ■ 22.1% 20.4% Source: Yakima County, 2016; U.S. Census 5 -Year ACS, 2014. 29.9% 29.5% 28.8% 33.9% 40.8% 38.8% 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. HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II T • • We ate 2jaf �una H-8 il • 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. ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �.una H-9 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. HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 2017 Capacity for New Units by Council District on Undeveloped and Redevelopable Land A' 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 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. HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 A' 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. Coordinate future housing development with capital planning and investment. Implement utility standards that encourage infill development. 5.4.4. 5.4.5. 5.4.6. Ensure multimodal public 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. and private transportation options are available for new and HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 A' 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. HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Exhibit 5-3. Housing Implementation Implementation Item Action Type Desired Result City of Yakima Consolidated Plan Strategic plan, updated periodically, that provides an assessment of current and projected housing needs, housing market trends, inventory conditions, barriers to providing affordable housing, a list of current providers, and a five-year strategy for providing affordable housing. Data on housing inventory and needs Inventory of affordable housing providers Increase in affordable housing A Ten -Year Plan to End Homelessness: A Five Year Update Report on local efforts and strategies. ■ Data on homelessness ■ Decrease homelessness Annual Action Plan for CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership Funds, 2016 Plan for use of federal funds, updated annually Investment in affordable housing needs and community development needs Yakima County Farmworker Housing Action Plan, 2011— 2016 Strategic plan for approaching issues related to farmworker housing Housing needs data for seasonal and year-round farmworkers Increased housing stability for farmworkers Zoning Code, YMC Title 15 Regulatory law on housing development, amended as needed ■ Ensure code aligns with goals and needs in the community ■ Remove barriers to affordable housing Senior/Disabled Persons Home Repair Program City housing program administered through the • Office of Neighborhood Development to those who qualify (income and asset restrictions) ■ Increased investment in neighborhoods Aesthetic improvements HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Implementation Item Action Type Desired Result Exterior Paint Program Homeownership Through New Construction Tenant/Landlord Counseling Lot Acquisition Program Downtown Redevelopment Tax Incentive Program (YMC 11.63) City housing program administered through the Office of Neighborhood Development to those who qualify (age and disability restrictions) City housing program administered through the Office of Neighborhood Development to those who qualify (income restrictions) Office of Neighborhood Development Services program to assist either tenants or landlords with disputes and advice on reaching agreements or seeking legal support. A City program within the Yakima Target Area that provides funds to purchase lots for residential development projects. Lots must be residentially zoned, have vacant or substandard buildings, and be developed within 12 months of purchase. A City program designed to provide increased residential opportunities. This program is intended to stimulate new multi -family housing and the rehabilitation of vacant and underutilized buildings for multi -family housing. ■ Increased investment in neighborhoods ■ Aesthetic improvements ■ Increased homeownership Improved tenant/landlord relationships Education on legal support for those in need New housing stock ■ Neighborhood revitalization ■ New infill development Special valuations for eligible improvements in residentially deficient urban centers. HOUSING Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 TRANSPORTATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. TGMAGoal — Transportation Element consistent with the Land Use Element, cluding travel forecasts of at least 10 -years sed on the land use plans; entify the impacts of the City's land use (and nsportation) 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. Ai\ 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 Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Alk 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 Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Alk 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 or the 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. TRANSPORTATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Alk 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:OOam till 10:OOpm 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 Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Alk 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 TRANSPORTATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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 Y') Alk 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 Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Alk 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 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) TRANSPORTATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Alk 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 Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Alk 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) TRANSPORTATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. Exhibit -1. Transportation Element Implementation Implementation Item Action Type Result Transportation Systems Plan Functional Plan and Funding Plan for six and 20 -year period ■ Transportation improvements for addressing existing conditions and planning for short and long-term growth. Transportation Improvement Program Six-year investment program updated annually with budget ■ Transportation investment programming over short-term Airport Master Plan Framework to guide future development of the airport ■ Coordination with airport operations Yakima Transit Development Plan 6 -year plan, reviewed and updated each year as a guide in planning Transit programs and capital projects ■ Coordination with transit services and projects Yakima Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle facility design, maintenance, network, and projects ■ Including bicycle facilities with new projects, where appropriate. TRANSPORTATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 CAPITAL FACILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una r4 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. Exhibit 7-1. Capital Facility Service Providers Facility Type Provider Description Applicable Plans Public Buildings Fire and Emergency Services City of Yakima Yakima Fire Department Includes City -owned public buildings. Provides facilities that support the provision of fire and emergency services. City Budget, 2016 Yakima Fire Department Annual Report, 2016 Law Enforcement Yakima Police Department Provides facilities that support the provision of law enforcement services. Yakima Police Department 2014 Annual Report Schools Yakima School District West Valley School District 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. 2014 — 2015 Fiscal Year - End Report (YSD) 2016 — 2017 Budget Summary (WVSD) Parks Yakima Parks and Recreation Provides facilities for passive and active recreational activities. 2012 — 2017 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 CAPITAL FACILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Facility Type Provider Description Applicable Plans Streets Yakima Public Works Provides streets, sidewalks, traffic controls, and street lighting. 6 -Year TIP, 2017 - 2022 Transportation Plan 2017 (pending) Transit Yakima Transit Provides transit service in and around the City of Yakima. Transit Development Plan Annual Report for 2015 and Six -Year Plan 2016 — 2021 Air Terminal Yakima Air Terminal The Air Terminal is owned by the City of Yakima and provides facilities for air service. The City contracts with a third party operator. Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport Master Plan, 2015 Wastewater Yakima Public Works Provides facilities used in collection, transmission, storage, and treatment or discharge of waterborne waste within the city. 2015 Waste Load Assessment 2013 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Stormwater Yakima Public Works Provides facilities that collect and transport stormwater runoff. Stormwater Management Program for City of Yakima, 2015 Water Yakima Public Works Nob Hill Water Associates Provides supply of potable water to portions of the City of Yakima. City of Yakima, Water System Plan Update, 2017 (pending) Nob Hill Water Association Draft Water System Plan, May 2015 Irrigation Yakima Public Works Provides supply of non -potable irrigation water to portions of the City of Yakima. City of Yakima Refuse City of Yakima Refuse Provides automated refuse collection to residential customers. City Budget, 2016 Source: BERK Consulting 2017 r4 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 necessary for the 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 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. 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 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una CF -4 r4 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 r4 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 r4 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 11 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. CAPITAL FACILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una CF -7 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 Facility Type Provider Level of Service Standard Public Buildings City of Yakima ■ 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. Fire and Emergency Services Yakima Fire Department ■ 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 Facility Type Provider Level of Service Standard Schools Yakima School District West Valley School District ■ Yakima School District: Student -teacher ratio of 18.3. ■ 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, Yakima Transit, Yakima Air Terminal ■ See Transportation Element and Transportation Plan. 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 Nob Hill Water Associates ■ Yakima: 233 gallons per day (gpd) per equivalent residential unit (ERU). ■ Nob Hill: 309 gpd/ERU. Irrigation Yakima Public Works ■ Minimum design pressure of 20 psi. CAPITAL FACILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Facility Type Provider Level of Service Standard Refuse City of Yakima Refuse • ■ ■ Set level of service consistent with existing service of collecting 1.23 tons per household per year. 1.23 tons of refuse 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 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una 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. CAPITAL FACILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Yaki ma Water Distribution W orkv To -c ,cher far Execei° ,I r4 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 CAPITAL FACILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 r4 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 Implementation Item Action Type Result Capital Facilities Plan Functional Plan and Funding Plan for six and 20 -year period ■ Capital improvements for short and long-term and associated revenue projections to plan in balance with needs and resources Capital Improvement Program Six-year investment program updated annually with budget ■ Capital investment programming over short- term UTILITIES 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)) ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una kr. r .90, 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 Facility Type Provider Description Applicable Plans Electricity Pacific Power and Light Company Provides supply of electrical power through transmission lines. • 2015 Integrated Resource Plan Update Natural Gas Cascade Natural Gas Corporation Provides supply of natural gas from interstate pipelines. • 2011 Cascade Natural Gas Integrated Resource Plan • CenturyLink/Qwest • Integra • Charter Spectrum Telecommunications • Cellular services are provided by a variety of national and regional carriers. Provides transmission of information through telephone, radio, cellular telephone, and cable television. 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 UTILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 w m Ph i 0, .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). ■ CenturyLink/Qwest offers Yakima customers internet, phone, and television services. UTILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 • 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. UTILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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 Implementation Item Action Type Results Capital Facilities Plan Functional plan and funding plan • Capital investment in utilities Land Use Code YMC Title 15 Regulatory law • Well-designed and appropriately - located utility facilities Development Review Review process • Review of private provider facilities Cascade Natural Gas 2011 Integrated Resource Plan System Plan, updated periodically • Natural gas provided in coordination with growth UTILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Pacific Power 2015 Integrated Resource Plan Update System Plan, updated periodically • Power provided in coordination with growth Local wireless telecommunication service providers Coordination between City and private providers • Telecommunication services provided in coordination with growth UTILITIES Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una U-6 PARKS & RECREATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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)) ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una i 190t I� sis Exhibit 9-1. City of Yakima Parks RIR 6 823 Norman kr CenAt Galleon Park Cabo North Park r wouuwows 7 FSI , GOe EMs M1bniwlal x. Pe. u1sh� 5 , Ro eaEUN Pa*Mcouvets Part ;Ghent Park Mrty Pe Milks Palk Terra" r -f"ol Terrace ay PI T'f R� ima ICa Perk k 3 teheme Cameron, .11 MR win Perk LIA1s Park a�aet avenue 6Th 4 Raymo Waffler Pen, Pan SouerCorn ew Youth M"am 1 rg 1 P1111 Park Martin LNTer King Park Yakma srenrman southeaa 2 vela +. sae Community Arai Pa. Areas km Louden Park Yakima GIS 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 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 PARKS & RECREATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Yakima Parks Parks Trails and Greenway o Yakima City Limits Urban Growth Area N A0 0.5 1 Miles I I J vi 1 r BR 1.4 .2 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. PARKS & RECREATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 NRPA Standards: • Neighborhood/Mini Parks: 2 acres/1,000 population • Community Parks: 5 acr population 1,000 ease ease II II ilzIN t •• We ate 2jaf �.una vi I r 19D, 1.4 ,g, • 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 vi I r OR 1.4 , , 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. Policies 9.8.1. Support continued expansion of the Yakima Greenway. PARKS & RECREATION Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 vi I Alk. I, 141 . . 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 Implementation Item Action Type Results Capital Facilities Plan Functional plan and funding plan, updated periodically ■ Capital investment in parks Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Functional plan, updated periodically • 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 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 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)) ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una 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 Category Waterbody / Parameter 5 — Polluted waters that require a TMDL Myron Lake — Ammonia -N Naches River—Temperature, pH Shaw Creek — Bacteria (fecal coliform) Wide Hollow Creek —Temperature, bacteria (fecal coliform) Yakima River - pH 4c — Impaired by a non -pollutant 2 — Waters of concern Rotary Lake — invasive aquatic species (Eurasian water-milfoil) Wide Hollow Creek — pH, dissolved oxygen Yakima River — pH, temperature Source: Washington Department of Ecology, 2012 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 (PM10)• 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 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 iM1erunatiure ornaturel loSCar,s, IM 8 mega, aquifers., neer, rimy Mr adroar ,*a wF. re don GM glean. lM1n luu onalt,v and Fah...M1ot n Mt an lvy na IM naw see ac to Merriam ti o,savailaaw nm se deinented water p.MY Pe. , Egaldewnpn.!hien as errbnrnreeunda.ln aa.nnng nr prxameste. IMs information It derived from mmra.snurce nrPing, iar mum,m cMgePa��mm ni erday�em.�auryx�wmw,am mameweana. wildlife. n�¢ Iwit..Home=I.,nad:rorp,ma 6ta.Ir...maParnr nwnmacmn,l,am Penn ng nr nr«emx.nn Pn�w=a•nnN.� Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016 YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Floodplain Zona Designation pieedwey Pleas Yakima City I imits ❑ V wma Council owns L �i Urban Growth Area zone AP are flooding awry eealolily ar teen known as Me MOOpear Poodpla,1 and woera practiced food weer elevations v.aop mean arra lavel hap been MeganI to he at mph r Image aro the w'� MacramePena Programmeld: e an P.Pntea n zone FE Ian have enlly-Facked mortgagee Construction Inhew areas must meet beat oPaPIa. Creng wdnanw minutemen. elbliang .111erite IMP PIMP. stemmas a. above :he Base Flood hissaeon ibtrof as Pawn on merman. PIMA map Zona A aro aro. Y ...Inn, (alsoa Freda.o eda. t n, tone am coned.. to be at high nd, of oohing under the National ce Insure nee Program rePtel. bah aanue alewife, here ort been ...hoe PoopeMes eramire a to l, prop.. m Zone A that have aalbeacked nangagee. Carrel.. In Ore. MOP loos, opt. local +woman norph ordnance renewal -news Op construcloco ot Zone A areas me,' a. maw,. ...ion of enarreereg areas -severs of the floodrmy and noonfrege ham* A 10.5 1 Miles NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Itrfr 19D, 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 The Innlion of name, resew., lin a wiknle, nyttilen and ..111.1 rink may dank: where development is Ilmlint old wham Meaty may OM, intoner., or entrant, the funetleno in el thine mein and MAUI, Mown on the map. Thcau tnup .crs are aicraft] Imsed on hest Awl l, 4, data aecame natural landlorms, water broke, midst... are nal romplete4 permanent, !Nal chtgrrIptlans nit!. locatIons n, boundaries are nnt a Ways. avallahle. I hk Infirmarlan den.fl from many soure. Including, hut not Ilml. to, I.Mpartine,t Lrolo... I LMA. UM, WM W. and Ifljhe map k fra intarmat.nnal, and planning nr prexentallon purposes nnly. Source: City of Yakima GIS 2017 Art A• YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Wetlands and Streams WA_Wetlands INETLANO_TYPE ▪ Mean...Mei Errergert Wetland ▪ Mentwolet YYdlinid ▪ Fresnwater Pond • I eke • toot- Stowed. ED Yakima City Um. 1=1 Velma Council 01.0t Urban Growth Area 0 0.5 1 Miles NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 BB BB 11 11 • • /MN We ate lialiint'a NE -6 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Exhibit 10-4. Wildlife — City of Yakima r ' Yakima GIS October, 3015 Thelocaliula nalund rsh wiLfffi r'.. drveluamuni lirni,rd,a wbme sMalr colhancr ihr luvonol'v Irrlx wen, kirdhab ,shoe are derneated lama on hest eel pe 11.11f111. brt Uepartm nn8y 8t -y legal public nnlre Of Draunu4m Vrpn . YCon .t wx F eprinentM fkh nA wlltlNfr,,S on t e web mapPna application lbrmjAvdfvawa.lrgmapphg/PbUlfor the mostru•rent lmornahan avzlab e. about the mrtbns of PAmlti, Veri. arc habA t, Source: City of Yakima GIS 2017 YAHIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Wildlife BALD EAGLE 1 RIPARIAN ZONES SHRLB-SIEPPE WATERFOWL CONCENTRATIONS Woo0 DUCK Yakima City limns I Urban Growth Area A0 0.5 1 Mlles I I f I 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: BeeB BeeB II II •• We ate 2jaf �una NE -7 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Exhibit 10-5. Sensitive Fish Species Identified in the City's Streams and Rivers Fish Species Waterbodies Federal Status State Status Chinook salmon Yakima River, Naches River Threatened Candidate, Priority Steelhead trout Yakima River, Naches River, Cowiche Creek, Wide Hollow Creek, Threatened Candidate, Priority Bachelor Creek Bull trout Yakima River, Naches River Threatened Candidate, Priority Coho salmon Yakima River, Naches River, Cowiche Creek Species of Concern Priority Cutthroat trout Yakima River, Wide Hollow Creek None Priority 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. 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. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 NATURALYakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Exhibit 10-6. Geologic Hazards — City of Yakima ENVIRONMENT ��JV|���Jk���JT '1 | � ~ �-^ YE11011a GIS,OdObar. 2016 Ush crAltal ltco, may egFe,, ckvuluotnont -,111-11,11, and rehurv Inkly ,r1, yttx,ne thhanv fox tionality *Mow ,h,laks shown 1,,,,r1 lyz,, are ...eat. cased on hem Available data, .caule naturai land., water badlex, and arn not comOnelypeonvrent, lega i degc,lons al their locations nr hounaaral are not. alwa,avallah P. I 111, map infart.loo rierved f ram malyArAvre7, . but not Honked to, Dem,. of tonlogy, 01,111, V/1.1,W, And many wetland, wildlife, or geological sturbes aua lable u,e. map k ,nr informelonal. and planring ptftematinn pu,pasexonly. Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016 YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Geologic Hazards ~~Ty, ▪ .sk - Landadde 11,1 -mediate 12i$1,- Ovenateet3ened"lOpe9 ▪ "=- Ova~eepen=Slopes Channel Migration Zone Potential mm~� ▪ Moderate c]~^'~^"^`"~'^ ▪ ~alrneCouncil °Ancl n"rban Growth Area 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 welis that can pump a combined 11,050 gallons per minute. Once groundwater is contaminated it can be difficult and costly to clean. In 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 on hear aallanle data. SneaUSF n.t-rabodies, and wlltlnfe ars nm rompMreh panmnant, legal emmipunnx nr ne: lnrvmvm houndatlna:n Hess always: Health SWare Wateracreamm prngam nyxs babe mixar rtnenf lncaineU OfGnap4 and Group swells and Meir knmon dme.orrrvel. use. !his map rnr inMmxi nla g pr Source: City of Yakima GIS 2017 ruk,s b4„Howe on rnr map �Nr map information hm.n.Nrmm ma sourc.s dInn purprmes nnly.+rank Washig:on aepammentan YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Aquifers Wellhead 10 Year Protection Area Moderate High ■ Extreme if; Yakima City lira its ▪ Yakima Council District Urban Growth Area N A0 . 0.5 1 Miles NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ll -- IP i r l* 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. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 -- IP i r l* 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. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 -- IP i r l* 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. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 r O, 1.4 .. 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 Development Review City of Yakima Stormwater Management Program 2015 2012-2017 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plans Regulatory law that addresses critical areas and shoreline protection 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. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 II -- IP i Atf I, I� r Implementation Item Action Type Yakima Regional Stormwater Group Coordination with Yakima County, Union Gap and Sunnyside to perform permit compliance under the Department of Ecology's Phase II NPDES Stormwater Permit NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 SHORELINE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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. ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �.una -n-n-nn- .,...... 1931. - la; 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 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. 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 —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. 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. SHORELINE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... ..... U L r �� 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. 10.3.1.2. 10.3.1.3. 10.3.1.4. 10.3.1.5. 10.3.1.6. 10.3.1.7. 10.3.1.8. 10.3.1.9. Utilize Shorelines for economically productive uses that are particularly dependent on Shoreline location or use. Utilize Shorelines and the waters they encompass for public access and recreation. Protect and restore the ecological functions of Shorelines. Protect the public right of navigation and corollary uses of waters of the state. Protect and restore buildings and sites having historic, cultural, and educational value. Plan for public facilities and uses correlated with other shoreline uses. Prevent and minimize flood damages. Recognize and protect private property rights. 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. 10.3.2.2. 10.3.2.3. 10.3.2.4. 10.3.2.5. 10.3.2.6. 10.3.2.7. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest; Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; Result in long term over short term benefit; Protect the resource and ecology of the shoreline; Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. SHORELINE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. r �� 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 —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. r �� 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. 10.3.15. -n-n-nnMI - .,...... fUUL.. 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. 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 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una S-8 —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. Irt.r IR 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. 10.3.29. 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. 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. 10.3.31. 10.3.32. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. 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. Activities that may degrade the value of the Floodway/CMZ environment should be limited, and development in hazardous areas should be restricted. Modifications that harden or fix stream banks and channels should be discouraged. Urban Conservancy Environment Policies 10.3.33. 10.3.34. 10.3.34.1. 10.3.34.2. 10.3.34.3. 10.3.34.4. 10.3.34.5. 10.3.35. 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. Specific criteria for designation of the Urban Conservancy environment include areas or properties that: Lie in the city limits and urban growth areas; Are planned for development that is compatible with the principals of maintaining or restoring the ecological functions of the area; Are suitable for water -enjoyment uses; Are open space or floodplains, or; Are areas that retain important ecological functions which should not be more intensively developed. 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 Aquatic Environment — Lakes 10.3.36. 10.3.37. 10.3.38. 10.3.39. 10.3.40. 10.3.41. 10.3.42. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. 14 r �� 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. Specific criteria for the Aquatic designation are lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark of shoreline lakes. 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. 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. 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. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions. 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 SHORELINE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II 1:: •• Iii I. We ate 2jaf �una 10.3.44. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. Irt.14 r IR 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. Commercial and service uses which are not shoreline dependent should be encouraged to locate upland. Industrial Development 10.3.45. 10.3.46. Allocate sufficient quantities of suitable land for water -related industry. 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 10.3.51. 10.3.52. 10.3.53. 10.3.54. 10.3.55. 10.3.56. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. Irt.r IR 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. 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. Access to recreational areas should emphasize multiple points of access (parking areas, trails or bicycle paths). 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. 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. 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. Wherever feasible, utilities should be placed underground. Recreational Development 10.3.57. 10.3.58. 10.3.59. 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. 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. 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 -n-n-nnMI - .,...... fUUL.. Irt.14 r IR 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. 10.3.65.2. Minimize erosion and permit the natural movement of water; 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 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una 11.4 Shoreline Uses and Modifications Sub -element Agriculture 10.3.67. 10.3.68. 10.3.69. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. 14 r IR Allow lawfully established agricultural activities occurring on agricultural lands to continue. 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. Prohibit concentrated feeding operations in shoreline jurisdiction. Aquaculture 10.3.70. 10.3.71. 10.3.72. Consider aquaculture a preferred shoreline use when consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the environment. 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. Protect spawning areas designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife from conflicting uses. Boating and Private Moorage Facilities 10.3.73. 10.3.74. Ensure that boating facilities are located only at sites with suitable environmental conditions, shoreline configuration, access, and neighboring uses. 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. 10.3.76. -n-n-nnMI - .,...... fUUL.. Applications for new piers and docks must show a specific need and must be the minimum size necessary. Encourage the cooperative use of shared docks. Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal 10.3.77. 10.3.78. Fill Dredging should only be permitted for maintaining existing navigation uses, not for obtaining fill material or mining. 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. 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. 10.3.79.2. 10.3.79.3. 10.3.80. 10.3.81. There is no substantial changes made in the natural drainage patterns; and There is no reduction of flood water storage capacity that might endanger other areas. 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). 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. 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 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una 5-16 In -Water Structures 10.3.82. 10.3.83. Mining —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... ..... U L r �� 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. 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. 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. 10.3.84.2. 10.3.85. 10.3.86. 10.3.87. 10.3.88. 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 Restoration or enhancement of ecological functions is encouraged. Require land reclamation plans of any mining venture proposed within a shoreline. 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). Ensure that mining and associated activities are designed and conducted consistent with the applicable environment designation and the applicable critical areas ordinance. 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. 10.3.90. 10.3.91. 10.3.91.1. 10.3.91.2. 10.3.91.3. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. r �� 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. Restrict subdivisions in areas subject to flooding. Encourage cluster development wherever feasible to: Maximize use of shorelines by residents, Maximize both on-site and off-site aesthetic appeal, and Minimize disruption of the natural shorelines. Shoreline Stabilization 10.3.92. 10.3.93. 10.3.94. 10.3.94.1. 10.3.94.2. 10.3.94.3. 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. 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. New structural stabilization measures should only be allowed: When they are necessary to protect an existing primary structure, Are in support of new and existing development, or Are necessary to protect projects where restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects is taking place. SHORELINE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. Irt.r 461- 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 Existing Uses 10.3.102. 10.3.103. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. r �� The SMP should recognize existing uses and developments in the shoreline, and allow them to continue consistent with their lawfully established condition. 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. 10.3.105. The SMP should recognize existing uses and developments in the shoreline, and allow them to continue consistent with their lawfully established condition. 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. SHORELINE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. 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 —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. IR !xi .i. 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. 10.3.122. 10.3.123. 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. 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. 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. SHORELINE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 10.3.124. 10.3.125. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. The City should develop processing guidelines that will streamline the review of restoration -only projects. 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. 10.3.128. 10.3.128.1. 10.3.128.2. 10.3.128.3. 10.3.129. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. Irt.14 r �� Agricultural erosion control measures should conform to standards established by the Conservation Districts of Yakima County and those agreed upon in USDA conservation plans. In planning for marina location and design, special water quality considerations should be given to: Fuel handling and storage facilities to minimize accidental spillage, Proper water depth and flushing action for any area considered for overnight or long- term moorage facilities, and Adequate facilities to properly handle wastes from holding tanks. 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. 10.3.131. 10.3.132. 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. 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. 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 10.3.133. 10.3.134. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. Irt.14 r IR 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. 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. 10.3.136. 10.3.137. 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. 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. 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. SHORELINE Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 10.3.138. 10.3.139. —n—n—nnMI — aiftsioullaiftai .,...... fUUL.. r �� 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. 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 ENERGY 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 electricity from 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 element the Comprehensive Plan, incl (RCW 36.70A.080(1 )) 0 ing Energy. Ite ct? 44311- I4, ,g, 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. ENERGY Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Source: Solorasolar.com 190- 14% .2 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. ENERGY Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una Ite ct? 41311- I� 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 Implementation Item Action Type Results Building Code Zoning Code State Environmental Policy Act Regulatory Law Regulatory Law Regulatory Law ■ Construction standards ■ Land use densities and allowable uses ■ Parking standards ■ Environmental review ENERGY Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 ease ease II II •• We ate 2jaf �una E-4 City of Yakima 2040 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLA 411.1111 ► III 9999 9999 1111 T • • We ate Yakima Prepared by transpogroup '.»-1A". RINSPORTA?IDN CAN BE. r Acknowledgements CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION 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 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 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 Ik 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 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 ease ease II II • • We atce Yakima v Table of Contents 3.3 Non -Motorized Forecast Conditions 3.4 Transit Forecast Conditions 3.5 Plan Framework I 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 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 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 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 •• We atce Yakima 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 BAlk 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 \II' ease ease II II hgb".1.41 • • We atce Yakima 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 THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN 1S 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 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 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 ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 5 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 2040 Transportation System Plan 1. 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 7 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 5. Encourage and support a stable, long-term financial foundation for improving the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the transportation system. CITY OF YAKIMA 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 9 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. • 4.5.21. 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. • 4.5.22. Support the development and adoption of a Pedestrian System Plan. • 4.5.23. Support the development and adoption of a Long Range Transit System Plan. • 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 centers. • 4.5.26. Maintain a dedicated funding source for capital, operation and maintenance of the City's Transit System. • 4.5.27. Encourage the use of public and private funding to remove gaps in pedestrian facilities on existing roadways. ease ease II II ■ •• We atce Yakima 10 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 Ped G 11 A YVCOG Comp Plan Transportation Pian Bike Freight kl(Q Transit I� Vehicle LESS DETAIL MORE DETAIL This graphic Nfugtrates rhe,etsIve context and evetdetail from local modal plans pp to stare GMA requrremehts, • CITY OF YAKIMA 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 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. 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. ease ease 11 IM.i it �.. We atce Yakima ina 11 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 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 ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 12 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 CONTROL O DELAY (per vehicle) DESCRIPTION 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) BeeB ease II II • • We atce Yakima 13 This page left intentionally blank. EXISTING TRANSORTATION SYSTEM 2040 Transportation System Plan USES AIG SIC AL 7fCLE5 INLY 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. Im CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan WHAT 1S 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! 82 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 1 82 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 King 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 18 Legend ® TrafficSignals r City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space WIDE HOL u� -lu 82 - . —'k1 r3 � 1_ .. -• CASTLEVA TERRACE HGTS DR LINCOLN A a L .i 11111112,1. 11111 m•l) (!I111L� 111 ii--nllli��uiniilr �Ch'yy ui �I! illpiiimMpal OC¢IDENTAL RL ASHD GTON AVE B HILL BLV MEA i AVE T AVE 1. 1 r r NEER ST AHTANUM RD 0 0.5 Miles lel transpogroup 'ir -IU'1`i-II Figure 2-1. Existing Roadway Network and Signals 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. 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 2040 Transportation System Plan 40th Avenue 1Summitview Avenue to Tieton Drivej 2,000 1.500 L000 500 0 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00AM 12:40 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM 2,000 1,500 500 0 12:00 AM 4fl0 AM 8fl0 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Northbound —Southbound — — — Total Nob Hill Boulevard (Fair Avenue to 18th Street) 1 • Eastbound Westbound — — — Total Figure 2-2. Traffic Volumes by Hour on Major Corridors 0 N \�Y Legend 2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4 Lanes 5 Lanes it City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space SUMMITVIE 0 0 TIETON DR �. X9,500 12,400 6,400 ' 7,700 iE.• •l ;. 4 12,700 1900 rn of 2,500 0 0 2,400 a 10.900 0 LI: N 6,800 10 3,300 • r• ;. 2,400 0 CN 0 amom 0 o 18,600 I� 1W1W1111111111111 M. 8;100 11,600 a� 1,100 s 0 10 0 11- u� Cl \ 39 r-- �.600 so 3,800 4,500 5,200 0 8800 rn 19000- 21,600 Imr 17,800 13,000 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 i 11,100 co 0 2,800 10S 00 2,400 3,100 9,700 823 0 1■� 12,800 0 16,900 ¢ 15,400 ISI 13,300 III;11Cn111i uunu•! mmagi IN 11 15,200 16,600 0 18,100 111 14 500 7,500 13,500 z 12,700 13,200 A'1;2p0 L 17,600 1E1 a X1111 20,900 24,7001 , 24 500 0 11300 N H co< 11 IE 1 0 �ro 0 2,500 N 8;300 7,800 0 0 v �v: S,Pg� 6,100 0 of f SJ i 20,800 ■ ■ 0 0.5 Miles AHTANUM RD 0 0- I U 24,800 10,700 I S 1 � 1 Lci 0 11,500 24,400 9,200 • ■ ■ 3,800 . f 660 o 2A00 O bio NFA '3p0 20,460 13,gp0 Q 0 m 111 ♦O 21,600 28,100 A O 6,400 -o N '•HVE�-'. 0) 4,800 82 ' 18,500 ... o!!Ilii } 9,800 WMEADAVE 10,900; 0 0 N 16.100 o 1,100 o 15,500 ve 11,500 e TERRACE HOTS DR V�a . i 0 1,400 0 5,800 8,200 VA�IF 23,800 16,400 I1 ff 'MAIC SLVD 1 15,700 o 1 L 11 Jr" I V_ LE LB 79 s 0 rJ RUDKIN RD 4 UM RD transpogroup it Figure 2-3. Existing (2015) Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Number of Lanes 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 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. Legend Sidewalk Shared -Use Trail School ,r City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space u� Cl i, • • r-= k� f (41 iiiiriiirafW1 = SIllr : 11 Ill I I u , VIEW i 1 ‘L.1 -le CE HG T D ■ r R'Jt I�r w ■1 ■ # 11 &ICO I *; r� � �y'�* �' • �‘` •_ rrrrrr iC 1� #1M11 Il `- n I'''r'l'"' 1.14,1115 rK 1111��oiIii:Q:'11I 1��11 !r"� 1•v� 114 1 CI! II 11=1!„1110 .. 1 �4 loom , , . 111 XII. 1111W1 111111 1111111 4111111 i ! �� 1.. ■111 ,.. 11111 11 vj 1111111111�� 11 . r 0 0.5 Miles MIR AHTANUM RD transpogroup air Figure 2-4. Existing Pedestrian Facilities 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 ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 24 Legend Bike Lane Shared Lane Shared -Use Trail School 0 City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space t r� • ' -CYNSTLEVALE RD e TERRACE HGTS DR OD ..•� 1 .. T1s pir :• r1111111iu� �i ■ l �.. rI1D!1 ll+ A� al:�7iii1[i W NOB HILL BLVD SHINGTON VE OCCIDENTAL 0 0.5 Miles AHTANUM RD transpogroup air Figure 2-5. Existing Bicycle Facilities 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 Route Description Type of Service Service along Summitview / Lincoln 1 Avenue from 96th Avenue to Yakima Transit Center Weekday, Saturday, Sunday Service from 72nd Ave on Nob Hill 2 Blvd to Yakima Transit Center via Nob Hill Boulevard Weekday, Saturday, Sunday Service from Castlevale to Yakima 3 Transit Center via 40th Avenue and River Road Weekday, Saturday 4 Service from Yakima Transit Center to Castlevale via 16th Avenue Weekday, Saturday, Sunday Service from 72nd Avenue on Nob 5 Hill Boulevard to Yakima Transit Center via Tieton Drive Weekday, Saturday Service from Yakima Transit Center 6 to Viola Avenue via Fair Avenue (and back) Weekday, Saturday, Sunday 7 Service from BiMart and Chesterly Park P&R to Yakima Transit Center via 40th Avenue, Washington Avenue, and S 1st Street Weekday, Saturday Service from Yakima Transit Center 9 to BiMart and Chesterly P&R via Fruitvale Boulevard Weekday, Saturday, Sunday Service from Selah to downtown 10 Yakima Transit Center (and back) via 1st Street Weekday, Saturday, Sunday Yakima — Ellensburg Commuter 11 from Yakima Airport to downtown Commuter Ellensburg BeeB ease II II •• We atce Yakima 26 Legend Yakima Transit Center Park and Ride Transit Corridor Cd. City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space P SUMMITVIEW A Ire f..t - Lim{J`• •j! P �� go. i•-• CASTLEVALE RD 1- E.I.AMCM BWmil _..mon �illll�l=�� P MOINIIITAIIIIffillize epaiv.01,k st� ii weer aeorra e TERRACE HGTS DR E NOB HILL -OE MEAD AVE SHINGTON AVE S1 r OCCIDENTAL VALLEY AHTANUM RD MRD 0 0.5 Miles transpogroup air Figure 2-6. Existing Transit Corridors 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. • Annual Boardings CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan YAKIMA TRANSIT SYSTEM -WIDE RIDERSHIP 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 2-7. Historical Yakima Transit Ridership ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima No 28 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 2040 Transportation System Plan ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 4 29 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 �� per year o' o 000 4-10 million per year o o 000 A. T- 0' o AN o' 300k-4 million per year 000 A' T> 20k/60 days < 100k/year o' 0 000 100-300k per year 000 Corridors with the highest annual gross tonnage, T-1 and T-2 routes, are also identified as Strategic Freight Corridors. I-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 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima Legend T-1 Freight Corridor T-2 Freight Corridor T-3 Freight Corridor T-4 Freight Corridor T-5 Freight Corridor Railroad City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space UMM VIEW A �u X12 • i ..: Wk a I I 19111WWW. w•I 1? i111E111• iI" -'11111111MINIEglil""."EP-Miner _ i 1 TERI4ACE r� it i 11 z 111OM11Ei1 iir1.uui.m •6ii ii:: RE• 1� �,11L�r1 11111,16:11 ■1111 1. fa n �_ ufi .■� -rJ " IDE k10�LOW RD, 1 GTS DR W NOR HIII RIVD E NOB HILL BLVD Il1I1- SHINGTON AVE ' .._..r r 1 0 'IDENTAL AHTANUM RD 0 0.5 Miles Source: WSDOT transpogroup air 1 Figure 2-8. Existing Freight Corridors 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 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 32 Legend Signal LOS A- C LOS D LOS E - F Two -Way Stop LOS D LOS F Cd City Limits f UGA Boundary Park / Open Space 4,0 Eno %WA, Wielltsol 20.04111U*40 A mot miliaA 04**40 wit00110 00110400* \\***0 em TERRACE HGTS DR .1 C •rinr Nuns TIETON , A '■e� + 'I��a•ou■If"rEa11n■■■: I , 1IDI m11 1 - Iisiiir�11111rI 1111�ell n cit■ D111.11111111 - - ��. _ 7�. 11: 4 11111111 1 „ ■1 11� _ I111111111111111I 1I11���11 111111 NO 1 11"II II unit 1.wilrirJ ,I1I W WASHING 'rH L_ _s_•_i •CCIDENTAL RD 0 0.5 Miles 444 BLVD IONEER ST1 VALLEY MNLL LVD AHTANUM RD AFT ANUM transpogroup.1 'r Figure 2-9. Existing Intersection Vehicle Level of Service 33 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 4 -lane urban 5 -lane urban street capacity: 18,000 ADT street capacity: 25,000 ADT 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. • Total Number of Collisions 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 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 ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 34 \�Y Legend Collisions o 10-20 O 21 -30 Q 31 -40 0 41 - 50 O>50 ,r City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space ti u� Cl 823 e TERRACE HGTS DR c..----•• �.----, OCCIDENTAL 2D 1 r 0 0.5 Miles llf HTL L 4• ■ ,ii� •: HI ■�1■rm, 1IP � is EN muslin : EAD AVE nnil AHTANUM RD Note: Collision Data collected from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2014 I � 4 transpogroup air '.L'1 } 11 Figure 2-11. Vehicle Collisions (2010 - 2014) 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 36 • Table 2-2. Intersections with Collision Rates Exceeding the Critical Collision Rate (2010-2014) CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan Intersection Peak Hour Intersection Number of Pedestrian Bicycle Observed Weighted Average Critica TEV Control Collisions Collisions Collisions Collison Rate2 Collision Rate' Crash Rate4 Primary Collision Type 40th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd 2,920 Signal 44 0 0 1.28 0.87 1.02 Left Turn/Thru Collision 16th Ave / Tieton Dr 2,935 Signal 38 1 2 1.10 0.87 1.02 Rear End 16th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd 3,550 Signal 53 0 1 1.25 0.87 1.00 Rear End 3rd Ave / Nob Hill Blvd 3,265 Signal 32 1 1 1.12 0.87 1.01 Rear End 1st St / `I' St 1,885 Signal 23 1 1 1.10 0.87 1.06 Rear End 1st St / Nob Hill Blvd 3,575 Signal 61 0 0 1.32 0.87 1.00 Rear End 1st St / Washington Ave 3,010 Signal 37 0 0 1.31 0.87 1.02 Rear End Fair Ave / Nob Hill Blvd 2,14A. Signal 1.61 0.87 1.05 Entering at Angle/ Rear End 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. 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. .6% (14) 28% (70) 57% (140) • ▪ Minor Arterial ▪ Collector Arterial ▪ Principal Arterial ▪ Local Street Figure 2-12. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Street Type (2010 — 2014) CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan ease ease 1111 •• We atce Yakima 38 NNZ` L i Legend O Pedestrian Collisions O Bicycle Collisions Number of Collisions 0 1 O 2 0 3-5 Cd City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space ti ti r -=s" Nov,. •..; ..t - �;- ' ti -jam 4.-...- :a - 823 •i, —y 4,,,- - obobrio _ M...r Z W LINCLN AV UMMI VIEW ALm VIMIAM04 31111F11 Mill up 614111111111111E111101110 1 a• llllllenm r aim inwcolillmtari l it .,.i. mr: li�����r' 1 .w, - rrill HaTowN11 rivi wile; hio +ITiTr1111 • 1r•, • • - L-----; OCCIDENTAL 2D 0 0.5 Miles 1 r r L I • -- • • • O•••• AHTANUM RD L▪ .. 1 r� VALLEY MwLL BLV9�. s2 E NOB H DAVE• ON AVE • RUDKIN RD e TERRACE HGTS DR °24 !.J Note: Collision Data collected from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2014 r WH UM RD i; transpogroup air Figure 2-13. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2010 — 2014) 39 This page left intentionally blank. TRAVEL FORECAST AND ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 2040 Transportation System Plan PROPANE .107111$ FRIED RY d !ANEW MOTOR KIEL F�! 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 ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 43 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 Intersection Location Traffic Control 2040 Existing Baseline (Alt 1) 2040 Preferred (Alt 2) 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 ease ease II II • • We atce Yakima 44 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 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. Retorts! Af 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. ease ease II II • • We atce Yakima 46 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 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 47 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 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 48 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN 2040 Transportation System Plan 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 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 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. ease ease II II ■ •• We atce Yakima 52 Legend Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector ■ ■ ■ ■ Future Principal Arterial Future Minor Arterial ,r City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space .•— �w e f..f Li j �ti- 1 t SU i\ I VIEW A TER CE HGTS DR AIS+ likl 0 _ I•! s111 1VMS" i��r �rii• may IIUU 11111111 111No REG -m �"nen ivinno III1••p:`ra'i !, H • ;r. MEAD AVE SHINGTON AVE VALLEY LL BLVdP. WAH AHTANUM RD 0.5 Miles transpogroup it '11'V-11 - Figure 4-2. Roadway Functional Classification Table 4-1. City of Yakima Functional Classification Definitions Classification Description State Highways State Highways connect major regions with one another, and WSDOT classifies certain State highways as Highways of Statewide Significance. Principal Arterials Principal Arterials serve both local and through traffic entering and leaving the City and provide access to major activity centers within Yakima. The Principal Arterials also connect the minor arterial and collector street system to the freeways. Minor Arterials Minor Arterial Streets support moderate -length trips and provide connections between neighborhoods and community/regional activity centers. There is a higher degree of access and lower vehicular travel speed than on major arterials. Major Collectors Major Collectors are the intermediate street classification. They provide a link 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. 4.1.2 Travel Context Classification The Transportation System Plan was developed using traditional planning techniques to establish a foundation with key connection and facility types added to develop a holistic vision of a safe and attractive motorized and non -motorized transportation system. The City of Yakima will continue to develop pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of its transportation system improvements, in addition to expanding vehicle capacity at key intersections and streets. 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. • CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan Bike/Ped Priority Classification The Bike/Ped Priority class emphasizes bicycle and pedestrian mobility over other modes. Posted vehicle speeds would be lower and the number of vehicle lanes would be minimized. Shared Priority Classification The Shared Priority class represents corridors were vehicle mobility is balanced with non - motorized travel comfort. This type of street has been referred to as a "complete street". ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 54 Legend Auto Priority Bike/Ped Priority Shared Priority ■ ■ ■ ■ Future Shared Priority ,r City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space WIDE HOLLOW R r• k._ �..—. 1- kill MEM ■SMEWill iIIN MI Fivammirimmisulta 11 1111 11111111 ON D: ��� ■II �C ��II■ II■�1 � li■ . nEla OEM=Hr�I ,1; ,� I �111W 1YIYUIJI � ;l1i TERRACE HGTS DR iU11■, IIIIII -'Hm 111111 T 11111 W111M 11111111111111 A111 •,!■� viae B HILL BLVD 1.1 0 0.5 Miles OCCIDFNT.L RD BLVD ONEER ALLEY ikLL 'LVD AHTANUM RD W AHTANUM transpogroup 'r l L'! `i i - Figure 4-3. Travel Context Classification Map 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. ease ease II II ■ •• We atce Yakima 56 \'Y Legend Primary Truck Route ,r City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space Pm•m4,---- . , I. WIDE HOLLOW R • r• u� Cl • -1 u r—r~, 4. ✓ Milleinr=grt•se mEn 'maim �/I LINC IL AV's -E!F rte. � 71f?� '� � Id" 11. 111/1MINftilli • r 1 51 i7111111■E1113!_u =�7� - :' � 11 11 111111111! F11isp] Il< 11 11� uil 11 �n ... ■117 IIL !1■ _■IIL��� �,i111111i1...1� ��� 1■11 ■�� ti Rom ON DR l�Y1111J1 iiJIlUII■1■ �lil Iliintivar � � ', •* 111 """" 111 111II 51111 "" TERRACE HGTS DR ._ : i *_ 1OE11! 1 .�.� 11 nii11Il11111111111111 = 11 l111111111■111111 I[ ■1 ■n 111111111r1R!!iu1i1 11 111111111 li IM -10111111111111111 IIIILIMM 1111111111111 B HILL LVD' r -- NEER T A 0 0.5 Miles f I I transpogroup 'r L'! `-1 1 Figure 4-4. Truck Route Classification 57 11.9114 Illi , 11111111 . ........ _ ... . -s-I : Igc..-- '1 L-'-‘141 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 impractical, then greater Access Management would be anticipated over time. Example corridors include 40th Street, 16th Street, 1st Street, Fruitvale Boulevard, Summitview Boulevard, Nob Hill Boulevard, and Valley Mall Boulevard. Minor Arterials would be 3 to 5 lanes wide depending on anticipated traffic volumes in the area. Major Collectors would be limited to 2 to 3 lanes, with possible exceptions in commercial areas. Existing Major Collectors with 4 lanes would likely be reduced to 3 lanes in the future. Local streets are mostly 2 lanes with possible exceptions 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. ease ease II II ■ •• We atce Yakima 58 \�Y Legend 2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes (Access Control) 5 Lanes f.:71 City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space u� Cl • i, •..f 41 'hrgaL to.V. MN= ilWM _lifts _ _ � I mono 111111M 111 111 Myr e TERRACE HGTS DR JIM 11Cn111:1W -v=En :Luiz 9111 11111111A ;; ir• Imam11` i ��Il i lbllUI11111111 rr m 11111 mow11 NIIN AE mum, fill.I nf`f`IOFNTAI RD • INGTON AVE 1.1 .ailiT,ANUM RD 0 0.5 Miles 1 transpogroup 'ir Figure 4-5. Highway and Street System Plan 59 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 ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 60 Legend Primary Pedestrian Route Secondary Pedestrian Route Future Primary Route ,r City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space u� r ..f — Li �rL..ti,I. _rJ Ir• 11 .• •I e. 0 ��AY1�11■ � � �• w �..,.., .� 11181 STLEVA til ill ire:, KW i�1;�'1' 1w I � �= Illi 1111111 ME 1 -- --1111 i:` 7► I171L� I111111 '1rMu..—';1251:1:111,;* --- --_ .— � r] 111 IIy 111 !s' ill •'ow , taitrit� --- I. {oll BV1121111 S 911 I .moi" ■i:i'y �f _�.o ►tom' ill � �' 1�s' II rrYktiI1llit um Illiii;1 1...■..•••I �' �1 i..:..Pr:; ...11 1..�111 �Slll 1111 mini nliiil111111111 OIL "4 In: iiiurM1 �.�e.�1l•iiii 111111wi gill III�ii.� Ili .I1 1.1 • • iiIMI IN MI= 1111 T SIii11■ 1E11'� 111 11 Ir` • ■! ISL ��l�•x,11`I111�1I"Ill •:�� IIl I� iH1Y111111 1!;! 0-IDENTAL' RD 0 0.5 Miles • ■ � f e A s_t �r•• AHTANUM RD f � 1 h•� N transpogroup 'ir Figure 4-6. Pedestrian System Plan 61 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. Multiuse Trail Bike Lane 4 ado 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. Protected Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Wide Shoulder — Shared Roadway* *Shared roadways on low volume, low speed streets 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 \�Y Legend Primary Bike Route Secondary Bike Route Future Primary Route Cr City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space ;--•1„-? v„ 6-4•'!• 1J WIDE HOLLOW R —1u N `l7u■ liffik.4 M11111 MINIM ,= n �■ _ 1E4in ERIE EILI ` 'rEI� NF4, TERRACE HGTS DR IMA 77C• 111111111111111 MIME i1r";, : 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 2040 Transportation System Plan Table 4-2. Street Design Guidelines Design Element Posted Speed (mph) Number of Travel Lanes Center Median/ Turn Lanes Travel Lane Widths Shoulder/ Buffer Bike Facilities On -Street Parking Sidewalk Buffer/ Planting Strip Sidewalks CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan Principal Arterial 100 ft ROW, 70 ft Paved Minor Arterial 80 ft ROW, 65 ft Paved Collector 80 ft ROW, 54 ft Paved Local Access 50 ft ROW, 24-30ft Paved Auto Priority' Shared Priority Auto Priority Shared Priority2 Pedestrian/ Bicycle3 Auto Priority Shared Priority' Pedestrian/ BicycleAuto Priority 35 to 40 35 35 30 30 or less 30 25 25 20-25 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended No Wide: 11 to 12 ft (wider outside lane for freight) Narrower: 10 to12ft Wide: 11 to 12 ft (wider outside lane for freight) Narrower: 10 to 12 ft Narrower: 10 to 11 ft Narrower: 10 to 12 ft Narrower: 10 to 12 ft Narrower: 10 to11ft Narrower: 10 to 11 ft Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Use to buffer bike lanes Recommended Use to buffer bike lanes Use to buffer bike lanes Recommended Not recommended Encourage parallel routes or use barrier separated facilities Not recommended Recommended Required Not recommended Recommended Required Not recommended Not recommended Not recommended Not recommended If no bike lane, 7ft (low -turnover), 8ft (high -turnover) 7ft (low -turnover) 8ft (high -turnover) 7ft (low -turnover) 8ft (high -turnover) 7ft (low -turnover) 8ft (high -turnover) 7ft (low -turnover) 8ft (high -turnover) 7ft (low -turnover) 2 ft or more (no planting), 4 ft or more (with planter) 2 ft or more (no planting), 4 ft or more (with planter) 2 ft or more (no planting), 4 ft or more (with planter) 4 ft or more for street trees 4 ft or more for street trees 4 ft or more for street trees 4 ft or more for street trees 4 ft or more for street trees None 7 ft standard, 5 ft minimum 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 5 f minimum ' 5 f minimum 7 ft standard, 5 ft minimum 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 7 ft standard, 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 than 8%) or designated freight or transit routes; Planting strip may be wider; widths are based on minimum tree pit dimensions. 2. Consider strategies to reduce motor vehicle speeds to preferred levels; for higher volume roads, speeds of lower than 30 mph are preferred for on -road bike facilities. Bike facilities should not be precluded for facilities with higher speeds if no parallel facilities existing within a half mile. Greater protection for bike lanes in terms of lateral separation and physical barriers used should be provided as speed and volume increases. 3. Strategies to reduce motor vehicle speeds to lower than 30 mph must be included with the inclusion of bike facilities. Also, greater protection for bike lanes in terms of lateral separation and physical barriers used should be provided as speed and volume increases. Consider using parking lane to buffer bike lane from vehicle lanes. 4. Wider sidewalks and planting strips are recommended. 5. Central Business District streets require 12 ft sidewalk BeeB BeeB II II • • We atce Yakima 65 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 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 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 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 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 68 \\Y Legend Intersection Improvement Active Transportation Study Roadway Improvement New Roadway 11 O O Intersection Roadway City Limits UGA Boundary Park/Open Space WIDE HOLLOW R u� -lu ' ►h r .2.....---: _. A-33 A-34 ol ■ R-18 ' 1-19 1111111Em A.21 �- R-29_ : rii it LLI A-35 1-14 R -13r • STLEVA R-16—•11- ■ �� 1-20 R 19. r - L i I�l����� ��''� 1 lid■ asMR-21114sr�r�'l�U_� I I i yG P/9 R 1 S_in II 11151r1ME4ER -LW AS Ate. A25 „�'.` kQ pp 1 11.■�II�1■ i11 i ■� u�1 r 11� 1-27 V 2 , 71nL�R11� oN DR I R 711 L8_111111.1■111 �1i1125 ■■ � :01 A-41:LA 23. -' NCOLN A V r.._..—r._—. 1.�.._.._..r• i,� f` OCCIDENTAL RD • 1.1 -�E�iiA-37 i!JJ"hhh' '11e■R1'II 1 1111 II I Slf7-017 A 1�� 1-2 n oA luiA 7 A 26111i��1�■■11 ��ti l `1 ,■ A 1511 1111111111111 7111 IIR I" 11■111■ 111111 �_ III .g lu A-8 a � Ili 111111111 MON 11111111111111 JAr IIIV4 -26 �„■ -4 11 BLVD •A -10-A-29 0 0.5 Miles I AHTANUM RD 3 .P ONEER ST \� e TERRACE HGTS DR ANUM r I I a transpogroup �r '-11 `1-11 Figure 4-9. Transportation Improvement Projects 69 • CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan Location (Extents) Total Estimated Cost Table 4-3. Transportation Improvement Projects ID I-1 1-2 1-3 Project Name Nob Hill Blvd / Fair Ave Intersection Improvements Nob Hill Blvd / 18th St Intersection Improvements 64th Ave / Ahtanum Rd Intersection Improvements 1-4 3rd Ave / Washington Ave Intersection Improvements I-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-12 1-13 Washington Ave / Longfiber Rd Intersection Improvements 1st St / Washington Ave Intersection Improvements 72nd Ave / Tieton Dr Intersection Improvements 40th Ave / Fruitvale Blvd Intersection Improvements 40th Ave / Tieton Dr Intersection Improvements 40th Ave / Summitview Ave Intersection Improvements 40th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd Intersection Improvements 16th Ave / Lincoln Ave Intersection Improvements 16th Ave / Nob Hill Blvd Intersection Improvements Description Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Widen Nob Hill Boulevard through the intersection, construct left -turn lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and drainage. Upgrade signal by installing mast arm structures. Provide dual southbound left -turn lanes. Add westbound right -turn lane. Install curb, gutter, sidewalk, upgrade traffic signal system. Coordinate with Project 1-13 (trail connection). Improve the 64th Avenue and Ahtanum Road intersection by constructing a westbound right -turn lane on Ahtanum and installing a traffic signal. Upgrade the traffic signalization system Improve the Washington Avenue and Longfiber Road intersection by constructing an eastboung left -turn lane on Washington and a northbound left -turn lane on Longfiber, 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. Realign intersection, widen E. Washington Avenue to accommodate an additional lane, replace curb, gutter and sidewalk, and install a new traffic signalization system. Project may be removed based on Washington Avenue study findings. Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes on westbound and southbound approaches when needed. Project may change based on 40th Avenue Access Management Plan Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Project may change based on 40th Avenue Access Management Plan Improve the intersection by constructing larger corner radii, lengthening the turn lanes, and upgrading the traffic signal system. Project may be modified based on 40th Avenue Access Management Corridor Study findings. Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Project may change based on 40th Avenue Access Management Plan Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Project may change based on 16th Avenue Access Management Plan and Lincoln Ave/MLK Bvd Realignment Study. Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Project may change based on 16th Avenue Access Management Plan $1,900,000 $516,000 $575,000 $230,000 $1,023,000 Time Frame Medium Medium Short Medium Medium $2,000,000 Long $6,000,000 Long $6,000,000 Long $6,000,000 Long $1,093,000 Medium $6,000,000 Long $6,000,000 Long $6,000,000 Long BeeB ease II II ■ • • IM.�� We atce Yakima ) 70 1 ID Project Name 34th Ave / Fruitvale Blvd 1-14 Intersection Improvements and Bike Crossing 1-15 1st St /1St Intersection Improvements 3rd Ave / Nob Hill Blvd Intersection Improvements Nob Hill Blvd / 1st St Intersection Improvements 1-18 72nd Ave / Washington Ave Intersection Improvements 40th Ave / Englewood Ave Intersection Improvements Powerhouse Rd / Englewood Ave Intersection Improvements 48th Ave / Summitview Ave Intersection Improvements Washington Ave / 40th Ave Intersection Improvements SR12/16thAve Interchange Improvements 16th Ave / Fruitvale Blvd Intersection Improvements 16th Ave / Tieton Dr Intersection Improvements 16th Ave / Washington Blvd Intersection Improvements Tieton Dr / 5th Ave Intersection Improvements 1-16 1-17 1-19 1-20 1-21 1-22 1-23 1-24 1-25 1-26 1-27 Location (Extents) Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Interchange: SR 12 Ramps / 16th Avenue Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection • CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan Description Improve intersection by installing multilane roundabout, curb, gutter and sidewalk. Project includes a single -lane roundabout at River Rd/34th Ave intersection. Add lower stress bike crossing north -south. Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes on northbound and southbound approaches when needed. Set standard at LOS E. Add dual left -turn lanes when needed. Improve intersection by installing a traffic signal system or roundabout. Replace traffic signal poles and upgrade controller. Construct single -lane roundabout. If not possible, realign intersection, install curb, gutter, sidewalk and safety flashing signal. Install traffic signal at the intersection of Summitview Avenue and 48th Avenue. Convert one northbound lane to a southbound left -turn lane to provide dual left -turn lanes. Update signal and lane markings at intersection to match. Construct a roundabout where the westbound ramps intersect with N. 16th Avenue. Coordinate with 1-13 project. Improve the intersection by constructing larger curb radii, installing ADA ramps, and upgrading the traffic signal system. Reconstruct and widen 16th Avenue and Tieton Drive by adding/lengthening left -turn lanes for all movements at the intersection. Upgrade the traffic signal. Widen south leg to provide exclusive dual left -turn lanes. Project may change based on Washington Ave corridor study. Remove existing traffic signal and construct a roundabout, remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and drainage Total Estimated Cost Time Frame $1,012,898 Short $6,000,000 Long $3,000,000 Long $7,000,000 Long $840,000 Medium $350,000 Medium $728,000 Medium $693,000 Medium $200,000 Medium $1,500,000 Medium $806,000 Medium $5,800,000 Medium $280,000 Medium $1,200,000 Medium RiiIVIliI 700E AFAI DI0 ID Project Name A-1 Powerhouse Rd Safety Improvements A-2 Washington Ave Bike Corridor (64th -24th) A-3 Naches Avenue Sidewalk A-4 4th Street Sidewalk A-5 Chestnut Avenue Sidewalk A-6 Mead Avenue Sidewalk A-7 Browne Avenue Sidewalk A-8 Mead Avenue Pedestrian Signal A-9 44th Avenue Sidewalk A-10 Pacific Avenue Sidewalk A-11 Fair Avenue Sidewalk A-12 Nob Hill Blvd. Sidewalk SR 12 / 16th Ave Interchange Trail Improvements A-14 N. 16th Avenue Sidewalk A-13 A-15 A-16 16th Ave Sidewalk Improvements (Washington -Nob Hill) Nob Hill Blvd Sidewalk Improvements (16th -6th) A-17 Chestnut Ave/40th Ave Crossing A-18 A-19 A-20 Yakima Greenway Trail Access (Yakima Ave) Yakima Greenway Trail Access (Nob Hill Blvd) Powerhouse Trail Connection (16th Ave) • CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan Location (Extents) Description Total Estimated Cost Powerhouse Rd: Cowiche Canyon Rd to Mobile Home Park Access Washington Ave: 64th St to 24th St Pacific Ave. to Walnut Ave. Pacific Ave. to Walnut Ave. 56th Ave. to 70th Ave. 27th Ave. to 28th Ave. 7th Ave. to 16th Ave. 10th Ave to 10th Ave. Viola to Randall Park Fair Avenue to Jail Property Pacific Ave. to Nob Hill Blvd. 12th Street to 14th Street Interchange: SR 12 Ramps / 16th Avenue Fruitvale Blvd. to River Road 16th Ave: Washington Ave to Nob Hill Blvd. Nob Hill Blvd: 16th Ave to 6th St Intersection (crossing east -west) Along Yakima Ave, 10th St to 18th St Along Nob Hill Blvd, 18th St to 1-82 NB Ramps Intersection of 16th Ave/ Englewood Ave Widen westbound lane to provide a 14 -foot wide shared bike lane and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north side of the road. Add low stress bike trail on north side of corridor Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north side of the road Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side of the road Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk Install pedestrian signal across Mead Avenue north of 10th Avenue Construct sidewalk on the west side of the road. Construct sidewalk on both sides of the road where needed. Construct sidewalk on the west side of the road. Construct sidewalk on the south side of the road. Add two-way cycle track on west side of bridge and corresponding intersection improvements to complete trail. Coordinate with X project. Construct sidewalk on the west side of the road. Install 7 -foot sidewalk on the west side of 16th Avenue. Construct sidewalk in locations where it doesn't exist on the south side of Nob Hill. Add intersection treatment to create lower stress bicycle connection Reduce turn radii at major intersections and improve trail pavement markings; complete trail connection on east end of corridor. Coordinate with future interchange improvements (Project R-37). Reduce turn radii at major intersections and improve trail pavement markings; complete trail connection on west end of corridor Add lower stress bike connection between existing Powerhouse Trail endpoints, across intersection. Time Frame $245,000 Short $2,550,000 Medium $330,000 Medium $315,000 Medium $448,200 Medium $17,000 Medium $336,000 Medium $300,000 Medium $275,000 Medium $300,000 Medium $370,000 Medium $130,000 Medium $150,000 Medium $250,000 Medium $730,000 Medium $1,500,000 Medium $40,000 Medium $1,340,000 Medium $690,000 Medium $220,000 Medium BeeB BeeB II II • • We atce Yakima 72 • CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan Location (Extents) Total Estimated Cost ID Project Name A-21 32nd Ave/Lincoln Ave Bike Crossing 88th Ave Reconstruction (Tieton-Summitview) A-22 A-23 Adams ES & Washington MS Safety Improvements A-24 32nd Ave/34th Ave Bike Corridor A-25 Chestnut Ave Bike Corridor A-26 10th/11th Ave Bike Corridor A-27 3rd Street Bike Corridor A-28 Maple St/Parks Bike Corridor A-29 Pacific/18th St Bike Corridor A-30 Garfield ES Safety Improvements Description Intersection 88th Ave: Tieton Dr to Summitview Ave Various Streets Along 32nd Ave, from Mead Ave to Englewood Ave; Along 34th Ave, Englewood Ave to Fruitvale Blvd Along Chestnut Ave, 72nd Ave to 24th; Jog north along 24th, then along Yakima Ave, 24th to 14th; Jog along Terrace St, 12th Ave, Chestnut Ave, 11th Ave to Walnute Ave; Along Walnut Ave, 11th Ave to 5th Ave Along 11th Ave, Walnut St to Steward St; Jog along Steward St; Along 10th Ave, Steward St to Washington St Along 3rd St, I St to Pacific Ave Along Maple St, 3rd St to 13th St; Along 13th St, Maple St to Beech St; Along Beech St, 13th St to Chalmers Rd; Along Chalmers Rd, Beech St to Riverside St; Along Riversidr St, Chalmers Rd to 18th St; Along 18th St, Riverside St to Bike Trail Connection Along Pacific Ave, 3rd St to 18th St; Along 18th St, Pacific Ave to Nob Hill Blvd Various Streets Add RRFB for north -south bike crossing Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage system on the east side of 88th Avenue. This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of Adams Elementary School and Washington Middle School, such as, constructing sidewalks, improving roadway crossings, installing flashers and installing fencing. Add bike boulevard treatments and wayfinding to corridor Add bike boulevard treatments (or bike lanes in wider sections) and wayfinding to corridor Add bike lanes or bike boulevard elements along corridor to lower stress Add bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, or widen buffered bike lanes to lower stress Intersection crossing improvement at 6th St; Add bike lanes and wayfinding; Along Beech St remove yellow centerline and add fog lines to indicate low volume roadway Add bike lanes by removing parking or removing center median This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of Garfield Elementary School, such as, constructing sidewalk, improving roadway crossings, installing flashers. $40,000 Time Frame Medium $650,000 Medium $282,000 Short $840,000 Medium $1,220,000 Medium $640,000 Medium $810,000 Medium $520,000 Medium $590,000 Medium $141,000 Short BeeB BeeB II II • • We atce Yakima ) 73 • CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan Location (Extents) Total Estimated Cost ID Project Name A-31 McClure ES Safety Improvements A-32 McKinley ES Safety Improvements A-33 Powerhouse Rd Bike Corridor A-34 Cowiche Canyon Trail Improvements A-35 34th Ave to Greenway Trail Connection A-36 A-37 S-1 S-2 S-3 Yakima Ave Bike Corridor Connection (16th -Terrace) 3rd Avenue Sidewalk 40th Ave Access Management Plan (SR 12 -Washington) 16th Ave Access Management Plan (SR 12 -Washington) Lincoln Ave & MLK Blvd Realignment Study (Auto and Bike Mobility) S-4 Washington Ave Corridor Study West Valley S-5 North/South Corridor (Ahtanum-Summitview) Description Various Streets Various Streets Powerhouse Rd: Mobile Home Park Access to 40th Ave Cowiche Canyon: Powerhouse Rd to Trailhead Along Fruitvale Blvd: 34th Ave to 40th Ave Yakima Ave: 16th Ave to Terrace St Nob Hill Blvd to Walnut Ave. 40th Ave: SR 12 to Washington Ave 16th Ave: SR 12 to Washington Ave Lincoln Avenue: 16th Ave to 5th Ave; Pierce Ave: Lincoln Ave to Summitview Ave Washington Ave: 16th Ave to 1st St North-South Corridor West of 80th Ave: Ahtanum Rd to Summitview Ave This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of McClure Elementary School, such as, constructing sidewalk, ADA ramps and improving crosswalks. This project will make various pedestrian safety improvements in the vicinity of McKinley Elementary School, such as, replacing dilapidated sidewalk, constructing ADA ramps, and installing a HAWK pedestrian crossing system. Add bike lanes Construct a 10 -foot wide pathway, including two bridges over Cowiche Creek. Provide cycle track or trail on north side of Fruitvale Blvd to provide low stress bike connection between two primary bike corridors. Add short section of cycle track on south side of Yakima (300 feet east of 16th Avenue to Terrace St) by removing one eastbound vehicle lane. Remove the existing sidewalk on both sides of the road and install new sidewalk Study to determine plan for access management and spot intersection improvements to improve vehicle capacity and safety for all travel modes in corridor. Study to determine plan for access management and spot intersection improvements to improve vehicle capacity and safety for all travel modes in corridor. Study the option of orienting the west end of the Lincoln/MLK couplet south to Summitview, and converting Lincoln Ave (16th to Pierce) to 3 lanes with bike lanes. Pierce Ave would be widened (to the east) to 5 lanes between Summitview Ave and MLK Blvd. Intersection of Summitview Ave/Pierce Ave would have dual eastbound left -turns and dual southbound right turns. Need to improve both auto and bike east -west mobility in area. Study feasibility of converting corridor from 4 lanes to 3 lanes. Could reduce or eliminate need for improvements at 16th St, Longfiber Rd, and 1st St. Increases safety along corridor and reduces conflicts at the at -grade railroad crossing. Corridor study to determine the best location for a north/south limited access vehicle corridor in West Valley. City and County joint project. Time Frame $270,000 Short $480,000 Short $350,000 Medium $2,000,000 Short $190,000 Medium $80,000 Medium $480,000 Medium $500,000 Medium $500,000 Medium $250,000 Medium $150,000 Medium $500,000 Long Time Frame CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan ID Project Name Location (Extents) Description oa Estimated Cost :WA VIIM12:1•114MI40II R-1 H St Extension, Phase 1 (1st -10th) 'H' St: 1st St to 10th St Construct new 3 -lane roadway including water, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage system. $5,100,000 Short R-2 24th Avenue Bike Corridor (Inglewood -Washington) 24th Ave: Inglewood Ave to Washington Ave Convert 4 -lane street to 3 -lane street with bike lanes between Washington and Nob Hill. Wayfinding throughout corridor. $200,000 Medium R-3 6th Avenue Rehabilitation (Walnut -River) 6th Avenue, Walnut St to River Rd Reconstruct the existing trolley rail and impacted roadway, grind and overlay the remaining width of 6th Avenue. $4,400,000 Medium R-4 1st St Revitalization, Phase 2 (MLK-N St) 1st St: MLK Blvd to 'N' St Improve North 1st Street by rehabilitating the pavement and lane markings, removing on - street parking, enhancing street and pedestrian lighting, constructing median islands and $10,000,000 Medium installing various pedestrian and decorative elements. R-5 Linclon/MLK Bike Corridor Along Lincoln Ave, 5th Ave to 10th St; Along MLK Blvd, 5th Ave to 10th St; Along Fair Ave, 10th St to Yakima Ave Along Lincoln Ave and MLK Blvd, reduce vehicle lanes to 2 and add buffered/protected bike lanes. Add signage/markings to completed full corridor. $500,000 Medium R-6 Yakima Downtown Future Initiatives, Phase 5 Yakima Ave Corridor Area: 1st St to 9th St Install historic lighting, sidewalk modifications and other improvements. Exact improvement area(s) to be determined. $6,000,000 Medium R-7 Yakima Ave Bridge Replacement (18th St) Yakima Ave / 18th Street Crossing Replace the bridge on E. Yakima Avenue that crosses over 18th Street. Consider lowering 18th Street to accommodate larger vehicles. $3,160,000 Medium 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 Hollow Creek) 80th Ave: Wide Hollow Rd to Plath Ave 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 County's flood plain management project. $100,000 Short R-12 Wide Hollow Rd Bridge Widening (Wide Hollow Creek) Wide Hollow Rd: 89th Ave to 88th Ave 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 County's flood plain management project. $100,000 Short 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 (Tieton-Zier) 88th Ave: Tieton Dr to Zier Rd Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage system. $2,519,000 Medium BeeB BeeB II II •• We atce Yakima pio 75 • CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan ID Project Name Location (Extents) Description Total Estimated Cost Time Frame :WA DIT /VIIM12:1•114MI40II R-15 66th Ave Widening (Summitview-Scenic) 66th Ave: Summitview Ave to Scenic Dr Reconstruct and widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage system and utilities. $1,560,000 Medium 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. Keep at two vehicle lanes, no center vehicle median. $4,140,000 Medium R-17 64th Ave Widening (Washington -Nob Hill) 64th Ave: Washington Ave to Nob Hill Blvd Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage system. $2,081,000 Medium R-18 Englewood Ave Widening (40th -56th) Englewood Ave: 40th Ave to 56th Ave Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage system. $1,703,000 Medium R-19 Englewood Ave Widening (24th -40th) and Bike Corridor Connection Englewood Ave: 24th Ave to 40th Ave Reconstruct and widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage system. Install sewer and water lines. Add bike lanes to corridor. $3,854,000 Medium R-20 Englewood Ave Widening (16th -24th) Englewood Ave: 16th Ave to 24th Ave Widen roadway to three lanes, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage system, water and sewer lines. Add bike lanes to corridor. $3,411,000 Medium R-21 48th Avenue Widening (Summitview-Nob Hill) 48th Ave: Summitview Ave to Nob Hill Blvd Reconstruct and widen 48th Avenue, install curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and drainage system. $2,575,000 Medium 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 (6th -18th) Nob Hill Boulevard: 6th St to 18th St Reconstruct and widen roadway to 5 lanes with intersection improvements, curb, gutter, $9,442,000 Medium sidewalk, street lighting and drainage system. R-24 Mead Ave Reconstruction (Rudkin-Fair) Mead Ave: Rudkin Rd to Fair Ave Partner with Union Gap to reconstruct E. Mead Avenue, install curb, gutter, sidewalk and $2,158,000 Medium storm drainage system. R-25 Rudkin Rd Reconstruction (Viola -Rainier) Rudkin Rd: Viola Ave to Rainier PI Reconstruct roadway, install curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage. Partner with Union Gap to install additional sewer force main. $2,132,000 Medium R-26 1st St Revitalization, Phase 1 (N St -SR 12) 1st St: 'N' St to SR 12 Improve North 1st Street by rehabilitating the pavement and lane markings, removing on - street parking, enhancing street and pedestrian lighting, constructing median islands and installing various pedestrian and decorative elements. $3,142,000 Short R-27 Yakima Valley Transportation Company Preservation Intersection (Yakima Ave / 6th Ave) Remove and replace a portion of the existing trolley rail in the vicinity of the intersection of 6th Avenue and Yakima Avenue. $52,000 Short R-28 Northside Alley Paving Alleys in area between Folsom Ave, Fruitvale Blvd, 16th Ave, and 6th Ave Pave the east/west gravel alleys between Folsom Avenue and Fruitvale Boulevard from 16th Avenue to 6th Avenue. $448,185 Short R-29 Lincoln Ave Safety Improvements (40th -Powerhouse) Lincoln Ave: 40th Ave to Powerhouse Rd Convert 4 -lane street to 3 -lane street with bike lanes. $420,000 Medium CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan ID Project Name Location (Extents) Description Total Estimated Cost Time Frame 01 AT,TLIH 1 DPD/VA ;H I:I1:1Aci lO X11 N-1 Bravo Company Blvd Extension (H -Lincoln) 10th St: 'H' St to Lincoln Ave Construct new 5 -lane roadway including water, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage system. Connects new East-West corridor in Mill Site to Lincoln/MLK corridor. $6,600,000 Short N-2 H St Extension, Phase 2 (10th -I 82) 'H' St: 10th St to 1-82 Construct 5 -lane new roadway including water, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage system. Creates Mill Site east -west roadway. $3,000,000 Short N-3 75th Ave Connection (Mead -Nob Hill) 75th Ave: Mead Ave to Nob Hill Blvd $1,500,000 Medium N-4 Fruitvale Blvd to H Street Connection (5th -1st) New arterial roadway between Fruitvale Blvd/5th Ave intersection and 1st St/H St intersection. Contruction new arterial roadway to connect the Fruitvale Blvd and H St corridors to provide a continuous east -west corridor. RR crossing would be grade separated. $25,000,000 Long N-5 H St Extension, Phase 3 (1 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 0-1 0-2 I-82 / Yakima Ave Interchange Improvements Ahtanum Road 1-82 Corridor: SR 12 to Nob Hill Ahtanum Road from 26th Avenue to 52nd Avenue 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) roads and auxilary lanes along 1-82. Construct new diamond interchange with 'H' Street extension. Connect 'H' 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). Reconstructing and widening roadway to three lanes, with a separated bike/pedestrian pathway. $75,000,000 Medium $6,560,000 Short BeeB BeeB II II • • We atce Yakima ) 77 This page left intentionally blank. FINANCING PROGRAM 2040 Transportation System Plan 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 f 530 525 520 S15 510 $5 50 —Total (2018$) —Total (Nomnall M1 h O w 7 4 1 'LOQ h0° � M1�°4 4D° M1 .pc'' 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 $4.4 million in 2014. Over the same period administration and operations expenses have been relatively flat. 8 535 S 530 525 S20 515 510 ss Sn ° n 'L S b • Traffic PdIany • Plant Maintenance & Cona ruCGon Dem Service • AilminiOrahpm d OperabCo$ • Oxhar • Maintenance Figure 5-2. Operations and Maintenance Expenditures 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. 575 i 530 525 520 515 510 55 50 tie 1°4' e P4. ti �� OF°� M1° C° 'O'S ti° .1°1 Figure 5-3. Construction Expenditures • CITY OF YAKIMA 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. 535 i 530 575 520 515 510 55 SO „fee", h°°g e fi 1 _a 'L'" e ,'. M1o�M1 P.,"� M10 b Figure 5-4. Historical Transportation Revenue 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 • � 533 2 530 S25 azo 515 510 CITY OF YAKIMA 2040 Transportation System Plan • SGeGa Asses5rrent • General Fr.nd • Band Proceeds • Other 1 oral Rec pts • Property Taxes eb h°° 'b 4°°^ h$e 'G' 'L°A° M1°^s 'L°i'4 'F°+'S 'L°••D Figure 5-5. Local Revenue e s33 s3o 525 520 S15 S10 so M1ff • State Fuel Tax Dr$tributipn • Federal Revenues • Other State Funds 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 funding source for transportation capital projects; however, these funds are distributed 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. 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 development and define appropriate mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act (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 2040 Transportation System Plan ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 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 Time Frame Category New Roadway Roadway Improvements Intersection Improvements Active Transportation Study $9,600,000 $13,587.185 $1,631,000 $3,418,000 $0 Medium $51,500,000 $61,915,000 $17,159,000 $16,711,200 $1,400,000 Long Total Cost $25,000,000 $0 $54,000,000 $0 $50Q000 $86,100,000 $75,502,185 $72,790,000 $20,129,200 $1,900,000 Total $28,263,185 $148,685,200 $79,500,000 $256,421,385 Table 5-1. Estimated Project and Program Costs (2015 $) • CITY OF YAKIMA 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. ease ease II II We atce Yakima 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 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. ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 86 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 Category Short Time Frame Medium Long Total Co• New Roadway Roadway Improvements Intersection Improvements Active Transportation Study $o $4,123,500 $184,600 $o $o $202,500 $7,733,400 $2,930,800 $5,580,900 $189,100 $2,50Q000 $0 $7,290,000 $0 $67,500 $2,702,500 $11,856,900 $10,405,400 $5,581,900 $256,600 Total $4,308,100 $16,637,700 $9,857,500 $30,803,300 Table 5-2. Estimated Local Match Funding (2015 $) Category Short Time Frame Medium Long Total Cost Projected Transportation Revenue for Construction $34,820,000 $73,430,000 $78,770,000 $187,020,000 Transportation Improvement Project Costs $28,236,185 $148,685,200 $79,500,000 $256,421,385 Difference $6,583,815 -$75,255,200 -$730,000 -$69,401,385 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. ease ease II II We atce Yakima 87 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). ease ease II II •• We atce Yakima 88 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. ease ease II II ■ •• We atce Yakima 89 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 This page left intentionally blank. Transportation Element Consistency Review Process for the City of Yakima 3/23/2017 Yakima Valley Conference of Governments INTRODUCTION This document describes a process that allows the Yakima Valley Regional Transportation Planning Organization (Yakima Valley RTPC) to certify the consistency of transportation elements of local comprehensive plans. This certification is based on the Growth Management Act (GMA) 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 confo to the requirements of the GMA. The GMA states that this process is to be developed and administered by Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPDs). Yakima Valley Conference of Governments (YVCOG) is the designated lead planning agency for the Yakima Valley RfPfa The WAC's procedural criteria for adopting comprehensive plans. Chapter 365-196 WAC, reiterates sections of the RCWs and recommends further steps to meet the requirements. CONFO • ITY WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT The GMA conformity requirement directs R IPOs 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 365-196-430, THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Required transportation -related elements listed in RCW 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 - below an established LOS standard; e. Ten year traffic forecast; f. 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 program, c. Funding shortfalls; 5. Intergovernmental coordination; 6. Demand management strategies; and, 7. Pedestrian and bicycle planning. WASHINGTON ADIvaNISTRATIVE CODE RECOMMENDATIONS The WAC 365-196-430 recommends further steps to meet the above requirements. 1. 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 decisions on adjacent jurisdictions. Impacts of those decisions should be identified and discussion of strategies to address inconsistencies should be included. 3 Traffic forecasts should be based on adopted regional growth strategies, the regional transportation plan, and comprehensive plans within the region to 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 Yakima Valley RTPO staff and representatives of member jurisdictions through the Transportation Technical Advisory Committees (TAC), 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 comment section for each checklist item to help clarify what is inconsistent or to provide positive feedback about certification efforts. A four -step certification review of local transportation elements is proposed: I. Preliminary review will be performed by YVCOG staff. The checklist will be used as an aid in conducting the preliminary 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. If inconsistencies and/or problems are identified, discussions will first occur between YVCOG staff and the jurisdiction's staff, If issues cannot be resolved at this level, the discussion will next take place with the Trans por tat ion TAC. Any unresolved issues from the TAC level will then be discussed by the YVCOG Transportation Policy Board for consideration about certification, The review process will be accomplished within sixty days of receipt of the Transportation Element as 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 recertification. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHECKLIST The following checklist is used to evaluate local plans' transportation elements for conformity with state 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, 1. El Yes 1 No Were land use assumptions used in estimating travel? 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. See also Transportation Element Land Use Changes on Page T-4 and Goal 6.3 on Page T-6, 2 il Yes 0 No Does the inventory of transportation facilities and services include all transportation modes, such as automobiles, transit, track/freight, rail, air, pedestrian, and bicycle? Transportation Element Consistency Review 2017 — City of Yakima Page 2 Yaki ' and bicycle modes and struc orservices (Pages 11 through 34, Section 2. Existing Tr: is portation System). nsportation Element provides discussion about auto/truck/freight, transit, rail, air, pedestrian 1:# Yes EJ No Have LOS S utes? The City of Y operates a pub Agency Level of S 'cc Standards (Page ds been established for all arterials, including the state highways and ystem. See the Tx porttion SystruMarx Section 1.6 — 4 lVesJNo Are LOS ruLliy coordinated and consistent with adjacent jurisdictions? Y: I's Transportation System Plan leads the reader through functional classification discussion, ideal" d urban and al road y capacities and then explau how LOS is det • ed for the ing a standardized measure in a regionally utilized reference called the Highway Capacity Manuai. The specific lysis used vol ue/capacity ratio is regionally consistent (Section 1.6 on Page 9 and also Section 4.1 on Pages 41-49). 5 i4 Ye U No Es a deficiency analysis and an action strategy to address the identified deficiencies proposed in the plan? Deficiencies are identified and addressed an Page T-4 of the T p. n El IV, and in the list of portation improvement projects in Section 4,6 on Pages 68-71 o he Transportation System Plan. 6.4 Ye C No Does the plan con 4 1 a '-year financial plan based on the n identified which will as the basis of the six-year street, road, orfl it plan? Yaki 's Transportation System Plan contains the multi-year Transportation Improvement Program road plan. There is discussion in the Plan about federal, state, and local funding sources for current and future • portation progr p1 • projects (Pages 67-75, Section 5. Financing Progr • 7. Yes No Does the plan contain goal statements to ensure mitigation of development impacts so affected facilities meet concurrency requirements? e City of Yaki 43- 's Transportation Element contains goal statements and policies about planning for mini g development caused impacts. (Section 6.5 on Pages T-6 through T-10). 8. Yes DNo lathel The City of Y T sportation E Introduction), -y nsstenL with the adopted land use plan? :s Transportation Element acknowledges the needed consistency between the nt and the L Use Element in the comprehensive plan. (Page T-1, Section 6.1. Transportation Element Consistency Review 2017 —City of Yakima Page 3 9. Yes D No Are goal statements incorporated into the plan to accommodate the impacts related to development? The Ci mjnimi f Yakima's Transportation Element contains goal statements and policies about planning for development caused impacts. (Section 6,5 on Pages T-6 through T-10). 10. El Yes 0 No Does the plan address oord ton witli adjaceni jurisdictions to determine land uses within the adjacent jurisdictions that would affect Iocal traffic patterns? The City of Y 's Transportation Element was written acknowledging the need for its comprehensive plan to be consistent with associated Coun 'de Pia g Policies (Page T-10, Policies 6,5.30 and 6.5.31). Additionally, the COG regional travel demand model uses land use ass sptions from every jurisdiction as an input to the travel demand model. The Coun de model is being updated and is not available for a • ic analysis at this a i.e however, the City of Y and each jurisdiction will provide land use and i structure info «tion for the year 2017 for model development; land use and infrastructure info ton for the year 2020 for use with anal • .g affects created by implementation of the TEP; and and use and infrastructure info tion for the year 2040 for use with anal i ig affects created by implementation of the TP. 13y modeling current and future pro d land 11 used by land uses d if needed. throughout the County in one comprehensive model set, local traffic pa and proposed. projects wi or between communities can be identified Yes 0 No Does the plan address current and future c sts as part of the planning efforts? gional, and local Yaki Transportation Element covers the need for current and future coordination with state, regional, and local interests in Section 6.1 Introduction on Page1101, and in Policies 6,5.30 and 6.5.31 on Page T- 10. Transportation TAC Motion For Recommendation Of Consistency Review Checklist YVCOG TEC 1 CAL ADVISORY CO THAT THE CITY OF Y T • SPORTATION ET EMENT IS IN SUBST COMPL CE CONSISTENCY REQULREMENTS OF THE GROWTH - AGE ACT. IT IS RECOG ED THAT PARTICU • P ' T OF THE P - THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED TO NOT HE IN CO *L CE 1 L BE DRESSED IN 1 NBXT UPDATE OF THE PLAN. Transportation Policy Board Motion For Approval Of Consistency Review Checklist THE YVCOG T SPORTATION POLICY BO 1 FINDS THAT THE CITY OF Y A'S T* SPORTATION ELEMENT IS IN SUBST COMPL CE WITH THE CONSISTENCY REQUIRENIENTS OF THE GRO H NAGEMENT ACT. IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT P • TICULAR PART OF THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED TO NOT BE IN NEXT UPDATE OF THE PLAN. COMPLIANCE WILL BE ADDRESSED IN Transportation Element Consistency Review Z017 — City of Yakima Page 4 Review 2017 — City of Transportation Element Date: April 17, 2017 Jurisdiction: City of Y Transportation Element Consistency Certification Repot t Yakima Valley Conference of Governments •'4..1I 0 The YVCOG stalThas reviewed the City ofY; 's draft Transportation Element for consistency with the Washington State Growth M gement Act (G ), in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070. The draft pi= is consistent with 11 out of 11 elements of the consistency review checklist (attached),, YVCOG Transportation Policy Board certifies that the City of Yakima's Transportation Element conforms to the require nts of the G cc: Matt Kiwic, WSDOT HQ Transportation Element Consistency Review 2017 — City of Yakima Page 6 This page left intentionally blank. This page left intentionally blank. Prepared for the City of Yakima Prepared by transpogroup r :::AN Last updated May 22, 2017 Wewte rWl comprehensive plan 2040 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN May, 2017 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 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 UPDZE 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 UPDDIE 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 Parks and Recreation YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 1. Facilities and Services addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan Facility Type Provider Description Applicable Plans Public Buildings City of Yakima Includes City -owned public buildings. • City Budget, 2016 Fire and Emergency Services Yakima Fire Department Provides facilities that support the provision of fire and emergency services. • Yakima Fire Department Annual Report, 2015 Law Enforcement 1 Yakima Police Department Provides facilities that support the provision of law enforcement services. • Yakima Police Department 2014 Annual Report Schools • Yakima School District • West Valley School District 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. • 2014 — 2015 Fiscal Year -End Report (YSD) • 2016 — 2017 Budget Summary (WVSD) Parks Provides facilities for passive and active recreational activities. • 2012 — 2017 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan (Under Update) Streets Yakima Public Works Provides streets, sidewalks, traffic controls, and street lighting. • 6 -Year TIP, 2017 — 2022 • Transportation System Plan 2017 Transit 7 Yakima Transit JiProvides transit service in and around the City of Yakima. • Transit Development Plan Annual Report for 2015 and Six -Year Plan 2016 — 2021 Air Terminal Yakima Air Terminal The Air Terminal is owned by the airport and provides facilities for air service. The City contracts with a third - party operator. • Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport Master Plan, 2015 Wastewater Yakima Public Works Provides facilities used in collection, transmission, storage, and treatment or discharge of waterborne waste within the city. • 2015 Waste Load Assessment • 2013 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Stormwater L May 2017 Yakima Public Works Provides facilities that collect and transport stormwater runoff. • Stormwater Management Program for City of Yakima, 2015 4 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDTIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Facility Type Provider Description Applicable Plans Water • Yakima Public Works • Nob Hill Water Associates Provides supply of potable water to portions of the City of Yakima. J • City of Yakima, Water System Plan Update, 2017 • Nob Hill Water Association Draft Water System Plan, May 2015 Irrigation Refuse Yakima Public Works Provides supply of non -potable irrigation water to portions of the City of Yakima. City of Yakima Refuse • City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division, 2016 Provides automated refuse collection to residential customers. City Budget, 2016 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 2015 2022 2040 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 A 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 5 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDTZE 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 6 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDIE 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 $0.40 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. Exhibit 3 shows the historical and projected non -transfer and non -grant revenues for CBD capital improvement. Exhibit 3 shows historical revenues to the left of the dotted line and an estimated future revenue trend to the right of the dotted line. An average annual per capita dollar amount is assumed in each year for this analysis, based on 5 -year historical per capita revenues. While the annual average cannot fully represent future receipt of revenues, it approximates how many total dollars may be received over a period of time. This method of projection is consistent for the analysis of dedicated revenues for all service areas analyzed. May 2017 7 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDT4E CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 3. Historical and Projected CBD Improvement Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 100 K 90 K 80 K 70 K 60 K 50 K 40 K 30 K 20 K 10 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 4 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 4. Projected CBD Improvement Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Dedicated Revenues Subtotal 2017-2022 Subtotal 2023-2040 Revenue Total 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $250,000 $1,220,000 $1,470,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 $9 million in community donations. Exhibit 5. Projected Dedicated CBD Improvement Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total CBD Improvements Capital Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 Revenues 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $250,000 $1,220,000 $1,470,000 1 $1,480,000 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 for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future May 2017 8 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDME 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$1 CBD Improvements Revenue Gap Estimated Fund Revenues $250,000 2016 Fund Balance $2,279 Total Funds Available $250,000 Capital Costs2 $0 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $250,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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 120 K 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, 2017 May 2017 9 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 8 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 8. Projected Capitol Theatre Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfers ubtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $340,000 $1,440,000 $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 $245,000 in its Capitol Theatre Capital Fund. These funds are also available to cover theatre projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 9. Projected Dedicated Capitol Theatre Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ otal Capitol Theatre Capital ubtota Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 Revenues 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $340,000 $1,440,000 $1,780,000 $2,030,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017 Capitol Theatre: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Capitol Theatre 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 10. Estimated Capitol Theatre Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$1 Capitol Theatre Estimated Fund Revenues 2016 Fund Balance Revenue Gap $340,000 Total Funds Available $590,000 Capital Costs2 $0 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $590,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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 $2.00 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. May 2017 10 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDTiE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 11. Historical and Projected Convention Center Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 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, 2916; BERK, 2017 Exhibit 12 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 12. Projected Convention Center Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Dedicated Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 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 $70,000 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. May 2017 11 Revenue Gap YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 13. Historical and Projected Convention Center Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 160 K 140 K 120 K 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, 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$ Operating Transfers ubtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $470,000 $2,170,000 $2,640,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 $584,000 in its convention center capital fund. These funds are also available to cover convention center projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 15. Projected Dedicated Convention Center Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Convention Center Capital Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 201. Revenues 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017 $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 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 16. Estimated Convention Center Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$1 Convention Center May 2017 12 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDIE 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 Su rplus/(Deficit) $2,300,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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 $1.50 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. 450 K 400 K 350 K 300 K 250 K 200 K 150 K 100 K 50 K 0 Exhibit 17. Historical and Projected Fire Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 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. Projected Fire Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Dedicated Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $940,000 $4,380,000 $5,320,000 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 $100,000 annually, with 3% inflation growth. May 2017 13 300 K 250 K 200 K 150 K 100 K 50 K 0 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 19. Historical and Projected Fire Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 Exhibit 20 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 20. Projected Fire Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfer Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $670,000 $2,880,000 $3,550,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 $34,000 in its fire capital fund. These funds are also available to cover fire projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 21. Projected Fire Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Fire Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $1,610,000 $7,440,000 $9,050,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $9,090,000 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 UPDTIE 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 $420,000 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ $1,220,000 2lnflation Adjusted to YOE$ 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 $3.45 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. Exhibit 23. Historical and Projected Law and Justice Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 900 K 800 K 700 K 600 K 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 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 Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $2,160,000 $10,480,000 $12,640,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 May 2017 15 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDTZE 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 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 Exhibit 26 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 26. Projected Law and Justice Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfers Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues 1 $1,240,000 $5,330,000 $6,570,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 $548,000 in its police capital fund. These funds are also available to cover police projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 27. Projected Law & Justice Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Law & Justice Capital Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 Revenues 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $3,390,000 $15,810,000 $19,200,000 $19,750,000 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 UPDME 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 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 28. Estimated Law & Justice Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$1 Law & Justice Revenue Gap Estimated Fund Revenues $3,390,000 2016 Fund Balance $547,718 Total Funds Available $3,940,000 Capital Costs2 $0 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $3,940,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4. Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017 Airport 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 $1.98 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. 500 K 450 K 400 K 350 K 300 K 250 K 200 K 150 K 100 K 50 K 0 Exhibit 29. Historical and Projected Airport Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 May 2017 17 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDT4E 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$ Dedicated Revenues Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 $1,240,000 $6,020,000 $7,260,000 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 $48,000 in its airport capital fund. These funds are also available to cover airport projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 31. Projected Dedicated Airport Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Airport Capital Revenues Estimated Revenues ubtota Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances $1,240,000 $6,020,000 I $7,260,000 $7,310,000 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$1 Airport Estimated Fund Revenues 2016 Fund Balance Revenue Gap $1,240,000 $48,065 Total Funds Available $1,290,000 Capital Costs2 $9,620,000 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) ($8,330,000) 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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 UPDME 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 $ 0.1 M $ 0.0 M Exhibit 33. Historical and Projected Parks 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 34 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 34. Projected Parks Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfers Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $2,590,000 $11,190,000 $13,780,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 Parks: Grants 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 UPDDIE 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 0 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. Projected Parks Grants and Contributions Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Parks Grants and Donations Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $1,250,000 $6,073,000 $7,323,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 $1.2 million in its parks capital fund. These funds are also available to cover parks projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 37. Projected Dedicated Parks Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Parks Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Total with 2016 Fund Balances May 2017 20 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDTiE 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 $2,400,000 $5,200,000 $7,600,000 $7,600,000 Available Revenues $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 $18,678,691 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ ($17,248,691) 2lnflation Adjusted to YOE$ 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 $10.00 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. May 2017 21 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 39. Historical and Projected Streets Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ $2.5M �..... $ 2.0 M $ 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 40 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 40. Projected Streets Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Streets Dedicated Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $6,440,000 $31,280,000 $37,720,000 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 $2.75 million in 2014. May 2017 22 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 41. Historical and Projected Streets Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ $ 3.0 M $ 2.5 M $ 2.0 M $ 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 42 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 42. Projected Streets Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfers Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $3,240,000 $13,980,000 $17,220,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 $760,000 in its streets capital fund. These funds are also available to cover streets projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 43. Projected Dedicated Streets Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Streets Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $9,670,000 1 $45,260,000 $54,930,000 $55,700,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 UPDME 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. $ 3.0 M $ 2.5 M $ 2.0 M $ 1.5 M $ 1.0 M $ 0.5 M $ 0.0 M Exhibit 44. Historical and Projected Transit Dedicated Revenues (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 45 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 45. Projected Transit Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Dedicated Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $7,500,000 $36,440,000 $43,940,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 $4.7 million in its transit capital fund. These funds are also available to cover transit projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. May 2017 24 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDTiE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 46. Projected Dedicated Transit Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Transit Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $7,500,000 $36,440,000 $43,940,000 1 $48,650,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 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 $0.50 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. 120 K 100 K 80 K 60 K 40 K 20 K 0 Exhibit 47. Historical and Projected Stormwater Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 Exhibit 48 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 48. Projected Stormwater Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Dedicated Revenues Subtotal 2017-2022 Subtotal 2023-2040 Revenue Total 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $320,000 $1,520,000 $1,840,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 May 2017 25 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDTzE 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 $1.2 million in 2015. Exhibit 49. Historical and Projected Stormwater Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ $ 1.4 M $ 1.2 M $ 1.0 M $ 0.8 M $ 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$ Operating Transfers Estimated Revenues Subtotal 2017-2022 $3,670,000 Subtotal 2023-2040 $12,590,000 Revenue Total 2017-2040 $16,260,000 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 $4.7 million in its transit capital fund. These funds are also available to cover transit projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 51. Projected Dedicated Stormwater Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Stormwater Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $3,980,000 $17,360,000 $21,340,000 $24,390,000 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 May 2017 26 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDME 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. Exhibit 52. Estimated Stormwater Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$1 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) $6,566,800 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4. Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017 Wastewater 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. 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 $1.25 annually (based on the 2015 population for the wastewater service area), which is a conservative assumption accounting for high outlier revenues from the State Revolving Fund in 2012. The area that is provided with wastewater services does not include the whole city of Yakima, but does include the cities of Union Gap and Terrace Heights. The State Revolving Fund provides funding through the federal Clean Water Act's Clean Water State Revolving Fund program and is funded through the EPA to provide low May 2017 27 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDT4E CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN interest and forgivable loan funding for wastewater treatment construction projects, nonpoint source pollution projects, and Green project. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. Exhibit 53. Historical and Projected Wastewater Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 700 K 600 K 500 K 400 K 300 K 200 K 100 K 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 54 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 54. Projected Wastewater Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Dedicated Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $950,000 $4,730,000 $5,680,000 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 $3.6 million annually, with 3% inflation growth. May 2017 28 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDME CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 55. Historical and Projected Wastewater Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ $ 8.0 M $ 7.0 M $ 6.0 M $ 5.O M $4.OM $3.OM $2.OM $1.OM $O.OM 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 Exhibit 56 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 56. Projected Wastewater Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfers Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $23,320,000 $80,070,000 $103,390,000 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 $12.1 million in its wastewater and sewer capital funds. These funds are also available to cover wastewater and sewer projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 57. Projected Dedicated Wastewater Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Wastewater Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $24,270,000 $105,510,000 $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 UPDME CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 58. Estimated Wastewater Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), ¥OE$1 Wastewater Revenue Gap Estimated Fund Revenues 2016 Fund Balance $24,270,000 $12,117,199 Total Funds Available $36,390,000 Capital Costs2 $181,680,000 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) ($145,290,000) 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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 $ 2.5 M $ 2.0 M $ 1.5 M $ 1.0 M $ 0.5 M $ 0.0 M YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPD 5E CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 59. Historical and Projected Water 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 60 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Exhibit 60. Projected Water Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfers Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $6,330,000 $27,360,000 $33,690,000 Water: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues 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 $4.5 million in its water capital fund. These funds are also available to cover water projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 61. Projected Dedicated Water Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Water Capital Revenues Subtotal 2017-2022 Subtotal 2023-2040 Revenue Total 2017-2040 Total with 2016 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $6,330,000 $27,360,000 $33,690,000 $38,250,000 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 UPDME 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$1 Water Revenue Gap Estimated Fund Revenues $6,330,000 2016 Fund Balance $4,555,143 Total Funds Available Capital Costs2 $10,890,000 $0 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $10,890,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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$ 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 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDME CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 64. Projected Irrigation Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Dedicated Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $7,440,000 1 $23,120,000 1 $30,560,000 Irrigation: Operating Transfers 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. Projected Irrigation Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfers Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 $940,000 $3,210,000 $4,150,000 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 UPDATE 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 2016 2017-2022 2023-2040 2017-2040 Fund Balances 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 Irrigation Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$1 Irrigation Revenue Gap Estimated Fund Revenues 2016 Fund Balance $8,370,000 $2,049,953 Total Funds Available $10,420,000 Capital Costs2 $13,100,000 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) ($2,680,000) 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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 I, 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 UPDTiE 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. $ 3.5 M $ 3.0 M $ 2.5 M $ 2.0 M $ 1.5 M $ 1.0 M $ 0.5 M Exhibit 69. Annual Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ $0.0M 1 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 $700,000, which is also available for general capital spending during the planning period. Existing debt service commitments are also shown. Exhibit 70. Projected Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues (2017 -2040), YOE$ Total General Capital Subtotal Revenues/REET 2017-2022 Subtotal 2023-2040 Revenue Total Total with 2016 2017-2040 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues Amount Committed to Debt Service Available Revenues May 2017 511,220,000 550,160,000 561,380,000 $62,090,000 $4,200,000 $10,500,000 $14,700,000 $14,700,000 $7,020,000 $39,660,000 $46,680,000 $47,390,000 35 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDTZE 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 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 71. Estimated General Capital Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$1 General Capital Estimated Fund Revenues 2016 Fund Balance Revenue Gap $7,020,000 $705,887 Total Funds Available $7,730,000 Capital Costs2 $0 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $7,730,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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$ Total Capital Revenues Subtotal 2017-2022 Subtotal 2023-2040 Revenue Total 2017-2040 Total with 2016 Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $80,510,000 $ 351,140,000 $431,650,000 $437,370,000 Amount Committed to Debt Service $9,250,000 $21,890,000 $31,140,000 $31,140,000 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$1 All Capital Revenue Gap Estimated Fund Revenues* 2016 Fund Balance* $56,460,000 $25,180,000 Total Funds Available* $81,640,000 Capital Costs2 * $317,090,000 May 2017 36 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDME CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN All Capital Revenue Gap Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) ($235,450,000) *Does not include Streets or Transit, which are analyzed under the 2040 Transportation System Plan. 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2lnflation 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 $L3 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.o 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 UPDDT4E 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 Facility Current LOS Public Buildings • 2,400 square feet per 1,000 Population. 2017 — 2040 LOS Policy • 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. Fire and Emergency • Response time in 2015 was just over 8 Services minutes on average. • Adopted LOS for response time is 8 minutes, 90% of the time. Law Enforcement • The current LOS for YPD is 1.6 officers per 1,000 population. • Adopted LOS for YPD is 1.8 officers per 1,000 population. Parks • .64 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood/mini parks. • 2.67 acres per 1,000 population for community parks. • 2 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood/mini parks. • 5 acres per 1,000 population for community parks. Wastewater • 342.8 pounds of organic loading per day per 1,000 population. • 342.8 pounds of organic loading per day per 1,000 population. Stormwater • Maintain per Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington or equivalent as determined by the Stormwater Management Program for the City of Yakima. • Maintain per Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington or equivalent as determined by the Stormwater Management Program for the City of Yakima. Water • 233 gpd per ERU. • 233 gpd per ERU. Irrigation • 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 population. • Minimum design pressure of 20 psi. Air Terminal • Reliable and safe air service at a facility that is compatible with the community. • Compliance with the Airport Master Plan 2015, or as amended. • Reliable and safe air service at a facility that is compatible with the community. • Compliance with the Airport Master Plan 2015, or as amended. Solid Waste • Providing solid waste services that are efficient, cost effective and environmentally responsible. • Provide solid waste services that are efficient, cost effective and environmentally responsible. May 2017 38 • 1.23 tons per household per year collected. YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDME CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 17 — 2040 LOS Policy • 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. 3 T Projects 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 UPDDIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Facility Location Size (Sq Ft) Total Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 351,123 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 Sq Ft to Meet Time Period Yakima Target LOS Current Sq Ft Net Reserve or Population Standard Available Deficit LOS Standard = 2,400 Sq Ft per 1,000 2016 93,410 224,184 227,079 2,895 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 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 5,860 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. 4. 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 UPDDTiE 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 91 401 North Front Street 12,540 2 Engines, ladder truck, rescue, 2 command, 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 Washington Ave. 6,568 Engine, tender, 2 ARFF units Station 95 & Drill Facility 807 East Nob Hill Blvd. 10,939 2 Engines, tech rescue, utility Station 96 by agreement 107 W. Ahtanum Rd. Union Gap 5,470 2 Engines and 1 bush unit Maintenance Shop 2200 Fruitvale Blvd.T 6,500 Maintenance truck Race Station 4,988 1 General 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 UPDME 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 2016 % of Time Average Policy Was (seconds) Met in 2015 Fire Suppression Turnout Time* Travel Time ** First Full Alarm Assignment*** 120 seconds, met 90% of the time 110 64% 240 seconds, met 90% of the time 238 58% 480 seconds, met 90% of the time 429 69% EMS Turnout Time 1 90 seconds, met 90% of the time 85 62% Travel Time 1 240 seconds, met 90% of the 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 UPDDIE 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 64th 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) Facility Location Size (SqFt) Law and Justice Center 200 S 3rd St. 26,000 Total 26,000 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 UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 80. LOS Analysis — Yakima Police Department Officers to Meet Yakima Current Officers Net Reserve or Time Period 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. C4 Parks 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 UPDNE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 81. Parks Inventory by District (2016) Facility Location Park Type Size (Acres) District 1 12.23 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 2 104.6 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 553.1 - 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 UPDTZE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Facility Location Park Type Size (Acres) Gailleon Park/Harman Center N 44th Parkway 65th and Summitview Neighborhood Park 4.5 N 44th: Lincoln to Uplands Parkway 0.69 District 7 a 68.47 Randall Park 48th and Viola Community Park 40.24 West Valley Community Park 80th and Wide Hollow Community Park 26.2 Fairbrook Islands Fairbrook Addition Mini Park 2.03 Total III • 1 401.82 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) Park Type Acres Mini Park 10.2 Neighborhood Park 49.3 Community Park 249.3 Pathway 8.7 Parkway 6.2 Golf Course 18.2 Cemetery 1 60.0 Total 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 Acres to Meet Time Period Yakima Population Target LOS urren cres e • eserve or 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 100,094 500.5 249.3 -251.2 2040 116,431 582.2 249.3 -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 UPDME 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.] Category / Project Exhibit 84. Parks Projects (2016$) Description Revenue Sources 201 Category! (Capacity) L Land Acquisition I Outdoor Pool Land Acquisition Spray Park - W.V. Community Bonds/ Grants/ Donations / Parks Capital 1 Bonds/ Grants/ Donations/ Parks Capital Bonds/ Grants/ Donations/ Parks Capital Cost Cost T i .1 2020 — 2022 2023 - 2040 C t 0 5,000,000 0 Grants/ Donations/ Parks Capital Category II (Non -Capacity) Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ McGuinness Parks Capital Replace Playground - Cherry Basketball Court - Cherry 0 125,000 Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 100,000 6,000,000 0 0 6,000,000 0 5,000,000 3,000,000 400,000 0 0 3,000,000 0 400,000 r 0 125,000 Picnic Shelter - MLK Jr. Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital Replace Parking Lots - Randall Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 0 50,000 150,000 Replace Walkways - Randall Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 100,000 Replace Filtration System - Lions Pool Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 150,000 0 75,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 5 0, 000 150,000 100,000 150,000 1 Restroom - MLK Jr. Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 175,000 Replace Playground - MLK Jr. Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 0 0 125,000 Replace Playground - Gardner Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 125,000 0 0 175,000 0 0 125,000 125,000 May 2017 47 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDT4E CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Category / Project Description Revenue Sources Cost Cost Cost T •..1 2017 - 2019 2020 — 2022 2023 - 2040 C t Playground - Raymond Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 0 Replace Playground - Chesterley Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 125,000 100,000 Replace Playground - Miller Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital Basketball Court - S/E Community Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital Picnic Shelter - S/E Community Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 0 75,000 Picnic Shelter - Kissel Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital Irrigation Filtration System - Tahoma Cemetery Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital Replace Bulkhead - Lions Pool Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 0 0 125,000 0 25,000 0 0 5 0, 000 5 0, 000 0 0 0 0 100,000 125,000 H 125,000 0 75,000 0 5 0, 000 0 50,000 0 25,000 100,000 0 100,000 Replace Slide - Franklin Pool Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 250,000 0 Playground - Larson Replace Picnic Shelter - Larson Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 0 125,000 0 250,000 0 125,000 Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital 0 Resurface Walkways - Donations/ Grants/ 0 W.V Community Parks Capital City of Yakima Parks and Recreation Department, 2016; BERK, 2016 4.5 Transportation: Streets and Transit 5 0, 000 0 5 0, 000 100,000 0 100,000 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 UPDME 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) Yakima Sanitary Industrial Lift Maintenance Maintenance Wastewater Sewer Pipe Waste Pipe Stations Appurtenances Appurtenances Y (miles) (miles) (count) (count of ( pipe) System Facilities manholes, etc.) mile of i e TT as ewa er Treatment Plant, (MGD capacity) District 1 29 2 1 463 16 - District 2 39 2 3 633 16 21.5 District 3 48 0 0 1,022 21 - District 4 45 2 2 769 17 - District 5 48 1 2 1,098 23 - District 6 61 0 2 1,443 24 - District 7 59 0 0 1,322 22 - Outside of City 22 0 0 212 10 - Total 351 7 10 6,962 - 21.5 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. Exhibit 86. YRWWTP Unit Loading and Capacity Utilization Projections (2016) Hydraulic Organic Solid 2014 Maximum Month Total Loading 11.05 MGD 38,175 ppd BOD 25,037 ppd TSS May 2017 49 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDDIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ' Category! (Capacity) Hydraulic Organic Solid 2014 Population 110,413 110,413 110,413 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 Analysis Time Period Service Area Population' lbs of Organic Treatment Current lbs Organic Capacity Needed to Meet Treatment Capacity Target LOS Standard Available Net Reserve or Deficit (lbs) 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 Projects (2017 — 2040) Project Category Revenue Cost Cost Cost Total Cost Sources 2017 - 2019 2020 — 2022 2023 - 2040 Category! (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) 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 UPDDTiE 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. • 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 UPDDIE 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 Facilities Inventory — City of Yakima Water Division (2016) Facility 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 UPDDIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 91. Water LOS Analysis — Millions of Gallons per Day (MGD) Time Period Service Area Population Projected Current Water Maximum Day Treatment Plant Demand (MGD) Capacity (MGD) Net Reserve or Deficit 2015 73,722 18.4 21.6 3.2 2020 75,623 18.9 21.6 2.7 2025 77,573 19.3 21.6 2.3 2030 79,573 19.8 21.6 1.8 2035 81,625 20.3 21.6 1.3 2040 83,730 20.8 21.6 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Draft City of Yakima 2017 Water System Plan, 2016; HDR, 2017; BERK, 2017 0.8 Projects, Cost, and Revenuw 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 E CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 92. Nob Hill System Growth Time Period Yakima Population Nob Hill System Plan Estimated Population to Serve Net Reserve or Deficit 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 Revenuw 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) Facility Valves (count) Pipe (miles) District 1 127 18.1 District 2 88 13.9 District 3 71 9.8 May 2017 54 Category II (Non -Capacity) 1 Bond/Rates YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDTIE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Facility Valves (count) Pipe (miles) District 4 District 5 71 151 District 6 0 19.4 14.7 0.0 District 7 37 9.4 .11 Total 545 85.4 Note: District 6 is not served by City irrigation. 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 Analysis Time Period Yakima Population Feet of Pipe to Meet Target LOS Standard Current Feet of Pipe Net Reserve or Available Deficit LOS Standard = 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 served 2016 53,297 85.27 85.35 0.08 2022 54,420 87.07 85.35 (1.72) 2040 5 7, 246 91.59 85.35 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; David Brown, City of Yakima Irrigation, 2016; BERK, 2017 (6.24) 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 Projects Category / Project Description Revenue Cost Cost Cost Total Cost Sources 2017 - 2019 2020 — 2022 2023 - 2040 Nelson Dam Refurbishment and diversion consolidation Steel Pipe Replacement Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017 May 2017 Rates $10,000,000 $600,000 $o $o $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $10,000,000 $4,200,000 55 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPO4265E 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 Teacher Ratio (May, 2016) (May, 2016) (May, 2016) 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 III■ 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 UPDT3E CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Facility Location Students (May, 2016) Teachers Student - (May, 2016) Teacher Ratio (May, 2016) Total Source: Yakima School District, personal communication, 2016 14977 819 18.3 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 Time Period Yakima School District Estimated Households* Estimated Student Count** Teachers to meet current LOS Current Teachers Available Net Reserve or Deficit LOS Standard = 18.3 Student -Teacher Ratio 2016 28,178 14,977 819 819 0 a 30,186 16,044 2040 33,081 17,583 961 819 -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 Inventory — West Valley School District (2016) Facility Location Students (May, 2016) Teachers Student/ (May, Teacher Size (SqFt) 2016) Ratio District 6 May 2017 57 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDAT4E CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Students Teachers Student/ Facility Location (May, (May, Teacher Size (SqFt) 2016) 2016) Ratio Apple Valley Elementary 7 N 88th Ave 324 20 16.2 37,096 Wide Hollow Elementary 1000 S 72nd Ave 372 23 16.2 61,140 Summitview Elementary 6305 W Chestnut Ave 315 23 13.7 33,848 District 7 1 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 1 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 4,941 287 842,784 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 West Valley School Estimated Time Period District Estimated Student Households* Count** Teachers to meet current LOS Current Teachers Available Net Reserve or Deficit LOS Standard = 17.2 Student -Teacher Ratio 2016 8,513 4,941 I 287 2022 _ 9,581 5,666 329 2040 12,769 7,551 439 287 0 287 AIL -42 287 -152 *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 $22 million in capital projects. Additional West Valley School District capital projects are pending. Exhibit 100. West Valley School District Projects, 2016 — 2017 (2016$) Central Office Modifications May 2017 $550,000 58 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDgE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Project Cost Construction of New Buildings 1 $20,550,000 High School HVAC Replacement $500,000 Mountainview Site Improvements Total Expenditures $355,000 Source: West Valley School District, 2016 $21,955,000 1 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. Outstanding Bonds Date of Issue Amount of Original Issue Amount Outstanding (Sept 1, 2016) 7/15/2016 1/1/2007 $24,500,000 $27,800,000 $1,400,000 $1,020,000 12/1/2012 $9,330,000 $8,975,000 6/1/2013 $9,225,000 $9,010,000 4/23/2014 $9,300,000 $9,020,000 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 UPDgE 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 111: 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 Projects (2016$) Cost Cost Cost Category / Project Description Total Cost 2017 - 2019 2020 — 2022 2023 - 2040 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 Terminal Building $0 ARFF Vehicle Category II (Non -Capacity) $0 $0 $900,000 $500,000 $15,000,000 $15,500,000 $1,000,000 $o $o $1,000,000 Lighting replacement and pavement marking $221,890 $1,250,000 Lighting replacement project SRE Blower Security Gates Wildlife hazard assessment $75,000 $1,040,000 $650,000 $500,000 $0 $0 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Airport Master Plan, 2015 $0 $50,000 so so so so so $1,471,890 $575,000 $1,040,000 $650,000 $50,000 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 UPDATiE 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 Funding Funding Local Funding Total Cost Airfield Projects $10,068,321 1 $250,000 1 $3,328,011 $13,646,332 Terminal Construction L rGeneral Aviation Projects $19,167,525 1 $0 1 $2,276,340 $21,443,865 $6,690,022 $0 $814,786 $7,504,808 Pavement Management Projects $15,087,258 1 $946,797 1 $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 UPDgE 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 Analysis Time Period Yakima Households Total Tons Removed Approximate to Meet Target LOS Amount Removed Standard in 2015 Percent Increase from Current Refuse Tonnage Removed LOS Standard = 1.23 Tons per Household Per Year 2016 37,719 46,394 46,016 0.8% 2022 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 UPDgE 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://yakimafire.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. YMC 4.16. (2016). Retrieved from Yakima Municipal Code: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Yakima/ May 2017 63 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN YPD. (2015). 2014 Annual Report. City of Yakima Police Department. May 2017 64 Wewte comprehensive plan 2040 DRAFT -FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Draft: March 2017 Final: June 2017 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE P el 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 (Draft Final 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. DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary ii YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PI�A�V SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Unless otherwise stated the impacts of the Preferred Alternative are considered identical to those of Action Alternative 2. 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 joseph.calhoun@yakimawa.gov Required Approvals Recommendation by the Planning Commission and City Council Adoption. State agency review will also occur in accordance with the Growth Management Act as coordinated by the State of Washington Department of Commerce. Principal SEIS Authors and Principal Contributors This document was prepared under the direction of the City of Yakima Planning Division. Principal Authors BERK Consulting, Inc. 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98121 (Comprehensive Plan Update Consultant Lead; Existing Conditions Report; Land Capacity Analysis; Plan Foundation and Vision; Housing Element; Utilities Element; Capital Facilities Plan and Element; SEPA strategies and evaluation of: Natural Environment, Population/Housing/Employment, Plans and Policies, Cultural Resources, Schools, Infrastructure) City of Yakima Planning Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET iii 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PIftp 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 Du•e DateDraft SEIS Comment Period May 16, 2017 to May 16, 2017. Writtcn commcnts will be acccptcd by the Rcsponsiblc Official through 5 p.m. May 16, 2017. Plcasc scnd commcnts to: Joscph Calhoun, Scnior Planncr City of Yakima Planning Division 129 North Sccond Strcct Yakima, WA 98901 509 575 60'12 joscph.calhoun@yakimawa.fiov DRAW FINAL MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET iv YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PI IV SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT To Iciarn morc about thc proposal, agencies, affected tribcs, and mcmbcrs of thc public may consult the project website for meetings and hearings regarding thc Comprehensive Plan Update: https://www.yakimawa.goviservices/planninacomprehensive plan update/ 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 2nd 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. DraftFinal SEIS Availability The document is posted at the City's website at: https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/comprehensive-plan-update/ Compact disks are available at no charge at Yakima City Hall, Planning Division. Copies of the document may be purchased at Yakima City Hall Planning Division. A reference copy is available for review at City Hall Planning Division as well. The address for City Hall, Planning Division is: 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901, DRAW FINAL MARCH 2017 1 FACT SHEET v YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PI1V SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENT 1.0 Environmental Summary 1 11 21 1 1.1 Purpose of Proposed Action 1 11 21 1 1.2 State Environmental Policy Act Process 1 11 21 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 Resolved1 161 15 2.0 Alternatives 2 12 22 1 2.1 Introduction and Purpose 2 12 22 1 2.2 Description of Planning Area 2 12 22 1 2.3 State and Regional Planning Requirements 2-2 2.4 SEPA Process 2 32 22 3 2.5 Objectives and Alternatives 2 52 22 5 2.6 Summary of Alternatives 2 162 16 2.7 Future Alternatives 2 162 16 2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal 2 162 16 3.0 Concise Analysis of Alternatives 3 13 23 1 3.1 Natural Environment 3 13 23 1 3.2 Air Quality 3 53 23 5 3.3 Land Use Patterns 3 73 23 7 3.4 Population, Housing, and Employment 3 113 10 3.5 Plans and Policies 3 133 13 3.6 Cultural Resources 3 233 22 3.7 Transportation 3 283 27 3.8 Public Services 3 373 36 3.9 Infrastructure 3 433 '12 3.10 Power and Telecommunications 3 513 50 4.0 Citizen Amendment Requests 4 1'l 2'1 1 4.1 Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4 1'l 2'1 1 5.0 Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5 15 25 1 5.1 Acronyms and Abbreviations 5 15 25 1 5.2 References 5-2 DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Table of Contents vi YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PI�AJV SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6.0 Distribution List 6 16 26 1 7.0 Appendix A: Scoping Notice and Comments 7 17 27 1 8.0 Appendix B: Critical Areas Ordinance Gap Analysis 8 18 28 1 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1-1. Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests 1 151 15 Exhibit 2-1. Yakima Council Districts 2 12 22 1 Exhibit 2-2. Yakima UGA and City Limits Map 2-2 Exhibit 2-3. Yakima Integrated SEPA/GMA Plan and EIS 2-42 22 '1 Exhibit 2-4. No Action and Action Alternative Comprehensive Plan Elements 2 72 22 6 Exhibit 2-5. Future Land Use Map: Current 2016 2 72 22 7 Exhibit 2-6. Future Land Use and Implementing Zoning by Alternative 2 82 22 8 Exhibit 2-7. Action Alternative: Proposed Land Use Designation Area Changes 2 82 22 8 Exhibit 2-8. Summary of Citizen Amendment Requests 2-92-9 Exhibit 2-9. Action Alternative Future Land Use Map 2 102 10 Exhibit 2-10. No Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District 2 112 11 Exhibit 2-11. Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District 2 122 12 Exhibit 2-12. Alternative Growth Comparison 2-142 1'1 Exhibit 2-13. Share of Growth in Eastern and Western Yakima 2 152 15 Exhibit 2-14. Summary of Alternatives 2 162 16 Exhibit 3-1. Land Use Categories, Properties and Acres 3 83 23 7 Exhibit 3-2. Alternative 1 No Action Future Land Use Share 3 93 23 8 Exhibit 3-3. Alternative 2 Action Future Land Use Share 3 93 23 8 Exhibit 3-4. Population, Housing, and Employment Affected Environment (2015 and 2040) 3 113 11 Exhibit 3-5. Consistency with Growth Management Act Goals 3 153 1'1 Exhibit 3-6. Western Yakima UGA Land Use Designations 3 203 19 Exhibit 3-7. City of Yakima Proposed Land Use Plan - Western Yakima UGA 3 213 20 Exhibit 3-8. Predictive Model of Cultural Resources Presence 3-243 23 Exhibit 3-9. Properties Listed in Registers 3 253 2'1 Exhibit 3-10. Potentially Eligible Properties 3 263 25 Exhibit 3-11. Level of Service Criteria 3 293 28 Exhibit 3-12. Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary 3 293 28 Exhibit 3-13. Alternative 1 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary 3 323 31 Exhibit 3-14. Alternative 1 (No Action) LOS Map 3-343 33 Exhibit 3-15. Alternative 2 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary 3 353 3'1 Exhibit 3-16. Demand for Parks based on Growth 2015-2040 3 383 37 DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Table of Exhibits vii YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PIV SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Exhibit 3-17. Net Population Growth Distribution by School District 3 393 38 Exhibit 3-18. School District Estimated Student Growth, 2015 — 2040 3 403 39 Exhibit 3-19. Demand for Officers based on growth, 2015 - 2040 3 403 39 Exhibit 3-20. Demand for Fire Facilities, 2015 — 2040 3 413 '10 Exhibit 3-21. Water Service Area within the Yakima City Limits by Transportation Analysis Zones ... 3-43;- 23'12 Exhibit 3-22. Yakima Sewer Service Area 3 453 '1'1 Exhibit 3-23. Sewer -Served Properties in Yakima City Limits 3 463 '15 Exhibit 3-24. Yakima Service Area Water Demand by Alternative —Growth Rate Impact on ADD and MDD 3 473'16 Exhibit 3-25. Nob Hill Water System Growth 3 473 '16 Exhibit 3-26. Irrigation Pipeline Improvement Demand 3 483 '17 Exhibit 3-27. Sewer LOS Analysis 3 494-48 Exhibit 3-28. Stormwater Service Area — City Limits — Growth by Alternative 3 503 '19 Exhibit 3-29. Franchise Utilities Service Area — City Limits — Population Growth by Alternative3 523 51 Exhibit 3-30. Franchise Utilities Service Area — City Limits — Population Growth by Alternative3 523 51 Exhibit 4-1. Citizen Amendment Requests — Programmatic Environmental Review 4-2 DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Table of Exhibits viii 419 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 1.1 Purpose of Proposed Action What is the Proposal? Why is the City updating its Comprehensive Plan? The City of Yakima is updating its Comprehensive Plan by June 2017 in accordance with Growth Management Act (GMA). An updated Comprehensive Plan will mean more housing choices, new opportunities for commercial and industrial growth, better connected roads and parks, new recreation opportunities, and improved public services. Elements of the plan to be updated or added include: Vision Statement, Land Use, Economic Development, Housing, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Natural Environment, Energy (new), and Historic Preservation (new). Based on 20 -year growth targets, the City is anticipated to add more residents and 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. �.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 is proposcdwas held with ##-the integrated Draft SEIS. Comments may bcwere 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-1 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-2 1 421 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-3 1 422 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-4 1 423 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 PMioand taking necessary steps to stay in attainment status for PM2.5. 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; DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-5 1 424 ■ 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-6 1 425 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). DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-7 1 426 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. DRAW -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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-9 1 428 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-10 1 429 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-11 1 430 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 DRAW -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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-13 1 432 ■ 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-14 1 433 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 Name Description 1 Data! Properties, LLC 2 Landon Glenn 3 Jeff Baker 4 Jay Sentz 5 TM Rentals 6 Gail Buchanan 7 Supercold Storage 8 Jerry Hand 9 William and Linda Beerman Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use Industrial to Commercial Mixed Use Regional Development to Commercial Mixed Use Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential Large Convenience Center to Industrial Medium Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use 10 SOZO Sports of Central Industrial and Low Density Residential to WA Commercial Mixed Use Location 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 11 Gary Delaney Medium Density Residential to Community Mixed Use 1414 S 2nd Ave 12 Mark Hoffmann Industrial to Low Density Residential 3109 W Washington Ave How do these requests relate to the Comprehensive Plan? These requests modify the Future Land Use designations of several parcels throughout the City. In most cases these areas will see either an increase in residential density, an increase in commercial density, or DRAFT—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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Environmental Summary 1-16 435 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 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 L l._ f L_..... rr1�.Y; ,✓l ..S 4 qme GIS April. 2616 tth Cot not D14nets shown on Me map are derived from Ne voting districts established through the Yakima Cotnty Auditor's onkethe eetails within the distracts provlee statistical data for the counolmembers. the general public and other policy and dedpon makers. fie Districts are drawn over the City's street system to show coverage and this natio kaI data is forinbrmauonal, and planning or presentation purposes Source: City of Yakima GIS 2016 YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Yakima Council Districts Council District ▪ 1 ■ 2 . 3 ■ 4 If] Yakima City Limits Urban Growth Area N A 01 I 05I I 1I Miles DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-1 436 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 • .1 Urban Growth Area Boundary Vakirno City Limits VacantIDeveloped Developed Vacant .. : Partially Vacant Zonearoup Residential Commercial industrial Community Parcels Environmentally Constrained Date: 0182010 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: DRAW—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. £.T 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. DRAW -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. ■ 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. Other Supporting Material: 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 DR�FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-4 1 439 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 DRAW—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. 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 Draft 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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-6 441 Exhibit 2-4. No Action and Action Alternative Comprehensive Plan Elements No Action: Current Comprehensive Plan Action: Proposed Comprehensive Plan 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 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 The bbture Land Use Map illustrates the combination of cLrrent 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 unity members, residents, and maperty owners about what type of land use will el be located arourd them. And, whereto expect future services, and devopment based on the eoafs, politics and objectives of this Plan 20n0. Source: City of Yakima 2016 YAKIMA ao4o COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Future Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density residential Professional Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial General Commercial ▪ CBD Core C0nmemial ■ Regional Commercial ■ Industrial Yakima City limits ('j Urban Growth Arca A 0.5 1 Miles DRAW—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 No Action Alternative Action Alternative Future Land Use Implementing Zones Future Land Use Implementing Zones Low Density Residential SR, R-1, R-2 Low Density Residential SR, R-1 Medium Density Residential R-1, R-2, R-3 High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial R-2, R-3, B-1, CBD B-1, B-2, HB, R-3 Professional Office B-1, B-2, R-3, GC Community Commercial General Commercial B-1, B-2, SCC Mixed Residential R-2, R-3 Community Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use B-1, B-2, SCC, LCC, GC, M- 1 CBD Core Commercial CBD Regional Commercial Industrial LCC, CBD M-1, M-2 Source: City of Yakima, 2016 B-1, B-2, SCC, HB, R-3 LCC, GC, AS CBD Commercial Core CBD Regional Commercial Industrial RD M-1, M-2, AS 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 Location Action Alternative: Proposed Designation Change DRAW—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 Source: City of Yakima, 2016 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 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 2-ts. summary of Citizen mmenament Requests Descri • tion Location 1 Data! 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 Beerman 10 SOZO Sports of Central WA Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use Industrial and Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use 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 11 Gary Delaney Medium Density Residential to Community Mixed 1414 S 2nd Ave 12 Mark Hoffmann Source: City of Yakima, 2016 Industrial to Low Density Residential 3109 W Washington Ave DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 1 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. xhibit 1-9. Action Alternative Future Land Use Map [This map has been updated from the version provided in the DEIS.] The Future Lane 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 u necessary to provide certainty to the comunity members, residents, and property owners about what type of land use will be located around them. And, where to expect future services, and development basec on the goals, policies and objectives of thus Plan 2040. YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Future Land Use Ge neralizedCategones Low Density Residential Mixed Residential . Central Business Core Commercial Commercial Mixed Use ▪ Regional Commercial Community Mixed Use . Industrial VakM, City limits �I Urban Growth Area N A 0 0.5 1 1,5 Miles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-10 Exhibit 2-10. No Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Capacity: Vacant J Agriculture / Infill New Homes NewJobs New People 401 9,384 1,096 1,102 2,808 3,009 1,004 2,360 2,740 407 1,499 1,110 1,312 2,087 3,582 2,297 75 6,270 8,995 6,624 24,556 Citywide 15,518 24,837 42,364 NEW HOMES 1 2 3% 7/ 3 6%4 3% 5 NEW JOBS 7 58% 8% 7 27% 6 0°, 8% 4 6% 3 10% F 2 11% Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016 1 38% 445 DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-11 446 Exhibit 2-11. Action Alternative Land Capacity Citywide and by Council District District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Capacity: Vacant / Agriculture / Underutilized New Homes New Jobs New People 410 9,578 1,119 1,450 3,368 3,957 1,016 3,384 2,775 410 2,039 1,118 1,360 2,406 3,713 2,485 72 6,785 9,282 7,634 25,339 Citywide 16,413 28,481 44,806 NEW HOMES 41131% 7 57% 2 9% 3 6% 4 21 5 8% NEW JOBS 6 0% 7 27% 1 34% 5 8% 4 2 7% 3 12% 12% Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016 DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-12 1 447 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-13 448 Exhibit 2-12. Alternative Growth Comparison Population: Net Growth I No Action ■Action Growth Target EIS and Capital Facility Plan Assumption: City Limit Share .of TAZ Transportation Assumption: By TAZ City Limit Growth Capacity 17,167 17,167 18,700 23,211 22,124 _ 26,626 42,364 Housing: Net Growth No Action ® Action Housing Growth based on Population Target EIS and Capital Facility Plan Assumption: City Limit Share of TAZ Transportation Assumption: ByTAZ 6,288 6,288 6,850 8,502 8,104 9,753 44,806 City limit Growth Capacity 15,518 6,413 Jobs: Net Growth .. No Action ■ Action IMMO 8,556 Growth Target 8,556 Transportation and EIS Assumption: ByTAZ City Limit Growth Capacity ,481 14,783 15,318 24,837 Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2016 DRAFT 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 40% Alternative 1 No Action 49% 51% 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-15 1 450 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. Comprehensive Plan Elements Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Growth Assumptions SEIS Transportation and Capital Investments Land Use Regulations Critical Areas Regulations Exhibit 2-14. Summary of Alternatives Current Plan 2006 as annually amended Update existing elements and add two optional elements Amend map for streamlining, Current Plan 2006 as annually conditions and trends, and public request purposes Population: 18,700 Population: 23,211 Housing: 6,850 Housing: 8,502 Jobs: 14,783 Jobs: 15,318 Update Capital Facility Plan to Current Capital Facility Plan address new growth patterns and including Budget and proposed policies promoting multi - Transportation Improvement modal transportation, which would Program (TIP) be implemented by subsequent budgets and TIPs Maintain Current Regulations in Amend regulations to address gap Municipal Code analysis Maintain Current Regulations in Amend regulations to address gap Municipal Code analysis amended 2.7 Future Alternatives 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 would boare 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. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-16 1 451 ■ 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Alternatives 2-17 1 452 3.0 CONCISE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Concise Analysis of Alternatives3-1 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Natural Environment 3-2 1 454 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 40th 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Natural Environment 3-3 1 455 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !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. 3. _ 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 gask emisions include burning of fossil fuels such as for energy and transportation. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2017) DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 I Air 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 "[a]verage 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 PMioand 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, "[c]ompact 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. Policies 9.2.1. Cooperate with local, State and federal air pollution control agencies and comply with applicable regulations that govern air pollutants during land development, construction and operation. (Update and expansion of Policy 10.3.1) DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 I Air Quality 3-6 1 458 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 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). No othcr measures proposcd. 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. J•J 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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Land Use Patterns 3-7 459 Exhibit 3-1. Land Use Categories, Properties and Acres Land Use Grouping Number of Properties 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 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. 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 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. DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Land Use Patterns 3-8 Exhibit 3-2. Alternative 1 No Action Future Land Use Share Professional Office Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 3% Community Commercial 0.4% Medium Density Residential 14% 3% 4% 1 General Commercial Low Density Residential 44% Source: City of Yakima, 2016; Yakima County Assessor's Office, 2016; BERK, 2016 9% CBD Core Commercial 1% High Density Residential 7% Industrial 15% 460 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: Actioi, 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 Designation Approximate Acreage Percent of Total Acres 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% DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 I Land Use Patterns 3-9 Central Business Core Commercial 266 1% 461 Industrial 2,509 14% Total Gross Acres Source: City of Yakima, 2017; BERK, 2016 17,756 100% Alternative 2 has a larger focus on infill development on vacant and/or underutilized sites in the city limits. The potential for greater infill growth will require expanded or upgraded public services in already developed areas. This update will provide consistent goals and policies for consistent and compatible development throughout the City of Yakima. Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features See Land Use Element Chapter 1.4 for Goals and Policies that provide for a broad distribution of land use types with an emphasis on protection of neighborhoods and residential uses, and the promotion of design and land use controls to minimize incompatibilities between uses. Applicable Regulations The following regulations guide land use in Yakima: ■ Title 14 — Subdivision Ordinance ■ Title 15 — Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. ■ Title 16 — Administration of Development Permit Regulations ■ Chapter 6.88 — Environmental Policy In addition, project -specific environmental review and processing will occur when future projects are submitted. Other Potential Mitigation 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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 I Land Use Patterns 3-10 1 462 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) N m Population -4 D r N r: m Housing r-1 tD tD al m co co r ni n o Ln N ct Employment • Base Year (2015) • 2040 No Action Alternative • 2040 Action Alternative Base Year (2015) No Action Alternative Action Alternative DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Population, Housing, and Employment 3-11 463 2040 Capacity 2040 Capacity Population Housing Employment 93,220 37,411 47,578 111,920 44,261 67,721 135,584 51,157 66,056 116,431 45,913 62,896 138,026 52,052 71,365 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; OFM, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Five -Year Estimates, 2010 — 2014; BERK Consulting, 2017 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, anticipates population, housing, and employment growth in Yakima city limits. Population and housing growth would be focused on the undeveloped areas on the west side of the City. The No Action Alternative would introduce around 18,700 new residents, 6,850 new dwelling units, and 14,783 new employees in Yakima by 2040 (see Exhibit 3-4). Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2, the Action Alternative, anticipates infill development of population, housing, and employment in the Downtown area and areas surrounding Downtown. Employment growth would include new development on the Mill Site as the underutilized land adjacent to Downtown develops for employment use. Development on the west side of the city would occur but would in balance with the development on the east side. Compared to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 2 would implement zoning that would encourage more infill development downtown through the use of mixed use and Mixed Residential multifamily development types along arterials and at crossroads. The Action Alternative would introduce around 23,211 new residents, 8,502 new dwelling units, and 15,318 new employees in Yakima by 2040 (see Exhibit 3-4). 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Population, Housing, and Employment 3-12 1 464 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. J.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: DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Plans and Policies 3-13 1 • 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 including affordablc housing • Recognize 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !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 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 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. (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, Both alternatives focus growth in the city limit and provide for coordinated planning in the UGA. No change to UGA boundaries are proposed. 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. 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. DRAFT—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Plans and Policies 3-15 467 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. 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. DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Plans and Policies 3-16 468 See the Plan Foundation and Vision chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and SEIS Section 2.4. (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. 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. (13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance. 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. Yakima County Countywide Planning Policies 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. DRAFT—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Plans and Policies 3-17 1 469 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 YVCOG regional transportation planning. Affordable Housing: The CWPPs note that "the marketplace will guarantee adequate housing for those in the upper economic brackets, but that some combination of appropriately zoned land, regulatory incentives, financial subsidies, and innovative planning techniques will be necessary to make adequate provisions for the needs of middle and lower income persons." The CWPPs for affordable housing are intended to "provide a common ground and some universally acceptable parameters to help guide decision -makers through the complex topic of affordable housing." Policies guide the development of an inventory and analysis to meet 20 -year growth forecasts, strategies to provide a mix of housing types and costs, preservation and rehabilitation of existing neighborhoods, compatible housing design, diverse housing types such as for special needs populations, promotion of first-time homebuyer housing, affordable housing incentives, and monitoring housing plans. Discussion: Both alternatives provide sufficient housing capacity to meet expected population growth. Alternative 2 provides for greater housing variety and opportunities for affordable renter and owner housing with the Mixed Residential and mixed use designations. Alternative 2 Housing Element updates policies and addresses recent housing trends including smaller household sizes, increases in retirement population, opportunities for affordable ownership housing (e.g. townhomes), and providing more opportunities for rental housing to fill gaps between household incomes and available DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Plans and Policies 3-19 eneral Commercial (GC) .11 Exhibit 3-6. Western Yakima UGA Land Use Designations tie 471 Urban Boundary Growth Yakima County Zoning YCC Title 19 Waters friculture (AG) Remote/Extremely Limited (R/ELDP) Rural Transitional (RT) Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) Mining (MIN) anned elopment (PD) Suburban Residential(SR) Single Family Residential (R-1) Two Family Residential (R-2) Multi -Family Residential (R-3) Professional Business (B-1) •cal Business (B-2) Small Convenience Center (SCC) Yakama Nation Closed Area Source: Yakima County GIS, 2017 DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Plans and Policies 3-20 Exhibit 3-7. City of Yakima Proposed Land Use Plan - Western Yakima UGA C B23 Source: City of Yakima, 2016 YAKIMA 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Future land Use Categories ▪ Central Business Care Commercial Commercial Mixed Use P.:: Industrial Low Density Rasidemial Mixed Residential ■ Community Mixed Use ■ Regional Commercial ▪ Yakima Council District r21 Yakima City Limits U Urban Growth Area 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles I I i l l l l l l l l l 472 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. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Plans and Policies 3-21 1 473 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 DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Plans and Policies 3-22 1 474 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 for joint 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Cultural Resources 3-23 475 Exhibit 3-8. Predictive Model of Cultural Resources Presence February 11, 2017 ■ Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters: Low Risk J Survey Highly Advised: High Risk ■ Survey Contingent Upon Project Parameters: Moderately Low Risk Survey Highly Advised: Very High Risk SDe4i: Fsrl. HERE. alplttl. 114lr,�, IChh!!t P co,p., CE9CO3 OLSCS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, CeoIase, CN,16fa[4 r MI,OMeaea SiNey, Survey Recommended: Moderate Risk 0 0 1:97,653 0.75 1.5 „ S , 1.25 2.5 3 rro 5 kr, 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 11 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Cultural Resources 3-24 476 Exhibit 3-9. Properties Listed in Registers Legend Listed historic properties (# listed) ♦ Hentage barns (3) Tribal boundaries • YRHP. WHR and National Register (14) Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood historic district (1 City limits • WHR and National Register (22) II NRHP listed sites (2) • WHR only (5) • Removed from Listing (1) I- Old North Yakima Historic District �— Railroad survey priorities • i.e. ••P•: • •s• •. • • • • i:j•+•L •..._+ ti.•_.._r Base map courtesy of ESRI Source: Artifacts Consulting Inc. 2016 One of the responsibilities for a certified local government is to survey historic properties within the community. Properties change over time, necessitating periodic updates to previously inventoried properties. Additionally, every year, more properties become 50 years old, the standard minimum age for properties to reach to be considered historic, as established by the National Park Service. Potentially eligible properties based on a predictive model are shown in Exhibit 3-10. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Cultural Resources 3-25 477 Exhibit 3-10. Potentially Eligible Properties 4t.� .. - kr.-' ' ' Y ' ..• +i•v nl ..•. - •- • • ••_'•- „tip.: *t1, 4: i yg ,, ..; ids yaw r47'tia r w' MK -. .gay. .etr o L' y. tic r' 4,4A- - -1: J 1..1 : ,' 1 Legend Tribal boundaries Modeled values showing eligiblity potential r •� City limits - 15 Eligibility findings from previous surveys 1B • NRHP individually eligible (52 properties) - 1c NRHP eligible. individual and potential district contributor (28 properties) - ID NRHP potential district contributor (213 properties) 2A 2B Base map courtesy of ESRI 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 • 2B: 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 1 Cultural Resources 3-26 1 478 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Cultural Resources 3-27 1 479 • 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 WHR and the NRHP. • The Governor's Executive Order 05-05 requires state agencies to integrate DAHP, the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned tribes into their capital project planning process. This executive order affects any capital construction projects and any land acquisitions for purposes of capital construction not undergoing Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Other Potential Mitigation Measures • Cultural resources policies in the Shoreline Master Program could be applied citywide to protect archaeologic resources and promote consultation with tribes.No additional mitigation is proposcd. 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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 (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 Level of Service Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A B C D E 0-10 >10 - 20 >20 - 35 >35 - 55 >55 - 80 0-10 >10 - 15 >15 - 25 >25 - 35 >35 - 50 F >80 >50 Note: The LOS criteria is based on control delay, which includes initial deceleration delay, final deceleration delay, stopped delay, and queue move -up time. Source: Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (2010) As shown in Exhibit 3-12, three locations exceed the LOS D standard in existing conditions — S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr (LOS F), N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr (LOS E), and S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd (LOS E). All of the intersections are signalized with the exception of S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr which is two-way stop controlled. Amolt 3-1L. txisting rMVM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary r 2016 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour ID Location 1 N 72nd Ave & Summitview Ave 2 S 72nd Ave & Tieton Dr 3 S 72nd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 4 S 72nd Ave & W Washington Ave 5 S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr 6 W Washington Ave & S 64th Ave 7 N 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd 8 N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave Traffic Control Signal Signal Signal TWSC TWSCSignal Signal Signal Signal LOS C C C D RA B C C Delay (seconds) 31 27 25 30 8 17 26 22 DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 (Transportation 3-29 1 481 2016 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour 9 N 40th AVE & W Lincoln Ave Signal 10 N 40th Ave & W Summitview Ave Signal 11 S 40th Ave & W Tieton Dr Signal 12 S 40th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd Signal 13 W Washington Ave & S 40th Ave Signal 14 S 24th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd Signal 15 N 16th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd Signal 16 N 16th Ave & W Lincoln Ave Signal 17 N 16th Ave & Summitview Ave Signal 18 N 16th Ave & W Yakima Ave Signal 19 N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr Signal 20 N 16th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd Signal 21 N 16th Ave & W Washington Blvd Signal 22 S 3rd Ave & W Yakima Ave Signal 23 S 3rd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd Signal 24 N 1st St &W I St Signal 25 N 1st St & W Yakima Ave Signal 26 E Nob Hill Blvd & S 1st St Signal 27 W Washington Ave & S 1st ST Signal 28 N 3rd St & W Yakima Ave Signal 29 S Fair Ave & E Nob Hill Blvd Signal 30 S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd Signal 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 22 37 34 54 14 35 26 39 26 18 63 39 27 10 34 18 21 37 26 9 39 58 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- DRAFT—FINAL MARCH 2017 (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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 (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 D Location Traffic Control 2016 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (seconds) 1 N 72nd Ave & Summitview Ave 2 S 72nd Ave & Tieton Dr 3 S 72nd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 4 S 72nd Ave & W Washington Ave 5 S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr 6 W Washington Ave & S 64th Ave 7 N 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd 8 N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave 9 N 40th AVE & W Lincoln Ave 10 N 40th Ave & W Summitview Ave 11 S 40th Ave & W Tieton Dr 12 S 40th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 13 W Washington Ave & S 40th Ave 14 S 24th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 15 N 16th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd 16 N 16th Ave & W Lincoln Ave 17 N 16th Ave & Summitview Ave 18 N 16th Ave & W Yakima Ave 19 N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr 20 N 16th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd Signal Signal Signal TWSC TWSCSignal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal D E D F 1 C C E E D E E F E D D F D C F E 50 61 52 130 234§ 28 59 56 44 61 65 94 61 44 52 84 39 23 120 65 DRAFT—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Transportation 3-32 1 484 2016 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Location Traffic Control LOS Delay (seconds) 21 N 16th Ave & W Washington Blvd 22 S 3rd Ave & W Yakima Ave 23 S 3rd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 24 N 1st St&W ISt 25 N 1st St & W Yakima Ave 26 E Nob Hill Blvd & S 1st St 27 W Washington Ave & S 1st ST 28 N 3rd St & W Yakima Ave 29 S Fair Ave & E Nob Hill Blvd 30 S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal F B ■ E E C III E D B F • 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.] Exhibit 3 1'1 shows the LOS for intcrscctions studicd, 97 11 65 59 27 62 46 13 86 65 DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 (Transportation 3-33 485 r Legend Signal !3 LOS A- C LOS D a LOS E - F Two -Way Stop Q LOS D Q LOS F i City Limits UGA Boundary Park / Open Space 12 �ae _ :fi , e il'goi;�in�l N �F'■ w 1 11111 1111. 1�111�11�1111 Ln 11-111111111111 11111 C_I IGENTPL 0 I - j-----J 0 0.5 Mile inn �a sL.� 2040 No Action Level of Service City of Yakima 2040 Transportation Plan DRAFT FIGURE transpogroup `ir - Transit Public transportation services under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the existing conditions. With increased population and employment growth, demand for public transit would likely increase, which could result in the need for service expansion in the study area. All of the study intersections are located on a coordidor served by public transit. Non -Motorized Facilities Under Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), non -motorized facilities would remain the same as under 2016 existing conditions. Other non -motorized facilities may be constructed between 2016 and 2040 as proposed in the City of Yakima's Transportation Master Plan. Alternative 2: Action Construction Construction activity impacts in Alternative 2 are consistent with the impacts common to all alternatives. Construction impacts may be intensified or prolonged in the vicinity of the downtown core where concentrations of new development are planned. However, with implementation of measures described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, there would be no significant construction impacts under Alternative 2. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !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 3-14Exhibit 3 1'lExhibit 3 15). Each of these locations are consistent with results found in Alternative 1, with the exception of the N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave changing from LOS E to LOS D in Alternative 2. The change in level of service can be attributed to a decrease in northbound and southbound vehicles entering the intersection, decreasing overall intersection delay. Othcr than thc intcrscction at N'10t Avc & Englcwood Avc, thc map in Exhibit 3 1'1 also applics for Altcrnativc 2. Exhibit 3-111115. Alternative 2 Expected PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary 2016 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Location Traffic Control LOS Delay (seconds) 1 N 72nd Ave & Summitview Ave 2 S 72nd Ave & Tieton Dr 3 S 72nd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 4 S 72nd Ave & W Washington Ave 5 S 64th Ave & Tieton Dr 6 W Washington Ave & S 64th Ave 7 N 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd 8 N 40th Ave & Englewood Ave 9 N 40th AVE & W Lincoln Ave 10 N 40th Ave & W Summitview Ave 11 S 40th Ave & W Tieton Dr 12 S 40th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 13 W Washington Ave & S 40th Ave 14 S 24th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 15 N 16th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd 16 N 16th Ave & W Lincoln Ave 17 N 16th Ave & Summitview Ave 18 N 16th Ave & W Yakima Ave 19 N 16th Ave & W Tieton Dr 20 N 16th Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 21 N 16th Ave & W Washington Blvd Signal Signal Signal TWSC TWSCSignal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal D D C C E D D E E F E D D F D C F E F 50 61 52 104 2244 28 63 47 44 65 67 92 59 44 54 84 41 23 123 63 96 DRAFT—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Transportation 3-35 1 487 2016 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Location Traffic Control LOS Delay (seconds) 22 S 3rd Ave & W Yakima Ave 23 S 3rd Ave & W Nob Hill Blvd 24 N 1st St&W ISt 25 N 1st St & W Yakima Ave 26 E Nob Hill Blvd & S 1st St 27 W Washington Ave & S 1st ST 28 N 3rd St & W Yakima Ave 29 S Fair Ave & E Nob Hill Blvd 30 S 18th St & E Nob Hill Blvd Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal B =II C w D B E 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 Mitigation Measures 11 64 59 28 62 46 14 76 63 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: DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 (Transportation 3-36 1 488 ■ 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Public Services 3-37 1 489 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 No Action Action Population Growth 2015-2040 18,700 23,211 Neighborhood/Mini Parks 37.40 46.42 Community Parks 93.50 116.05 Source: BERK, 2017 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 No Action would require an additional 37.4 acres of Neighborhood/Mini Parks and 93.5 acres of Community Parks, exacerbating the current deficit in both park types in 2016. The No Action Alternative will continue the predominant westward trend of expansion. This means the majority of the new population will be in west Yakima. The need for new parks in the west will be in DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !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 16Exhibit 3 17. Exhibit 3-164. Net Population Growth Distribution by School District School District Share No Action % Total Growth Action % Total Growth Yakima School District West Valley School District 7,502 11,376 40% 60% Source: Yakima School District, 2016; West Valley School District, 2016; BERK, 2017 11,378 12,010 49% 51% Both the Yakima School District and the West Valley School District will have additional needs for facilities and staffing as the City's residential population grows under both alternatives and there are more students. LTIIIuIL 3 17 Exhibit 3 18 shows the base year students, No Action 2040 students projected, and Action 2040 students for the Yakima School District and the West Valley School District. District population is greater in the Action Alternative than the No Action Alternative for both Districts. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Public Services 3-39 491 14,977 Exhibit 3-1748. School District Estimated Student Growth, 2015 — 2040 16,126 16,849 Yakima School District Students 5,034 7,414 7,551 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 17Exhibit 3 18). The West Valley School District could expect around 7,414 students, which is an increase of around 2,380 from 2016 (see Exhibit 3 17Exhibit 3 18). Alternative 2: Action Under the Action Alternative, Yakima School District could expect around 16,849 students to enroll, which is an increase of around 1,870 students from 2016 (see Exhibit 3 17Exhibit 3 18). The West Valley School District could expect around 7,551 students, which is an increase of over 2,500 from 2016 (see Exhibit 3 17Exhibit 3 18). Police Impacts Common to All Alternatives Future growth will in turn increase the need for an adequate police force to meet the public safety needs of Yakima's residents. The availability of adequate police resources in all zones will be a primary goal. Exhibit 3-1841. Demand for Officers based on growth, 2015 - 2040 No Action Action Population Growth 2015 - 2040 18,700 23,211 Officers to meet LOS standard of 1.8 Officers per 1,000 201 210 Officers to meet existing LOS of 1.6 Officers per 1,000 179 186 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017 DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !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 18Exhibit 3 19). Although Alternative 1 would require less officers than the Action Alternative, which anticipates higher growth, the lower density development pattern may put unique pressure on patrol service. Alternative 2: Action The Action Alternative will promote higher infill densities which could require redistribution of the current patrol districts to meet the needs of greater densities in central and eastern Yakima. There would need to be at least 210 officers to meet LOS standards, or 186 officers to maintain existing levels of service (see Exhibit 3 18Exhibit 3 19). rile « iiiicigency 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 3 20 shows the potential facility needs for fire service in 2040 for both alternatives. Around 3,000 more square feet of space would be needed for the Action Alternative, not taking into account locational needs because of population distribution differences. The current facility inventory includes over 67,000 square feet of space. Exhibit 3-1920. Demand for Fire Facilities, 2015 — 2040 No Action ction Population Growth 2015 - 2040 Facility Needs (SqFt)* 18,700 80,583 23,211 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 19Exhibit 3 20). It is possible that additional facilities would need to be sited to meet turnout DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Public Services 3-41 1 493 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 19Exhibit 3 20). It is possible that additional facilities would need to be sited to meet turnout time goals given the distribution of population, combined with added congestion on the road network (which would slow down travel time from the fire facility to the response site). See Section 3.7 (Transportation) for additional analysis on traffic impacts by alternative. Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features The Parks and Recreation Element and Capital Facilities Element and Plan discuss levels of service for Parks, Police, Fire and Schools. Short and long range project lists are also included, with probable funding sources and timelines. Applicable Regulations ■ YMC Title 13 — Parks and Playgrounds ■ YMC Title 10 — Fire ■ YMC Title 6 — Public Safety and Morals Other Potential Mitigation 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !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 TANEY VALLEY Sources. Eul, HERE, DeLorme: Intermap, Increment P Corp., GEBCO. USGS. FAO. NPS. NRCAN GeoBase. IGN. Kadaster NL. Ordnance Survey. Earl Japan. METI, Esn China (Hong Kong). swisstopo, Mapm India, OpenStreetMap comnbutors, 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 !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-servea k Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme. tntermap, increment P Corp.. GEBCO. USGS. FAO. NPS, NRCAN. GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey. Esri Japan. METI. Esri China (Hong Kong). swisstbpo, Mapm India. OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community - .u. 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !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 3-2122. Yakima Sewer Service Area Yakima City oda Yakima Urban Growth Area Source: City of Yakima, Water System Plan, 2011 Sewer Service side City Limits Sewer Service Outside City Limits Outside Urban Granth Area Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Figure 1-7 Yakima Four Party Sewer Service Agreement Parcels currently served by Yakima within the city limits are illustrated in the map below. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Infrastructure 3-45 497 Exhibit 3'2224. in ¥akima City Limits ' nom armseettig IP owls Source: City of Yakima, BERK Consulting 2017 ` Sources: m*HERE, o*orme.m*rmap,increment rnorp_aetxvvSGom^wR,SrNmawGeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey. Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong). swisstopo, Mapmy I nd,a OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GS User Community 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 WestValley 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 || Municipal Stormwater Permit the City requires development to provide on-site stormwater management to mitigate these impacts. Level of service standards require stormwater quantity and quality treatment to be consistent with the City stormwater manual. DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Infrastructure 3-46 498 Impacts Water and Irrigation Impacts Common to All Alternatives Water The Draft Water System Plan update assumes 0.33% growth rate similar to Alternative 1, but with a pattern of land use more consistent with Alternative 2. Under both alternatives, the demand for water will increase as growth increases. Both alternatives will result in average day demands (ADD) and maximum day demands (MDD) that are well within the wastewater treatment plant capacity. Exhibit 3-2324. Yakima Service Area Water Demand by Alternative -Growth Rate Impact on ADD and MDD Scenario 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 ADD (0.33%) ADD (0.51%) Difference 10.5 10.7 10.9 11.0 11.2 11.3 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.3 11.6 11.8 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 3-242-5. Nob Hill Water System Growth Year Nob Hill System Plan No Action 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 DR�FINAL MARCH 2017 !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 3-25. Irrigation Pipeline Improvement Demand Time Period Yakima Feet of Pipe to Meet Current Feet of Pipe Net Reserve or Population Target LOS Standard Available Deficit LOS Standard = 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 served 2016 Alternative 1: 2014 Alternative 2: 2040 53,297 55,727 57,246 85.27 89.16 91.59 Source: City of Yakima, 2016; David Brown, City of Yakima Irrigation, 2016; BERK, 2017 Alternative 1: No Action Water 85.35 85.35 85.35 0.08 (3.81) (6.24) 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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Infrastructure 3-48 500 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 26Exhibit 3 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 3-26. Sewer LOS Analysis Time Period Service Area Population' lbs of Organic Treatment Current lbs Organic Capacity Needed to Meet Treatment Capacity Target LOS Standard Available Net Reserve or Deficit (lbs) L LOS Standard = 342.8 pounds of maximum monthly organic loading per 1,000 population 2016 111,696 2040 147,379 38,175 50,371 53,400 53,400 *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 15,225 3,029 The YRWWTP has capacity to treat up to 53,400 pounds of organic material. With current load levels of 342.8 pounds of maximum monthly organic loading per 1,000 population, the facility will have surplus treatment capacity of over 3,000 pounds in 2040. Both alternatives have lower growth rates than that assumed in the Waste Load Assessment: 0.33% and 0.51% respectively for Alternatives 1 and 2, while 1.16% is the rate assumed in the Waste Load Assessment. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 supports greater growth proportionally in western Yakima, which will require greater service extension to serve greenfield development. Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2 supports an infill policy with a more balanced level of growth between eastern and western Yakima. Improvements to existing infrastructure in already developed areas will be needed as well as extension in western Yakima. While in western Yakima, higher total growth is projected under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1, the density pattern is more efficient to serve. DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Infrastructure 3-49 501 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 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 111,920 116,431 Source: OFM 2015 and BERK Consulting, 2017 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 No Action has lower growth than Alternative 2 Action overall, but with a greater proportion of growth in a lower density pattern in western Yakima. Therefore, a greater level of growth will require implementation of new stormwater systems in areas of greenfield development on vacant and agricultural land. Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2 has a greater proportion of growth allocated to eastern Yakima with existing stormwater systems built prior to newer stormwater standards. There is an opportunity for redevelopment in eastern Yakima to improve systems and water quality as noted in Section 3.1. DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Infrastructure 3-50 1 502 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 by the use. The broad distribution of land uses provided by the Future Land Use Map will help determine where upgraded facilities may be necessary. 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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !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 No Action Action 2015 Population: City Limits Population Growth: City Limits 2017-2040 Western Yakima Proportion of Growth Eastern Yakima Proportion of Growth Total Population City Limits 93,220 18,700 40% 60% 111,920 Source: OFM 2015, City of Yakima and BERK Consulting, 2017 93,220 23,211 49% 51% 116,431 Employment growth is compared by alternative below. Likewise, to population, new infrastructure for power and telecommunications will be needed to meet employment demands. .xnibit 3-2930. rranchise Utilities service Area - City Limits - ropuiation Growth by Alternative Scenario No Action Action Employment 2015: By TAZ City Limit Approximation 47,578 Transportation and EIS Assumption: By TAZ 14,783 Total 2040 62,361 Source: City of Yakima and BERK Consulting, 2017 47,578 15,318 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. DRAFT -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Power and Telecommunications 3-52 1 504 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. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Power and Telecommunications 3-53 1 505 4.0 CITIZEN AMENDMENT REQUESTS Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests Each citizen amendment request described in Chapter 2.0 has been evaluated in Chapter 3.0 cumulatively. In Exhibit 4-1, each request is evaluated individually at a programmatic level regarding potential effects on the natural environment, land use and growth, and public services and infrastructure. The properties contained in the requests below have been evaluated cumulatively for effects on public services and infrastructure in Sections 3.7 to 3.10. At the time of any future development, street frontage and system development changes would likely be required, consistent with the level of development. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Citizen Amendment Requests 4-1 Exhibit 4-1. Citizen Amendment Requests — Programmatic Environmental Review Name, Description, Location Natural Environment Effects Land Use and Growth Effects Public Service and Infrastructure Effects 1. Data! Properties, LLC Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use 113 & 115 N 56th Ave 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. 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. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Citizen Amendment Requests 4-2 2. Landon Glenn Industrial to Commercial Mixed Use 203 & 207 Oak St Minimal effect to the natural environment. The existing residential use at 203 Oak St is completely built out. Commercial development on the vacant 207 Oak Avenue Parcel would more consistent with the neighborhood. 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. 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. 3. Jeff Baker Regional Development to Commercial Mixed Use Vic. Of E Nob Hill Blvd & S 18th St 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. 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. 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. 4. Jay Sentz Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use 4201 Su m m itview Ave 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 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. 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. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-3 5. TM Rentals Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential Vic. Of S 38th 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. 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. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-4 8. Jerry Hand Medium Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use 1406 S Fair Ave & 909 LaFollette 9. William and Linda Beerman Low Density Residential to Community Mixed Use 419&421S16thAve, 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. 421 S 16th 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 419 S 16th 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. 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. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-5 10. SOZO Sports of Central WA Industrial and Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use Vic. Of S 36th Ave and Sorenson Rd 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. 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. The 6 -year TIP includes a project to widen S 36th 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. 11. Gary Delaney Medium Density Residential to Community Mixed Use 1414 S 2nd Ave 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. None. This change simply brings the FLU designation into conformance with the existing land use. 12. Mark Hoffmann Industrial to Low Density Residential 3109 W Washington Ave 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. None. This change simply brings the FLU designation into conformance with the existing land use. DRAW—FINAL MARCH 2017 !Programmatic Analysis of Citizen Amendment Requests 4-6 1 511 5.0 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND REFERENCES 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 CPPs — 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 DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-1 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) neighborhoodscout.com. (2016, May 9). Yakima housing market information. Retrieved from neighborhoodscout.com: http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/wa/yakima/ratesMdescription 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 DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-2 1 513 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.zillow.com/research/local-market-reports/ DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References 5-3 1 514 DISTRIBUTION LIST 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 Agencies Ahtanum Irrigation District, Nob Hill Water, Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Yakima, Nob Hill Water, West Valley School District, Yakima School District, Yakima Valley Museum, Yakima Waste Systems, Yakima Library, City of Union Gap Newspapers and Radio Newspapers: Yakima Herald, EI Sol de Yakima, Yakima Valley Business Times, Sunnyside Daily Sun News, EI Mundo, La Voz, Associated Press TV Stations: KIMA, KNDO, KAPP, KCJT, KNDU, KEPR, KVEW, YCTC, Y -PAC Radio Stations: Radio Yakima (KXDD, KHHK, KARY, KRSE, KBBO, KTCR), Townsquare Media Yakima (KMGW, KIT, KUTI, KFFM, KDBL, KATS), Casa Media Group (KMNA, KLES), Bustos Media (KZTA, KDYK), La Marketa Radio, Northwest Public Radio, KDNA Interested PartiesCentral WA Homebuilders Association, Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood Association, Yakima Association of Realtors, Associated General Contractors of WA, RCDR. Additionally, 213 individuals were notified via email who signed up for notification during our various outreach events. 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. DRAW -FINAL MARCH 2017 !Distribution List 6-1 515 Other Commenters on the Draft SEIS. See Appendix C. DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 !Distribution List 6-2 1 516 7.0 APPENDIX A: SCOPING NOTICE AND COMMENTS DRAFT FINAL MARCH 2017 (Appendix A: Scoping Notice and Comments 7-1 517 CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE We axe 'Vcdiiturt PLAN UPDATE comprehensive. ploil 2040 Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Proposal and Alternatives The City of Yakima is updating its Comprehensive Plan by June 2017 in accordance with Growth Management Act (GMA). An updated Comprehensive Plan will mean more housing choices, new places to work, better connected roads and parks, new recreation opportunities, and improved public services. Elements of the plan to be updated or added include: Vision Statement, Land Use, Economic Development, Housing, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Natural Environment, Energy (new), and Historic Preservation (new). Based on 20 -year growth targets, the City is anticipated to add more than 17,000 people and 8,500 jobs between now and 2040. To achieve an updated vision and accommodate growth, it is anticipated that the land use and subsequent changes to the zoning map will be amended to reflect alternative land use patterns. Some of these changes may include: • Consolidated plan designations with few categories and greater allowance to change underlying zoning designations if appropriate, • New policies or map changes to ensure neighborhoods have appropriately defined mixed use commercial centers and a range of housing types, and • Potentially some zoning changes to better match current land use patterns or alternatively advance the refreshed Comprehensive Plan vision. Transportation and Capital Facilities Plans will be amended and support the land use plan. Additionally, the City is evaluating its critical areas policies and regulations for updated best available science and may propose amendments accordingly. The City's integrated Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) will evaluate alternatives. The range of alternatives is likely to be similar to the following: • Alternative 1 No Action Current Comprehensive Plan: This alternative is required by the State Environmental Policy Act. It assumes current policies, lend use plans, and codes remain in place. Growth would occur based on current plans and zoning at a level above growth targets. • Action Alternative 2 — Plan Update —10111, Mixed Use, and Higher Growth: Updates the Comprehensive Plan including the vision statement, All elements, the future land use map, transportation plan, capital facilities plan, and selected Implementing zoning and critical areas codes in a manner that promotes a vision of equity in plans and strategies, and growth in already developed areas where there is infrastructure and a well-designed and compatible land use pattern. This alternative would also implement the individual parcel rezone/ Future Land Use amendments recommended for evaluation by the Planning Commission that promote infill and greater land use compatibility. Growth would occur based on a revised land use plan and zoning at a level higher than growth targets. A greater emphasis on infill development and mixed uses would allow an improved jobs -housing balance. The City may review a sub -alternative of growth closer to target levels. October 2016 1 518 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 ioseph.calhoun@valornawa.gov yakimawa.gov by 5:00 pm on November 4, 2016. Please visit https://www.yakirnawa.gov/servic:es/planning/cowprehensive-plan-update to review draft plan documents. Following the scoping comment period, The City of Yakima will evaluate the comments and determine the scope of environmental review. At that time, the alternatives and the integrated Plan/SEIS will be developed. Responsible Official Joan Davenport, Director of Community Development City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Date: /0 13- l 6 signature: October 2016 2 519 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 3 Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner City of Yakima Planning 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Mr. Calhoun: I represent the Ahtanum Irrigation District and have been asked by the Board to respond to your request for comments about the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Later we will have some comments about the water situation in the Ahtanum area but understand that now is the time to comment on other issues. Traffic has become a major concern for the Ahtanum area. In the mid afternoon, eastbound traffic is problematic on Ahtanum Road from approximately South 80th 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 YAKIIVIA PLANNING DlV. 520 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1250 W Alder SI • 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: 521 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 Environment/Wetlands/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, o—_= 522 Mr. Calhoun November 1, 2016 Page 2 (360) 407-7172 or dbun461 @ecy.wa.gov, if you cannot find the presentation at the Commerce site.) Ecology would be happy to review updated draft CAO language regarding wetlands before it goes out to public review. We would also be happy to provide other wetland technical assistance, including wetland technical report review(s) or attend pre -application meetings with wetland issues as needed. Call Cathy Reed at (509) 575-2616 for wetland technical assistance. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these Shorelands/Enviromnental Assistance comments, please contact Catherine Reed at (509) 575-2616 or email at catherine.reed@ecy.wa.gov Sincerely, eie Li Gwen Clear Environmental Review Coordinator Central Regional Office (509) 575-2012 crosepacoordinator@ecy.wa.gov 5935 523 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 https://www. co.pierce.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, 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 ANO BANDS Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation November 4, 2016 Sent via Email Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner City of Yakima 129 North 2nd 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 ("DAMP"). 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 (509) 865-5121 528 529 8.0 APPENDIX B: CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE GAP ANALYSIS DRAFT Yakima Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 8-1 INTRODUCTION CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS UPDATE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS With passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA), local jurisdictions throughout Washington State (State), including the City of Yakima (City), were required to develop policies and regulations to designate and protect critical areas. The GMA directs jurisdictions to periodically conduct a thorough review and update their Comprehensive Plan and regulations (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.130). The City originally developed its first critical areas regulations in 1998 as Chapter 15.27 of its Yakima Municipal Code (YMC), and adopted revisions in 2008 and 2009 based on the then - current best available science (BAS). The City is currently undergoing a comprehensive review and update of its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. When updating critical areas policies and regulations, jurisdictions must revisit the standards to establish that they are based on the most recent BAS and "give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries" (RCW 36.70A.172). Critical areas, as defined by the GMA (RCW 36.70A.030(5)), include: 1) Frequently flooded areas (Part Four of YMC 15.27), 2) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Part Five), 3) Wetlands (Part Six), 4) Geologically hazardous areas (Part Seven), and 5) Critical aquifer recharge areas (Part Eight). The following table provides recommendations for revisions to the 2009 critical areas regulations based on recent advances in BAS, as well as improvements to support clarity, ease of use, and general consistency with the RCW and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), and to eliminate redundancy and conflict with Title 17 (Shoreline Master Program [SMP] Regulations) YMC. Key areas of recommended change are as follows: 1) In the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas section, broaden the application to more than "hydrologically related critical areas" and update the stream typing and buffer system. 2) In the Wetlands section, implement updates for consistency with the recently modified wetlands regulations in the SMP and recently issued science -based wetland guidance. DRAFT, September 2016 1 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) Section of the Yakima Municipal Comment / Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Science Reference Part One. General Provisions IAmend 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 its urban growth arc" 15.27.120 Purpose of chapter 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). 15.27.140.A Applicability 15.27.140. B Applicability Fill Amend as follows: "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any new development, construction, or use within the incorporated portion of the city of Yakima and its urban growth arca outside of shoreline jurisdiction designated as a critical area..." Update as needed. Change to avoid confusion with shoreline regulations in Title 17. Part Two. Definitions Amend as follows: "...The physical structure of a chore bank stabilization structure shall not be considered fill...." 1 Change to avoid confusion with shoreline regulations in Title 17. DRAFT, September 2016 2 A YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference Fish and wildlife habitat conservation 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. • Definition taken from Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-190- 130(1). Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas 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 seasonal ranges, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors; and areas with high relative 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. Definition taken from WAC 365-190- 030(6)(a and c). Habitats of local importance Add this definition: "Habitats of local importance" are designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas based on a finding by the city that they are locally important. Definition adapted from WAC 365-190- 030(6)(b). Hydrologically related critical area (HRCA) Delete this definition as it's no longer in use. Priority habitat and species 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, important wildlife habitat, important fish or wildlife seasonal range, important fish or wildlife movement 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 These definitions were taken from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW's) Priority Habitat and Species List (2008). WDFW's system for DRAFT, September 2016 3 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference (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. 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. Restore and Restoration 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, and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the site to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions. 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 Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Species of local importance Recommendation Add this definition: "Species of local importance" are those species that are of local concern due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat alteration or that are game species. Comment / Science Reference Taken from WAC 365-190-030(19). Waters of the state Add this definition: "Waters of the state" are all lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Taken from Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48.020. Part Three. Application and Review Procedures J 15.27.305 Documented exemptions for hydrologically related critical areas and wetlands Update section title to: Documented exemptions for fish and wildlife habitat conservation hydrologically related critical areas and wetlands. Greater consistency with WAC classification of critical areas. 15.27.307.A Mitigation requirements Modify as follows: If an alteration to a critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to that critical area and its buffers shall be mitigated for in accordance with an approved mitigation plan and mitigation for wetland impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Parts 1 and 2 (March 2006 or as updated). Critical area -specific mitigation guidance should be located within that critical area's regulations section for ease of staff and public use. 15.27.315 Supplemental report requirements for specific critical areas Modify as follows: A. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation AreasStrcam Corridor:,. When a critical areas report is required for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation areactrcam corridor or hydrologically related critical arca, it shall include the following: Add a new 3. A discussion of any federal, state or local management recommendations which have been developed for the species or habitats in the area, and how they will be incorporated into the project. Greater consistency with RCW and WAC classification of critical areas. Part Four. Flood Hazard Areas 15.27.401 Principles Modify as follows: Part Four recognizes the right and need of the river and stream channels to periodically carry more than the normal flow of water.... DRAFT, September 2016 This sentence's reference to "the river" implies that 5 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference 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. 15.27.409- 15.27.412 Floodway fringe and floodway permitted and prohibited uses 1 1 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. 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 physical DRAFT, September 2016 6 Replace use of "hydrologically related critical area" to the more encompassing "fish and wildlife habitat conservation area" in this section. Retitle this Part Five as "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." Part Five. Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference habitat. New uses in floodplains can degrade aquatic habitat and have an adverse effect on salmonids and other aquatic or terrestrial species if they increase stormwater runoff/reduce infiltration, reduce sources of large woody debris, alter the size and volume of sediment inputs, or interfere with channel migration, among others. General See comment below. 15.27.500 Purpose and intent i Revise the Purpose and Intent section as shown below: "The strum corridor system includes hydrologically related critical ares, strums, lakes, ponds, and wetland:, and is part of a fragile and highly complex relationship of geology, soils, water, vegetation, and wildlife. Policies and standards to help conserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are designed to accomplish the following: A. Meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.172) regarding best available science; B. Follow thc requirements pursuant to flood resistant construction in thc adopted building code; C. Provide a zcro net loaf of natural wetland functions and values; 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 Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference B. Provide po: ciblo Require consideration of alternatives for necessary development, construction, and uses within fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas a designated strum corridor and other hydrologically related critical ares; 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; EG. Protect sensitive ares of thc stream corridor fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas from the potential negative effects of development through coordinated land use planning; and F14. Protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas Tthrough voluntary agreements or government incentives, I. Recognize wildlife are conservation habitats within their natural geographic location through coordinate land use planning." 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. 15.27.501 Protection approach 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, cover, and dispersal of animals. Factors affecting both habitat and its quality include the presence of essential resources such as food, water, and cover ncst building materials, and lack of disturbance and diseases. The city of Yakima protects fish and wildlife habitat through: 1. Designation of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas Protcction of habitat for aquatic species; 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. Protcction of habitat for species located near thc water. Modified A for technical accuracy and to provide greater clarity of protection mechanisms. DRAFT, September 2016 8 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation B. The city of Yakima's approach to protecting thrcxtened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat is by Using thc protection approach sections of this chapter." Comment / Science Reference 15.27.502 and 15.27.503 Hydrologically related critical area features and Habitat and habitats of local importance Replace/modify existing language in .502 and .503 with the following, and retitle section as 15.27.502 Designation: A. Designation: Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are those habitat areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction that meet any of the criteria listed below. 1. Areas with which state and federal endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; 2. Habitats and species of local importance; 3. Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; 4. Waters of the state, including any required buffers and associated Federal Emergency Management Agency -mapped floodplains and floodways; 5. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; and 6. State natural area preserves, natural resource conservation areas, and state wildlife areas. B. Habitats and species of local importance. 1. All species and habitats identified by WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species program that may be found in the city of Yakima are designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and afforded protection under this chapter. 2. [Retain existing 15.27.503.B here] 3. [Modify existing 15.27.503.0 as shown] "Development Standards. Projects located within habitats of local importance or within 200 feet of species of local importance, as designated in subsection A B_1 and B.2 of this section, shall meet thc standards below, rather than comply with the applicable development standards in YMC 15.27.508 through 15.27.521, unlc:r review is also needed for a hydrologically related critical arca. In addition, Pprojects shall be designated using management recommendations established for the species or habitat by federal and state agencies, or those adopted for species and habitats of local importance by the city of Yakima. The department shall consider the extent such recommendations are used in its decision on the proposal, and may consider recommendations and advice from agencies with expertise." DRAFT, September 2016 Derived from WAC 365-190-130(2). Recommend reorganization of these code sections to provide more consistency with the State's classification of critical areas, and better balance the emphasis on aquatic and terrestrial species. Although the City's code currently contains a process for designating species and habitats of local importance, this section of code has not been used. Instead, it is recommended, consistent with WDFW guidance, that habitats and species of local importance be specifically named to 9 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference include PHS minimally, and then include the process for nominating additional species or habitats. Streams, Lake and Ponds Typing System 15.27.505 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. 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 Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference an inappropriately smaller buffer. 15.27.505.A Streams, lakes and ponds typing system Amend as follows: Type 1 waters strums are those waters, within their ordinary high water mark (OHWM), meeting the criteria as "shorelines of the state" and "shorelines of statewide significance" under RCW Chapter 90.58. Other Wwaters-associated with Type 1 waters strums as dcfincd in RCW Chaptcr 90.58 arc not includcdare not considered Type 1 waters. Type 1 waters are regulated exclusively under Title 17 of the Yakima Municipal Code. If the City elects to switch to the system in WAC 222-16-030, Type 1 would be re- named Type S. 15.27.505.13 Streams, lakes and ponds typing system 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 could either be eliminated, or updated based on the best available information. In the latter case, Cowiche Creek (that portion which is not Type 1 or Type S) and Spring Creek, as well as any accessible tributaries, should at the very least be added to Appendix B as a Type 2 water. 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 arc considcrcd "strums, lakes and/or WAC 222-16-030 or - 031; WDFW, 2016 Delete this provision. 15.27.505.F.3 Streams, lakes and ponds typing system Title 17 provides all of the necessary detail regarding which waters may or may not be considered a shoreline (Type 1). 15.27.506 Wetland rating system Remove this section regarding the wetland rating system. Recommendation for clarity. This important regulation should be in the wetlands regulations section. DRAFT, September 2016 11 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference 15.27.507 Maps Suggest relocating this section to a consolidated early section on critical areas maps in general, perhaps in Part One or Part Two, Article 11. The text and list should be modified accordingly, considering the actual content of the updated map sets. 15.27.510-.513 Use classifications etc. Delete these provisions. 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. 15.27.514 Vegetative buffers Amend as follows: The establishment of a vegetative buffer system is necessary to protect the functions and values of ccrtain hydrologically rclatcd critical ares. Standard and minimum buffcrs for streams, lakes, and ponds wetlands arc listed in jTables 27.5 1 and 27.5 21. Buffers associated with wetlands are listed in YMC 15.27.XXX. Table 27.5-1 Stream Water Buffer Width—standard/(minimum Buffer Width (if City chooses to switch to one of the WAC rating systems) Type,twidth)1 Type 1 chorclino lakes, 3See 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. .streams, and ponds 1 The buffer modifications suggested below are recommended if the City does not change its current rating system definitions. DRAFT, September 2016 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 12 1 Comment / Science Reference YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Recommendation Type 2 757(256.25') Type 2 or 3 /Type F = 75' streams, lakes, and pond:, Type 3 58657(2-548.75') Type 3 or 4 /Type Np = 50' ctrcams (perennial), lakes, and ponds Type 4 2.55074537.5') Type 5 / Type Ns = 25' streams (intermittent), lakes, and ponds Type 5 ctrcams (ephemeral} No buffer standards. Type 5 streams are not regulated as streams, but may be protected under geologically hazardous area, floodplain, stormwater, construction, grading or other development regulations. Not Applicable Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 A. Vegetative buffers shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark for streams, lakes, and ponds, and from thc edge of thc wetlands. The width of the buffer shall be determined according to the ctrcam or wetland water type. Buffer width may be reduced through an adjustment permit process (YMC 15.27.317). However, thc administrative official may not approve reductions to thc standard buffcr widths for wetlands that score medium (twenty through twenty eight points) or high (twenty nine through thirty six points) for wetland habitat function, except where it can bc shown that a particular wildlife species' needs within thc buffcr can bc mct with a smaller buffcr. B. Type 1 waters ctrcams, lakes, and ponds 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 and 27.5 2 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 Section of the Yakima Municipal Comment / Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Science Reference 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 adjacent to the higher -functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the habitat, and decreased adjacent to the lower -functioning or less sensitive portion as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified professional. 3. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging. 4. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than three-quarters of the required width. G. Buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following conditions are met: 1. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging. 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. The administrative official may not approve rcductions to thc standard buffer widths for wetlands that score medium (twenty through twenty eight points) or high (twenty ninc through thirty six points) for wetland habitat function, except where it can bc shown that a particular wildlife species' needs within thc buffer can bc mct with a smaller buffer. DRAFT, September 2016 14 Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Recommendation Type -1 -Wetlands /standard /minimum) Type 2 \A/etI3ndc /standard /minimum) Type 2 WetI3ndc /standard /minimum) Type 1 WetI3nds /standard /minimum) I 200'/100' 150'/75' 100'/50' 50'/25' Comment / Science Reference 15.27.515 Roads, railroads, and parking AND 15.27.516 Utility transmission lines and facilities Consider developing a Public Agency and Utility Exception (PAUE), regulations for which could be located within Article VI, Permit Review Criteria, and consolidating the applicable provisions from .515 and .516 into more general criteria that could apply to more critical area types. Alternatively, could consolidate these two sections into one section governing linear and/or public facilities, or even more generally be part of a regulations section describing modifications allowed in non -shoreline waters and/or their buffers. Suggestions will support flexibility for modifications that often have minimal feasible or appropriate alternatives. Whitman County Code 9.05.110 provides a good example of PAUE language. 15.27.517 &hope Bank stabilization AND 15.27.518 Dredging and excavation AND 15.27.519 Filling Most of the activities in .517 - .519 are most likely to be proposed or undertaken in shoreline jurisdiction, and thus not subject to these regulations. Many of these provisions could be removed outright. As suggested immediately above, these sections could also fall underneath a more general set of regulations describing modifications allowed in non -shoreline waters and/or their buffers. Change would eliminate redundancy and minimize unnecessary language. 15.27.520 Commercial mining of gravel This activity seems likely to be only pursued in shoreline jurisdiction. If that's the case, this section could be deleted. Change would eliminate redundancy and minimize unnecessary language. DRAFT, September 2016 15 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Comment / Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Science Reference 15.27.521 Reclamation 1 Retitle this section to "Restoration," as Reclamation is a term more commonly associated with post -mining activities. Consistency with current terminology. Part Six. Wetlands Replace 15.27.601-.605 with 17.09.040.B -.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 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 wholesale, except where there were shoreline -specific modifications. 17.09.040.6.1 Revise 17.09.040.6.1 as follows: "Consistent with WAC 173 22 035, wWetlands in shoreline jurisdiction shall be delineated..." Update to remove inapplicable shoreline reference. Revise 17.09.040.D.2 as follows: "Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington, revised October 2014March 2007 (Ecology Publication Number 14-06-03001 06 15, or as revised)..." 17.09.040.D.2 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 Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference 17.09.040. D.2. a -d Replace 17.09.040.D.2.a-d with the following: a. Category I wetlands are those that 1) represent a unique or rare wetland type; or 2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or 3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or 4) provide a high level of functions. Risk of any degradation to these wetlands must be avoided because their functions and values are too difficult to replace. Generally, these wetlands are not common and make up a small percentage of the wetlands in the region. b. Category 11 wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. These wetlands occur more commonly than Category 1 wetlands, but still need a relatively high 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. Descriptions of the different wetland categories are from Washington State Wetland Rating System For Eastern Washington (Hruby, 2014). 1 17.09.040.E Wetland Buffers Replace Sub -section E with XX.050 from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Eastern Washington Version (Bunten and others, 2016). Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Eastern Washington Version (Bunten and others, 2016) 17.09.040.F and G Replace Sub -sections F and G with Section XX.070 from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Eastern Washington Version (Bunten and others, 2016). 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 Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference 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 15.27.701 Mapping and designation Modify A.2.d as shown: Channel migration zones and stream undercutting. Modify C as shown: The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the city's critical area map titled "Geologically Hazardous Areas of the City of Yakima." The following geologically hazardous areas have been mapped and classified using the criteria found in WAC 365-190-120080(1)(b) through (h): Updated WAC language and references. 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 Stormwatcr Manual (WDOEEcology publication number 04-10-076, or most recent version);... 15.27.702.A Change clarifies manual title, and ensures that the most current and scientifically based version would continue to be used in the future. 15.27.702.D Modify as shown: ...Protection measures for stream undercutting hazard areas will be accomplished by critical areas review for flood hazards, and streams, and shorclinc jurisdiction. Update to remove inapplicable shoreline reference. DRAFT, September 2016 18 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference 15.27.703.6.2 1 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 is cuancc of a grading or construction permit. Change for clarity (the issuance of a permit doesn't mitigate hazards, unless that permit contains appropriate conditions). Part Eight. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) 15.27.810 Mapping 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 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.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/washington/yakimaWA1985/yakimaWA1985- I.pdf • City of Yakima Wellhead Protection Plan http://www.yakimacounty.us/669/City-of-Yakima-Wellhead- Protection-Plan • Hydrogeologic Framework of Sedimentary Deposits in Six Structural Basins, Yakima River Basin, Washington http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5116/pdf/sir20065116.pdf and Yakima Basin plate http://pubs.uses.gov/sir/2006/5116/pdf/sir20065116 plate4.pdf Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance Document (Morgan, 2005) DRAFT, September 2016 19 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS Section of the Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 15.27 Recommendation Comment / Science Reference 15.27.820 Protection Approach Existing .820.6 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. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance Document (Morgan, 2005) RECOMMENDED CARA REGULATIONS 15.27.820 Protection approach. 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. 1. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Classification. Critical aquifer recharge areas are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water. Wellhead protection involves the management of activities that have a potential to degrade the quality of groundwater produced by a supply well. The City is classified into four wellhead protection zones that are based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to Group A and Group B water source wells within the City limits, and are designated using guidance from the Washington Department of Health Wellhead Protection Program pursuant to Chapter 246-290 WAC. a. Wellhead Protection Zone 1 represents the land area overlying the six-month time -of -travel zone of any Group A water source well and/or land area overlying any Group B wellhead protection area. b. Wellhead Protection Zone 2 represents the land area that overlies the one-year time -of -travel zone of any Group A water source well, excluding the land area contained within Wellhead Protection Zone 1. c. Wellhead Protection Zone 3 represents the land area that overlies the five-year and ten-year time -of -travel zones of any Group A water source well, excluding the land area contained within Wellhead Protection Zones 1 or 2. d. Wellhead Protection Zone 4 represents all the remaining land area in the City not included in Wellhead Protection Zones 1, 2, or 3. 2. Classification of wellhead protection zones shall be determined in accordance with the City's Wellhead Protection Plan and the Washington State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water, Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) Mapping Application, which designates time of travel and wellhead protection zones that correspond to Zones 1 through 4, noted in subsection 1 above. B. Prohibited Activities in Wellhead Protection Zones. 1. 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); i. Chemical manufacturing, including but not limited to, organic and inorganic chemicals, plastics and resins, pharmaceuticals, cleaning compounds, paints and lacquers, and agricultural chemicals; j. Dry cleaning establishments using the solvent perchloroethylene or similarly toxic compounds; k. Primary and secondary metal industries that manufacture, produce, smelt, or refine ferrous and nonferrous metals from molten materials; I. Wood treatment facilities that allow any portion of the treatment process to occur over permeable surfaces (both natural and manmade); m. Mobile fleet fueling operations; n. Class I, Class III, Class IV, and the following types of Class V wells: 5A7, 5F01, 5D03, 5F04, 5W09, 5W10, 5W11, 5W31, 5X13, 5X14, 5X15, 5W20, 5X28, and 5N24 as regulated under RCW Chapter 90.48 and WAC Chapters 173-200 and 173-218, as amended; o. Permanent dewatering of the aquifer for new projects and redevelopment; p. Facilities that store, process, or dispose of radioactive substances; and q. Irrigation with graywater or reclaimed water. 2. Other land uses and activities that the City determines would pose a significant groundwater hazard to Group A and Group B groundwater supplies within the City limits, or would significantly reduce the recharge to aquifers currently or potentially used as a potable water source. C. Wellhead Protection Zone Performance Standards. 1. Activities may only be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer and that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer. DRAFT, September 2016 22 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS 2. Any uses or activities which involve storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances shall comply with the following standards that apply to the wellhead protection zone in which they are located. Residential uses of hazardous materials or deleterious substances are exempt from the following standards. 3. If a property is located in more than one wellhead protection zone, the Director of [XXX] shall determine which standards shall apply based on an assessment evaluation of the risk posed by the facility or activity. The assessment evaluation shall include, but not be limited to: (a) the location, type, and quantity of the hazardous materials or deleterious substances on the property; (b) the geographic and geologic characteristics of the site; and (c) the type and location of infiltration on the site. 4. Development within Wellhead Protection Zones 1 or 2, and any facility or activity existing as of [XXX], within which hazardous materials or other deleterious substances are present, shall implement the following relevant performance standards: a. Secondary Containment. 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: g. i. A development agreement; ii. Detailed monitoring and construction standards; 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. 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 J• 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. 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. 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) E. 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 v. 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: 1. Predictive evaluation of groundwater withdrawal effects on nearby wells and surface water features. 2. Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on potential releases to groundwater. iv. Identification of the type and quantities of any deleterious substances or hazardous materials that will be stored, handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, or disposed of on the site, including but not limited to materials, such as elevator lift/hydraulic fluid, hazardous materials used during construction, materials used by the building occupants, proposed storage and manufacturing uses, etc. v. Proposed methods of storing any of the above substances, including containment methods to be used during construction and/or use of the proposed facility. vi. Proposed plan for implementing YMC 15.27.820.C.3.f, Protection Standards During Construction. vii. A spill plan that identifies equipment and/or structures that could fail, resulting in an impact. Spill plans shall include provisions for regular inspection, repair, and replacement of structures and equipment that could fail. viii. A complete discussion of past environmental investigations, sampling, spills, or incidents that may have resulted in or contributed to contaminated soil or groundwater at the site. Attach copies of all historical and current reports, and sampling results. DRAFT, September 2016 28 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS REFERENCES / SOURCES CONSULTED Anchor QEA, LLC, 2013, Final Draft Semi -arid Riparian Functions and Associated Regulatory Protections to Support Shoreline Master Program Updates. Prepared for Grant County, WA. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/mycomments/grant/DraftRiparianFunctions.pdf Bunten, D., Mraz, R., Driscoll, L., and Yahnke, A., 2016, Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Eastern Washington Version. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Wash. Publication No. 16-06-002. Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1606002.pdf Ely, D.M., Bachmann, M.P., and Vaccaro, J.J., 2011, Numerical simulation of groundwater flow for the Yakima River basin aquifer system, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5155, 90 p. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5155/ Hruby, T., 2014, Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-030). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Jones, M.A., Vaccaro, J.J., and Watkins, A.M., 2006a, Hydrogeologic framework of sedimentary deposits in six structural basins, Yakima River Basin, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5116, 24 p. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5116/pdf/sir20065116.pdf Jones, M.A., Vaccaro, J.J., and Watkins, A.M., 2006b, Maps and Hydrogeologic Sections Showing Surficial Geology, Extent and Thickness of Basin -fill Deposits, Hydrogeologic Units, and Locations of Selected Wells in the Yakima Basin, Yakima River Basin, Washington. Available: http://pubs.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.nrcs.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 1 561 NDIX C: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DEIS DRAFT FINAL Yakima Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 9-1 562 Responses to Comments Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 1 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. 3/28/17 Jay Glenn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4/10/17 Barb Smith Gilbert ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4/11/17 Anonymous: Public Open House Comment Sheet ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4/11/17 Charles Murphy: Public Open House Comment Sheet 1 2 3 4 :iii 563 Date Agency/Individual Name Letter No. 4/11/17 Ed Lisowski: Public Open House Comment Sheet 4/10/17 Valley Quality Homes: Tisha Busey 4/18/17 Talbott, Simpson & Davis: Jerry D. Talbott 4/18/17 Yakima Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee 4/26/17 Central Washington Home Builders Association: Joe Walsh, Government Affairs Director 5/8/17 Carole Skolrud 5/10/17 Central Washington Home Builders Association: Joe Walsh, Government Affairs Director .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5/16/17 Joshua Hicks .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5/16/17 Phil Hoge .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5/16/17 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5/22/17 Yakama Nation: Phil Rigdon, Superintendent, Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources. Received Post comment period. 15 Exhibit 2. Responses to Written Comments Comment Number/ Response Summary 1-1 In favor of zoning changes and Action Alternative 2. 2-1 Support use of YVT rights of way for bike and pedestrian transportation. 3-1 Bike paths and sidewalks should be level grade. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The Utilities Element promotes coordination and co -location of utilities. See proposed policy: 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. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SETS 0 564 Comment Number/ Response Summary 3-2 Protect... parks and greenbelts. 4-1 Sports Complex Area on Ahtanum needs signals 4-2 Bring back parks and pools for healthy community. 4-3 New development should provide sidewalks and connections. 4-4 Consider Annexation near Ahtanum. 4-5 Lincoln & Chestnut, have more than one family per home. More cars. More crowding. 4-6 Area Near 44th & Tieton good for new households due to new school. 4-7 Prepare School District for growth. 4-8 Provide safe routes to schools. 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 transportation improvements designed to address the City's levels of service. Individual developments are also subject to environmental review at the time of permit, and concurrency requirements to maintain levels of service. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see the proposed Parks and Recreation Element. The City desires to meet needs of the community within the resources available. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see the Transportation Plan for proposed non -motorized improvements. The City also considers routes to schools and other destinations through its environmental and subdivision review, and street frontage requirements. The City considers annexations of land by willing property owners. See the proposed Land Use Element policies regarding annexation. Please see the proposed Land Use and Housing Elements for strategies to increase the supply of different housing types affordable to different income levels. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. See the Land Use Element for policies and a land use map showing proposed areas for residential uses. The Yakima and West Valley School districts were contacted through the Comprehensive Plan Update process in order to share proposed population estimates and land use plans. Please see response to comment 4-3. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SETS 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 Effect of Amazon on 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 City has prepared an Economic Development strategy and desires a successful downtown. 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. 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 1 Responses to Comments Final SETS 4 566 Comment Number/ Response Summary 7-1 Hugh Bowman Ditch should be correctly labelled on City/County Maps. 7-2 Utility trenches can affect surface and ground waters. 7-3 New developments continue irrigation water but do not switch from potable to irrigation water. 7-4 Concerned about auto traffic in Ahtanum area. 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 comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Utility projects are subject to environmental review, stormwater regulations, and critical aquifer recharge area regulations. Specific impacts can be addressed through the permit process with these regulations. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. New development is required to provide for adequate potable water supply. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see the Transportation Plan for proposed transportation improvements designed to address the City's levels of service. Individual developments are also subject to environmental review at the time of permit, and concurrency requirements to maintain levels of service. 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 1 Responses to Comments Final SETS 567 Comment Number/ Response Summary 9-2 Appreciate changes "to 1Coodway fringe uses. However, study would require a cost and time. Prefer federal building code standard. 9-3 Water Typing is optional and should be rejected. 9-4 Vegetative Buffer should rely on published best available science. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The standards meet federal standards as well as state rules to consider best available science. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The City's current water typing system is proposed to be retained in format but amended to address best available science. The report "Final Draft Semi -Arid Riparian Functions and Associated Regulatory Protections to Support Shoreline Master Program Updates" dated June 2013 is available at this link: http://www.grantcountywa.gov/Planning/Shoreline-Master-Program/ Arch ive-July%202013%20Su bm itta I%20to%20 Eco logy/ Riparian%20Functions%20and%20Regulations%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 Aquifer Maps — appreciate additional reference maps. 9-7 Aquifer Protect Regulations section is lengthy. 9-8 Additional regulations add cost to new housing. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The changes are recommended to implement best available science. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The Growth Management Act requires consideration of best available science in critical area regulations. The Act also requires consideration of affordable housing. The City has addressed greater flexibility in land use to allow a greater variety and supply of housing. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SETS 6 568 Comment Number/ Response Summary 10-1 Support 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. 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 including affordablc housing ■ Rccognizo 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 1 Responses to Comments Final SETS 569 Comment Number/ Response Summary 13-1 Support....BPAC and Yakima Planning Commission Recommendations. 13-2 Support bike and sidewalk improvements to Zler Road. 13-3 Add bike and sidewalk improvements to N 68th Avenue between Summitview and Cowiche Canyon Road. 14-1 Management and Removal of Vegetation on Yakima River Levees: suspend management of levee. 14-2 Promote habitat protection in urban setting. 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 comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. See the following proposed policy added in response to comments: 9.4.5 Sustain existing levee vegetation to promote and retain functional habitat. Enhance levee vegetation during maintenance projects, where feasible. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. The City requires buffers to protect wetlands and riparian areas. Regarding parks, see the following proposed policy added in response to comments: 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 1 Responses to Comments Final SETS 570 Comment Number/ Response Summary 14-4 Wetlands Map may be missing information. 14-5 Urban Natural Open Space less clear than Shrub Steppe. 14-6 Groupings of vacant and agricultural land on map may be counter-productive. 15-1 Support for Alternative 2. 15-2 Apply best science to cultural resources protection and water supply. 15-3 Protect cultural resources, protect groundwater, and ensure adequate water supplies. 15-4 Support for Alternative 2. The comments are noted. A revised wetlands map has been prepared and included in the Natural Environment Element. The phrase urban natural open space is from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species mapping. The additional explanation that urban natural open space contains shrub -steppe is added to the Existing Conditions Report. The map referenced is the current land use based on Assessor land use codes. The future land use map in the Land Use Element guides future land uses. No change is proposed. The comment is noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. Please see responses to specific comments in body of letter. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Please see responses to specific comments in body of letter. The comment is noted and forwarded to City decision -makers. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SETS 9 571 Comment Number/ Response .................................................... Summary I 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 Coordination with Yakima County needed. Please see Response to Comment 15-5. Also, the following proposed Land Use Policies promote coordination with the County: 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 1 Responses to Comments Final SEIS 0 10 572 Comment Number/ Response Summary 15-7 Cultural resources. The polices contained in the Shoreline Element (and still retained therein) have 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 1 Responses to Comments Final SEIS 0 11 573 Comment Number/ Response Summary 15-8 Climate change. 15-9 Future Land Use Map and development along channel migration zones and floodplains. 15-10 SEIS Section 3.1 Natural Environment. 15-11 Industrial. 15-12 Cascade Mill Site. The Final SEIS includes adjustments to the Draft SEIS Air Quality Analysis to: • 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. The City of Yakima doesn't have land use categories for Open Space or Parks. The land use categories along streams, floodplains, etc. are not substantively changing from previous plans. Parks and open space are an allowed use in all future land use designations and zoning districts. Identifying these areas as only suitable for parks and open space could result in a regulatory taking. Private land must have a 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. • Water Quality: The identified section includes a brief discussion on the environment. Water quality planning is discussed in further detail on page 3-5. • 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. Industrial development may be consistent with CARA designated areas, per YMC §15.27.820 which limits certain uses in these areas and also includes performance standards. Redevelopment of the mill site is an on-going process that will require extensive environmental review when development is proposed. Existing environmental reports can be found here: https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/strategic- projects/cascade-mill-district-development-project/ 15-13 See response to comment 15-7. Historic preservation. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SEIS 0 12 574 Comment Number/ Response Summary 15-14 .................................................. Water Quality and Critical Areas Please see response to comments 15-10. 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 Sensitive Fish Species 15-18 Critical aquifer recharge area. 15-19 Climate change. 15-20 Challenges and opportunities, policy 10.1.1. 15-21 Policy 10.1.3. 15-22 Goal 10.3 This table identifies species and location based upon Washington State 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." Please see response to comments 15-10. Please see response to comments 15-8. New stormwater facilities are required to implement best management practices, consistent with the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual. Existing septic systems can continue until failure and then connect to sewer if available. All new 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. This policy fully supports the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan. To include additional text from the plan would be redundant. Regarding adding climate change analysis from the basin plan, please see response to comment 15-8. The policies supported by Goal 10.3 all set strong policy for the protection of floodplain ecological functions. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SEIS 0 13 575 Comment Number/ Response Summary 15-23 Policy 10.4.1 It should be a goal and policy to protect fish and wildlife general, not just those 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 15.27.502 and 15.27.503 15-27 Stream typing. See Response to Comment 15-16. The Planning Commission did not recommend to move forward with the interim 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 Aquifer mapping. See responses to comment 15-10. Regarding wells, the Nob Hill and City water system plans address private wells and pollution prevention programs within wellhead protection areas. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SEIS 0 14 576 Comment Number/ Response Summary 15-31 Flood regulations. • 15.27.409(C) — Floodway Fringe. Encroachment in residential zone greater than 1 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 15.27.507 Maps 15-35 Stream Buffer Requirements As noted previously, the Wildlife map includes all priority habitat and species data 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. As noted previously, the Type 2 buffer is changed to 100' and other buffers changed for consistency with Yakima County CAO. 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 Geologically Hazardous Areas 15-38 Aquifer maps. The commenter believes there is an inconsistency with 15.27.701 and 702 — designations and provisions for geohazard 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. Please see Response to Comment 15-10. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SEIS 0 15 577 Comment Number/ Response Summary 15-39 ............................ Shoreline master program. See prior responses. The updates to both the SMP and CAO are consistent. 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 Washington Homebuilders Association) 2 Rob Strader (Yakima Bikes and Walks) 3 Shirley Strater (Yakima Bikes and Walks) 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 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. The Growth Management Act Goals were not written as a part of the Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update process and are applicable to all jurisdictions planning under GMA. See also response to comment 11-2 in Exhibit 2. The comments are noted and have been provided to City decision -makers. Please see the Transportation Element Goals and Policies that support healthy communities, including Active Transportation Policies 6.5.15 through 6.5.23. The comments are noted and have been provided to City decision -makers. Please see the Transportation Element Goals and Policies that support transit and alternative modes, including Goal 6.1 and the Active Transportation Policies 6.5.15 through 6.5.23. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SEIS 0 16 578 No. Speaker Name Summary of Comments Response 4 Phil Hoge 5 Tony Sandoval 6 Bill Hordan (Hordan Planning Services) Audience member Phil Hoge echoed previous comments regarding multi- modal 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, 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. 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. The comments are noted and forwarded to City decision - makers. See Figure 4-8. Bicycle System Plan for Primary and Secondary Bike Routes. The comments are noted and have been provided to City decision -makers. Please see the Transportation Element Goals and Policies that support alternative modes, including Goal 6.1. The comment is noted and has been provided to City decision - makers. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Responses to Comments Final SEIS 0 17 Calhoun, Joseph 579 From: Landon <landonglenn@gmail.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 I believe is the name. Thank you. Jay Glenn Calhoun, Joseph 580 From: barbsg2@gmail.com Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:03 PM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: 2040 plan Hello, Please utilize the 48 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) -Carbon reduction -Car traffic reduction -Tourism (+connection to Greenway & Cowiche Canyon Conservancy & Wm 0 Douglas trails) -Quality of lif 2-1 for residents This system should be coordinated with UGA utilities (laying sewer, water, electrical & broadband lines whi e 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 IEHEHEHE1 .... 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� ��« Tuesday April 11, 2017 //n, 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. P a i n liA50. *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY* g 0--- ,m fep a cic,Yc. e -Al cru •/ . e"" -�it� (L/f� l /.©V-/ 13-1 V7 3-2 Name: Mailing Address: Email: 04/11/2017 — Comp Plan 2040 Visioning Open House la-EHEHEI II 11 Ca C] ©CI ■■ ■■ 10:71M1 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 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. PanniiTo *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY* J ATI ii►� t n f-)L�y 1 6 e.o wi•'�I 141-6A 4-1 L ()55 o u• CLaC7r �l 5 + (4-c leZaeLlUzat yr� D pn4-12/Y‘ft— VLPIA t) rtip U[(C4 LAY 4-2 Gt 11YL. — 112,0 (.L .C] vtLe-v- A -t1. ( U Id 1 v (e' o) t& -€.o V\ ZC Cc-t'S 1t4 qi6eA/0119 5 — Raco\ r-A--0.Avt) sc-k)°\ Bim-- = 'i-Afv 1),(t4x-x, s. • coy- yt-- L) sok) iodtes Sc_.04.0c) - 4-5 Name: (AAR[.L f munr Mailing Address: 4-7 4-8 Email: iehLtree)J . c„Qtr (ere ak;oV Cci/Doti. 07, 6.eAnd 1)61'M 04/11/2017 – Comp Plan 2040 Visioning Open House Oe -Os 12) / r2?) r- co1A-- o i -,' (_, v\ \AA-4AA k 00 P -A1/171- ,cfocut,g.,,z_CI -LA.') .c- s LJ ac 'ot WL6 r(0(.310tios k c \d_S Avick_mYt-- -e.--f--..e_ c.11- 0/7) 1(2 — .e.,(ivi 3--/Y.es I 1 10a_ ri � � z �o�� C 6ti f jrl C � c� — e��OVUL Tlext--?, vms (1)-7 5 000 rbz cf-r, jeA.1,\A__ — (cc(' I 110 ott))0q= eov,4„,,z3-±gA8, S,P ; Sc hool #,ic� 1 jf_S iA.Cct Se t/Loo Is ( -tr.? V\ L Vl. l LVl(4 � - e_04)1.,ct_v__ rfri Pri,te y( 4 LILLL�� LA)0 Los Ry -e C1 Dec{ h k.e Ick : ()1J Da -4,11.3 ejl)(Lki CAPUC . vac C- ' Vate5 58 r T, c 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-13 i VI Li 61_ ti-AA/Lz:z___ vh_0_12,/ A CW t-D,c3 — a,e -e ft-, s 0 y- L.,31 yi e,(,/ Ce,s , cc.1,-f-, tp ci t .Y-f-v-__.e...,L,) -{--- , e c. 4-15 lar"111111 a "gmlikm I I .4416.111ii lip 1 D CI CI OD©D ■■ ■■ 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 4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Ail P a n n g n' *PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY* 0 b Q-6 Q_,,, n1, v ' LLWL o = d La) ` e SitA-w0 4J of- p, ou,t` V c) 6 . s *L11-1 diiJJ PFJ #( S,tQuIei<C- 5-1 �+ ` n rrL Name: �- �l � ui �1G� Mailing Address: 2� s ' � 7" � x• 1/(-,4 4 Email: faro JSK �� ���t k 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) 5754702 April 10, 2017 Mr. Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner City of Yakima 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington, 98901 CITY OF YAKI N A COPE 1a.`:iM!N, ❑IVIk3ON APR 11 2017 r»cyvr, , i -'r xEr) `LI -7 PAD FYI 0 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 plan designation from Arterial Commercial to Mixed Residential. This letter is being written in OPPOSITION 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 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, tight, 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. 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 ..ot' r properties. This would permit our property to +act:as a:buffer between the expected comnilcxa es lying east of us and the expected r..esidentr ll'�uli lyisig,we t•pf as... .: L,-.. 7 44:A •• 4` '� i i , fit; • �' of •s ':� 1C:i!i..1 j•1'i 1; iii.{� i •�Y' ii 1N4. t "'��' { ��i�; yI `�' • 41. ti •7' 6-1 Based on alt the above, we are requesting that all our property be removed from the above proposal. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at 509-453- 8937. Sincerely, a Busey 586 6-1 Cont. JERRY D. TALBOTT TALBOTT, SIMPSON & DAVIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 308 N. 2ND STREET Yakima_, Wa. 98901 (509) 575 7501 FAX (509) 453 0077 Email: jtalbott(cr7talbottlaw.cont April 18, 2017 Joan Davenport AICP Director Department of Community Development 129 N. Second Street. 2"d Floor Yakima, Wa. 98901 Re: Comprehensive Plan 2040 Comments 587 RECEIVED APR 2G2017 CITY OF YAK/14 PLS+• 41 l We represent the Ahtanum Irrigation District and wish to comment on the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan in regard to water and utilities. 1. 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 7-1 7-2 588 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. 3. 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, I. Jerry D. T lbott RECEIVED APR 2 2017 CITY OF YAKIMA PLA! Liv 7-2 Con't 7-3 7-4 r T April 18162017 0,14.. +���► rf (id "^ ��J..�.,� �� G� c 'r �etc.� 3Fr 4,4 TRANSIT and TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT 589 G+ sww-r r 1` r 1 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 school." 4."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? 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? 8-1 8-4 590 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 institute. and The American Public Transportation Association 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 (or 150 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. 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 community cohesion by promoting positive interactions between neighbors. l.eat'n Nw Seven transit agendies were unified with lust one app. 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 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. 6) Public transportation provides access to essential needs later in life. 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, 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 employrnent 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 8-2 Cont. 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 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! 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, c�- Joe Walsh Government Affairs Director to new home Washington Free Beacon h a7) a) T 0 a) o D 2' raU N .. co Z] dtii co o c3 a a 25 in a) = o N 0o ') �- (D NCn a ooC a) C} a) 'oa a. U1 m C UQ E a) Q - 0) > a o 0 0) > rn o aa)) 0 O N a E .N ca a) .n n x a) c N�°21 _to .0 fi 0 E .0 0) as .� a) -mmo .o o co a) O CI 4 EE u) a) •- •- 0 a D C o v ui U Q N1.1ca O `-`. a to o N co _c a) 0 N PinT3 c a mi e42' Nm — -j a) C @ .5 E 0) ij .0 E >, o a 8 as E 0) o o Qo 343 cz •m oU U)CU b 9.1 cu ii : C }-- a home went from $65,224 in April of 2011 1 to $84,671 in March 2016—a 29.8 percent increase_ L 63 • -C v3 - c0 C co" 69- a c -p U ro 0 u a +-' (Ni '0 04 d CJ ce T W E c '- -o 0 V1 u)7" a) m a N UCO 4-1 (15 a) C vf C C 17 °) 0 a 4.-b ro tit)0 .13,_L C -0 fa 0 D) c LI L •i c N a N - c QJ a E 0 1° a cn 3CC Cro a) 8 Etc 0 a) (is U -5 a zt LZ' u.) Example: On a $300,000 home add another $23,000 594 595 Calhoun, Joseph From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Calhoun, Carole Skolrud <carole.skolrud@a gmail.corn> Monday, May 08, 2017 7:10 PM Calhoun, Joseph ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS, ETC TO 88TH AVE NE BETWEEN SUMMITVIEW & TIETON 1 have actively advocated for the improvements t❑ be made in this location for a number of years. 1 was encouraged to see its inclusion on the 2040 plan. 10-1 As this is a potentially serious safety issue, with many schoolchildren walking along a busy street with lit rally no shoulder (let alone sidewalks), strongly recommend the completion of this project as soon as possibl Thank you for your consideration, Carole Skolrud (509) 853-5759 Yak(ma offjce .1341.W Nob Ni1f Blvd. 'Yaklmay WA 98902 (509) 454-4006 •r • North Cent,at office •K 23:OiilxreGardenRacf,S(itg5 • , Wry ratcnee, WA 98801 E5Q9)421-1803 - Kfttltas•Offlce t V.06 N. Dola6m. Suite 216 -- ;!' .Elierr56urq,WA989;61 ;' (503),856-444 't j rf i, • A • .y' •- .' . ■ —1ST 1355— CWHBA iota til.I P CWHBA City of Yakima Planning Commission 129 N 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 RACEI VED M CITY OF YAKIMA PLAL .....1 OW May 10, 2017 RE: Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 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 2040. 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 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 frorn 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. 11-2 Then there is RCW Goal (8) Natural Resource Industries. "Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, ... timber, agriculture, Submitted: 5/10//7 WC HatrinS Phone:(509) 454-4006 Fax:(509) 454-4008 1 www.cwhba.org 1 social media @cwhba Kittitas Office 120611, E1a1ar.iay, Suite 216 EiCeristur . 4:JA E�3a3 (509) 9.56- 4R4•4 D7.1955— — r.1955— LSI. I?33— CWHBA RECEIVED 2017 CITY OF YAKIMA PLA{: DIV. fisheries." Again, this reads as an aggressive call to action. To my way of thinking this requires much more jurisdictional creativity than just a bask 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 or 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 Buffers. The basis for 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. 11-2 con't. 11-3 Phone; (509) 454-4006 Fax; (509) 454-40081 www.cwhba.org 1 social media ©cwhba Yaktsia Oftfce 330.1W.'Nob 1414, ©Ivd Yatdma..WA 9002", (kg) 454-4616 NattffeiitrafOftice, ; rr coil** Gardei°x fio quite a, Wenattae; WA 98804 t509}42141K3 Isfttitas i}tlfe' J oni set 'wm 9.8926 `' E}.11d-41144 -- LSI.1955 CWHBA RECEIVED 598 MAY 1 0 21117 CITY OF YAKIAMA PLA!;:':::.ay. f_A.+.... au CARA (15.27.810) Mapping. We support the additional reference maps. Additional information like this is always an asset. CARA (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 Horne 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. 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 your hard work and this opportunity for us to provide comment. S ely, Joe,Walsh Government Affairs Director 11-3 Cont. Phone:(509) 454-4006 Fax:(509) 454-4008 f www.cwhba.org I social media ©cwhba RCW 36,70A.020: Planning goals RCW 36.70A.020 Planning goals. RECEIVED rage MAY 1 0 2017 Ci7Y OF YAKIMA DIV. 599 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 35.70.A.O.+.). The following goals 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 revels below locally established minimum standards. (13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance. 01 I. http:f/app,leyg,wa.gov/RCWidel'ault.aspx?cite=36.70A.020 5/10/2017 600 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. Since I largely agree with the content of the plan, my feedback is primarily concerned with prioritization/focus and sustainability_ l 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 of20 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 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, 1 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 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 i n :s turn left to get to Lincoln Ave. I find Yakima Ave provides a very pleasant view of the city, and the Wsted automobile speed a better fit for cycling than other routes (although 1 wish the stretch from 16th Ave to Summitviewl7th Ave was also posted 25 mph). 12-4 con't. Going home 1 must take Lincoln Ave initially, but given the posted and actual automotive speeds 1 get off f this thoroughfare as quickly as possible—typically 3rd St or 2nd St. From there I take Sgt Pendleton Way t Front St to Yakima Ave through the intersection with 16th Ave and wend my way through the residential s Bets 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' i 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 g 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. It just seems dangerous and unreliable to me, and 1' 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 Yakin• 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 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 2 a, 1 12- 5 602 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, I 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 I support the BPAC's and the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendations as you provided in your email below. 1 2. I support Yakima Planning Commissioner Peter Marinace's comments at the YPC's 5/10 meeting regarding Zier Road needing bike lanes and sidewalks due to the school children "traffic". I urge you to revise the Draft 2040 Transportation System Plan to incorporate the plans of the WVNP, which recognized that the plan for Zier - between the junior/middle school campus and the 9th/high school campus - should include bike lanes. 3 N. 66th Ave. -- I 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 WVNP, this section is a 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 <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 Bicycte 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 / Tieton Dr intersection. Paae 29 8. Figure 2-9 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 lst 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 Eastlwest 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 EastfWest 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 EastlWest Corridor as future Primary Bike Route Page 61 13. Figure 4-9 d. Add project R-1 (H Street Extension) to the reap. 14. Project List: e. A-13 - Clarification of X project Joseph Calhoun Original Message From: phil hoge Imailto:phiihoge{a�aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:01 PM To: Calhoun, Joseph <Joseph Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV> 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 6.5.1$)? ---PH 2 603 604 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 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 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 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 httpsliwww.co.pierce.wa.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFilentem/4622. 605 City of Yakima DCED Comments on SEIS / Plan 2040 May 16, 2017 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 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. 14-2 14-3 14-4 14-5 14-6 606 City of Yakima DCED Comments on SEIS / Plan 2040 May 16, 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 457-9310. 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 Sent via Email Received 5/22/17 by Joseph Calhoun, City of Yakima City Of Yakima c/o Joseph Calhoun, Senior Planner 129 N 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Email: joseph.calhoun@yakimawa.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 SEIS"). 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 SEIS, 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 607 15-1 15-2 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 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 DNR's John Marvin at jmarvin(;a.yakama.com with any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, PHIL RIGDON, SUPERINTENDENT YAKAMA NATION DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PAGE 2 OF 12 608 15-2 Cont. 15-3 609 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS 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. 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 SEIS 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 SEIS 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 Liaa 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. PAGE4OF 12 610 15-5 Cont. 15-6 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT Sl Iti MAY 16, 2017 It is recommended that the City of Yakima and Yakima County review the excess lands reserved for residential development within the UGA, and also develop a pian to ensure adequate water supplies are legally and physically available for residential development within the VGA. • 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 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 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 (I) 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 PAGE 5 OF 12 611 15-6 Cont. 15-7 15-8 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE 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 PAGE6OF 12 612 15-8 Cont. 15-9 15-10 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAY] ',EIS 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 I900'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 12 613 15-11 15-12 15-13 15-14 15-15 15-16 15-17 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT SEIS MAY 16, 2017 o 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. o 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). o 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. o 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. 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 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 identify and protect cultural resources through the Comprehensive Plan and throughout the City. • Energy Element — pg. E-1. o Please see The Yakama Nation's Climate Adaptation Plan for the Territories of the Yakama Nation (2017). 8.0 Appendix B: Critical Areas Ordinance Gap 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 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 8OF12 614 15-18 15-19 15-20 15-21 15-22 15-23 15-24 15-25 15-26 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 not 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., 7 . 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 #05-06-008. 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 12 615 15-26 15-27 15-28 15-29 15-30 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE 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 1 5.27.409.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. • 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. • 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 ("HOLI"). 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 12 616 15-30 Cont. 15-31 15-32 15-33 617 YN DNR COMMENTS ON CITY OF YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2040 UPDATE DRAFT 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 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(2I), 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 PHS. 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 8-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 BAS, but there are missing PAGE 1 1 OF 12 15-33 Cont. 15-34 15-35 15-36 618 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. 2005 Appendix 8-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. • 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 09.030-1 Standard Stream Buffers. This table seems overly complicated, not consistent BAS, and not consistent with the known landscape. As previously stated, the minimum buffer 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 FloodwayCMZ. 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 FloodwayCMZ 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 15-36 Cont. 15-37 15-38 15-39 619 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 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 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. 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. 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. Chairman Scott Clark Date This meeting was filmed by YPAC. Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Lisa Maxey, Planning Specialist. -3