Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2008-099 Critical Areas Ordinance - Greenway - Sarg Hubbard Reflection PondRESOLUTION NO. R-2008-99 A RESOLUTION approving the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve with conditions, the request of the Yakima Greenway Foundation for a Public Agency and Utility Exception under the City of Yakima's Critical Areas Ordinance (YMC 15.27.540) to build a pathway, cantilevered fishing piers and other associated amenities within the critical areas of Sarg Hubbard Park's Reflection Pond located at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington, and' authorizing the Mayor to direct staff to issue the appropriate Critical Area Substantial Development Permit. WHEREAS, on April 24, 2008, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the application of a Public Agency and Utility Exception to the City of Yakima's Critical Areas Ordinance to allow the construction of a pathway, cantilevered fishing piers and other associated amenities within the associated critical areas of Sarg Hubbard Park's Reflection Pond located at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington, submitted by Al Brown, Yakima Greenway Foundation Manager, City File No. CAO #2-08; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2008, the Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation approving the proposed Public Agency and Utility Exception subject to the descriptions and conditions contained within the City assigned file numbers UAZO CAO #2-08 and EC #11-08; and r. , a.. WHEREAS, as this Public Agency and Utility Exception comes before Council for review each member declares that he has had no contact with either the applicant or opponents of the proposed application; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON: The proposed Public Agency and Utility Exception recommended by the City's Hearing Examiner for construction of a pathway cantilevered fishing piers, and other associated amenities within the associated critical areas of Reflection Pond located within Sarg Hubbard Park at 206 S. le Street, Yakima, Washington, is hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Critical Area Substantial Development Permit. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 1st day of Jules 008. ATTEST: 4)p b(r.kr..-)1 City Clerk avid Edler, Mayor • City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Recommendation May 8, 2008 In the Matter of Application for a ) Critical Areas Ordinance Public ) Agency Exception Submitted by: ) Critical Areas Ordinance #2-08 EC #11-08 Yakima Greenway Foundation ) And the City of Yakima ) To Allow for Construction of a ) Pathway and Two Fishing Piers ) Along the West and the South ) Sides of Reflection Pond ) Introduction. The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on April 24, 2008 and has issued this recommendation within ten business days thereof. Assistant Planner Jeff Peters presented a thorough staff report which recommended approval of this request for a public agency exception to allow for the construction of a pathway around the west and the south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park and for the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers in that same area. The facts in the staff report are adopted herein by this reference to avoid the need to repeat all of them in detail here. No one other than Jeff Peters testified at they, public hearing. No written comments were submitted in opposition to the requested exception. Yakima Green way Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 1 Summary of Recommendation. The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Yakima City Council approve this request for a public agency exception to eliminate the Critical Areas Ordinance wetland buffer and setback areas that would otherwise prevent the construction of a pathway and two cantilevered fishing piers along the west and the south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park. Basis for Recommendation. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site without anyone else present on April 22, 2008; his consideration of the. staff report, application, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented at an open record public hearing on April 24, 2008; and his review of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance; the Hearing Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS I. Applicants. The applicants are the Yakima Greenway Foundation, 111 South 18th Street, Yakima, Washington and the City of Yakima, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. II. Location. The proposed pathway and fishing piers would be located along the west and south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park at 206 South 18th Street, Yakima, Washington. The parcel numbers are 191320-13007 and 13009. Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 2 • III. Application. This application for a Critical Areas Substantial Development Permit, called a "Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application Form" or "JARPA Application," was filed with an application for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review on February 19, 2008. A public agency exception from the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) buffer and setback requirements is needed to allow for issuance of a Critical Areas Substantial Development Permit for the following reasons: 1) The Yakima Greenway Foundation wishes to build a ten -foot -wide pathway that would be 840 feet long around the west and south sides of Reflection Pond. The Greenway Foundation also wishes to build two cantilevered fishing piers over the pond — one on the west side and one on the south side of the pond. The improvements would be within six feet of the ordinary high water mark of the pond. 2) Reflection Pond is identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan Critical Area Map as a pond with associated Category IV wetlands. The pond is between one and two acres in size and is treated as a depressional wetland. Wetland areas containing vegetation such as pacific willow, coyote willow, reed canary grass, cattails and willow herb exist in an "L" shape around the west and south edges of the pond. 3) The desired construction cannot be allowed unless a public agency exception under Section 15.27.540 of the CAO is allowed so that a Critical Area Development Permit can be issued under Section 15.27.500 of the CAO. The City's CAO jurisdiction extends 300 feet in all directions from the edge of identified wetlands. According to Section 15.27.412 of the CAO, a 25 -foot -wide development buffer of undisturbed soil and native vegetation from the e edge of the wetlands has been established for areas like parks where there is a high intensity land use. In addition to that, an additional 20 -foot -wide structure setback beyond that exists around the pond. The buffer area was administratively reduced to 12.5 feet, but even the reduced 32.5 -foot combined buffer and structural setback allowed pursuant to Section 15.27.412(A) of the CAO would prevent the construction of the proposed improvements due to the limited room around the pond for the improvements. Grading would have to occur within these buffer and setback areas to create the structural bed for the pathway and temporary impact to the. buffer and setback areas would occur during construction. Even though all Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 3 environmental impacts would be mitigated by either avoidance, minimization or repair of wetlands near the path and the water's edge, the improvements could not be permitted without a public agency exception to the CAO buffer and setback requirements. IV. Background. The background of this application may be summarized as follows: 1) Environmental review for the construction of Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park was conducted in early 1984 by Yakima County in cooperation with the City of Yakima, the Yakima Greenway Foundation and other citizens groups. The area was originally a landfill from the early 1940s until 1965 when it was abandoned. Reflection Pond was originally a gravel pit which ceased operation in about 1976. 2) When the pond was originally constructed, it became evident by the appearance of an oil slick on the pond that contaminants were leaching into the pond due to oil entering groundwater from an asphalt batch plant west and south of the pond. A cleanup order was issued by the Department of Ecology (DOE) in 1991. A protective membrane that is also called a contaminant barrier or an impermeable liner was installed between the contaminated soil and the pond. The site was capped with concrete to prevent further contamination and fenced to prevent human disturbance. 3) During the following years, there has been a problem with the public breaching the fence and disturbing the contaminated area. In many places, the slope between the contaminant barrier has been eroded, vegetation has been trampled or destroyed, and in one place the contaminant barrier has been exposed so as to make it prone to damage or destruction. 4) On November 30, 2007, Catherine Reed of the Department of Ecology indicated in writing after a site visit that Reflection Pond is "associated" with the Yakima River and has primarily a water quality and hydrologic support function; that the area for a pathway is quite limited, particularly on the west side of the pond; that a smaller buffer is needed for a water quality and hydrologic support function than for a habitat protection function; that public access to the shoreline is a preferential use under the Shoreline Management Act; that the park area is already in an Urban shoreline setting; that the public is already using the pond and there are trampled footpaths within several feet of the pond; that placement of an asphalt pathway higher on the slope above the pond with designated access paths to the shoreline or to fishing platforms would improve the situation; that Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 4 • • • • specifically an asphalt pathway would protect the impermeable liner, funnel the public to specific areas of the pond banks and help prevent erosion; and that the placement of an asphalt pathway within the setback buffer around the pond is therefore for these reasons acceptable to DOE. 5) After the Department of Ecology issued a close out order on the remediation of the contaminated area, Robert Swackhammer of DOE's Toxic Cleanup Program approved the proposed pathway in writing on January 30, 2008 so long as "construction and use of the path shall not result in exposure to hazardous substances remaining at the site." He detailed his understanding that the pathway would be asphalt on a gravel subgrade; that pedestrians, baby strollers and bicycles would be allowed on the path; and that small motorized vehicles operated by Greenway maintenance workers would be the only motorized vehicles allowed on the path. V. Notices. Notices of the public hearing were provided in thefollowing manner: Posting of notice on property Mailing of notice Publishing of notice in newspaper March 6, 2008 March 6, 2008 March 6, 2008 VI. Environmental Review. The City as lead agency under SEPA issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposal on March 27, 2008. The MDNS became final without an appeal. The MDNS constitutes a finding that the proposal will not have likely significant adverse impacts on the environment so long as enumerated mitigation measures are followed before, during and after construction. VII. CAO Public Agency Exception Review Criteria. Section 15.27.249 of the CAO defines a public agency to include local governments such as co - applicant City of Yakima. The Examiner is required by Subsection 15.27.540(B) of the CAO to review an application for a public agency exception and to make a Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 5 recommendation to the City Council as to whether the following criteria to be considered are in fact satisfied: 1) Subsection 15.27.540(B)(1) of the CAO: There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas. Even though Subsection 15.27.412(A) of the CAO allows the Director of the Department of Community and Economic Development to reduce the width of required wetland buffer areas by up to 50 percent under certain circumstances, which was done for this application, the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing was to the effect that such a reduction in buffer areas would still not be sufficient to allow the proposed pathway and fishing piers to be constructed. The evidence presented was that grading would need to occur within the reduced 32.5 - foot buffer and setback areas and that construction of the pathway and the fishing piers would have to occur within those areas. There is not sufficient room around the pond to construct the pathway more than 32.5 feet from the pond. Construction of fishing piers that distance from the pond would defeat . their purpose. Construction of the pathway would also need to be within the buffer and setback area in order to protect the contaminant barrier that is located within the buffer and setback areas. In short, the evidence presented at the hearing was undisputed to the effect that there is no practical alternative to locating the proposed pathway and fishing piers within the reduced CAO buffer and setback areas. 2) Subsection 15.27.540(B)(2) of the CAO: The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas. The proposal utilizes avoidance and minimization strategies and best management practices to minimize the impact on critical areas. Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 6 • • • • The MDNS requires specific mitigation measures to minimize the impact on critical areas which include the following: i) No construction shall take place within the approved 32.5 foot setback line under any circumstances unless approval is granted by the Yakima City Council under Chapter 15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Exception of the Yakima Municipal Code; ii) The proposed pathway shall be sloped away from the pond in accordance with the recommendations of the Washington State Department of Ecology; iii) Erosion control measures shall be installed to Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Standards prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface waters (including storm drains) by stormwater runoff; iv) All wetlands and their buffers shall be avoided as much as possible; v) Where wetland or wetland buffer disturbance occurs native wetland plants shall be replaced with native wetland species utilizing a 3:1 ratio; vi) The Yakima Greenway Foundation shall install native vegetation between the new paved trail and the pond in order to stabilize the bank and protect the wetland from sedimentation; vii) During construction high visibility fencing shall be required to be installed to mark the limits of disturbance to protect the various sensitive areas; viii) Prior to construction the applicant shall submit building plans for the two fishing piers which meet Section 1805.4 of the International Building Code by a certified engineer. In addition, each plan page and the structural calculations shall also be stamped and signed by the engineer. ix) Prior to any construction, the Washington State Department of Ecology shall be contacted to determine if an NPDES stormwater construction permit is required; x) All disturbed areas shall be returned to their original conditions or better by reseeding, and/or additional plantings within thirty days from completion of the proposed pathway; and xi) A Dust Control Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority prior to any phase of work. Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 7 3) Subsection 15.27.540(C) of the CAO: There is a mitigation plan indicating how the proposal will minimize theimpact on critical areas. Although this is one of the listed criteria for consideration, it is not mandatory and it does not appear to apply to a public agency exception. The exact wording of this provision in Subsection 15.27.540(C) is that "A mitigation plan may be required from the utility indicating how the proposal will minimize the impact on critical areas." In any event, there is a mitigation plan indicating how this proposal will minimize the impact on critical areas as detailed in the MDNS. As previously noted, for example, impact avoidance/minimization practices such as requiring pathway drainage to flow landward rather than waterward and revegetation of impacted critical areas will mitigate the impact on critical areas. The City will finalize mitigation requirements and other conditions when and if it issues the requisite Critical Areas Development Permit under Section 15.27.500 of the CAO. 4) Subsection 15.40.540(D) of the CAO: There is a clear showing that the proposal will protect the public health and safety or repair damaged critical areas where use of category I and II wetlands or their buffers providing habitat for endangered or threatened species will be allowed. Even though the environmental checklist indicates that there are a number of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act in the Upper Yakima Valley, all listed species would benefit from the installation of the pathway. The pathway would reduce human disturbance within the affected areas around the pond, and the installation of native vegetation would enhance the surrounding buffer area so as to provide new habitat for various species. All environmental agencies charged with implementing the ESA for the endangered or Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 8 • • threatened species at issue were notified as part of the SEPA process. No agency other than DOE commented formally or informally on the proposal. Even so, substantial mitigation for temporary impacts caused during construction, revegetation steps after construction and other measures required by the MDNS to minimize impacts upon endangered or threatened species and critical area habitat would protect the public health and safety or repair damaged critical areas. VIII. Consistency of the Proposed Use with Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan under the Criteria Required by Subsection 16.06.0208 of the Yakima Municipal Code is determined by consideration of the following factors: 1) The types of land uses permitted at the site include the proposed pathway and fishing piers if, as is the case here, the criteria for a public agency exception are satisfied so as to allow those improvements within the CAO buffer and structural setback areas. 2) The density or level of development would still be within applicable and acceptable limits after the construction of a pathway and two fishing piers to facilitate public access to the shoreline of Reflection Pond which is a preferential use under the Shoreline Management Act 3) The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities is not an issue here. The proposed pathway and fishing piers would be constructed within an existing park and would not require additional infrastructure or public facilities. 4) The characteristics of the development would be consistent with applicable development regulations, including the recommended exception to Critical Areas buffer and setback regulations as discussed in detail above. CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing findings, the Examiner reaches the following conclusions: Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 9 1) The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to make recommendations to the Yakima City Council regarding applications for a public agency exception to the City's Critical Areas buffer and setback requirements. 2) Public notice was given by mailing, posting and publishing notice of the hearing. 3) A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on March 27, 2008 and wasnot appealed. 4) The undisputed evidence presented at the open record public hearing on April 24, 2008 satisfied the criteria for approval of a public agency exception to the Critical Areas buffer and setback requirements so as to allow construction of the proposed pathway and fishing piers along the west and south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park. RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends that this request for a public agency exception to the Critical Areas buffer and setback requirements in order to allow construction of a pathway and two fishing piers along the west and south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park as described in the documentation assigned file numbers UAZO CAO #2-08 and EC #11-08 be APPROVED by the Yakima City Council. DATED this 8th day of May, 2008. Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 10 Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner • • • • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting Of: July 1, 2008 ITEM TITLE: Closed record hearing to consider a resolution to approve a request from the Yakima Greenway Association for a public agency and utility exception of certain setback and buffer requirements under the Yakima Critical Areas Ordinance (YMC Chapter 15.27) for the construction of a pathway, cantilevered fishing piers and other associated amenities around Sarg Hubbard Park's Reflection Pond. SUBMITTED BY: William R Cook Director of Community and Economic Development CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Jeff Peters Assistant Planner, 575-6163 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The Yakima Greenway Association applied to the City of Yakima for a critical areas development permit under the Yakima Critical Areas Ordinance (YMC Chapter 15.27) to construct a pathway, cantilevered fishing piers and other associated amenities around Sarg Hubbard Park's Reflection Pond. As part of that permit process, the Yakima Greenway Association requested that the City grant a Public Agency and Utility Exception allowing adjustment of certain critical areas setback and buffer requirements. On April 24, 2008, and in accordance with YMC 5.27.540, the City hearing examiner held an open public hearing regarding this request. Subsequently, the hearing examiner issued a formal Hearing Examiner's Recommendation on May 8, 2008, in which the hearing examiner found that the criteria of YMC 15.27.540 for approving a Public Agency and Utility Exception for the proposed pathway, fishing piers and amenities were satisfied and recommended that the public agency exception request be approved with conditions by the City Council. A copy of said Hearing Examiner Recommendation and a resolution approving the Yakima Greenway Association's request for a public agency exception for the proposed project are attached for City Council consideration. Resolution X Ordinance Contract _ Other Hearing Examiner's Recommendation Funding Source APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF .RECOMMENDATJON: Accept the hearing examiner's recommendation; adopt the resolution approving a public agency and utility exception for the proposed project and direct staff to issue the, appropriate Critical Areas Substantial Development Permit. BOARD f NIMENDATION: The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the Public Agency and Utility Exception with conditions on May 8, 2008. COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Recommended for full Council consideration and approval by the Council Economic Development Committee on February 6, 2008. COUNC$. A►CT)9N: • YAKIMA GREENWAY FOUNDATION CAO#2-08, EC#11-08 City Council Closed Record Public Hearing July 1, 2008 EXHIBIT LIST • Applicant: Yakima Greenway Foundation File Number: CAO#2-08, EC#11-08 Site Address: 206 South 18``' Street Staff Contact: Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner Table of Contents CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Recommendation CHAPTER A Staff Report CHAPTER B Maps CHAPTER C Site Plan CHAPTER D DST (Development Services Team) Comments CHAPTER E SEPA Review CHAPTER F Application CHAPTER G • Notices CHAPTER H Comments and Site History • • • YAKIMA GREENWAY FOUNDATION CAO#2-08, EC#11-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Recommendation EXHIBIT DOCUMENT>`` �_ :;: ,,.... ;;�=. DA3TE;�r,.:�� AA -1 Hearing Examiner's Recommendation 5/08/08 • Gary M. Cuillier ATTORNEY AT LAW 314 N. SECOND STREET YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 May 8, 2008 Yakima City Planning Division Attn: Rosalinda 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (509) 575-1800 FAX: (509) 452-4601 Re: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation Yakima Greenway Foundation and the City of Yakima, Critical Areas Ordinance #02-08, EC #11-08 Dear Rosalinda: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation regarding the above -entitled matter. The hearing was on April 24, 2008 and this decision has been issued within ten business days. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, (._ GARY M. CUILLIER GMC: bvv Enclosure cc: Vicki Adams, Yakima County Planning Department, w/ Enclosure Pat Spurgin, City of Yakima Pro Tem Hearing Examiner, w/ Enclosure DOC. INDEX # AA -1 City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Recommendation May 8, 2008 RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA. PLANNING DIV. In the Matter of Application for a ) Critical Areas Ordinance Public ) Agency Exception Submitted by: ) Critical Areas Ordinance #2-08 ) EC #11-08 Yakima Greenway Foundation ) And the City of Yakima ) ) To Allow for Construction of a ) Pathway and Two Fishing Piers ) Along the West and the South ) Sides of Reflection Pond ) Introduction. The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on April 24, 2008 and has issued this recommendation within ten business days thereof. Assistant Planner Jeff Peters presented a thorough staff report which recommended approval of this request for a public agency exception to allow for the construction of a pathway around the west and the south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park and for the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers in that same area. The facts in the staff report are adopted herein by this reference to avoid the need to repeat all of them in detail here. No one other than Jeff Peters testified at the public hearing. No written - comments were submitted in opposition to the requested exception. Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 1 DOC INDEX -1 RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Summary of Recommendation. The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Yakima City Council approve this request for a public agency exception to eliminate the Critical Areas Ordinance wetland buffer and setback areas that would otherwise prevent the construction of a pathway and two cantilevered fishing piers along the west and the south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park. Basis for Recommendation. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site without anyone else present on April 22, 2008; his consideration of the staff report, application, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented at an open record public hearing on April 24, 2008; and his review of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance; the Hearing Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS I. Applicants. The applicants are the Yakima Greenway Foundation, 111 South 18th Street, Yakima, Washington and the City of Yakima, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. II. Location. The proposed pathway and fishing piers would be located along the west and south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park at 206 South 18th Street, Yakima, Washington. The parcel numbers are 191320-13007 and 13009. Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 2 DOC. INDEX MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. • III. Application. This application for a Critical Areas Substantial Development Permit, called a "Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application Form" or "JARPA Application," was filed with an application for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review on February 19, 2008. A public agency exception from the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) buffer and setback requirements is needed to allow for issuance of a Critical Areas Substantial Development Permit for the following reasons: 1) The Yakima Greenway Foundation wishes to build a ten -foot -wide pathway that would be 840 feet long around the west and south sides of Reflection Pond. The Greenway Foundation also wishes to build two cantilevered fishing piers over the pond — one on the west side and one on the south side of the pond. The improvements would be within six feet of the ordinary high water mark of the pond. 2) Reflection Pond is identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan Critical Area Map as a pond with associated Category IV wetlands. The pond_is between one and two acres in size and is treated as a depressional wetland. Wetland areas containing vegetation such as pacific willow, coyote willow, reed canary grass, cattails and willow herb exist in an "L" shape around the west and south edges of the pond. 3) The desired construction cannot be allowed unless a public agency exception under Section 15.27.540 of the CAO is allowed so that a Critical Area Development Permit can be issued under Section 15.27.500 of the CAO. The City's CAO jurisdiction extends 300 feet in all directions from the edge of identified wetlands. According to Section 15.27.412 of the CAO, a 25 -foot -wide development buffer of undisturbed soil and native vegetation from the edge of the wetlands has been established for areas like parks where there is a high intensity land use. In addition to that, an additional 20 -foot -wide structure setback beyond that exists around the pond. The buffer area was administratively reduced to 12.5 feet, but even the reduced 32.5 -foot combined buffer and structural setback allowed pursuant to Section 15.27.412(A) of the CAO would prevent the construction of the proposed improvements due to the limited room around the pond for the improvements. Grading would have to occur within these buffer and setback areas to create the structural bed for the pathway and temporary impact to the buffer and setback areas would occur during construction. Even though all Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 3 INDEX __._AA__ 71 RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2008 CI Y CF YAM A IFYIAt4i IlllylG environmental impacts would be mitigated by either avoidance, minimization or repair of wetlands near the path and the water's edge, the improvements could not be permitted without a public agency exception to the CAO buffer and setback requirements. IV. Background. The background of this application may be summarized as follows: 1) Environmental review for the construction 'of Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park was conducted in early 1984 by Yakima County in cooperation with the City of Yakima, the Yakima Greenway Foundation and other citizens groups. The area was originally a landfill from the early 1940s until 1965 when it was abandoned. Reflection Pond was originally a gravel pit which ceased operation in about 1976. 2) When the pond was originally constructed, it became evident by the appearance of an oil slick on the pond that contaminants were leaching into the pond due to oil entering groundwater from an asphalt batch plant west and south of the pond. A cleanup order was issued by the Department of Ecology (DOE) in 1991. A protective membrane that is also called a contaminant barrier or an impermeable liner was installed between the contaminated soil and the pond. The site was capped with concrete to prevent further contamination and fenced to prevent human disturbance. 3) During the following years, there has been a problem with the public breaching the fence and disturbing the contaminated area. In many places, the slope between the contaminant barrier has been eroded, vegetation has been trampled or destroyed, and in one place the contaminant barrier has been exposed so as to make it prone to damage or destruction. 4) On. November 30, 2007, Catherine Reed of the Department of Ecology indicated in writing after a site visit that Reflection Pond is "associated" with the Yakima River and has primarily a water quality and hydrologic support function; that the area for a pathway is quite limited, particularly' on the west side of the pond; that a smaller buffer is needed for a water quality and hydrologic support function than for a habitat protection function; that public access to the shoreline is a preferential use under the Shoreline Management Act; that the park area is already in an Urban shoreline setting; that the public is already using the pond and there are trampled footpaths within several feet of the pond; that placement of an asphalt pathway higher on the slope above the pond with designated access paths to the shoreline or to fishing platforms would improve the situation; that Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 4 DOC. INDEX MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIM PLANNING DI specifically an asphalt pathway would protect the impermeable liner, funnel the public to specific areas of the pond banks and help prevent erosion; and that the placement of an asphalt pathway within the setback buffer around the pond is therefore for these reasons acceptable to DOE. 5) After the Department of Ecology issued a close out order on the remediation of the contaminated area, Robert Swackhammer of DOE's Toxic Cleanup Program approved the proposed pathway in writing on January 30, 2008 so long as "construction and use of the path shall not result in exposure to hazardous substances remaining at the site." He detailed his understanding that the pathway would be asphalt on a gravel subgrade; that pedestrians, baby strollers and bicycles would be allowed on the path; and that small motorized vehicles operated by Greenway maintenance workers would be the only motorized vehicles allowed on the path. V. Notices. Notices of the public hearing were provided in the following manner: Posting of notice on property Mailing of notice Publishing of notice in newspaper March 6, 2008 March 6, 2008 March 6, 2008 VI. Environmental Review. The City as lead agency under SEPA issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposal on March 27, 2008. The MDNS became fmal without an appeal. The MDNS constitutes a fmding that the proposal will not have likely significant adverse impacts on the environment so long as enumerated mitigation measures are followed before, during and after construction. VII. CAO Public Agency Exception Review Criteria. Section 15.27.249 of the CAO defines a public agency to include local governments such as co - applicant City of Yakima. The Examiner is required by Subsection 15.27.540(B) of the CAO to review an application for a public agency exception and to make a Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 5 in( INDEX __tel 1-1ClitIVGU MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. recommendation to the City Council as to whether the following criteria to be considered are in fact satisfied: 1) Subsection 15.27.540(B)(1) of the CAO: There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas. Even though Subsection 15.27.412(A) of the CAO allows the Director of the Department of Community and Economic Development to reduce the width of required wetland buffer areas by up to 50 percent under certain circumstances, which was done for this application, the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing was to the effect that such a reduction in buffer areas would still not be sufficient to allow the proposed pathway and fishing piers to be constructed. The evidence presented was that grading would need to occur within the reduced 32.5 - foot buffer and setback areas and that construction of the pathway and the fishing piers would have to occur within those areas. There is not sufficient room around the pond to construct the pathway more than 32.5 feet from the pond. Construction of fishing piers that distance from the pond would defeat their purpose. Construction of the pathway would also need to be within the buffer and setback area in order to protect the contaminant barrier that is located within the buffer and setback areas. In short, the evidence presented at the hearing was undisputed to the effect that there is no practical alternative to locating the proposed pathway and fishing piers within the reduced CAO buffer and setback areas 2) Subsection 15.27.540(B)(2) of the CAO: The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas. The proposal utilizes avoidance and minimization strategies and best management practices to minimize the impact on critical areas. Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 6 D0... INDEX AA -1 . -___. • V I.f MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKI PLANNING The MDNS requires specific mitigation measures to minimize the impact on critical areas which include the following: i) No construction shall take place within the approved 32.5 foot setback line under any circumstances unless approval is granted by the Yakima City Council under Chapter 15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Exception of the Yakima Municipal Code; ii) The proposed pathway shall be sloped away from the pond in accordance with the recommendations of the Washington State Department of Ecology; iii) Erosion control measures shall be installed to Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Standards prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These control measures must be able to. prevent soil from being carried into surface waters (including storm drains) by stormwater runoff; iv) All wetlands and their buffers shall be avoided as much as possible; v) Where wetland or wetland buffer disturbance occurs native wetland plants shall be replaced with native wetland species utilizing a 3:1 ratio; vi) The Yakima Greenway Foundation shall install native vegetation between the new paved trail and the pond in order to stabilize the bank and protect the wetland from sedimentation; vii) During construction high visibility fencing shall be required to be installed to mark the limits of disturbance to protect the various sensitive areas; viii) Prior to construction the applicant shall submit building plans for _the two_fishing piers which . meet Section 18054 of _the International Building Code by a certified engineer. In addition, each plan page and the structural calculations shall also be stamped and signed by the engineer. ix) Prior to any construction, the Washington State Department of Ecology shall be contacted to determine if an NPDES stormwater construction permit is required; x) All disturbed areas shall be returned to their original conditions or better by reseeding and/or additional plantings within thirty days from completion of the proposed pathway; and xi) A Dust Control Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority prior to any phase of work. Yakima Greenway Foundation 7 And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 DOC INDEX • RECEIVED MAY 0 8 Z008 CITY OF YAKgA PLANNING WV. 3) Subsection 15.27.540(C) of the CAO: There is a mitigation plan indicating how the proposal will minimize the impact on critical areas. Although this is one of the listed criteria for consideration, it is not mandatory and it does not appear to apply to a public agency exception. The exact wording of this provision in Subsection 15.27.540(C) is that "A mitigation plan may be required from the utility indicating how the proposal will minimize the impact on critical areas." In any event, there is a mitigation plan indicating how this proposal will minimize the impact on critical areas as detailed in the MDNS. As previously noted, for example, impact avoidance/minimization practices such as requiring pathway drainage to flow landward rather than waterward and revegetation of impacted critical areas will mitigate the impact on critical areas. The City will finalize mitigation requirements and other conditions when and if it issues the requisite Critical Areas Development Permit under Section 15.27.500 of the CAO. 4) Subsection 15.40.540(D) of the CAO: There is a clear showing that the proposal will protect the public health and safety or repair damaged critical areas where use of category I and II wetlands or their buffers providing habitat for endangered or threatened species will be allowed. Even though the environmental checklist indicates that there are a number of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act in the Upper Yakima Valley, all listed species would benefit from the installation of the pathway. The pathway would reduce human disturbance within the affected areas around the pond, and the installation of native vegetation would enhance the surrounding buffer area so as to provide new habitat for various species. All environmental agencies charged with implementing the ESA for the endangered or Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 8 L) 0 C . IND X MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. threatened species at issue were notified as part of the SEPA process. No agency other than DOE commented formally or informally on the proposal. Even so, substantial mitigation for temporary impacts caused during construction, revegetation steps after construction and other measures required by the MDNS to minimize impacts upon endangered or threatened species and critical area habitat would protect the public health and safety or repair damaged critical areas. VIII. Consistency of the Proposed Use with Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan under the Criteria Required by Subsection 16.06.020B of the Yakima Municipal Code is determined by consideration of the following factors: 1) The types of land uses permitted at the site include the proposed pathway and fishing piers if, as is the case here, the criteria for a public agency exception are satisfied so as to allow those improvements within the CAO buffer and structural setback areas. 2) The density or level of development would still be within applicable and acceptable limits after the construction of a pathway and two fishing piers to facilitate public access to the shoreline of Reflection Pond which is a preferential use under the Shoreline Management Act. 3) The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities is not an issue here. The proposed pathway and fishing piers would be constructed within an existing park and would not require additional infrastructure or public facilities. 4) The characteristics of the development would be consistent with applicable development regulations, including the recommended exception to Critical Areas buffer and setback regulations as discussed in detail above. CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing findings, the Examiner reaches the following conclusions: Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 9 I 1 } r I �DEX • • • • HlGVlc V L!J MAY 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 1) The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to make recommendations to the Yakima City Council regarding applications for a public agency exception to the City's Critical Areas buffer and setback requirements. 2) Public notice was given by mailing, posting and publishing notice of the hearing. 3) A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on March 27, 2008 and was not appealed. 4) The undisputed evidence presented at the open record public hearing on April 24, 2008 satisfied the criteria for approval of a public agency exception to the Critical Areas buffer and setback requirements so as to allow construction of the proposed pathway and fishing piers along the west and south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park. RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends that this request for a public agency exception to the Critical Areas buffer and setback requirements in order to allow construction of a pathway and two fishing piers along the west and south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park as described in the documentation assigned file numbers UAZO CAO #2-08 and EC #11-08 be APPROVED by the Yakima City Council. DATED this 8th day of May, 2008. Yakima Greenway Foundation And the City of Yakima CAO Public Agency Exception Pathway along Reflection Pond UAZO CAO #2-08; EC #11-08 10 Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner INCA: #..__..�}A- 1 • Yakima Greenway Foundation EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER A Staff Report - HMI .,!: 4 — „4e., ..-v,:,,i,,,-.N,F!:Iiii! '7,. • --.,,-,,',,-:.,. , -;. 1,,, .,- , • ,.. ''s ' c- \. '''UNILE .,,t, i '''4 ' ''''1.-,A. ,!i: ' , ';!'4.- ' `.'4*-. c". - - A-1 Staff Report 4/24/08 • Application by: 08 City of Yakima, Washington Division of Environmental Planning PUBLIC HEARING April 24, 2008 )UAZO CAO #2-08 & EC #11 - The Yakima Greenway Association / City of Yakima) Staff Planner For a Public Agency Exception To Certain Critical ) Assistant Planner, Jeff Peters Area Setback and Buffer Requirements ) 575-6163 Coupled with an Environmental Review. ) Staff Report The Yakima Greenway Association / City of Yakima, proponent of construction of a proposed pathway which parallels Reflection Pond, and its associated Type IV Wetlands within Sarg Hubard, have applied to the Department of Community and Economic Development for an exception to the 20 foot setback, and 12.5 foot reduced buffer requirements under YMC § 15.27.412.A of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Specifically, the Yakima Greenway Association seeks application of the Public Agency and Utility Exception, YMC § 15.27.540, to allow issuance of a Critical Area Development Permit under YMC § 15.27.500. In the absence of this exception, a Critical Area Development Permit cannot be issued for the project as it will not comply with the above referenced setback, and buffer requirements. The Department has reviewed the materials submitted in support of this application and has provided its analysis of this application below. In summary, the Department concludes that the proposed pathway meets the required elements of the Public Agency Exception, as there are no practical alternatives to the proposed development, the proposal minimizes impacts on critical areas, comprehensive mitigation activities are an element of the project, and the proposed project will substantially improve public safety and alleviate certain environmental concerns. The following documents are included in the Hearing Examiners packet for consideration: • 1. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application Form (JARPA) submitted by the Yakima Greenway Association (February 19, 2008) 1 2. SEPA Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued by the City of Yakima (March 27, 2008) 3. Yakima County Parks and Recreation Department's Sarge Hubbard Park — Environmental Assessment (January 30, 1984) 4. Sarge Hubbard Riverside Park Phase — II Preliminary Construction Plan submitted by the Yakima Greenway (August 20, 1987) 5. Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program, Letter of Superior Asphalt Beech Street, Facility Site ID# 488, Institutional Controls Needed to Close Out Order No. 91TC-C444 from Robert Swackhammer (September 11, 2006) 6. Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program, Letter of Yakima Greenway Pond Access Path consideration from Robert Swackhammer (November 19, 2007) 7. Washington State Department of Ecology Email of project assessment from Catherin Reed (November, 30 2007) 8. Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program, Close Out Order Letter No. 91TC-C444 from Donald W. Abbot (January 3, 2008) 9. Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program, Letter of Yakima Greenway Pond Access Path Plans Satisfy -Restrictive Covenant from Robert Swackhammer (January 30, 2008) Background Summary The Yakima Greenway Association (YGA) has proposed to build a 10 -foot wide X 840 foot long pathway, and two cantilevered fishing piers upon environmentally sensitive property identified by the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan Critical Area Map as containing a pond (Reflection Pond), and associated protected Category IV wetlands. If constructed, the proposed pathway would be allowed to encroach into the reduced 32.5 - foot combined critical area buffer and setback of Reflection Pond's associated Category IV wetlands to within six feet of the ordinary high water mark, as described in the above documents. The design and development of the YGA's proposed pathway has a history, which dates back to approximately 1984 when Yakima County in cooperation with the City of Yakima, the Yakima River Greenway Foundation and other citizens groups started the environmental review for the construction of Sarge Hubbard Park. On January 30, 1984, the Yakima County Parks and Recreation Department issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the construction of Sarge Hubbard Park which included the follow phases of construction: 2 INDEX • • • • • 1. On-site paved parking for 90 ares, .5 miles of interior paved pathway, -.67 miles of asphalt jogging path, a 20' X 40' restroom structure, picnic sites, a commemorative column, 2-3 acres of lawn, irrigation system/well, connection to City of Yakima sewer and water and miscellaneous tree and shrub plantings. 2. Observation platform, picnic shelter, bus shelter, heritage art display, community, green and additional lawn totaling 8-10 acres. 3. Reflection Pond, water fall/fountain, boat launch, and .44 miles of asphalt jogging path. The EA identified that the existing park was originally a landfill during the early 1940,s — 1965 when it was abandoned, and that the small lake, that is now called Reflection Pond was originally a gravel pit, which ceased operation about 1976. The EA also disclosed. that no significant adverse environmental impacts from the construction of the park were identified. Following environmental review/permitting, construction of phases one thru two, and various portions of phase three, including construction of, Reflection Pond of the proposed park. It became evident that contaminants were leaching into the pond from the surrounding ground. The site was listed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) as a browns field and a cleanup order was issued on October 31, 1991 under Order No. 91TC-C444. The pond was cleaned in accordance with the WSDOE's order. A protective membrane was installed in between Reflection Pond and the contaminated soil. The site was capped with concrete to prevent further contamination and fenced to prevent human disturbance. Throughout the following years, and despite preventative measures such as fencing of the contaminated area, the public has continued to breach the fence, and disturb the contaminated site. In many places the slope between' the contaminant barrier has been eroded, vegetation has been trampled or destroyed, and in one location the contaminant barrier has been exposed making it prone to damage or destruction. In late 2007, the WSDOE issued a close out order on the remediation of the contaminated area. Following the above close out order, the YGA contacted Robert Swackhammer from the WSDOE's Toxics Cleanup Program and Cathy Reed of the WSDOE's Shoreline and Environmental Assistance Program to ascertain the likely hood of being able to complete the remainder of Phase 3 (840 lineal feet of pathway, two fishing piers and other associated amenities) of the original Sarge Hubbard Park Plan. Mr. Swackhammer responded in writing on January 30, 2008, stating that based upon his review of the submitted engineering and surveying information that the project is in compliance with the requirement of the restrictive covenant and that the project is approved, subject to the fulfillment of the following condition: 3 "Construction and use of the path shall not. result in exposure to hazardous substances remaining at the site." Following a site visit to the location of the proposed pathway on November 30, 2007, Cathy Reed responded stating -"...The wetland ponds are. "associated" with the Yakima River even though they are outside of the.200-foot distance from the River. They are influenced by the River and they have an influence on the River by their capacity to treat stormwater and provide open water off channel habitat for some waterfowl. The upper pond has much less habitat function than the lower pond and the upper pond has primarily a water quality and hydrologic support function. A shoreline permit for the project may be needed if there is work within or over the pond(s). The physical setting of the site and existing location of structures (including existing pathway and cyclone fence line) make it difficult to increase the existing buffers in this area. There is only a small area to work within, especially on the west side of the pond. Fortunately, protection of water quality improvement and hydrologic support functional values require a smaller buffer than that which is needed to protect habitat functions. In addition, because public access to the shoreline is a preferential use under 90.58 RCW (the Shoreline Management Act) and the Park area is already in an Urban shoreline setting, placement of a asphalt pathway within the setback buffer around the upper pond is acceptable to Ecology in order to facilitate/control public access to the pond. The public is already using the pond and there are trampled footpaths within several feet of the upper pond. Placement of an asphalt pathway higher on the slope above the pond, with designated T -access paths to the shoreline or to a fishing platform would improve the situation...." On February 19, 2008, the YGA filed with the City its application for review under the State Environmental Policy Act and Critical Areas, Substantial Development Permit, called a "Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application Form" or "JARPA Application". Notice for the hearing arid application .was provided in accordance with the UAZO requirements in the following manner: Mailing of notice March 6, 2008 Posting of property March 6, 2008 Legal Ad published March 6, 2008 The City of Yakima is designated as the lead agency of the project 'for the purpose of assessing compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). On March 27, 2008, the City of Yakima issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) for the Project. The MDNS constitutes a finding that the project will not adversely impact the environment provided certain mitigation measures contained in the MDNS are followed by the YGA before, during, and. after construction. IN LL) .=s • • r The City is in the process of reviewing these applications and, with regard to the Critical Areas Development Permit, must find that the project is in compliance with the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. As described below, the YGA's project will not comply with several buffer and setback requirements in the City of Yakima's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). This noncompliance will preclude issuance of a Critical Areas Development Permit unless a Public Agency Exception, which is akin to a variance, is issued. The Public Agency Exception would allow the City to issue a Critical Areas Development Permit for the project. Critical Areas, Setbacks and Buffers The YGA's pathway project will be built within six feet of the ordinary high water mark of. Reflection Pond, which contains associated Type IV wetlands and is considered a "critical area" under the City's Critical Area Ordinance. The City's critical area jurisdiction. over this project extends 300 feet in all directions from the edge of the identified wetlands. Consequently, the proposed pathway will require permits under the CAO as the project falls well within the three hundred foot CAO jurisdiction. • As stated previously, Reflection Pond contains Type IV wetlands. The wetland areas around the creek can be described as an "L" shaped feature along the west and south edges of the pond. The pond itself is only 1-2 acres in size and treated as a depressional wetland. Vegetation within the wetland area consists of pacific willow, coyote willow, reed canary grass, Cattails, and willow herb. The City of Yakima's Critical Areas Ordinance (GAO) YMC 15.27 requires a structural setback and vegetative buffer of undisturbed soil and native vegetation for streams and wetlands, based on their official classification. Reflection Pond's wetlands at the location of the proposed project are considered Type IV wetlands and, as such qualify for a buffer of either 10 or 25 feet with a 20 foot building setback as identified below. Generally, according to YMC § 15.27.412, a development buffer of 25 feet has been established, as measured from the edge of the wetland for areas like parks where there is a high intensity land use. In addition, 'a 20 -foot minimum setback from the edge of the buffer has been established for all structures. The YGA's pathway would not comply with this buffer or setback requirement. If these buffer requirements are strictly applied, the YGA's project cannot proceed. The pathway as currently proposed would lie well within the reduce 12.5 -foot buffer under YMC'§ 15.27.412 A and 20 foot setback of Reflection Pond's wetlands. Grading will occur within these setback and buffer areas to create the structural.bed necessary for the proposed path, and temporary impacts to setback areas will occur during construction. All environmental impacts will be mitigated by either avoidance and minimization or repair of wetlands near the path and waters edge. Nevertheless, in the absence of a procedural mechanism allowing noncompliance with the buffer and setback requirements, the YGA's pathway project cannot be permitted under the CAO. D'�'. INDE.:x'_ # A-1 Public Agency Exception to CAO Standards According to YMC § 15.27.540, if the application of a CAO development standards, including setbacks and buffer requirements, would prohibit a project proposed by a public agency or public utility, the agency or utility may apply to the Director of Community & Economic Development for an exception to these standards. Public agency is defined at YMC § 15.27.249 to include local governments, state and federal agencies and tribes. The application for this exception is to be heard by the Hearing Examiner, who shall review the application and supporting documents and make a recommendation to the City Council based on the following criteria: I. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed -development with • less impact on the critical areas, and 2. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas., A mitigation plan may be required indicating how the proposal will minimize the impact on critical areas. In addition, as described in YMC § 15.27.540.A, the public agency exception "shall not allow the use of those category I and II wetlands or their buffers providing plant associations of infrequent occurrence or habitat for federal or 'state endangered or threatened species or species needing special protection or for, utilities including regional retention/detention facilities except where there is a clear showing the facility will protect public health and safety or repair damaged critical areas." A. Application of the YMC § 15.27, Part Four, and specifically the CAO's setback and buffer requirements, would prohibit development of the Yakima Greenway Association's Pathway Project. Design plans for the proposed pathway necessarily include activities that will take place within the reduced 32.5 foot combined setback buffer under YMC.§ 15.27.412.A. YMC § 15.27.412 A provides that in certain circumstances, the Director of Community and Economic Development may reduce the buffer by up to 50%.. However, a 50% reduction in buffer and setback requirements is still insufficient to allow the proposed pathway construction to proceed. In sum, the strict application of the setback and buffer requirements will prohibit development of the pathway project. B. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed pathway project with less impact on the critical areas and the proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas. Due to past contamination of the site, restrictive protective covenants as a result of the clean up, high levels of human disturbance, and limited area between the proposed 6 • • • • pathway and adjacent wetlands, there are no other alternatives which will minimize the impacts on the critical area. As shown in the applicant's State Environmental Policy Act Check List and City of Yakima issued Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS), the final design of the project has been developed using avoidance / minimization strategies, with the input of federal, state, local agencies and the general public. To minimize impacts to critical areas, best management practices will be used during construction, as described in the MDNS for this project. Mitigation measures will include: 1. The proposed pathway shall be sloped away from the pond in accordance with the recommendations of the Washington State Department of Ecology; ?. Erosion control measures shall be installed to Washington • State Department of Ecology .Stormwater Standards prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface waters (including stormdrains) by stormwater runoff; 3. All wetlands and their buffers shall be avoided as much as possible; 4. Where wetland or wetland buffer disturbance occurs native wetland plants shall be replaced with native wetland species utilizing a 3:1 ratio; 5. The applicant (Yakima Greenway Foundation) shall installation native vegetation between the new paved trail and the pond in order to stabilize • the bank and protect the wetland from sedimentation; 6. During construction high visibility fencing shall be required to be installed to mark the limits of disturbance to protect the various sensitive area; and 7. All disturbed areas shall be returned to their original conditions or better by reseeding and/or additional plantings within thirty days from completion of the proposed pathway In addition, the MDNS also includes mitigation for all elements of the project and concludes that the project would not cause adverse environmental impacts provided certain mitigation measures are implemented by the YGA before, during, and after construction. The Yakima Greenway Association has committed to •these measures, which include in part: 7 1. No structure' shall exceed the approved seventy-foot setback line under any circumstances unless approval is granted by the Yakima City Council under Chapter 15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Exception of the Yakima Municipal Code; 2. Prior to any construction, the Washington State Department of Ecology shall be contacted to determine if a NPDES stormwater construction permit is required; 3. A Dust Control Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority prior to any phase of work; and. 4. Prior to construction the applicant shall submit building plans for the two fishing piers which meet Section 1805.4 of the International Building Code by a certified engineer. In addition, each plan page and the structural calculations shall also be stamped and signed by the engineer. .The mitigation package and other conditions will be finalized when and if the permits are issued under the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application. C. The Project includes a comprehensive mitigation plan to address impacts to Critical Areas. Although a mitigation plan need not be provided in all cases where the Public Agency exception •is authorized, the YGA's pathway project does include a comprehensive • mitigation strategy, as discussed above and identified in the City's MDNS. As noted, the primary requirements of the mitigation plan are impact avoidance/minimization practices (i.e. site drainage shall be designed to flow in a landward, not waterward) and re - vegetation of impacted critical areas. The City will finalize mitigation requirements and other conditions when and if it issues the required critical areas development permit under § 15.27.500 of the CAO. • D. The Project avoids and mitigates for potential impacts to ESA threatened species and there is a clear showing that the facility will protect public health and safety. There are a number of species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the affected critical area, as specified in the applicant's environmental checklist. However, all listed species will benefit from the installation of the pathway as human disturbance within the affected areas will be reduced around the pond and the installation of native vegetation will enhance the surrounding buffer area provided new habitat for various species. All environmental agencies charged with implementing the YMC 15.02: Structure means anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground. 8 • • ESA for the threatened and endangered species at issue were notified via issuance of the SEPA checklist. As of both March 26, 2008, the end of the SEPA comment period, and April 10, 2008, the end of the appeal period, no agency besides the WSDOE has commented formally or informally on the proposed project. Although no agency has formally commented aside from the WDDOE substantial mitigation for temporary impacts caused during construction will be provided, as' stated in the City of Yakima -issued SEPA MDNS (File: EC#11-08) In addition, as described in preceding sections above, re -vegetation will act to minimize and.eliminate impacts to threatened species and critical area habitat. Conclusion & Recommendation For the reasons listed above, the Department of Community & Economic Development has concluded that the YGA pathway project meets the criteria of the Public Agency Exception. 9 • Yakima Greenway Foundation EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER B Maps . .',..7 'f: : ''Qt'''''.i‘•;'!,:', .-.: ,. ,... ''. •Sfk r:,*g.f:43,4i1/2,;;K-' * ' .,., ,.. .14 tr: i' , , ''',',.17,2 "=^ , - '''''' r , 'T. 177, B-1 Maps 2/22/08 7TH STREET STREET CHALMERS STREET RIYt R. IqE Sr CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON VICINITY MAP • FILE NO: CAO#2-08; EC#11-08 APPLICANT: Yakima Greenway Foundation REQUEST: Construct pathway (approx 840 lineal ft) along west and south of Reflection Pond. LOCATION: 206 South 18th Street Subject Property Yakima City Limits Scale —lin = 400ft 0 200 xI400' `G } emuay 02/22/08 6 -i CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON FILE NO: CAO#2-08; EC#11-08 APPLICANT: Yakima Greenway Foundation REQUEST: Construct pathway (approx 840 lineal ft) along west and south of Reflection Pond. LOCATION: 206 South 18th Street PARCEL NUMBER(S):1913 2 013 0 0 9 19132013007 Property Notices N Subject Site 0 %(,I 14 • °lies 4P Scale -lin = 400ft 0 200 4r enway 02/22/08 oA,�nr'ire b $-k CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON Information Services - GIS FILE NO: CAO#2-08; EC#11-08 'APPLICANT: Yakima Greenway Foundation REQUEST: Construct pathway (approx 840 lineal ft) along west and south of Reflection Pond. LOCATION: 206 South 18th Street Scale —lin = 400ft 0 200 400 N Subject Property Yakima City Limits DO .Grammy 02/22/08 II I) LJ CAO#2-08; EC#11-08 Yakima Greenway Foundation Construct pathway (approx 840 lineal ft) along west and south of Reflection Pond 206 South 18th Street 1N# Subject Property City Limits SR Suburban Res al R-1 Single-Fanuly._ drnlial ® R-2 Two-Fantily Residential - R-3 Multi -Family Residential 13-1 Professional Business 8-2 Local Business JIB Historical Business NM SCC Small Convenience Center LCC Large Convenience Center CBD Central Business District CBDS CBD Support M -I Light Industrial IIIII M-2 HeavyIndustral >7� 1 Scale -Inn=400h 0 200 400 City of Yakima, Washington February 22, 2008 gCN<7 MMIUM Iknn1 i ] ) * ! ! ! J ! ! | `1 ■ ■■■■ a� Ci e/ _sawroo a a .. inius ■ • • Yakima Greenway Foundation EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER C Site Plan EXHI,1f(;.4y.CvB:2IT,`.. te �.- ��,',-•l'.. �. •��i � ' Y ,-.,:/,,,,,,,4?-,,,,, iYf�f,wistiya `�;.3ewy^•;,.y,.'f.. �i'.a...f.. ,'.,.if,.�t"i:.�.1 pt,;:Y�a_.,CC��•.,..CL,\��ti�'F_�.a..:p,:,A..,�-'.h'�rv. °f..,,,,.;-.:r.:��: a4�..��•`.p...i.�,'a2�.ir ''..�Al.l' w,, h..y _.��,::�.:.,1,•� '..'4...°:.i,�.;.�:. df ti ,TM.:,r. w,�'P� i•eEKDUME ��,�^{r i .p.�...�. �.'y. lT C-1 Site Plan w.rr 2/19/08 Yakima County Ci1S Yakima County - Washington • Land Information Portal Print Mapl 'Close Map] Page 1 of 1 Yakimaim.m Map Center: Range:19 Township:13 Section:20 I I City Limits I3 Sections RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV.. WWW.YAKIMAP.COM Yakima County GIS 128 N 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 (509)574-2990 One Inch = 300 Feet Feet 200 400 MAP AND PARCEL DATA ARE BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE, BUT ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED; THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A TITLE SEARCH, APPRAISAL, SURVEY, FLOODPLAIN OR ZONING VERIFICATION Copyright (C) 2006 Yakima County Printed On V, 9J,2a08 9:24:36 AM INDEX # c.t http://yakimap. com/servlet/com. esri. esrimap. Esrimap?name=YakGI S H&Cmd=PrintMap&... 2/19/2008 PROPOSED PAM SECTION A•A RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2008 CITY OPYAKIMA PLANNING DIV. PLSA QKlEENAr9URKYNG- LANNIG YAKSIA WASINGTON (5091 575-6990 O PATHWAY COMPLETION OF 59900 HUBB.WO PARK —PREPARED . FOR — YAKIMA GREENWAY FOUNDATION DOC. DR,. 9r: T.LB. n2 1-14-08 Rn 07287 t p� 1 INDEX # G -/ NATURE AREA • ASE t1 i' • STAGE :CHASE II �-_H1NG PIER=A.1 P.14ASF II_ At_ = ' If. 1 + I Fr'zovO - NP 54 eget ► . E L"iSS+GI II ALTr.NATE °t3 "EFLECTION POND FOUNTAIN.) tXISTING PHASE II REFLECTION POND ALTF�42.1-IATE"5 :FISHING PIER=e, PHASE I4TIhIG, FENGG To tar.-/ - Rte+ �o ie= ' erY orH i L EXISTING ,TOT LOT �';:r4� PARK BOUNDARY EXISTINC TRANSFORMER — ''EXISTING PICNIC S•HEL E GNG orH EXISTING ENTRANCE SIGN FITNESS COURSE PHASE II EXISTING COMMUNITY GREEN PATHWAYS, ROADS r , ITI_1 /JTLJ C.9 In CT XISTING OB /.PARK OFFICE ALTEt2NA PAVED PATHWA' PHASE II • • • Yakima Greenway Foundation EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER D Development Services Team (DST) EXHIBIT # DOCUMENT •`:.DATE•;:'' '. D-1 Request for Comments 3/03/08 D-2 DST Members and Agencies Notified 3/03/08 D-3 Comments from Sandy Cox, Code Division 3/04/08 D-4 Comments from Scott Schafer, Wastewater Division 3/10/08 D-5 Comments from Hasan Tahat, Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority 3/14/08 D-6 Comments from Hasan Tahat, Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority 3/17/08 D-7 Comments from Randy Meloy, Engineering Division 3/19/08 D-8 Comments from Mike Antijunti, Engineering Division 3/20/08 • • • CITY OF YAKIMA REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM March 3, 2008 TO: City of Yakima Development Services Team FROM: Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: UAZO EC# 11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review #2-08. Yakima Greenway Foundation PROPOSAL: 1. Critical Area Review and approval under Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540 Pubic Agency and Utility Exception to allow the construction of a 10 -foot wide X 840 foot long pathway within the required 25 foot protective buffer around the west and south sides of Reflection Pond within Sarg Hubbard Park and the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers; and 2. Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed project in its entirety and any associated environmental impacts. Effect of Approval: Provided these applications are approved under the City of Yakima's Critical Area Ordinance Pubic Agency and Utility Exception (YMC 15.27.540), the proposed pathway and fishing piers would be allowed to encroach into the 25 -foot protective critical area wetland buffer of Reflection Pond to within six feet of the ordinary high water mark as proposed by the applicant. LOCATION: 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington PARCEL NUMBER(S): 191320-13009 & 13007 Please review the attached site plan and prepare any written comments you might have regarding this proposal. This project will come up for discussion at the weekly DST meeting to be held March 19, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. As always, should you have comments, but find you are unable to attend please submit your comments prior to the meeting. My e-mail address is jpeters@ci.yakima.wa.us and the Planning Department's fax number is (509) 575-6105. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (509) 575-6163. COMMENTS: C9ntact' Department / Agency DOC, INDEX Peters, Jeff From: Meloy, Randy Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:16 AM To: Peters, Jeff Subject: UAZO EC# 11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review #2-08. Yakima Greenway Foundation Jeff I am going to require them to install curb and gutter and to have several catch basins and a large bio -infiltration pond. Just kidding. From a drainage standpoint, there is a band of vegetation between the proposed path and the pond that will help treat any runoff heading towards the pond. I spoke with Al Brown and Jeff Brantner about the path and the path will drain away from the pond, which will also help. The City owns the property on the other side of the pond so there are no worries about any runoff going off site. The Greenway has also been in contact with the Department of Ecology about the path and they have DOE's buyoff. I do not have any concerns with stormwater runoff for this project. Randy Meloy, PE Surface Water Engineer City of Yakima 509 576-6606 rmeloy@ci.yakima.wa.us DOC. INDEX 3/21/2008 akima Regional Clean Air Authority March 14, 2008 Mr. Bruce Benson Acting Planning Manager Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, WA 98901 MAR CITY OF "' Six So. Second St., Suite 1016, Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: (509) 834-2050, Fax: (509) 834-2060 http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/cleanair RE: UAZO EC #11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review #2-08 Yakima Greenway Foundation Dear Mr. Benson: Thank you for providing the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA) the opportunity to Review and comment on the Yakima Greenway Foundation. UAZO EC #11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review #2-08 •ollowing review, the YRCAA offers the following comments: 1. Contractors doing demolition, excavation, clearing, construction, or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with YRCAA, and; 2. Because the property is located within the Urban Growth Area of Yakima, no burning is allowed on or off the site. Thank you for the opportunity to connect with the city's continued support -in -protecting the air quality in Yakima County.'. Best regard Hasan M. a :t, h.D. Engineering, Planning & Monitoring Division Supervisor Cc: File • L''J . INDEX akima Regional Clean Air Authority March 12, 2008 Mr. Jeff Peters Assistant Planner Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: (509) 834-2050, Fax: (509) 834-20 0 http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/cleanair RECEIVED Six So. Second St., Suite 1016, Yakima, WA 98 MAR 1 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. RE: UAZO EC #11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review #2-08 Yakima Greenway Foundation Dear Mr. Peters: Thank you for providing the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA) the opportunity to Review and comment on the Yakima Greenway Foundation - UAZO EC #11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review #2-08 Prior to starting the renovation work, the following is required: • 1. Vegetation on the site which needs to be removed cannot be burned either on or off the site because the property is located within the Urban Growth Area for the City of Yakima; and 2. Contractors doing clearing, grading, construction, paving, or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with YRCAA. Thank you for the opportunity to connect with the city's continued support -in -protecting the air quality in Yakima County. re. - -.. 0.1111iNal___, ammo Hasan . T. ., Ph.D. Engineering, Planning & Monitoring Division Supervisor Cc: File IND X • • CITY OF YAKIMA 610/1 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM March 3, 2008 City of Yakima Development Services Team Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner {i.LiCiv CLJ MAR 1 0 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. SUBJECT: UAZO EC# 11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review #2-08. Yakima Greenway Foundation PROPOSAL: 1. Critical Area Review and approval under Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540 Pubic Agency and Utility Exception to allow the construction of a 10 -foot wide X 840 foot long pathway within the required 25 foot protective buffer around the west and south sides of Reflection Pond within Sarg Hubbard Park and the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers; and 2. Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed project in its entirety and any associated environmental impacts. Effect of Approval: Provided these applications are approved under the. City of Yakima's Critical Area Ordinance Pubic Agency and Utility Exception (YMC 15.27.540), the proposed pathway and fishing piers would be allowed to encroach into the 25-f ''oot protective critical area wetland buffer of Reflection Pond to within six feet of the ordinary high water mark as proposed by the applicant. LOCATION: 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington PARCEL NUMBER(S): 191320-13009 & 13007 Please review the attached site plan and prepare any written comments you might have regarding this proposal. This project will come up for discussion at the weekly DST meeting to be held March 19, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. As always, should you have comments, but find you are unable to attend please submit your comments prior to the meeting. My e-mail address is jpeters@ci.yakima.wa.us and the Planning Department's fax number is (509) 575-6105. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (509) 575-6163. COMMENTS: "NC wAs-iELJATEY_ /.1,1w AA)y 1�'AS7ELJATCYL co,oc6rW > RE 4,ap ,k5. -rhe i?rzz170cp "PlZo�ELT LAJA57CL ,AT1 L Department / Agency DOC. INDEX Peters, Jeff From: Cox, Sandy Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:40 PM To: Peters, Jeff Subject: UAZO EC# 11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance #2-08 for Yakima Greenway Foundation Building plans for fishing piers shall be designed to meet Section 1805.4 of the 2006 International Building Code by an engineer. Each plan page must be stamped and signed by that engineer along with structural calculations submitted with the plans. Our Engineering Division may wish to review plans for the walking surface.....Sandy Cox, Plans Examiner II, City of Yakima. 3/6/2008 INDEX # _2 • • DST Distribution List • Applicant File Number: Date of DST Meeting: Assigned Planner: of Yakima Divisions and Yakima Coun -Nita Yr. ykk) n>,_. veeh oval ti42o ECHE 08 C i o 02-08 3- iii -o6 Public Services Engineerin Carolyn Belles Mike Antijuni i ramc i • eerm ItgiP Parks and Recreation oan Davenport Denise Nichols Stormwater En ' . eer Randy Meloy Police Greg Copeland Wastewater Other A encies Yakima County Public Svcs Vern Redifer fs 22 Committee Mana t er - CDY Nob Hill Water Sean Hawkins Preston Shepherd WA State De • artment of Ecolo t Gwen Clear 28 Pacific Power and Li ' ht Co. 30 Cascade Natural Gas Co. P.O. Box 881, Yakima 98901 6111 Tieton Drive, Yakima 98908 15 W Yakima Ave Ste #200, Yakima 98902 • V <,4141 Mace Paulson Sheila Ross 500 N. Ke Rd, Yakima 98901 ,y"'c''fi`5�aay 6'e �, ��!! R .Sna 1 51st fa 't South 1st Ave, Yakima 98902 2.;; West Valle School District #208 Coun Clean Air Authori Greenwa Peter Ansingh Foundation Y&lcima Coun 911 Wayne Wantland 8902 Zier Rd, Yakima 98908 6 South 2nd Street Rm1016, Yakima 98901 111 South 18th Street, Yakima 98901 YPD r 1701 South 24th Ave, Yakima 98902 424WSDOT (De t of Trans • ortation) • 2809 Rudkin Rd, Union Ga 98903 46 Trolleys 48 WSDOT, Aviation Division Bill Beckley Paul Edmondson John Shambaugh Updated as of 2/22/08 \\Apollo\Users\jpeters\DST Packets Distribution List_template.doc P.O. Box 151, To 313 North 3rd Street, Yakima 98901 OW:Fa ;WW1- jj :1" '!:!� llg- n:f l V 3704172nd St NE Ste#K-2, Arlington WA 98223 rw ti �nA,...e�:`.-�.�,nrY.�" �-:��%i�.c+�"K�.:.� tr�c•. a� .......r �i'J't-N.. DO INDEX CITY OF YAKIMA REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM March 3, 2008 TO: City of Yakima Development Services Team FROM: Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: UAZO EC# 11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review #2-08. Yakima Greenway Foundation PROPOSAL: 1. Critical Area Review and approval under Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540 Pubic Agency and Utility Exception to allow the construction of a 10 -foot wide X 840 foot long pathway within the required 25 _ foot protective buffer around the west and south sides of Reflection Pond within Sarg Hubbard Park and the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers; and 2. Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed project in its entirety and any associated environmental impacts. Effect of Approval: Provided these applications are approved under the City of Yakima's Critical Area Ordinance Pubic Agency and Utility Exception (YMC 15.27.540), the proposed pathway and fishing piers would be allowed to encroach into the 25 -foot protective critical area wetland buffer of Reflection Pond to within six feet of the ordinary high water mark as proposed by the applicant. LOCATION: 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington PARCEL NUMBER(S): 191320-13009 & 13007 Please review the attached site plan and prepare any written comments you might have regarding this proposal. This project will come up for discussion at the weekly DST meeting to be held March 19, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. As always, should you have comments, but find you are unable to attend please submit your comments prior to the meeting. My e-mail address is jpeters@ci.yakima.wa.us and the Planning Department's fax number is (509) 575-6105. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (509) 575-6163. COMMENTS: Contact Department / Agedt(, INDEX # • • • • • EXHIBIT # E-1 Yakima Greenway Foundation EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER E SEPA Review SEPA Check List and Addendum to SEPA Checklist 2/19/08 REQUIRED ATTACHMENT: • �4" . • '.;.. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RECEIVED A. ',: �f , � STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) FEB 19 2008 ,ti►� .:- (AS TAKEN FROM WAC 197-11-960) CITY OF YAKIMA h'°" " PLANNING DIV. CHAPTER 6.88, YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE (YMC) ... ...01179$ .144.$:, a{' '^Fr✓k5'.!k`{ :, • ii.'n_. tktl,•««�•r•'NaWMN The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.2 IC RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required �, �,-eYve..fx+,r:...4.y. .. a: +�i;jy ky�v''� � 1'*,�Fw ,i[' Y..i. 4... 'J`-•ft4 uvS�rRUUTQ vs R. L s. �, t� ��,, j !.:!. ... ., �Y S c• �'ks' '. 1 +r�:ta , .F. ,? 1e.812 ,.,i�"j 'r.: "F t ry _q i• %'�'c. , This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. IIswer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonablyrelated to(�determining if there may be significant adverse impact. ,� ",, � .m 1�` ' t iQi/ itJ��"`r,r v._+�.rgt Pry TTI 'F" . i-0�. iRR % ',�c{'s+ y�+a ys'•3.'kis t. pti ry (.mom, " P ynG:G , * s f ' • ..- ...,.«.._ .T#,., ..•,.e,..t�..,.., .n . � -...-� .�� ...�ew c,.,.,.<a.._���Q1�.rv�..l..�.,mw.:'f�.�..1M�A, : 3xf...�?','QfK.... .. ,'i%l�+?fr , .�f, :b r�... , k � i ��nP;".:. `e "�a 5�''^•�tx°:., Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non -project actions, the references in the„checklist to the words "project,” "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. _.r. '......,... G+,_, M-C...),rM.,* .=.r.,..,,..,,.A:..T.• c am,ei w.w�. , w',,.a .r 1. NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT (if applicable) Zirkle Fruit Pathway 2. APPLICANTS NAME & PHONE Yakima Greenway Foundation/City of Yakima (509)453-8280 3. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 111 S. 18th St/129 N 2nd St Yakima. WA 98901 4. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE Al Brown (509) 453-8280 5. AGENCY REQUESTING CHECKLIST City of Yakima THE CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED IODATE 7. PROPOSED TIMING OR SCHEDULE (including phasing, if applicable) Spring 2008 construction Revised 8-04 INUL:X page I of 10 4 B A KGROLND t ) ESTlO S tAttach if Lenv.thv) I Dc, you ha:e any plans for rurure uddirions. expansion. or further acti\-it' related to or connected with this proposal" ff yes. explain. No List any enwoaimental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared. directly related to this proposal Wetlands Delineation/Biological Report Do you kno\,‘, whether applications are pending for go%ernmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property co\ered by your proposal? [f yes, explain. No List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. .;ity of Yakima Shoreline Buffer Reduction - Critical Area Review Yakima Clean Air Authority - Construction Dust Abatement SEPA Review 5 GiN,e brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are se\ eral questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific. information on project description.) Construction of approximately 840 lineal feet of 10' wide pathway along the west and south side of Reflection Pond as planned in the 1986 Sarg Hubbard Park plan. Project includes two (2) fishing piers and a small bridge structure. Plan includes additional fencing to protect a wetlands south of project site, installation of interpretive signage and native vegetation plantings to stabilize the bank. In addition, to allow the pathway to continue at its originally planned location the Yakima Greenway is utilizing the City of Yakima's CAO Public Agency utility exception to allow placement of the path within 6 feet. (See Public Agency & Utility Exception Request) 6 Location of the proposal. Gine sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project, including a street address. if any, and section. -township. and range, if known. If a proposal would occur o. er a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description. site plan. icinity map, and topographic map. if reasonably available While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this che::klist. Location is the southwest corner of Sarg Hubbard Park, specifically the west and sow , sides of Reflection Pond. The park is located on South 18th Street, Yakima WE .. .: ton, tax parcel numbers 19132013009 and'19132013007. DOG. INDEX page 2,n IU RQ1'Fi�I;)PrIET,S`:(To`'6e'coiup%ted>5y�'Y'eapp[rcnnf Earth a. General description of the site (✓ one): ❑ flat ❑ rolling E hilly © steep slopes ❑ mountainous ❑ other N/A b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 60% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Sand, Gravel and Rock fill d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will occur to construct pathway bed. It is anticipated atno material will be removed from the site. Gravel will be orted to form base for asphalt pathway. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use7 If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur during construction. A debris/erosion fence will be installed per BMP's. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Less than 10% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Installation of construction debris fence. Upon completion, planting of native -type vegetation to stablize slopes. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust during construction. None when completed. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or.control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: BMP. Control dust during construction by use of water. Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX # 1:-I page 3 of 10 . Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, Class III Wetland based upon Wetland Biology Report as attached. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, see attached plans 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or re moved from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material No 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVE FEB 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX E_J page 4 of 10 Could waste materials enter _round or surface waters? If so. generally describe. • No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No . Plants: Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAK PLANNING d a Check (✓) types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: ❑ alder ❑ maple ❑ aspen Q other Cottonwood, Pacific Willow evergreen green: ❑ fir ❑ cedar ❑ pine ❑ other ❑ shrubs ® grass ❑ pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: ❑X cattail ❑ buttercup ❑ bullrush ❑ skunk cabbage ❑ other water plants: ❑ water lily ❑ eelgrass ❑ milfoil ❑ other other types of vegetation: reed canarygrass, willowherb b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Cheat Grass c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. umbia Milk -Vetch, Clustered Lady's Slipper, Basalt Daisy, Kalm's elia, Hoover's Desert -Parsley, Pale Blue -Eyed Grass and Hoover's u�chIloposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Revegetation with native specis. . Animals: a. Check (✓) any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: I) birds: ® hawk ® heron ® eagle ® songbirds ❑ other 2) mammals: ® deer ❑ bear ❑ elk © beaver ❑ other 3) fish: ❑ bass ® salmon ® trout ❑ herring ❑ shellfish ❑ other not in pond b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known. There are a number of endangered or threatened species in the Upper Yakima Valley: Bald Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Golden Eagle, Great Blue 111/1 eron, P. airie Fal on .and. Rin T. ed S ake and varieties of salmon, ste c. Is tie site part otca migration route. It so. explain. d is in migration route for geese. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Install fence and interpretative signage to secure and educate at South Pond, see plans elhead. DOC:. INDEX # -1 pate 5 of 10 Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove. solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None . Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Yes I . Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The verticle liner at the site of a remediated haz—tox spill will be preserved and public exposure to possible hydro—carbos will be reduced or $l.i.ed, subject to WDOE close—out order. . What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? [ndicate what hours noise would come from the site. None 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? It is a "Brown Field" b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. Asphalt lot and fence d'. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? SR Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVE FEB 1 9 ?008 CITY OF wow. PLANNING DIV. DOC . INDEX Paye 6 of 10 • What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Low density residential If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so specify. Yes, Class 3 Wetlands i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 0 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 0 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Yakima City Parks Plan indentifies this area as a community park. Proposal is consistant with that plan. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 0 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, 41)0middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 0 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structures, not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materials proposed? Ground level b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? 0 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No lights . b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVE,) FEB 1 9 20C CITY OF YAKlft PLANNING DI DOG INDEX page 7 of 10 8 A !. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Sarg Hubbard Park b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Pathway will reduce impact on wetland by the use of shoreline by humans. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural important known to be on or next to the site. None known c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 18th Street b. Is site currently serviced by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 400 feet to nearest transit stop c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None - None d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVED FEB 1 9 7008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX # E page 8 of 10 15. Public Services Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2008 PLANNING ! Div D1 V. Ila. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire lprotection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: No b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. None b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. 0 None C S1 '4,00:0,Tobeom'peihrafiviLeast_ --e,,,,,. A M The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. SignatureDAA-76— Date Submitted: z1 (9 pg -' ... p36iP`Pyy.L - � x - ..R., = �t) ON'P14Cf , I(3 ,. �a c An, b liy�o- �- 4 G. - �. "' ` C.i { ' .x y' 4�W"'i:,.'h' �{' A NF' ihf' �•iy ��i iFt I t. , 02n0_ WI ! 4 f A',I11 O 1"ID C i + ! S e , ��� tsi ,,. c" ' '', � y h,,,, y _ 5t y<; #+ r �r r i - ���� � Y�.. S . �d 1'�F l� k".`" r n����� � e.<4"!�;�,. `. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. a ' h c^n .'-�`"nti 4m:."'+s�+r,�,yryy�.i�" ;...a t u#y,.s. t .0 rJ ,... .. .. _ k h ;44. y;. ,,. /.t 3: , �9. r di,�t�. �.}x,.. '�"y-i,.o" 5' 404 •, ,4y, Y^7T-��tY'T,t �... 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? 1) Space Reserved for Agency Comments DOC.:. INDEX page 9 of 10 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely,to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: �. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it ; would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands ontransportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVE® • FEB 1 9 7008 CITY o 'MING Dm • DOC. • INDEX page I 0 of I 0 • • • Addendum to SEPA checklist, Yakima Greenway Foundation, Zirkle Fruit Pathway, Sarg Hubbard Park City of Yakima Code 15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Exception The Yakima Greenway Foundation is requesting that the City of Yakima exercise provisions of the above referenced code to reduce the required buffer area on the west and south side of Reflection Pond, Sarg Hubbard Park for the purposes of constructing approximately 840 lineal feet of pathway as originally planned in the master plan for this park. The plan also includes the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers and a small bridge over the outlet to the pond to connect with existing pathway apron. The underlying property is owned by the City of Yakima. Historically, this property and the location of the pathway have been heavily and negatively impacted by human actions for many years. It is the site of a man-made excavation that resulted in the pond itself. Shortly after construction of the pond, an oil slick was noted on the pond. Investigation revealed that oil was entering the ground water from an asphalt batch plant to the immediate west and south. In late 2007, Washington State Department of Ecology issued a close out order on the remediation of the spill with some stipulations. The property and shoreline essentially became a Brownfield with little or no development potential. While the area has been fenced to protect the public from residual contaminants and protect mitigation structures that are in place, the public has repeatedly circumvented attempts to prohibit access. The over steepened bank has been eroded by random access. There have been limited amounts of vegetation destruction caused by the access. At one place, erosion has exposed the buried containment barrier. Ecology has tentatively approved a plan to place a cap over the containment barrier in the form of a pathway, thus assuring that the previously installed mitigation measure is preserved. The containment barrier is, in places, within 6 feet of the ordinary high water mark. The plan, as submitted, also calls for additional fencing to protect a wetland that lies south of the proposed site and the installation of interpretive signage to educate the people about the value of the wetlands. Such fence will be armored by the inclusion of appurtenances designed to keep people from going over the fence. The proposal reduces existing human impact on the critical area by channeling people to a pathway designed to protect the hydro -carbon mitigation structure from erosion or destruction. If the property is left in its current state, erosion will continue to occur and the structure will be negatively impacted. Additionally, if the property is left in its current state, degradation of the critical area will continue due to unchannelized and unwanted use by random human access. E-) The Greenway has previously installed control fencing, only to see it cut, dug under or otherwise circumvented by unwanted human access. The pond is heavily used by the public and is stocked with trout several times a year by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and is designated as a juvenile/handicapped fishing pond. The Washington State Resource guide, document ECY #97-608 (revised March 2006), produced in a cooperative effort of the Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Community Trade and Economic Development and Region 10 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency states "Brownfields cleanup and reuse (emphasis added) are priorities for the State of Washington and USEPA. This project meets that priority by providing a public use of a Brownfield while at the same time, reducing continuing impacts by human action to the shoreline. DOS,, INDEX • • Yakima Greenway Foundation • • EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER F Application EXHIBIT DOCUMENT , F-1 JARPA Application 2/19/08 F-2 Wetland Biology Report 2/19/08 • • WETLAND BIOLOGY REPORT RECEIVED FEB 19 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Yakima Greenway Foundation Sarg Hubbard Park Trail Expansion Project Yakima, Washington Prepared by: Thomas Environmental Services 5708 W. Walnut Street #1 Yakima, WA 98908 (509) 965-1547 February 2008. DOC. INDEX - # r -z Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 INTRODUCTION 3 PROJECT INFORMATION 3 Location 3 Description 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Land Use 3 Geology and Topography 3 Soils 4 Vegetation 4 METHODS 4 Wetland Identification, Delineation, and Classification 4 RESULTS 5 Wetlands and Buffers 5 Wetland Functions and Values 5 Buffers 6 IMPACTS RECOMMENDATIONS 6 6 REFERENCES 7 Appendix A — Site Map Appendix B — Delineation Form Appendix C — Rating Form Appendix D — Photos DOC. INDEX F,2 2 • • • • • INTRODUCTION RECEIVED FEB 19 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. The Yakima Greenway Foundation proposes to expand its existing system of trails within Sarg Hubbard Park in Yakima, Washington. The project will add 1400 feet of trail around a pond in the southwest corner of the park. The purpose of this report is to identify wetlands within or near the project to assist with avoidance or minimization of impacts to wetlands during project construction. Should avoidance and/or minimization not be possible, this report provides data necessary to apply for environmental permits and to address mitigation requirements. PROJECT INFORMATION Location The project is located in the city of Yakima in Yakima County, Washington. The specific location is south of Terrace Heights drive, and between Interstate 82 and the Yakima River. The project is in the Lower Yakima (36) Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) and in Section 19 of Township 12N, Range 18E WM (tax parcel # 19122013007). Description The primary goal of this project is to expand recreational access in Sarg Hubbard Park. This project goal will be achieved with the following objectives: • Install a paved trail approximately 10 feet wide and 1400 feet long where none currently exists along the south and west edges of the pond. • Install dense woody vegetation between the pond and the trail in areas where vegetation is sparse or non-existent. The trail and vegetated areas would be maintained in perpetuity by the trail maintenance staff for the Yakima Greenway. EXISTING CONDITIONS The purpose of this section is to describe baseline conditions of the environment within the study area including information on land use, local geology, topography, soils, vegetation, and aquatic resources. The study area includes the project vicinity and all adjacent areas within range of potential impacts. Land Use Land use near the study area is primarily recreational and industrial. Sarg Hubbard Park and the associated pond are utilized for various recreational purposes including, bird watching, fishing bicycle riding, and educational/community events such as the Yakima Greenway Rivers Festival. Southwest of the study area is a large parking lot and a commercial cement operation. The parking lot is paved within 50 feet of the pond and a chain-link fence separates the pond area from the parking lot and industrial property. Geology and Topography Geologically, the area is located in the Yakima Fold Belt, which consists of a series of anticlinal ridges and synclinal valleys covering approximately 3.5 million acres in the western Columbia • Basin. The ridges are composed of Yakima Basalt, which comprises the higher elevations, and the Ellensburg formation, which is composed of older siltstone, sandstone, claystone and DOC. INDEX # f-2 -3- conglomerate. Pleistocene age floodplain and alluvial fan deposits underlie the valley floor. Holocene age silt, sand and gravel alluvium from the Yakima River and loess consisting of windblown silts overlay the Pleistocene flood deposits in portions of the valley (Alt & Hyndman 1984). Soils Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey data identifies the Weirman Series throughout the project area, which are typically found on low terraces and floodplains (USDA 1985). The soils in this series are somewhat excessively drained and relatively deep, and were formed in alluvium. Effective rooting depth of plants is usually limited by a seasonally high water table that is at a depth of 36 to 60 inches from April to November. Vegetation The plant community in the site is fairly consistent throughout. The upland areas consist primarily of black cottonwood, black locust, and cheat grass. The wetland areas consist of reed - canary grass, willows, cattails, and some willowherb. Aquatic Resources The floodplain has a variable groundwater table caused by hyporheic flow from the Yakima River through cobble substrate. The floodplain undulates topographically due to earth moving activities associated with historic flood events and flood management. East of the study area, a large berm separates the pond from the Yakima River, although the pond is likely within the hyphoreic zone of the river. METHODS The methods used for delineating, classifying, and rating the wetlands in the project area are consistent with the requirements of the City of Yakima. Wetland Identification, Delineation, and Classification Wetlands were delineated using the Routine Determination Method outlined in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). Wetlands were then classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). The wetland adjacent to the project area was delineated and classified. In general, wetland delineation consisted of two main tasks: (1) assessing vegetation, soil, and hydrologic characteristics to identify areas meeting the wetland identification criteria, (2) marking wetland boundaries. The City of Yakima requires use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington, developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology, 2004) for characterizing wetlands. This system places wetlands into four hierarchical categories based on specific attributes such as rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, functions, and the developer's ability to replace them. It incorporates consideration of the wetland hydrologic and geomorphic conditions into the system by assigning wetlands a hydrogeomorphic classification. This allows for a more accurate rating of how well the wetland functions based on its position in the landscape, water source, and the flow and fluctuation of the water once in the wetland. The Ecology classification hierarchy ranges from Category I wetlands, which exhibit outstanding features to Category IV wetlands, which have the lowest levels of function and are often heavily disturbed (Hruby 2004). DOC. INDEX -4- • • • • RESULTS Wetlands and Buffers The site was evaluated for the presence of wetlands in September 2007. One wetland was identified in the project area adjacent to the pond (see site map appendix A). The wetland is essentially the vegetated fringe of the large pond in the southwest corner of the park. The wetland contains forest, shrub, and emergent plant communities, and generally provides low levels of biological, chemical, and physical functions. Appendix C contains field delineation forms for the wetland. A detailed description of the wetland is provided in this section. Sarg-Hubbard Park Pond -Fringe Wetland This wetland is an "L" shaped feature along the west and south edges of the pond. The pond is only 1-2 acres in size so the wetland does not meet the criteria for Lake -Fringe according to the Ecology Wetland Rating System (Ecology 2004). Therefore it is treated as a Depressional wetland while functioning like a Lake -Fringe wetland. Soils Soils analysis was difficult on the project site due to the cobbly and rocky substrate. The pond is an excavated area probably resulting from mining operations for fill material when Interstate 82 was constructed to the west of the site. The soils did not match the mapped soil unit but does support a hydrophytic plant community and is saturated sufficiently throughout the year to facilitate the development of distinct hydric characteristics. The soil within the wetland area did show faint redoximorphic features in some areas and a positive wetland determination was made due to the hydrology and vegetation and the intermittent presence of redox concentrations and a low matrix chroma. Detailed soil descriptions are available in the attached data sheets (appendix C). Hydrology The wetland exhibited saturation of soils within 12 inches of the surface at the time the study was done in late September. These findings demonstrate that the area has sufficient saturation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Vegetation The dominant tree in the wetland is pacific willow, coyote willow, and reed canarygrass. Cattails, and willowherb were also present. Because the wetland indicator status of these species are all facultative or wetter, the hydrophytic plant criterion is met. Wetland HGM Classification Cowardin Classification Sarg-Hubbard Park Pond -Fringe Wetland Depressional Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Ecology Rating III City of Yakima Required Buffer 25 feet Wetland Functions and Values Following the guidance provided in Wetlands in Washington State — A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2005), also known as "best available science," wetland functions can be divided into three general areas: Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions. The function of this wetland is evaluated generally under these three areas. Water Quality The pond in the project area performs water quality functions at low to moderate levels overall. The main function that this wetland has the opportunity to provide which contributes to water quality is sediment removal. Hydrologic The wetland offers a low level of hydrologic function. The wetland has the opportunity to DOC. INDEX # -5- provide flood flow alteration at moderate to high levels based on its size connection to similar ponds to the south, which offer flood relief the Yakima River. Habitat The wetland provides general habitat suitability and native plant richness at some level. Also, the wetland provides bird and small mammal habitat because of the vegetation types and moderate interspersion of habitat types. Parking is available at the site, which makes it valuable for educational opportunities. The uniqueness and heritage value of the site is low. The following table provides a summary of the wetlands function. The quantitative values presented here were drawn from the wetland rating forms (Appendix C). Functions Provided by Wetlands Wetland Functions (Maximum Score) Water Quality (32) Hydrologic (32) Habitat (36) Total (100) Depressional 12 0 24 36 Buffers In general, the buffer in the study area functions poorly. Habitat for small mammals and migratory songbirds is available in the buffer due to the presence of sapling and mature trees such as cottonwoods and black locust. However, the existing trees and shrubs provide little screening from human disturbance, which has severely impacted the vegetation in the wetland. IMPACTS The project, as proposed, will not impact the wetland. There may be up to 1/3 acre of permanent impacts within the wetland buffer however this will be mitigated through installation of native vegetation between the proposed trail and the pond, which will improve the overall function of the buffer beyond the function that it currently provides. RECOMMENDATIONS To avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, vegetation, streams, and fish and wildlife habitat, the following measures are recommended: 1. Use of silt fence adjacent to the pond during construction to avoid release of sediment and construction waste into the pond. 2. Avoid wetlands and their associated buffers wherever practicable. 3. Avoid equipment and material from entering the river as much as practicable during any construction' activities. 4. Install native vegetation between the new paved trail and the pond in order to stabilize the bank and protect the wetland from sedimentation through erosion. 5. Use high visibility fence to mark the limits of disturbance and to protect sensitive areas during construction. DOC. INDEX # e,2 - 6 - • REFERENCES Alt, D.D. and D.W. Hyndman. 1984. Roadside Geology of Washington. Missoula, Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1,Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI. 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. Hruby, T., W.E. Cesanek, and K.E. Miller. 1995. Estimating relative wetland values for regional planning. Wetlands 15 (2): 93-106. • Kollmorgen Corporation. 1994. Munsell soil color charts. Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, MD. Lenfesty, C.D. and T.E. Reedy. 1985. Soil Survey of Yakima County Area. USDA, Soil Conservation Service. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Washington. Biological Report NERC -88/18.47 for National Wetlands Inventory, Washington, D.C. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. March 2005. Wetlands in Washington' State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State , Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996a. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Version 3.2, July. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996b. The PLANTS database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA. DOC. INDEX F -Z -7- U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. Hydric soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. World Wide Web Site (http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils- info/hydric/homepage.html), last updated May 15, 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1985. Soil Survey of Yakima County Area Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington state wetland identification and delineation manual. Publication #96-94. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2000. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington (Part land Part 2) and Volume II: Depressional Wetlands in the Columbia Basin of Eastern Washington (Part land Part 2). Publications #99-115, #99-116, #00-06- 47, #00-06-48. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington —Revised and eastern Washington — Revised. Publication # 04-06-025 and # 04-06-15. Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 1997 Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA. DOC. INDEX # F_ z. -8- • • • Appendix A - Site Map WR'`Wetiand is a narrow band of vegetation between the green line and the pond DOC. INDEX # F_ Z Appendix B Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetlai 'roject/Site: Sarg Hubbard Park - Pond Applicant/owner: Yakima Greenway Foundation Investigator(s): Robert Thomas, Thomas Environmental Services Date: 9/28/07 County: Yakima State: WA STT/R:19/12N/18E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ No Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes Explanation of atypical or problem area: ►1 Yes ❑ iI ❑ No Yes No Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: VEGETATION (For *strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant *Stratu % Indicat Dominant Plant *Stratu % Indicat Species m cover or Species m cover or Pacific willow tree 20 fac Coyote Willow shrub 20 obl Reed Canarygrass herb 40 facw •• HYDROPHYTIC Check below: inundation/saturation ❑ Technical VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 100% all indicators that apply and explain ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations Visual observation of plant species Wetland plant database growing in areas of prolonged Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Morphological adaptations ❑Other (explain) Literature Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: 100 % Yes ❑ No of dominant species are fac or wetter. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ❑ Yes -❑ No on Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ ■ Soil temp (record temp) Other (explain) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ❑ No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ❑ No Depth of inundation: inches IDChannels Oxidized Root (live roots) <12n.: , X Yes ❑ No Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ❑ No th to free water in pit: inches Depth to saturated soil: 6 inches FAC Neutral: ►i4 Yes ❑ No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ❑ No INDEX # f z - Check all that apply & explain bE v: ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Other (explain): 41111 Wetland hydrology present? X Yes ❑ No , Rationale for decision/remarks: Saturated soils within 12 inches of surface in areas supporting hydrophytic vegetation. SOILS Name (Series (subgroup) and Phase) : Weirman Drainage Class Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Map Unit series 181 Taxonomy Yes ►/ No Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0-6 A 10YR 3/2 none n/a Sandy loam 6-16 A-1 10YR 3/2 10/YR 4/6 Few faint redox features Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Reducing Conditions Gleyed or (check all that apply) Regime Low-Chroma (=1) matrix <_ 2 with mottles Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils II in Sandy Soils Hydric Soils List in remarks) • 0 Matrix chroma ■ • Mg or Fe Concretions ■ ■ High Organic ■ ■ Organic Streaking • • Listed on National/Local • ■ Other (explain Hydric soils present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: faint Fe concentrations ►L Yes U No Low matrix chroma, few, Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Is the sampling point within a wetland? 0 Yes • No 0 Yes ■ No ►moi Yes IN No 5 Yes ■ No Rationale/Remarks: A wetland is present in the study area but the overall function of the wetland is low. Hydric soils were difficult to locate and it took over 100 soil probe samples to locate redox features. NOTES: DOC. INDEX • Appendix C IIIfSEC:19 TWNSHP: 12N_ RNGE: I8E_ (attach map with outline of wetland to rating form) WETLAND RATING FORM — EASTERN WASHINGTON etland Name: Sarg Hubbard Park Pond Date: 9/28/07 Person(s) Rating Wetland: Robert Thomas Affiliation: Consultant Date of site visit: 9/28/07 SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III a IV Category I = Score > 70 Category II = Score 51 - 69 Category IIl = Score 30 — 50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for "Water Quality" Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II III Does not apply a 12 0 24 Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above") III Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Wetland Type Check List for Wetlands that Need,Special Protection; . . and That are Not Included in the Rating `:.: -".'` Vernal Pool NO Alkali Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Has the wetland been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant.or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Forest None of the above Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? :Wetland Class :: Check List for Wetlands that Need,Special Protection; . . and That are Not Included in the Rating `:.: -".'` Depressional NO Riverine Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. Lake -fringe Slope Has the wetland been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant.or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. A3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. Classifying the wetland first simplifies the questions needed to answer how it functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 20 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. DOS. INDEX Pz Check List for Wetlands that Need,Special Protection; . . and That are Not Included in the Rating `:.: -".'` YES NO AI. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species (T/E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. A2. Has the wetland been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant.or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. A3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? A4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. Classifying the wetland first simplifies the questions needed to answer how it functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 20 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. DOS. INDEX Pz Classil :ion of Vegetated Wetlands for Eastern % pington Wetland Name: Sarg Hubbard Park Pond Date: 9/28/07 1. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the, surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 3 m (10 ft)? NO – go to 2 YES – The wetland class is Lake -fringe (lacustrine fringe) 2. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than I foot deep). NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Slope 3. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? In general, the flooding should occur at least once every ten years, on the average, to answer "yes". The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 4. Is the wetland in a topographic depression, outside areas that are inundated by overbank flooding, in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 5. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. If you have a wetland with several HGM classes present within its boundaries use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or mor of the total area of the wetland being rated. • `HGM Classes Within One . Delineated Wetland Boundary Class to Use in Rating if Area of this Class > 10% Total Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringeLake-fringe Depressional + Riverine (riverine is within boundary of depression) —Depressional Depressional Depressional + LA -$r nge If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. • DO, INDEX F-2 Depe§signal ani )Flat Wetlands ' s "" ' r WATERUALITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators Q land functions to improve water qualit D 1.0 Does thewetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.32 in text) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 5 • Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 3 • Wetland has a permanently flowing surface outlet points = 1 D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES points = 3 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation for > = 2/3 of area points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation from 1/3 to 2/3 of area points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation from 1/10 to < 1/3 of area points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of ponding that fluctuates every year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. NOTE: See text for indicators of seasonal and permanent inundation/flooding. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points = 3 • Area seasonally ponded is 1/4 to 1/2 total area of wetland points = 1 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above r D 2.0 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 38) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft x Wetland intercepts groundwater within the Reclamation Area Untreated stormwater flows into wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Water from a stream or culvert flows into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2. Record score on table on p. I r HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. 111 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.39) D 3.1 Charactertst�cs of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 8 • Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet points = 3 • Wetland has a permanently flowing_surface outlet points = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the surface of the wetland (see text for description of measuring height). In wetlands with permanent ponding, the surface is the lowest elevation of "permanent" water). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface points = 8 • The wetland is a "headwater" wetland (see p. 46) points = 6 • Marks are 2 ft. to 3 ft. from surface points = 6 • Marks are I ft. to 2 ft. from surface points = 4 • Marks are 6 in to < 1 ft. from surface points = 2 • No marks above 6 in. or wetland has only saturated soils points = 0 Total for D 3 D4 Add the points in the boxes above Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 42) Answer NO if the major source of water is groundwater, irrigation return flow, or water levels in the wetland are controlled by a reservoir. Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland' has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 1 0 5 0 Multiplier 2 12 0 0 Multiplier 0' • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then record score on p.1 of field form. • DDC. INDEX et IL a ds . V,. :;: M1Y: 1` � •:.-_ . =p' WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.45) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover > 1/3 area of wetland points = 6 • Depressions cover > 1/10 area of wetland points = 3 • Depressions present but cover < 1/10 area of wetland points = 1 • No depressions present points = 0 • R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: • Forest or shrub > 2/3 the area of the wetland points =10 • Forest or shrub 1/3 — 2/3 area of the wetland points = 5 • Ungrazed, emergent plants > 2/3 area of wetland points = 5 • Ungrazed emergent plants 1/3 — 2/3 area of wetland points = 2 • Forest, shrub, and ungrazed emergent < 1/3 area of wetland points = 0 Total for RI Add the points in the boxes above I Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 46) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Wetland intercepts groundwater within the Reclamation Area Untreated stormwater flows into wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Water flows into wetland from a stream or culvert that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream that floods the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above water quality standards. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL — Water Quality FunctionsMultiply the score from RI by R2; then record score on p.I offeldform. Comments: • HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.47) R 3.1 Amount overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: width of wetland / width of stream. • If the ratio is 2 or more points =10 • If the ratio is between 1 and 2 points = 8 • If the ratio is 1/2 to <1 points = 4 • If the ratio is 1/4 to < 1/2 points = 2 • If the ratio is < 1/4 points = 1 R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. • Forest or shrub for more than 2/3 the area of the wetland points = 6 • Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 4 • Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 2 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Total for R3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.50) Answer NO if the major source of water is irrigation return flow or water levels are controlled by a reservoir. Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. _ There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multply the score from R3 by R4. Record score on p.l of field form. Comments: DOC. L ; 'lL:ake=Cringe Wetlands' ' i:.:::::;-,, ? .,. _ :Points.,:. WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve 'water quality. L 1 Does thewetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) P. L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore: Vegetation is more than 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m) wide and < 33 ft wide points = 3 • Vegetation is 6 ft. (2m) wide to < 16 ft wide points = 1 L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: (choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage). In this case the herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form (called emergent class) or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. • Herbaceous plants cover > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 • Herbaceous plants cover > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 • Herbaceous plants cover > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 2/3 vegetated area points = 3 • Othervegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 • Aquatic bed cover > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 0 Total for LI Add the points in the boxes above' I L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or surface water flowing through the wetland to the lake is polluted. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater flows into the wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland _ Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Powerboats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake Multiplier _ Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) . Other • YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2. Record score on p.1 of field form.' Comments: 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.54) L 3.1 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft. (10m) wide points = 6 • 3/4 of vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 6 ft. (2m) wide. points = 4. • 1/4 of vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft. (IOm) wide. points = 4 • Fringe vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m) wide points = 2 • Fringe vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m) wide ' points = 0 L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 55) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the shore behind the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the shore (e.g. mature forests, other wetlands) Multiplier behind the wetland that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • :TOTAL.— Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4. Record score on p.1 of field form.' Comments: i DOG. INDEX F-2 ' lope:Wettands - .. : ;:: 7 . Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.56) S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of wetland: • Slope is 1% or less (a 1% slope has a 1 ft. vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft. horizontal distance) points = 3 • Slope is between 1% and 2% points = 2 • Slope is more than 2% but less than 5% oints = 1 • Slope is 5% or greater points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface. • Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 • Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 • Dense, woody, vegetation > 1/2 of area. points = 2 • Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for herbaceous vegetation points = 0 Total for S I Add the points in the boxes above S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 58) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Wetland is a groundwater seep within the Reclamation Area Untreated stormwater flows through the wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland Multiplier Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from SI by S2. Record score on p.1 of field form. J Comments: i HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.59) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland: Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8 in.) or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows ' points = 6 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 — 90% area of wetland points = 3 • Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 — 1/2 area points = 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES = 2 points NO = 0 points Total for S3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 61) Answer NO if the major source of water is irrigation return flow (e.g. a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam or at the base of an irrigated field. Answer YES if the wetland is in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources fro flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that can cause flooding problems downgradient Multiplier Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4. Record score on p.1 of fieldform. ' I Comments: I DOL. INDEX # F_Z These '.444." 0.10 145:1b,`,0)v:04040:pf 4. !Of010.4.i. :1';''..';1':' ,f: ;-:.;'n:'2Si!a ::T...1 -':'''';'i: 1.'.',:'-','. ),....: : . :..•,:, -.,::'..,..Pomt,s-.7 HABITAT FUNCTIONS — Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? • I H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 62): . 2 Check the types of vegetation present if the type covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or 1/4 acre. Aquatic bed x Emergent plants 0-12 inches high (0-30cm) x Emergent plants >12 — 40 inches high (30 — 100cm). - Emergent plants > 40 inches high (>100cm)) x Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 —6 types points = 3 2 types points = 1 3 types points = 2 I type points = 0 H 1.2 Is one of the vegetation types "aquatic bed?" (see p.64) • YES = 1 point NO = 0 points 0 H 1.3 Surface Water (see p. 65) 3 • H1.3.1 Does the wetland have areas of "open" water (without emergent or shrub plants) over at least 1/4 acre or 10% of its area during the spring (March — early June) OR in early fall (August — end of September)? Note: answer YES for Lake -fringe wetlands. . YES = 3 points & go to H 1.4 NO = go to H 1.3.2 H 1.3.2 Does the wetland have an intermittent or permanent stream within its boundaries, or along one side, that has an unvegetated bottom (answer yes only if H 1.3.1 is NO)? YES = 3 points & go to 111.4 NO = go to H 1.3.2 H 1.4 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 66) 1 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 fe (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Russian Olive, Phragmite, Canadian Thistle, Yellow -flag Iris, and Salt Cedar (Tamarisk) If you counted: > 9 species points = 2 4 — 9 species points = 1 . < 9 species points = 0 # of species 6 II) H 1.5 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 67) , Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. 3 • !,64iimiltj6, \ ---'l . Nene - 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points • ,• -,_ , • :,T ..:',1 f.. --; 4-', •-::-•.' , .z..-, !-:•=••::. r ___.—...4,2_47t, ..0 ' i. ,i.:•:::..., Iv'—"i4r.,_ .: [riparian brakled chlainels] High = 3 points Note: If you have 4 or more vegetation types or 3 vegetation types and open water, the rating is always "high". 111 H 1.6 • Special Habitat Features (see p. 68) ' 3 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Loose rocks larger than 4" or large, downed, woody debris (> 4 in. diameter) within the area of surface ponding or in stream x Cattails or bulrushes are present within the wetland Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland or within 30m (100 ft) of the. edge x Emergent or shrub vegetationin areas that are permanently inundated/ponded. The presence of "yellow flag" Iris is a good indicator of vegetation in areas permanently ponded. x Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 45 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity Invasive species cover less than 20% in each stratum of vegetation Maximum score possible = 6 H 1 TOTAL Score — potential to provide habitat Add the scores in the coDeCabovei I INDEX H 2 Does the wetland have the oppon _.,_q to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 71): 1 I Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed". • 330 ft (100m) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing). points = 5 330 ft (100m) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference points = 4 170 ft (50m) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference points = 4 • 330 ft (100m) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference points = 3 170 ft (50m) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water _ for > 50% circumference points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the three criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 80 ft (25m) of wetland . > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 170 ft (50m) of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer points = I Vegetated buffers are < 6.6 ft wide (2m) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points = 0 x Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above points = I H 2.2 Wet Corridors (see p. 72) 4 li H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor at least 1/4 mile long with surface water or flowing water throughout most of the year (> 9 months/yr?) (dams, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, fields tilled to edge of stream, or pasture to edge of stream are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken, vegetated corridor, at least 1/4 mile long with water flowing seasonally, OR a lake-fringe wetland without a "wet" corridor, OR a riverine wetland without a surface channel connecting to the stream.? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland within 1/2 mile of any permanent stream, seasonal stream, or lake (do not include man-made ditches)? YES = I point NO = 0 points Comments: DOC. INDEX DI H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other I. .ity habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 74): 2 Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland? (See text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats.) x Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 2 acres. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. _ Old-growth forests: (east of Cascade Crest): In general, stands will be >150 years of age, with 10 trees/acre that are >21 in dbh, and 1-3 snags/acre > 12-14 in. diameter. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, 80 — 160 years old east of the Cascade Crest. Prairies and Steppe: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Shrub -steppe: Tracts of land consisting of plant communities with one or more layers of perennial grasses and a conspicuous but discontinuous layer of shrubs. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 — 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy . coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and _ uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). If wetland has 2 or more priority habitats = 4 points 'If wetland has 1 priority habit = 2 points No priority habitats = 0 points III H 2.4 Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits. (see p. 76) ., 5 • The wetland is in an area where annual rainfall is less than 12 inches; and its water regime is not influenced by irrigation practices, dams, or water control structures. (Generally, this means outside boundaries of reclamation areas, irritation district, or reservoirs.) points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing in the connection or an open water connection along a lake shore without heavy boat traffic are OK, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, heavy boat traffic or other development. points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points = 2 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points = 1 • Does not meet any of the four criteria above points = 0 R 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores in the columns above $ 24 g 3 Does the wetland have indicators that its ability to provide habitat is reduced? H 3.1 Indicator of reduced habitat functions (see' p. 75) 0 Do the areas of open water in the wetland have a resident population of carp (see text for indicators of the presence of carp)? Note: This question does not apply to reservoirs with water levels controlled by dams, such as the reservoirs on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. YES = I point NO = 0 points • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1, H.2 and H 3; then record the result on p. 1 I 24 Comments: 0 LJ'.J INDEX # F-.2 CATEG :ZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARA( ;RISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. NOTE: A wetland may meet the criteria for more than one set of special characteristics. Record all those that apply. • Wetland Type — Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Vernal pools '(see p.79) Is the wetland less than 4,000 ft2, and does it meet at least two of the following criteria? Its only source of water is rainfall or snowmelt from a small contributing basin and has no groundwater input. Wetland plants are typically present only in the spring; the summer vegetation is typically upland annuals. NOTE: If you find perennial, "obligate", wetland plants the wetland is probably NOT a vernal pool. The soil in the wetland are shallow (<1 ft. deep (30cm) and is underlain by an impermeable layer _ such as basalt or clay. Surface water is present for less than 120 days during the "wet" season. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO not a vernal pool SC 1.1 Is the vernal pool relatively undisturbed in February and March? YES = Go to SC 1.2 NO = categorize based on functions SC 1.2 Is the vernal pool in an area where there are at least 3 separate aquatic resources within 0.5 miles (other wetlands, rivers, lakes etc.)? YES = Category II NO = Category 111 Cat. H Cat. HI SC2 Alkali wetlands (see p.81) Cat. I Does the wetland meet one of the following two criteria? The wetland has a conductivity > 3.0 mS/cm. The wetland has a conductivity between 2.0 — 3.0 mS, and more than 50% of the plant cover in the wetland can be classified as "alkali" species (see Table 2 for list of plants found in alkali systems). If the wetland is dry at the time of your field visit, the central part of the area is covered with a layer of salt.11 OR does the wetland meet two of the following three sub -criteria? Salt encrustations around more than 80% of the edge of the wetland. More than 3/4 of the plant cover consists of species listed on Table 2. A pH above 9.0. All alkali wetlands have a high pH, but please note that some freshwater wetlands may also have a high p1 -I. Thus, pH alone is not a good indicator of alkali wetlands. YES = Category I NO categorize based on functions SC3 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 82) Cat. I Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 3.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen•out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO SC 3.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO • DOC. INDEX # r_z SC4 0 Bogs (see p. 82) Cat. I Cat. I Does the wetland (or part of thewetland) meet both the criteria for soils ana vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the - wetland based on its functions. SC 4. I Does the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B fora field key to identify organic soils.) YES = go to SC 4.3 NO = go to SC 4.2 SC 4.2 Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? YES = go to 4.3 - NO = Is not a bog for rating . SC 4.3 Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Category I bog NO = go to question 4.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the p of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. (f the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 4.4• Is the wetland forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES =- Category 1 bog NO = categorize based on functions SC5 Forested Wetlands (see p. 86) . Does the wetland have an area of forest (you should have identified a forested class, if present, in question H 1.1) rooted within its boundary that meet at least one of the following three criteria?. The wetland is within the "100 year" floodplain of a river or stream. Aspen (Populus tremuloides) are a dominant or co -dominant of the "woody" vegetation. (Dominants means it represents at least 50% of the'cover of woody species, co -dominant means it represents at least 20% of the total cover of woody species.) There is at least 1/4 acre of trees (even in wetlands smaller than 2.5 acres) that are "mature" or "old-growth" according to the definitions for these priority habitats developed by WDFW (see p. . YES = got o SC 5.1 NO = categorize based on functions /83). SC 5.1 Does the wetland have a forest canopy where more than 50% of the tree species (by cover) are slow growing native trees? Slow growing trees are: western red cedar (Thuja.plicata), Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), pine spp. mostly "white" pine (Pinus monticola), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Englemann spruce (Picea engelmannii)? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 5.2 Cat. I SC 5.2 Does the wetland have aspen (Populus tremuloides) as a dominant or co -dominant species in the category of woody species? YES = Category 1 NO = go to SC 5.3 • Cat. I SC 5.3 Does the wetland have a forest canopy where more than 50% of the tree species (by cover) are fast growing species? Fast growing species are: Alders — red (alnus rubra), thin -leaf (A. tenuifolia); Cottonwoods — narrow -leaf (Populus angustifolia), black (P. balsamifera); Willows — peach -leaf (Salix amygdaloides), Sitka (S. sitchensis), Pacific (S. lasiandra), Aspen — Populus tremuloides), Water Birch (Betula occidentalis) YES = Category II NO = go to SC 5.5 Cat. II SC 5.5 Es the forested component of the wetland within the "100 year floodplain" of a river or stream? • YES = Category II NO = categorize based on functions Cat. H • Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and.record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. I DOC. INDEX Appendix D - Photos 2. Narrow band of wetland vegetation on the edge of the pond. Notice disturbed area along the slope associated with heavy foot traffic. Installing a paved trail higher up the slope will deter foot traffic below. DOC. INDEX F-7- • • • r r ... . j 3. Cottonwood saplings in the wetland buffer. Coyote willows closer to the water are within the wetland boundary. roit tt 4(4 714 4. In this location near the northwest corner of the pond, the wetland consists of less than a five-foot band of vegetation. As demonstrated by the vegetation break between willows and cottonwoods. DOC INDEX V. CITY OF YAKIMA �, RECEIVI '�;, LAND USE APPLICATION -� FEB 1 9 �, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CIT e . 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2VD FLOOR PLANNI YAK , YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 NG Q� VOICE: (509) 575-6183 FAX: (509) 575-6105 /11-i' �-� i• ., 4 ',a•�ti °aP "" STRU I:EASE�REA�D •��.�;,..,.,,,..,�;��.�, ...�,��;.�n„ C']4'I%1N.S�, ;P . Iease.type tor:p'rint'yo>�;�r�nswei�s:cTearl�' ��'�,���a,�;��; '� , ^ � Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process call, come in person or refer to the accompanying instructions. , This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV - CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART II and III contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable.f:' J, pn�• .i..^.` F E ... _4 4 F y.:',G , *�^hF {�` "d' 'PAR'T:I�-�G)INEI2AIxIl�FF4�it�A.,jdj� .IT"�•J"=���'��u', ,z+,.', ��Ska�i.�Fv� �K' aJ''�'�,,�°��,".-�'�'�`F��,E,. '�"h^'f��frv'. 1. APPLICANT NAME Yakima Greenway Foundation/City Of Yakima 2. APPLICANT ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER STREET 111 S. 18th Street/129 N. 2nd Street CITY Yakima STATE WA ZIP 98901 'PHONE (509)453-8280 MESSAGE Same 3. APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY CHECK ■ OWNER CONTRACT PURCHASER ■ OWNER REPRESETATIVE ONE ■ P1 OTHER 'Co-Sponsors 4. PROPERTY OWNER • (IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) NAME City of Yakima 5. PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS AND PHONE (IFOTHERTHAN APPLICANT) STREET 129 N 2nd Street CITY Yakima STATE WA ZIP 98901 PHONE (509)575-6000 MESSAGE 6. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY: 19132013009 19132013007 7. EXISTING ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: SR 8. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 206 S. 18th Street 9. TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Class (2) Use ❑ Class (3) Use ❑ Rezone ❑ Variance ❑ Home Occupation . ❑ Administrative Adjustment (CHECK ALL X Environmental THAT APPLY) Checklist (SEPA) to Approved Class (2) Structure/Use Subdivision ❑ Right-of-Way & (3) Uses ❑ Short Plat Exemption Vacation Release by Hearing Examiner Plan Amendment Area ■ Modification ❑ Appeal ❑ Non-Conforming ❑ Preliminary. ❑ Short Plat U Shoreline ❑ Utility Easement ❑ Interpretation x Other - Comp Critical r ., 9 .3° I] 1 9..:.A '. P JCAT1Os l� W L'1d1 n ,i7 . ,.. rr .. , ; , .oNy. 5y G'. f V. � 10. SEE ATTACHED �yS�;HEE/T}S��'. _ s �'"+�T 4i4.sa{xk.��F "i '" . ' 4' Y4i�`Y �^ F}' �. .�,r,, p'a rc.{,y��f � Mk.4;'-. : ,tsF:. ,t. 11 ' e„ '; .,. f �.%�,. �..,,fea..�.� lam'" :,Yw�y�:,,Ai. �1 �siu.x'r,',e�'`'�"�" txnl. �ry sF.T� .i;. 11. I certify that the information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 2-(106 SIGNATURE DATE rleys Revised 9-98 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY FILE No. 'NDEX 4 F-I DATE FEE PMD b� I Cl- 07 RECEIVED BY ` A�IOUN 535-DO RECEIPT NO g-- .L.Q 3-z-a HEARTNO UA I E V. .aScnc� Rcrcrcnce 'i• Circulated by: iCY USE ONLY Date Roccived- (local govt. a agcncy) 41111 JOINT AQUATIC RESOURCES PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (JARPA) (for use in Washington State) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK. TO FILL IN ELECTRONICALLY, USE F11 TO MOVE THROUGH rHE FORM 0 Application for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Project per requirements of RCW 77.55.290. You must submit a copy of this completed JARPA application form and the (Fish Habitat Enhancement JARPA Addition) to your local Government Planning Department and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist on the same day. NOTE: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS — You must submit any comments on these projects to WDFW within 15 working days. Based on the instructions provided, I am sending copies of this application to the following: (check all that apply) E Local Government for shoreline. Substantial Development [Conditional Use ['Variance [Exemption [Revision EFloodplain Management ®Critical Areas Ordinance • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for HPA (Submit 3 copies to WDFW Region) • Washington Department of Ecology for 401 Water Quality Certification (to Regional Office -Federal Permit Unit) • Washington Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Resources Use Authorization Notification • Corps of Engineers for: E Section 404 • Section 10 permit • Coast Guard for ■ General Bridge Act Permit • Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) • For Department of Transportation projects only: This project will be designed to meet conditions of the most current Ecology/Department of Transportation Water Quality Implementing Agreement SECTION A - Use for all permits covered by this application. Be sure to ALSO complete Section C (Signature Block) for all permit applications. 1. APPLICANT Yakima Greenway Foundation/City of Yakima MAILING ADDRESS 111.5. 18th Street/129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 WORK PHONE I E-MAIL ADDRESS HOME PHONE (509)453-82801 a1@yakimagreenway.,org FAX # (509)453-0318 If an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process, complete #2. Be sure agent signs Section C (Signature Block) for all permit applications 2. AUTHORIZED AGENT 0 I ING ADDRESS K PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS HOME PHONE FAX # 3. Relationship of applicant to property. • OWNER E PURCHASER • LESSEE • 4. Name, address andhone number of property owner(s) if other than applicant: City of Yakima 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 (509)575-6 5. Location (street address, including city, county and zip code, where proposed activity exists or will occur) 206 S. 18th Street Yakima, WA 989.01 Local government with jurisdiction (city or county) City of Yakima Waterbody you are working in RP f 1 P c t- i on Pond Tributary of WRIA # Is this waterbody on the 303(d) List*' YES I NO ki! If YES, what parameter(s)? Shoreline designation N/A ^For 303d List. nttp.//www.ecy wa.00viprograms/woi303alindex.html Zoning designation SR '/. Section Section 20 Township 13 Range!Government Lot 19 I 13007 . DNR stream type if known N/A Latitude and Longitude: 46°&59. ,5159.5 4"Lat Tax Parcel Number 19132013007 LV LV JJ•L�i a+6 ECY 070-15 (Rev 11/04) JARPA Contact the State of Washington Office of Regulatory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 800/917-0043 • 00 RECEIVED FEB 1 92008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. F- I 6 Describe the current .,se of the property anc structures .Ig on the property Have you completed any portion of tt ;sed activity on :his property? 0 YES EK NC For any portion of the proposed activity already completed on this property indicate month arm /ear of completion. Property is currently a brownfield as a result of petroleum spills to west and south. of site. Remediation and clean up have been II completed and ecology has signed close out order on property. The only structure on property is chain link fence. is :he property arncultural ;and'? 0 YES gi NO Are you a USDA program participant? U YES • NO 7a Describe the proposed work that needs aquatic permits: Complete plans and specifications should be provided for all work waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line including types of equipment to be used If applying for a shoreline permit, describe all work within and oeyond 200 feet of the ordinary nigh water mark If you nave provided attached materials to describe your project, you still must summarize the proposed wont here Attach a separate sheet :f additional space ,s needed This project will not work on the water side of the OHW. The project will involve the grading and installation of a loft wide walking path and 2 elevated fishing piers that are cantilevered over water bodj7 PREPARATION of DRAWINGS: See sample drawings arid guidance for omoleung :he drawings ONE SET OF ORIGINAL OR GOOD QUALITY REPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS MUST BE ATTACHED NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to sabmil photographs or the oroiect sae• out :hese r00 NOT substitute for drawings THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND COAST GUARD REQUIRE DRAWINGS ON 8-112 X 11 INCH SHEETS. LARGER DRAWINGS MAY BE REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES. 7h Describe the purpose of the proposed work and why you want or need to perform it at the site. Please explain any specific needs that have influenced the design The pond is heavily used, attracting walkers and juveniles who fish the restricted waters. While there are fences in place to keep people off the west and south shoreline, the public persist in entering the area. Erosion of the bank and degradation of plant life is occuring as a resut of the illegal uses. By putting in a path, we can limit damage to other places, as well as protect the 9 Ste ali pactnt li eis b� cfiter dyt Wesj tse � ria aquatic life, water quality. 7c. D crbe the potential impacts to chars enstic u es o a er o y These u s n water supply, recreation and aesthetics Identify proposed actions to avoid, minimize. and mitigate detrimental impacts and provide proper protection of fish and aquatic life. Identify which guidance documents you have used Attach a separate sheet if additional space is needed The pond is a human made pond which is used as an appurtenance to an urban park. The pond is stocked with trout and is a handicap and juvenile fishing only facility. 7d For in Nater construction ziwk, will your project oe in compliance with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity WAC 173 201A-110? 1PrI YES n NO (See USEFUL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS) 8, Will the protect be constructed in stages/ YES D NO lg. Proposed starling date' Spring 2008 Estimated duration of activity. 60 days 9 Check if any temporary or permanent structures will be placed: p_ci Waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line for fresh or tidal waters AND/OR above the OHW, not in ti • Waterward of the mean higher high water for tidal waters? 10 Will fill material (rock, fill bulkhead or other material) be placed: No • Waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line for fresh waters? If YES VOLUME (cubic yards) !AREA (acres) • Waterward of the mean higher high water for tidal waters') If YES VOLUME (cubic yards) I AREA (acres) ECY 072-15 {Rev I I/041 JARPA Contact the State of •iraskington .ls.,r:rance for'atest .Iersron or call 3601407.7037 or 500/917 C043 2 e water 110 RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. • • 11 Will material be placed in wetlands? 0 If YES: A. Impacted area in acres' B Has a delineation been completed? If C. Has a wetland report been prepared? eoType and composition of fill material (e.g.. aterial source: List all soil series (type of soil) located can be obtained from the natural Resources G. WILL PROPOSED ACTIVITY CAUSE If YES, IMPACTED AREA IS ACRES YES NO YES. please submit with application If YES. please submit with application sand, etc.) • at the project site, and indicate if they are Conservation Service (NRCS). Weirman FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS? OF DRAINED WETLANDS. wetland. submit a negation plan to the Corps and Ecology Ecology in addition to an approved mitigation plan if your Please submit the JARPA form and mitigation plan to information • in size g! YES • NO E YES II NO on the county's list of hydric soils. Soils Series j• YES C! NO for approval along with the JARPA form. project impacts wetlands that are: a) greater than '4 acre Ecology for an individual 401 certification if a) or b) applies. NOTE. If your protect will impact greater man 14 of an acre of NOTE. A 401 water quality certification will be required from or b) tidal wetlands or wetlands adjacent to tidal water. 12 Stormwater Compliance for Nationwide Permits stormwater manual. or an Ecology approved If YES - Which manual will.your project be If NO - For clean water act Section 401 and application, documentation that demonstrates standards, WAC 173.201(A) Only' This project is local stormwater manual. designed to meet? ' (or will be) designed to meet ecology's most current ] NO for approval, along with this JARPA or activity will comply with the water quality • YES 404 permits only - Please submit to Ecology the stormwater runoff from your project 13 Will excavation or dredging be required in If YES. A. Volume: (cubic yards) /area water or wetlands' II YES ] NO (acre) B Composition of matenal to be removed: C Disposal site for excavated material: D. Method of dredging: 14. Has the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) SEPA Lead Agency: City of Yakima been completed g LETTER TO WDFW AS YES in NO (end of comment penod) FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION Decision Date REQUIRED SEPA Decision: DNS, MDNS. EIS, Adoption,'Exemption SUBMIT A COPY OF YOUR SEPA DECISION 15. List other Applications, approvals or certifications from other federal, state or local agencies for any structures, construction discharges or other activities described in the application (1 e preliminary plat approval, health district approval, building permit, SEPA review, federal energy regulatory commission license (FERC), Forest practices application, etc.). Also, indicate whether work has been completed and indicate all existing work on drawings. NOTE' For use with Corps Nationwide Permits, identify whether your project has or will need an NPDES permit for discharging wastewater and/or stormwater. ' TYPE OF APPROVAL ISSUING AGENCY IDENTIFICATION NO DATE OF APPLICATION DATE APPROVED COMPLETED? • 16 Has any agency denied approval for the activity you're applying for or for any activity directly related to the activity described herein? • YES 21 NO If YES, explain: ECY 070-15 (Rev. 11104) JAR PA Contact the State of Washington Office of Reci latory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 800/917-0043 3 RECEIVED FEB 19 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. SECTION B - Use for Shoreline and Corp. Engineers permits only: 17a. Total cost of project. This means $125,000-17b. If a project or any -portion of a indicate if you will receive federal funds the fair market value of the project, including materials, labor. machine rentals, etc. project receives funding from a federal agency, that agency is responsible for ESA consultation. Please and what federal agency is providing those funds. See instructions for information on ESA.* [ NO If YES, please list the federal agency. FEDERAL FUNDING U YES 18. Local government with jurisdiction: City of Yakima 19. For Corps. Coast Guard and DNR permits, provide names. addresses and telephone numbers of adjoining property owners, lessees, etc.. Please note: Shoreline Management Compliance may require additional notice — consult your local government. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER APPLICATION FOR PERMIT(S). I UNDERSTAND THAT IF A FEDERAL PERMIT IS ISSUED, I MUST SIGN THE PERMIT. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF LANDOWNER (EXCEPT PUBLIC ENTITY LANDOWNERS, E G. DNR) THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE AGENT, IF AN AUTHORIZED AGENT IS DESIGNATED. This section MUST be completed for any permit covered by this application 20. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. I hereby grant to the agencies to which this application is made, the right to enter the above-described location to inspect the proposed, in -progress or completed work. I agree start work ONLY after all necessary permits have been received. . C -1 DATE of Pt SIGNATURE APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT I HEREBY DESIGNATE TO ACT AS MY AGENT IN MATTERS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION FOR PERMIT(S). I UNDERSTAND THAT IF A FEDERAL PERMIT IS ISSUED, I MUST SIGN THE PERMIT. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF LANDOWNER (EXCEPT PUBLIC ENTITY LANDOWNERS, E G. DNR) THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE AGENT, IF AN AUTHORIZED AGENT IS DESIGNATED. 18 U S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any tnck, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false. fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false wntrng or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious. or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL A. Nature of the existing shoreline. (Describe type of shoreline, such as marine, stream, lake, lagoon, marsh, bog, swamp, flood plain, floodway, delta, type of beach, such as accretion, erosion, high bank, low bank, or dike; material such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, I rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any) I B. In the event that any of the proposed buildings or structures will exceed a height of thirty-five feet above the average grade level. indicate the approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view: C. If the application involves a conditional use or variance, set forth in full that portion of the master program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, in the case of a variance, from which the variance is being sought. These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employers. For special accommodation needs, please contact the appropriate agency in the instructions ECY 070-15 (Rev. 11/04) JARPA Contact the State of Washington Office of Regulatory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 800/917-0043 4 RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAKI MA PLANNING DIV. Deleted: • Yakima County GIS Yakima County - Washington Land Information Portal Print Map] 'Close Map] Page 1 of 1 Ym City Limits Sections RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. MAP AND PARCEL DATA ARE BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE. BUT ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED; THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A TITLE SEARCH, APPRAISAL, SURVEY, FLOODPLAIN OR ZONING VERIFICATION WWW.YAKIMAP.COM Yakima County GIS 128 N 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 (509)574-2990 Mapscale: 1m = 18632ft Copyright (C) 2006 Yakima County Printed On: 2/19/2Q0r8,,9:19:39 AM VOL.' NDEX http://yakimap.com/servlet/com.esri. esrimap.Esrimap?name=YakGISH&Cmd=PrintMap&... 2/19/2008 Y akima County CilS Yakima County - Washington Land Information Portal [Print Matl [Close Map] Page 1 of 1 YM=PAID • ii I jTtT ill11111B-EISIIIIii 1 EN Siiiarta fa7 —lora 704 rrio,-,44 liavaugati= rip Re51,... 0.11,Prirm,F11711111 P114'0181 Nip tr• CMS= 1.1111 = = 0=0 = ••••• • moos Di CMC112101 •••• •••••• • '""r •••• •• Map Center: I I Range:19 Township:13 Section:20 City Limits CI Sections RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. W1NW.YAKIMAP.COM Yakima County GIS 128 N 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 (509)574-2990 1.4 One Inch - 1200 Feet Feet 500 1000 1500 2000 MAP AND PARCEL DATA ARE BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE, BUT ACCURACY IS NOT GUARANTEED; THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A TITLE SEARCH, APPRAISAL, SURVEY, FLOODPLAIN OR ZONING VERIFICATION Copyright (C) 2006 Yakima County Printed On: 2/19/2008 9:22:40 AM DOC. INDEX http://yakimap.com/servlet/com,esri.esrimap.Esrimap?name=YakGISH&Cmd=PrintMap&... -2/197 • Yakima Greenway Foundation EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER G Notices EXHIBIT # ' . :, .- -- - • ',;'1 "' .3.- . , ' ,DOCUMENT. & ' . . :, : , ' ''''';" '' - :‘.' l': '''' .';:-',--: ' s ,° ' ' '' ,., , r' ' 'i • 4. ;' ''' G-1 Determination of Application Completeness 3/03/08 G-2 Land Use Action Installation Certificate 3/06/08 G-3 Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and Public Hearing 3/06/08 G-4 Legal Notice: Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and Public Hearing 3/06/08 G-5 Press Release: Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and Public Hearing 3/06/08 G-6 Parties and Agencies Notified 3/06/08 G-7 Affidavit of Mailing: Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and Public Hearing 3/06/08 G-8 Notice of Decision of Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) 3/27/08 G-9 Legal Notice: MDNS 3/27/08 G-10 Press Release: MDNS 3/27/08 G-11 Parties and Agencies Notified 3/27/08 G-12 Affidavit of Mailing: Notice of Decision of MDNS 3/27/08 G-13 Hearing Examiner Packet Distribution List 4/24/08 G-14 Hearing Examiner Agenda 4/24/08 G-15 Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet 4/24/08 G-16 Notification of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation to the City Council 5/12/08 G-17 Certified Mail to the Applicant 5/12/08 G-18 Applicant and Parties of Interest Notified of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation 5/12/08 G-19 Affidavit of Mailing: Notice of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation 5/12/08 G-20 Letter of Transmittal: City Council Public Hearing, Parties and Agencies Notified, and Vicinity Map 5/28/08 G-21 Agenda Statement for Set Date of City Council Public Hearing 6/03/08 G-22 Notice of City Council Public Hearing 6/13/08 G-23 Resolution and Agenda Statement for Public Hearing 7/01/08 • • • RESOLUTION NO. R -2008- A RESOLUTION approving the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve with conditions, the request of the Yakima Greenway Foundation for a Public Agency and Utility Exception under the City of Yakima's Critical Areas Ordinance (YMC 15.27.540) to build a pathway, cantilevered fishing piers and other associated amenities within the critical areas of Sarg Hubbard Park's Reflection Pond located at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington, and, authorizing the Mayor to direct staff to issue the appropriate Critical Area Substantial Development Permit. WHEREAS, on April 24, 2008, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the application of a Public Agency and Utility Exception to the City of Yakima's Critical Areas Ordinance to allow the construction ''of a pathway, cantilevered fishing piers and other associated amenities within the associated critical areas of Sarg Hubbard Park's Reflection Pond located at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington, submitted by Al Brown, Yakima Greenway Foundation Manager, City File No. CAO #2-08; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2008, the Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation approving the proposed Public Agency and Utility Exception subject to the descriptions and conditions contained within the City assigned file numbers UAZO CAO #2-08 and EC #11-08; and WHEREAS, as this Public Agency and Utility Exception comes before Council for review each member declares that he has had no contact with either the applicant or opponents of the proposed application; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON: The proposed Public Agency and Utility Exception recommended by the City's Hearing Examiner for construction of a pathway cantilevered fishing piers, and other associated amenities within the associated critical areas of Reflection Pond located within Sarg Hubbard Park at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington, is hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Critical Area Substantial Development Permit. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 1st day of July, 2008. ATTEST: City Clerk David Edler, Mayor DOC. INDEX # G-�3 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting Of: July 1, 2008 ITEM TITLE: Closed record hearing to consider a resolution to approve a request from the Yakima Greenway Association for a public agency and utility exception of certain setback and buffer requirements under the Yakima Critical Areas Ordinance (YMC Chapter 15.27) for the construction of a pathway, cantilevered fishing piers and other associated amenities around Sarg Hubbard Park's Reflection Pond. SUBMITTED BY: William R Cook Director of Community and Economic Development CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Jeff Peters Assistant Planner SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The Yakima Greenway Association applied to the City of Yakima for a critical areas development permit under the Yakima Critical Areas Ordinance (YMC Chapter 15.27) to construct a pathway, cantilevered fishing piers and other associated amenities around Sarg Hubbard Park's Reflection Pond. As part of that permit process, the Yakima Greenway Association requested that the City grant a Public Agency and Utility Exception allowing adjustment of certain critical areas setback and buffer requirements. On April 24, 2008, and in accordance with YMC 5.27.540, the City hearing examiner held an open public hearing regarding this request. Subsequently, the hearing examiner issued a formal Hearing Examiner's Recommendation on May 8, 2008, in which the hearing examiner found that the criteria of YMC 15.27.540 for approving a Public Agency and Utility Exception for the proposed pathway, fishing piers and amenities were satisfied and recommended that the public agency exception request be approved with conditions by the City Council. A copy of said Hearing Examiner Recommendation and a resolution approving the Yakima Greenway Association's request for a public agency exception for the proposed project are attached for City Council consideration. Resolution X Ordinance_ Contract _ Other Hearing Examiner's Recommendation Funding Source APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the hearing examiner's recommendation; adopt the resolution approving a public agency and utility exception for the proposed project and direct staff to issue the appropriate Critical Areas Substantial Development Permit. BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the Public Agency and Utility Exception with conditions on May 8, 2008. COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Recommended for full Council consideration and approval by the Council Economic Development Committee on February 6, 2008. COUNCIL ACTION: DOC. INDEX # C.�-a3 • YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Critical Area Public Agency and Utility Exception Yakima Greenway / City of Yakima NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Yakima City Council will conduct a closed record public hearing to receive public comment on the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve with conditions the request of the Yakima Greenway Foundation for a Public Agency and Utility Exception to the City of Yakima's Critical Area Ordinance (YMC 15.27.540) submitted by Bill Cook, City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development. This project is to build a pathway and cantilevered fishing piers within the associated critical areas around Reflection Pond. This project is located at 206 South 18th Street, Yakima, Washington. The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 1, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Yakima City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Any citizen wishing to comment on this request is welcome to attend the public hearing or contact the City Council in the following manner: 1) Send a letter via regular mail to "Yakima City Council, 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901"; or, 2) E-mail your comments to ccouncil.ci.yakima.wa.us. Include in the e-mail subject line, "Yakima Greenway." Please also include your name and mailing address. Dated this 4th day of June, 2008. Mailed Friday, June 13, 2008 Deborah J. Moore City Clerk DOC. . INDEX .„... • • • • ," • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT • For Meeting of June 3, 2008-.'::' ITEM TITLE: Set July 1, 2008, as the date for a Public Hearing in the Council Chambers at City Hall, for consideration of a: request., of the Yakima Greenway Association for a Public Agency and UtilitV; EXCeptiOn'qnder.the'4112'' Yakima's Critical Area Ordinance. (YMC " SUBMITTED BY: William R. Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development Department . CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner*(800Y;76-8:i83 • ,••. , „ • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: • , , .• , • This action will set July 1, 2008 at 7:00 pm as the date andtime for a cit‘40;y415irto::19 Hearing. This public hearing is regarding the Hearing Examiner's reCopirtiehdaticiMo,.app'0V:ky:,.., with conditions the request of the Yakima Greenway Association for a';•Pii6licAgeriditi.and-f.i.= Utility Exception to build a pathway and cantilevered fishing pier.S:w4biii,:,60':.4.)*)411010ifti6:::: areas around RefleCtion. Pond. (YMC 15.27:540) This project is located at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington. ••: • • - • : STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set July 1, 2008, as the date for the Public Hearing. • . 'BOARD'RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner recommended approval f,,AhePublic " . Agency and Utility Exception, with conditions on May 8, 2008. COUNCIL COMMITTEE. RECOMMENDATION: Recommenciedior fUijO • ‘s and approval by the Council Economic Development Committee. Oft FebruarX 6, 2008 bbv40.14.:ACT:Ist?i•k"-,' • • CITY OF YAKIMA, PLANNING DIVISION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division; have transmitted to: Debbie Moore, Yakima City Clerk, by hand delivery, the following documents: 1. Mailing labels for Yakima Greenway Foundation (CAO#2-08, EC#11-08). Including all labels for adjoining property owners within 500 feet of subject property, agencies and parties of record. 2. One black and white vicinity map. 3. I have also transmitted to Debbie Moore, Yakima City Clerk, by e-mail, a Legal Notice which was published for the Hearing Examiner public hearing. This will supply information to be included in the Clerk's legal notice of the City Council Public Hearing. Signed this 28th day of May, 2008. a J2.,t)11ittio�, l osalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist Received By: kxt.170_LL��1 C9Cr Date: L512_8/0 r DOC,. INDEX # 6-ao rage r or 1 Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:12 AM To: Moore, Debbie Subject: Yakima Greenway Legal Notice Attachments: Notice of Application and Hearing - Greenway_legal notice.doc Attached is the "Hearing Examiner Public Hearing" legal notice for Yakima Greenway, which is scheduled for a public hearing on fore the City Council. The mailing labels and vicinity map are on their way. Thanks! . J� p I+ 7 Rosalinda lbarra Planning Specialist City of Yakima Planning Division p: (509) 575-6183 riba rra@ci.yakima.wa.us 5/28/2008 DOC. INDEX • 20 31433 BLT GRA EL TR T BLLITTL TRUST")ELNW CO 0- O 191320-31434191 PO X 17 PO BOX 5 PO :OX ARIV , Arizona 85601 ARI C', Arizona :5601 ARI , Arizona 85601 120-24001 BOB HALL'S HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1262 YAKIMA, WA 98907-1262 191320-24433 191320-24009 CECIL E & E PATRICIA FITCHETT CENTRAL WASHINGTON STORAGE LLC 290 PERRY WAY 111 S 33RD ST #100 YAKIMA, WA 98901 YAKIMA, WA 98901-1471 191 20-24010 191320-24443 CEN RAL WA ING N STORAGE LLC GINGER L SPARKS 111 33 ST #10 301 CHALMERS ST YAKIM , WA 98901-1471 YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24439 •WEL & A RI 6 S J 2 YA , WA 98901 191320-24444 NEIL & NANCY ROOT 303 CHALMERS ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 -31902 OR ASPHALT CONCRETE PDX 10268 YAKIMA, WA 98909-1268 19 20-24440 4AL ART RE PO B BENTONVILLE, 191320-24404 JEWEL & ELLA RIDER 206 S 18TH ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24405 191320-24441 JOYCE EVANS SNIPE JULIO ARREOLA 3211 RIVERHURST DR 702 E NOB HILL BLVD FAYETTVILLE, North Carolina 2830] YAKIMA, WA 98901 I i 191320-31436 ROBERT L & EULA L NORMAN 503 POWELL ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2123 191320-24442 ROY & DIANE BEAMAN 1140 SCHULER GRADE YAKIMA, WA 98908-8841 191320-24003 1 1320-24004 O WAL MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TR W MART REA TATE USINESS PO BOX 8050 PO OX 80 BENTONVILLE, Arkansas 72712-8050 BENTO LLE, Arkansas 72712-8C 191320-13001 EST • E BUS ESS TRKIMA C 1 D ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2613 Arkansas 91320-13007 i'A'f Y 129 N 2ND ST (AKIMA, WA 98901-2613 L 1320-13.010 CA IMA CITY L2 N 2ND ST (AK -2613 72712-8050 191320-13006 Y IMA CITY 12 YAKIMA, WA 98901-2613 191320-13007 191320-13009 KIMA CITY IMA CITY 1 N 2 P 12 2ND YA , WA 98901- • 3 ; YAKIMA, A 98901-2613 '.5 labels printed for map shee( greenway • Yakima Greenway Foundation Attn: Al Brown 111 South 18th Street Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. INDEX OD -RG, SEPA Reviewer Army Corps PO Box c-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Sheila Ross Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. 1" Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 N 9th St. Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Ave. MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima, WA 98903 Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima Co Planning 128 N 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Vern Redifer Yakima Co Pub. Services 128 N 2"d St., 4`1) Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Bill Bailey Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. 128 N. 2"d St. 4th Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Philip Rigdon Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4th Ave. St. 305 Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy Q -West 8 S. 2"d Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima Co. Commissioners 128 North 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima Co Health Dist Art McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environ Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Transportation Planner YVCOG 311 N. 4th Street STE 202 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol & Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside Ct. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt Clean Air Authority 6 S. 2"d St., Room 1016 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 61 1 1 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Mose Segouches Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. PO Box 151 DOC. Toppenish, WA 989�}ThEX Mr. Doug Mayo fbewater Treatment Plant WSDOT Aviation Division John Sambaugh 3704 172nd St. N.E. Suite K-12 Arlington, WA_ 98223 Soil Conservation Dist Attn: Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 Martin Humphries Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima School District Attn: Ben Soria 104 N. 4th Ave 4 -.ma, WA 98902 Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Lavina Washines, Chairman Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 S. 18"' St. Yakima, WA 98901 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Eric Bartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24'x' Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mr. Buck Taylor Yakima Airport 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 WV School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 DOG. INDEX # �-ac STNUT STREET CHALMERS STREET Q i ES CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON VICINITY MAP FILE NO: CAO#2-08; EC#11-08 APPLICANT: Yakima Greenway Foundation REQUEST: Construct pathway (approx 840 lineal ft) along west and south of Reflection Pond. LOCATION: 206 South 18th Street • ,i Subject Propert Yakima City Limits '/" Scale -lin =400f1 0 200 400 Greenway 02/22/08 nt • r AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: CAO#2-08, EC#11-08 Yakima Greenway Foundation 206 South 18th Street I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Hearing Examiner Recommendation. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant by certified mail, and parties of record, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 12th day of MAY, 2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist DOC. iND`X Applicant and Parties of Interest Notified for NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION dated May 12, 2008. Applicant: Yakima Greenway Foundation File: CAO#2-08, EC#11-08 - [Certified Mail] Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown 111 South 18th Street Yakima, WA 98901 Dayana Sanchez Codes Mike Antijunti Engineering Sam Granato Police Chief Joan Davenport Traffic Engineering Dayana Sanchez Codes Mike Antijunti Engineering Sam Granato Police Chief Joan Davenport Traffic Engineering Jerry Robertson Codes City Legal Carolyn Belles Codes Charlie Hines Fire Chief Office of Neighborhood and Development Services Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Binder / File /Mail DECISIONS ONLY DOC INDEX • In rq u -I Ii rU N m O O Cl O N Lrl N 0 0 N ���t�U�IVI;��tfi�"aTa.�x omestic"ManlOnfy NollnsurancetCoverage Provided, Xmfri�mattonivts ourtwebsrte�at www`usps corr�tg Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown 111 S. 18th St, 98901 Postmark Here • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ' so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Yakima Greenway Foundation Attn: Al Brown 111 South 18th Street Yakima, WA 98901 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature Agent Affdressee B. Received by ( Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery S>3 -c , D. Ts delivery address different from Item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type 12.1`Eertliied Mail 0 Express Mall 0 Registered '.Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mall 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery'? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 7005 2570 0000 1372 0515 (Transfer from services Labe° PS Form 3811, February 2004 • Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 DOG. INDEX G-/? NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL May 12, 2008 • On May 8, 2008 the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his recommendation on UAZO EC#11-08, CAO#02-08. The applicant is requesting a public agency exception to eliminate the Critical Areas Ordinance wetland buffer and setback areas for the. construction of a pathway and two cantilevered fishing piers along the west and south sides of Reflection Pond in Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park. The application was reviewed at a public hearing held on April 24, 2008. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's findings and Recommendation is enclosed. • The Hearing Examiner's Recommendation will be considered by the Yakima City Council in a public hearing to be scheduled. The City Clerk will notify you of the date, time and place of the public hearing. For further information or assistance you may contact Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6163 at the City of Yakima, Planning Division. Jeff Peters Assistant Planner Date of Mailing: May 12, 2008 Enclosures: Hearing Examiners Recommendation DOC. INDEX # C.1—/(e • HEARING SIGN -IN SHED. CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS HEARING DATE: April 24, 2008 CASE FILE # APPLICANT SITE ADDRESS A. R/W VAC#1-08 Loveless & Johnson (CONTINUED, Vicinity 74th Ave & Englewood B. CAO#2-08 EC ##11-08 Yakima Greenway Foundation 206 South 18th Street PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY! Please indicate which proposal you are interested in: A, or B. CASE NAME w1L) \J“,C (6S ADDRESS f 11 61A0 S1), G e r LLI%fhi7 ZIP CODE DOC. INDEX #-! S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 575-6183 • Fax (509) 575-6105 • www.ci.yakima.wa.us CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA Yakima City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. INTRODUCTION HI. PUBLIC HEARING A. LOVELESS & JOHNSON (continued from 4/10/08) R/W VAC#1-08 Planner Assigned: Vaughn McBride Address: Vicinity 74th Ave & Englewood Request: Vacate of portion of right of way B. YAKIMA GREENWAY FOUNDATION. (2/19/08) . CAO#2-0 Planner Assigned: Jeff Peters EC#11-08 Address:: 206 South 18`11 Street Request: Construct pathway along West and South Sides of Reflection Pond IV. ADJOURNMENT If you are unable to attend the hearing, you may submit your comments in writing prior to the hearing. You may also submit written testimony at the hearing. 1 DOC,`. INDEX # S -/q • • Yakima bend 1994 Hearing Examiner Packet Vilkibution List Ai!BENDA ONLY KIT-KATS Radio 4010 Summitview, Suite 200 Yakima, WA 98908 KARY Radio 1200 Chesterly Dr. #160 Yakima, WA 98902 KIMA TV P.O. Box 702 Yakima, WA 98907 KNDO TV 1608 S. 24`h Ave Ilona, WA 98902 Yakima Herald -Republic P.O. Box 9668 Yakima, WA 98909 VIVA P.O. Box 511 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dave Zabell Assistant City Manager Dick Zais City Manager r Phil Lamb 311 North 3rd Street . Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima Assoc. of Realtors Gov. Affairs Committee 2707 River Road Yakima, WA 98902-1165 KCYU-FOX 68 David Okowski 3804 Kern Way #B .Yakima, WA 98902 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd. Yakima, WA 98901 Office of Rural FWH Marty Miller 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Ben Soria Yakima School Dist. #7 104 North 4th Street Yakima, WA 98902 Business Times Bruce Smith P.O. Box 2052 Yakima, WA 98907 Yakima Valley C.O.G. 311 N. 4th Street STE 202 Yakima, WA 98901 Codes Bulletin Board Ken Crockett Mike Brown Comm. Relations Sam Granato Police Chief Charlie Hines Fire Chief Debbie Moore City Clerk Carolyn Belles Codes KBBO-KRSE Radio 1200 Chesterlye Dr. St. 160 Yakima, WA 98902 Patrick D. Spurgin 411 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 KAPP TV Paul Gary P.O. Box 10208 Yakima, WA 98909-1208 Gary Cuillier 314 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Hearing ExaminerPacket AGENDA, STAFF REPORT, SITE PLAN AND MAPS Yakima County Planning County Courthouse Bill Cobabe ONDS Manager City Legal Department Doug Maples Codes and Planning Manager Binder Copy Engineering Mike Antijunti Bill Cook CED Director DON'T FORGET TO SEND ONE TO THE APPLICANT INDEX • • STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING Re: EC#11-08 Yakima Greenway 206 South 18th Street I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Decision (SEPA). A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant; SEPA reviewing agencies and all property owners of record within a radius of 500 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 27th day of March ,2008. • That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Rosalinda lbarra Planning Specialist • DOC. INDEX 191320-42001 BLT GRAVEL TRUST PO BOX 517 ARIVACA, Arizona 85601 191320-24001 BOB HALL'S HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1262 YAKIMA, WA 98907-1262 191320-24010 CENTRAL WASHINGTON STORAGE LLC 111 S 33RD ST #100 YAKIMA, WA 98901-1471 191320-24439 JEWEL & ELLA RIDER 206 S 18TH ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24444 NEIL & NANCY ROOT 303 CHALMERS ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 '191320-31902 SUPERIOR ASPHALT CONCRETE PO BOX 10268 YAKIMA, WA 98909-1268 913 -31434 LT TTLE OX 51 RUST A•IVACA, Arizona 85601 191320-24433 CECIL E & E PATRICIA FITCHETT 290 PERRY WAY YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24443 GINGER L SPARKS 301 CHALMERS ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24405 JOYCE EVANS SNIPE 3211 RIVERHURST DR FAYETTVILLE, North Carolina 2830 191320-31436 ROBERT L & EULA L NORMAN 503 POWELL ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2123 1 1320- B T NW PO BOX AR V•'A, A zona 85601 3 433 TRUS 1 320-2 CE TRAL AS.ING . ORAGE L 111 S 3RD S' •100 YAKI•A, WA 98901-1471 1 J� 206 YA 1320 WEL 4404 LLA ' DER H A, W• 98901 191320-24441 JULIO ARREOLA 702 E NOB HILL BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24442 ROY & DIANE BEAMAN 1140 SCHULER GRADE YAKIMA, WA 98908-8841 191320-24003 91320-2 004 WAL MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TR 'AL M•• EAL STATE BUSINES; PO BOX 8050 •• B. 805 BENTONVILLE, Arkansas 72712-8050 BONVILLE, Arkansas 72712-1 191320-24440 1.1320-13001 WA. MART • AL ES ATE = S.NESS TR Y•KI CITY PO :OX :05• 1 • kP T BEN • IILLE, rkansas 72712-8050 YAKIMA, WA 98901-2613 1 Y 1 YA A, WA 98901-2613 1320-13007 KIM• 4ITY 191320-13010 Yq IMA 12 N , D YA ' I M , WA 1-261 191320-13007 Y I • CIT 129 N ke ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2613 25 labels printed for map sheet greenway N1 -0,10Q5 -*12 i3 i3 ,/.11/os, 10686 8 81 �S ITT ucypepunoj deruraaI au (e 91320- •3006 AKIM •ITY 1 9 2N Y' MA, WA 98901-2613 19 320-13009 YA IM' ITY 12 YAKIMA, WA 98901-2613 • DOC;. INDEX # �,�/ OD -RG, SEPA Reviewer Army Corps P c-3755 , WA 98124 Sheila Ross Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. 1st Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 N 9th St. Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6`h Ave. MS 623 e, WA 98101 FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima, WA 98903 Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima Co Planning 128N2"d St. Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Vern Redifer Yakima Co Pub. Services 128 N 2"d St., 4th Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Bill Bailey Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. 128 N. 2"d St. 4th Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Iiilip Rigdon Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4th Ave. St. 305 Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy -Q-West 8 S. 2"d Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima Co. Commissioners 128 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima Co Health Dist Art McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environ Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Transportation Planner YVCOG 311 N. 4th Street STE 202 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol & Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside Ct. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt Clean Air Authority 6 S. 2"d St., Room 1016 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 6111 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Mose Segouches Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. PO Box 151 �� Toppenish, W 8 # 6—i/ Mr. Doug Mayo Wastewater Treatment Plant WSDOT Aviation Division John Sambaugh 3704 172nd St. N.E. Suite K-12 Arlington, WA 98223 Soil Conservation Dist Attn: Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 Martin Humphries Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima School District Attn: Ben Soria 104 N. 4th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Lavina Washines, Chairman Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Donna J. Bunten Critical Areas Coordinator D.O.E., Shorelands & Environ. PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 S. 18`h St. Yakima, WA 98901 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Eric Bartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24`h Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mr. Buck Taylor Yakima Airport 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 WV School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX • • • • • Press Release WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON March 27, 2008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This application involves Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Critical Area Review and approval under Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Exception. Approval of this application will effectively allow the construction of a ten - foot wide X 840 foot long pathway and the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers upon environmentally sensitive property (Reflection Pond) identified by the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan Critical Area Map as containing protected Class IV Wetlands. PROPONENT: Yakima Greenway Foundation / City of Yakima LOCATION: 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington PARCEL NUMBER(S): 191320-13009 & 13007 LEAD AGENCY: City of Yakima, Washington. FILE NUMBER: UAZO CAO #2-08, and EC #11-08. DETERMINATION: The lead agency for this proposal, after reviewing a completed environmental checklist, public and agency comments, and other related information, has determined that the project will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), provided the measures listed below are taken to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The information relied upon in reaching this determination is available to the public on request at the City of Yakima Planning Division. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-355, Optional DNS process. There will be no additional comment period for this MDNS. IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: This Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is hereby conditioned upon the following mitigating measures. Substantive authority to require mitigation is derived from WAC .197-11-660, Yakima Municipal Code YMC 6.88.160, and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which contain goals, policies, and regulations, which provide substantive authority to require mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act. This action is not exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC .197-11-800 Categorical Exemptions as this action involves the construction of a proposed, service road within a City of Yakima designated Critical Area and will require environmental review. Mitigation: Critical Area Construction Requirements: 1. The twenty five foot buffer for Wide Hollow Creek shall be reduced to 12.5 feet from the ordinary- high water mark with a twenty foot building setback from the buffer itself for a total building setback of 32.5 feet provided the conditions below are met. a. No structure shall exceed the approved 32.5 foot setback line under any circumstances unless approval is granted by the Yakima City Council under Chapter 15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Exception of the Yakima Municipal Code; YMC 15.02: Structure means anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground. DOC. INDEX b. The proposed pathway shall be sloped away from the pond in accordance with the recommendations of the Washington State Department of Ecology; c. Erosion control measures shall be installed to Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Standards prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface waters (including storm drains) by stormwater runoff,. d. All wetlands and their buffers shall be avoided as much as possible; e. Where wetland or wetland buffer disturbance occurs native wetland plants shall be replaced with native wetland species utilizing a 3:1 ratio; f The applicant (Yakima Greenway Foundation) shall installation native vegetation between the new paved trail and the pond in order to stabilize the bank and protect the wetland from sedimentation; g. During construction high visibility fencing shall be required to be installed to mark the limits of disturbance to protect the various sensitive area;, and h. Prior to construction the applicant shall submit building plans for the two fishing piers which meet Section 1805.4 of the International Building Code by a certified engineer. In addition, each plan page and the structural calculations shall also be stamped and signed by the engineer. 2. Storm Water: Prior to any construction, the Washington State Department of Ecology shall be contacted to determine if a NPDES stormwater construction permit is required 3. Restoration: All disturbed areas shall be returned to their original conditions or better by reseeding and/or additional plantings within thirty days from completion of the proposed pathway 4. Dust Control: (a) A Dust Control Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority prior to any phase of work.. (b) Vegetation on site which needs to be removed shall not be burned on or offsite. 5. Noise: During project construction all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. (YMC 6.04.180) 6. Other Governmental or Agency Permits: Any other state or local governmental permits not herein mentioned or required must be complied with in their entirety. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-355, Optional DNS process. There will be no additional comment period for this MDNS. APPEALS: This determination may be appealed to the Yakima Urban Area Hearing Examiner, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 2008. Be prepared to make factual objections. CONTACT PERSON: Contact Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner (509) 575-6163 for more information. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: William Cook POSITION / TITLE: Director Community & Economic Development TELEPHONE: 509 / 575-6113 ADDRESS: 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. INDF) • i kJ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACTo • TED DETERMINATION:OF" NON A IN OF YAKKIMAIMA,, WASHINGTON ' March 27,.2008 .DESCRIPTION: This application involves ,ntal Policy Act (SEPA) and Critical Area Re- i approval under Yakima Municipal Code 40 Publ Agency and t 11 x ption. Appro- iiis application wilt effectively allow-the construc- t a. ten-foot wide X:840' foot long pathway and.the ;ruction of two cantilevered fishing piers upon envi-• (dentally sensitive property (Reflection: Pond).identi- by the City of Yakima's Comprehensive-Plan Criti- iArea Map as containing protected Class IV Wet- s: DPONENT: Yakima Greenway Foundation /• City of ma ATION:206 S. 18th: Street, Yakima;' Washington CEL'NIJMBEf (S):.191321;73009-&-13007-.; (D:AGEDICY:, City-of.Yakima;,Washiiigton,'. ' "• °'NUMBER:.UAZO.CAO•#2-08;:and,'.F)r f(,i']:;AB. GERMINATION!'•The•iead.agency,-:for.;ttiis proposal, r'. reviewing: a- completed" environnientaiv checklist, )c 'and- agency-cornments, arld7other,'rpfated,infor- on has'• determined.lfiat theprojeit;will'hot' have a ;able' significant-•adverse.;impact.:on;.rhe. environ- 1,'arid an`environmentatirrmpkiitatetaint:(EIS) will �e requiredunder'RCW;49:21.0:030(2)(C)'rprovided . measutGd. res'lisbetaOl.,taret kens o;;tnitigate'poten- adveise-=irripedts:.The'Vrifoimation -relied+'upon in hing;this.deterrninatloniis,avallable'ta;;thipublic on estatlhe Ci,ty,of•Yeki0Flanning Ivtsion) 1 :MMDNS:is issued;bindef: VaYAtc;197.11 35$ Optionalioce-ss.•Therewillibna!Tiona cm ept pen- m.thisf4DNSr"s;:s i3,: v ITIFfED(ENvfnONME AMIMP.ACTS.AND MITI- iON:M + ^'_ ' EASURES:< c �.�+:''•`~.i�4Gv�_:tr;`: K''Mltlgateb ,' oeterrrt r tion'; Yof, 'Nonsignificance 61S)"istlfgre6.y cd iditinnediupon1he:=following miti- 9' m@askffeC P5ifarit4.1 sUthi> ' to i're u re: initi- fl.iecfriv d',fia 60; . ,,, 4'! imiiNiniic- p-ide YNQA.88 6o:a'-�` akimdiOc[i 'A'iea prehanside;'Rl0Afil6h:cM' Apgo41C,'polic es';:and alliki;;- iiicti;provld .subatarrifiQ aiithiiii `ii're- Aim nder the` tate-EmrUoiii' ental Policy a0(erii t. Ofl beState",Evwironmentai to+:A . ^ ate ncaf`Ez- lons;;as.This,actliin lfvo "eels -t `)uctf ; H�.COnSUCt10lt Of,a iseifs'elip rout'- it iiia 1fi;3ffflreCii),, ,,,,,,•,'fequfe a ftinaenta "evsew t ttidn. al Are CO strei eiiientts t',.-F::,..,.. e="lv ri! ?rW_71611t i er: o idi: 011eek Ser{edueed fo t.,2:4:teet *17, the o dl'"a ;:lir Wa= a avlt.f7 amtivehty40o't:bili ng'sefback .from .the Iltse/t t?e tiitatied ingrialiA614: 23 feet?pro- thnconco alio Eoaairaieine2 rcp,v, e:',,; •: v r st atilire"'S7iaJY'iritceed.; the-approved 32 5- toot •k; n 11c1klan '•oiftf inStaikes,,unless.approval bt�e��tl' e# fa aiaTIOTC,7M s '" PCtia ter 380= $bit8�j'Othe ` % r ottoVt the a:ltfunici al• l cf' ,Acur0osedi pathwa' half ttit pciA" acc ance:y ay, from ishlrj9t, Oft* e+ e0 t. ..0. i viii of � o;;tNasb- iTr"' W. e nay 9aer nwa'fst ., ��cdnsfrucfron. ci575fialvi�easur'esu vale 'rev at"soil irri cam'g4:``=R b; 9stgiliieater ilhe* ? ( eluding storm Ne111iids'and::thei(;.bufert'sball:be avoided as s possibie;r;',"&:'-;>; . ;' r: = • _ re,overland-or.wetl4lhtl`tTr"11fi•. 3Kurbance_ occurs Yetlinb•,vlants shah tor., epTaced viths.iietive wet- ecies,utiliiing a'3;J.`ratio,'vil "b' i., �$:;...,,;1:.:. . Rpt (Y A:i0ti • a T ""n�t?' akrma�;Greenii� "„Fotint�,alion : hall cc�� Y - tf' �)• Soni'*: thie;'vegetatfoo betweep th-e.-new; paved ttFie.pond,in ordei.7ostabiltig-the'bankand pro= we.'tland.frmn set imentafioe i ;i,;4 ;;i;4,r., - ,.• 57:r.giistal eslohlmark the/ im is of di urbaanc to ... he various sensitive' area; and • to'consirrictioi tiie applicant shall sutimlt•build- s' for,the'hvo; fishing. piers�tivbicli, meet Section ,f the:iiiternatloii j 8uildrrig;Code bp, a certified 7n adi5o,) -' acb plan•page and the; structural 7h.$ Walt ado? be 'stamped. and signed by the I:M:',1, i, ' ' .%';''''.7:'''''''',1:': ...'.%:' ' - • i- riot-t arty Oar srruchbn:-the•.iNash- fa ?hint ?hent of Ecol }� ri/n kPDESsf og hail:'t�esconta per- Au?aariatex coAsti* ion. per- ratitiff All:d"isltu be areas,4ha11:40etumed; to iiiai-fconiiitions or•tSeti@k•by reseedirig'.and/or I plantings withiri itiirty<d`a'ys fromii cpmpletion of sed-pat way.:;-. .' � e: -d, :. : ;; --, .E :ontrol-'.' ,.'. .. -, 5.:, >t:Conte t,Plan riivsitalllbmitteb'dV771, r7ap= :the>Yakima Ae loriat 9 Clean Air':' ' ori-4p• oliaseo/work: --.:;:- 5s«.z.x-:,..:.,.�a I:, slienion.sitexwiichneeds to ti= ..Yy tbd-o.114i.1.-offsite.: �.-rrr.:. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF WASHINGTON,) COUNTY OF YAKIMA RECEIVED APR 0 7 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DEBBIE MARTIN, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she/he is the Accountant of Yakima Herald -Republic, Inc., a daily newspaper. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper approved by the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Yakima County under an order made and entered on. the 13th day of February, 1968, and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newpaper in Yakima, Yakima County, Washington. Said newspaper is now and has been during all of said time printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed WASHINGTON STATE it was published of said newspaper DAY(S) to -wit; on is a true copy of a: ENVIRONMENTAL, in regular issues (and not in supplement form) once each DAY and for a period of 1 •the 27th day of MARCH, 2008 and the such newspaper was regularly during all of said period. That the for the foregoing publication is the / ,r• Accountant distributed to its full amount of the sum of $341.85 subscribers fee charged SUBSCRIBED.AND SWORN to bef e me this 27th day March, 2008 ?`411[> I /� NOTARY PUBLIC itn and State of Washington, residing at Yakima. for the DO”. INDEX NOTICE OF DECISION Compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) March 27, 2008 On March 6, 2008, the City of Yakima, Washington issued a Notice of Application and Environmental Review regarding an environmental checklist application submitted by the Yakima Greenway Association. This review concerns the construction of a ten -foot wide X 840 foot long pathway and the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers upon environmentally sensitive property (Reflection Pond) identified by the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan Critical Area Map as containing protected Class IV Wetlands , as more filly described in the attached. Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. The subject property is located at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington. A full legal description of this location can be obtained on request from the City of Yakima. Yakima, WA Parcel Number(s): 191320-13009 & 13007. City File Number: UAZO EC #11-08. Following the initial 20 -day public comment period, and consideration of all comments received, the City of Yakima has issued the enclosed Preliminary SEPA Threshold Decision. For further information or assistance, you may wish to contact Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner at (509) 575- 6163 at the City Planning Division. uce Benson, Acting Planning Manager Notice of Decision Mailing Date: March 27, 2008 Enclosures: SEPA Preliminary Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, Site Plan, Vicinity Map, and Mailing Map DOC. INDEX # 6,,S • • • WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON March 27, 2008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This application involves Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Critical Area Review and approval under Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Exception. Approval of this application will effectively allow the construction of a ten - foot wide X 840 foot long pathway and the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers upon environmentally sensitive property (Reflection Pond) identified by the City of Yakima's Comprehensive Plan Critical Area Map as containing protected Class IV Wetlands. PROPONENT: Yakima Greenway Foundation / City of Yakima LOCATION: 206 S. 18`h Street, Yakima, Washington PARCEL NUMBER(S): 191320-13009 & 13007 LEAD AGENCY: City of Yakima, Washington. FILE NUMBER: UAZO CAO #2-08, and EC #11-08. DETERMINATION: The lead agency for this proposal, after reviewing a completed environmental checklist, public and agency comments, and other related information, has determined that the project will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), provided the measures listed below are taken to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The information relied upon in reaching this determination is available to the public on request at the City of Yakima Planning Division. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-355, Optional DNS process. There will be no additional comment period for this MDNS. IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: This Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is hereby conditioned upon the following mitigating measures. Substantive authority to require mitigation is derived from WAC 197-11-660, Yakima Municipal Code YMC 6.88.160, and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which contain goals, policies, and regulations, which provide substantive authority to require mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act. This action is not exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197-11- 800 Categorical Exemptions as this action involves, the construction of a proposed service road within a City of Yakima designated Critical Area and will require environmental review. DDG. INDEX Mitigation: Critical Area Construction Requirements: 1. The twenty five foot buffer for Wide Hollow Creek shall be reduced to 12.5 feet from the ordinary high water mark with a twenty foot building setback from the buffer itself for a total building setback of 32.5 feet provided the conditions below are met. a. No structure' shall exceed the approved . 32.5 foot setback line under any circumstances unless approval is granted by the Yakima City Council under Chapter 15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Exception of the Yakima Municipal Code; b. The proposed pathway shall be sloped away from the pond in accordance with the recommendations of the Washington State Department of Ecology; c. Erosion control measures shall be installed to Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Standards prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface waters (including storm drains) by stormwater runoff; d. All wetlands and their buffers shall be avoided as much as possible; e. Where wetland or wetland buffer disturbance occurs native wetland plants shall be replaced with native wetland species utilizing a 3:1 ratio; f The applicant (Yakima Greenway Foundation) shall. installation native vegetation between the new paved trail and the pond in order to stabilize the bank and protect the wetland from sedimentation; g. During construction high visibility fencing shall be required to be installed to mark the limits of disturbance to protect the various sensitive area; and h. Prior to construction the applicant shall submit building plans for the two fishing piers which meet Section 1805.4 of the International Building Code by a certified engineer. In addition, each plan page and the structural calculations shall also be stamped and signed by the engineer. 2. Storm Water: Prior to any construction, the Washington State Department of Ecology shall be contacted to determine if a NP, DES stormwater construction permit is required 3. Restoration: All disturbed areas shall be returned to their original conditions or better by reseeding and/or additional plantings within thirty days from completion of the proposed pathway 4. Dust Control: (a) A Dust Control Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority prior to any phase of work. YMC 15.02: Structure means anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground. DOC. INDEX • • • • • (b) Vegetation on site which needs to be removed shall not be burned on or offsite. 5. Noise: During project construction all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. (YMC 6.04.180) 6. Other Governmental or Agency Permits: Any other state or local governmental permits not herein mentioned or required must be complied with in their entirety. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-355, Optional DNS process. There will be no additional comment period for this MDNS. APPEALS: This determination may be appealed to the Yakima Urban Area Hearing Examiner, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 2008. Be prepared to make factual objections. CONTACT PERSON: Contact Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner (509) 575-6163 for more information. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: William Cook POSITION / TITLE: Director Community & Economic Development TELEPHONE: 509 / 575-6113 ADDRESS: 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 DATE: March 27, 2008 SIGNATURE: DOC INDEX STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING Re: EC# 11-08, CAO#2-08 Yakima Greeway Foundation 206 South 18`h Street I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Application and Public Hearing with Environmental Review. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant; SEPA reviewing agencies and all property owners of record within a radius of 500 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 6th day of March ,2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist DQ. INDEX —7 • • • 191320-42001 BLT GRAVEL TRUST PO BOX 517 ARIVACA, Arizona 85601 I1 20-24001 BOB HALL'S HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1262 YAKIMA, WA 98907-1262 191 20-24010 CEN RAL WA 111 33 ST # 10 YAKI -, A 98901-1471 TON STORAGE LLC 191320-24439 J EL & ELLA RIDER 20. S 1: ST YA 191320-24444 NEIL & NANCY ROOT 303 CHALMERS ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 -‘) -31902 OR ASPHALT CONCRETE POX 10268 YAKIMA, WA 98909-1268 191320-31433 RUST BT NW COR CRUST ARIVACA, Arizona 85601 191320-24433 CECIL E & E PATRICIA FITCHETT 290 PERRY WAY YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24443 GINGER L SPARKS 301 CHALMERS ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24405 JOYCE EVANS SNIPE 3211 RIVERHURST DR FAYETTVILLE, North Carolina 2830 191320-31436 ROBERT L & EULA L NORMAN 503 POWELL ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2123 P BOX 5 AR , Arizona 5601 191320-24009 CENTRAL WASHINGTON STORAGE LL 111 S 33RD ST #100 YAKIMA, WA 98901-1471 191320-24404 JEWEL & ELLA RIDER 206 S 18TH ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24441 JULIO ARREOLA 702 E NOB HILL BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98901 191320-24442 ROY & DIANE BEAMAN 1140 SCHULER GRADE YAKIMA, WA 98908-8841 191320-24003 19 320-24004 WAL MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TR WA ► MARTEST. - BUSINESS PO BOX 8050 PO :s 0 BENTONVILLE, Arkansas 72712-8050 BENTONVILLE, Arkansas 72712-80 IP 191320-24440 191320-13001 1 1320-13006 WA MART RE E '•TE BUSINESS TR YAKIMA CITY YA MA CITY PO BOX :O t 1N 2ND_ 129 2ND _ BE VILLE, Arkansas 72712-8050 YAK IAA- 98901-2613 YAKIMA, WA 98901-2613 1'1320-13007 Y•KIMA ' 'Y 12? N 'ND T YA. i'•, WA 9:901-2613 L9 320-13 fA IMA C Y L29 N 2 ST (AKI , WA 98901-2613 191320-13007 AKIMA CI 9 N 2 ST YA , WA 98901-2613 Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown 111 South 18th Street Yakima, WA 98901 S spA , arcl ( ;(11/ 3Ls/GI 19 320-13009 YA MA CIT 129 2 ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2613 DOC. INDEX OD -RG, SEPA Reviewer Army Corps PO Box c-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Sheila Ross Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. 1S` Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 N 9th St. Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Ave. MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima, WA 98903 Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima Co Planning 128 N 2"d St. Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Vern Redifer Yakima Co Pub. Services 128 N 2nd St., 4th Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Bill Bailey Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. 128 N. 2"d St. 4th Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Philip Rigdon Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4th Ave. St. 305 Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy Q -West 8 S. 2nd Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima Co. Commissioners 128 North 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima Co Health Dist Art McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environ Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Transportation Planner YVCOG 311 N. 4th Street STE 202 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol & Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside Ct. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt Clean Air Authority 6 S. 2"d St., Room 1016 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 6111 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Mose Segouches Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 5948 INDEX # c_ e, M . Doug Mayo water Treatment Plant WSDOT Aviation Division John Sambaugh 3704 172nd St. N.E. Suite K-12 Arlington, WA 98223 Soil Conservation Dist Attn: Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 Martin Humphries Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima School District Attn: Ben Soria 104 N. 4th Ave Ira, WA 98902 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Lavina Washines, Chairman Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Donna J. Bunten Critical Areas Coordinator D.O.E., Shorelands & Environ. PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 S. 18`h St. Yakima, WA 98901 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Eric Bartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mr. Buck Taylor Yakima Airport 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 WV School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX Interoffice Distribution List Dayana Sanchez City Legal Codes Mike Antijunti Carolyn Belles Engineering Codes Sam Granato Police Chief Charlie Hines Fire Chief Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Joan Davenport Office of Neighborhood and Binder / File /Mail Traffic Engineering DECISIONS ONLY Development Services Jerry Robertson Codes Lir INDEX • • • • Press Release CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF APPLICATION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A CRITICAL AREA PUBLIC AGENCY AND UTILITY EXCEPTION DATE: March 6, 2008 TO: SEPA Reviewing Agencies, Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners FROM: Bruce Benson Acting Planning Manager SUBJECT: Notice of Application and Environmental Review concerning property located at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington. NOTICE OF APPLICATION Project Location: 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington Project Applicant: Yakima Greenway Foundation / City of Yakima File Number(s): UAZO CAO #2-08, and EC #11-08. Date of application: February 19, 2008 Date of determination of completeness: February 29, 2008 Tax Parcel Number(s): 191320-13009 & 13007 Project. Description: The City of Yakima Department of Community & Economic Development has received two related land use applications from the Yakima Greenway / City of Yakima. These two applications request: 1. Critical Area Review and approval under Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540 Pubic Agency and Utility Exception to allow the construction of a 10 -foot wide X 840 foot long pathway within the required 25 foot protective buffer around the west and south sides of Reflection Pond within Sarg Hubbard Park and the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers; and 2. Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed project in its entirety and any associated environmental impacts. Effect of Approval: Provided these applications are approved under the City of Yakima's Critical Area Ordinance Pubic Agency and Utility Exception (YMC 15.27.540), the proposed pathway and fishing piers would be allowed to encroach into the 25 -foot protective critical area wetland buffer of Reflection Pond to within six feet of ,the ordinary high water mark as proposed by the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Yakima has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) for this project. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination may be obtained on request and may be appealed pursuant to YMC 6.88.170. The optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 is being used. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Comment due date: March 26, 2008 Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed project and its probable environmental impacts. All written comments received by March 26, 2008 will be considered prior to issuing the final SEPA determination on this application. The following conditions have been identified that may be used to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposal: DOC: INDEX 1 This action is not exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197-11-800 Categorical Exemptions as this action involves the construction of a pathway within a designated Critical Area of the City of Yakima and will, require environmental review and a Critical Area Development Permit. 2. The wetlands surrounding Reflection Pond as identified in the wetland biology report prepared by Thomas Environmental Services titled Yakima Greenway Foundation Sarg Hubbard Park Trail Expansion Project classifies the site as containing Category IV wetlands. Category IV wetlands require a 25 -foot setback from the edge of the ordinary high watermark of the identified wetland. Construction of the proposed pathway within six feet of the ordinary high watermark will require application of the Public Agency and Utility Exception. 3. Reflection Pond is a stocked fish -bearing pond and therefore the following protective measures will be required: • a. The proposed pathway will be required to be sloped away from pond in accordance with the recommendations of the Washington State Department of Ecology; b. A silt fence will be required adjacent to the pond during construction to avoid release of sediment during construction; c. All wetlands and their buffers shall be avoided as much as possible; and d. Where wetland or wetland buffer disturbance occurs native wetland plants shall be replaced with native wetland species utilizing a 3:1 ratio. 4. The proposed area surrounding the pond at this location has been impacted by human disturbances and some; restoration may be required which includes: a. Installation of native vegetation between the new paved trail and the pond in order to stabilize the bank and protect the wetland from sedimentation. 5. During construction high visibility fencing will be required to be installed to mark the limits of disturbance to protect the various sensitive areas. 6. The proposed project involves grading, site preparation, construction, and/or landscaping work. Therefore, a dust control plan must be filed with the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority. 7. The proponent will be required to contact Department of Ecology prior to construction to verify if Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and NPDES permits are required, and obtain permits if necessary. 8. During project construction all contractors will be required to adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. (YMC 6.04.180) Required Permits — The following local, state, and federal permits/approvals are needed for the.proposed project: Grading permit, City of Yakima Critical Areas Review. Required Studies: None Existing Environmental Documents: Wetland Biology Report: Yakima Greenway Foundation Sarg Hubbard Park Trail Expansion Project Yakima, Washington: Prepared by Thomas Environmental Services. Preliminary determination of the development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and consistency: City of Yakima Critical Area Ordinance YMC 15.27 and City of Yakima Title 6.88 Environmental Policy Act Review. COC. INDEX • • • REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed applications and their probable environmental impacts. All written comments received by March 26, 2008 will be considered prior to issuing the final SEPA determination on this application. Please mail your comments on this proposal to: Bruce Benson, Acting Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Please be sure to reference the applicant's name or file number in your correspondence. (Yakima Greenway Foundation, UAZO CAO #2-08, and EC #11-08). NOTICE OF DECISION A copy of the SEPA threshold determination will be mailed to you after the end of the 20 -day comment period. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall. If you have any questions on this proposal, please call Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6163 or e-mail at jpeters @ci.yakima.wa.us. NOTICE OF "OPEN" RECORD PUBLIC HEARING. Pursuant to Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540, Public Agency and Utility Exception, an open record public hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner on April 24, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. If you have any concerns regarding this proposal, you can mail your comments to City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901. The Examiner's decision will be mailed to all parties of record within three -business days after receipt of the decision. If you have questions on this proposal, call Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6163. DOC. INDEX 67-S / OFIYAKIMA LICATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ' REVIEW ,EARING REGARDING A REQUEST ,1CALAREA:PUBLIC AGENCY AND . UTILITY EXCEPTION' ., .;h6;-2008. ......... rM �;: ::rw ...Reviewing Agenaies,•AppUcan&+and Adjoip- erty Owners ; /,' ' • Bruce Benson Acting Planning Manager ,JECT: Notice of .Application and Environmental ,view concerning - property located at 206 S. 18th treat, Yakima, Washington. OTiCE OF APPLICATION roject Location: 206 ;S..18th Street, Yakima, Wash- gton . r roject Applicant: Yakima Greenway Foundation / ity of Yakima le Number(s):.UAZO CAO #2-08, and EC #11-06. ate of;application:.February 19, 2008. . ate of'deternilnation of completeness: February 29, ax'Parcel Number(s):191320-13009 & 13007 roject Description: The City.of_Yakima Department Community & EconomlclDevelopment'has received o. related ..land' use • applications from the Yakima reenw3y.LCity of.,Yakima.:These'.two-applications. re- iest: .Critical Area Review and approval under:Yakima Mu- cipal Code '15.27.540 Public Agency and Utility Ex-. iption•to allow the construction of a 10-foot.wide X t0__foot'iong pathway..within the,required',25,foot pro - Clive buffer around.•the west.and;south.sides Of. Re- ction Pond within Sarg, Hubbard 'Park and the con- ruction:of:two'cantilevered fishing,piers; and .'.; ,' Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of -the pro- ised•project iri;its'entirety and any-associated•environ- ental impacts ;...•..-.,.. iect of Approval:,' Provided' these' applications are iproved'Under the'.Clty,oj.Yakima's•Gritital'Area Ordi- ince,' °Pu61i_��Agency end Utility r Ezcep ion -.(YMC 1.27540), 'theproposed ,.pathviay--and'.fishing piers )uld be.allowed-to-encroach•into the 25 -foot protective itical area. wetland.buffer;of Reflection; Pond; to. within 5 feet oftheordinary:high watej:inarkras proposed by eapplicant.; ,..; JVIRONMENTAL`REVIEW re-City.'of;Yakihia,,has ;r'aviewed the;p%Posed, project r: piobat to advdr_s'e",e rVrronmentai iritpa"cts and ex- cts .4o -issue a' mitigate i; d9termrnationkpf''nonsignifi- .rice;(MDNS)- fdr".iihiy;`p roject;'A cOAy:of the subse- lentithreshold.determidatio ma"ybeLabtaip' d:on re- st I.: %e a e dLmpu 9pwr) ,,�„S.process.maNAC:•9.a, {'3�5is'.being ed: This,. may:. be:your onrefipoitunfty to.com- ant''on'tFie environ'mertalampeets`of;tlie.proposed " ininientdu`e:datel'Marc '� ipt't fr26,,z2008, jenefesvthbes,;and:tfie piib1iq eicoureged to re- iw.and,:comment`on',the:;proposed;'project-and its Dbable; environrentat;impacts�, _II•writferi comments seived.ijy` Ma`rcti"26 %2008; wi'be°const8eredptior.to wing:the;fiiaF:SEP,A:detarininatiTrrr titi.abpli_catlon. ie`following d6r ditions Fiaveb n$i, eniifeq;that,may uSeij'tomitigate'the. adverse: erivirorimental. impacts thepropeed1';::"x,'+_.;i =x'-'x:r'it•':1 XY'15'"r,•i#w• i[t :acir riisngi�cXer ptirol omen- P ;._ , i; oli ",,ACt�'under.-MVAC,;197:�;#.?BOO�ategoilcal;,Ez- Iptions.aeihis actiarr,, involvesithb; d structtonl of a thway;withia-'a_ designated'Cnttcat:Area'df fie.City of ikirna'and:.wilt`:require:4env_ironme7rfa"I°ieview aiie a iticaLAi'ea!DeveloPment�ermlPi.•`Q r;�t�,'�"�`-�`,;.;; The vetiandssurrounding>-Fellectiori'P_ond s°identi- d'in th'OiHetland=tiiblog9: i'e"poit-.pf pafed?bi•Tfiomas rvironrnentatServices .titled= Yakima&Gteenwav:•Foun=• tion SargHubberdParkTral'ExbansionTroiectclas- tes the'site'as•containing,Category; IV wettands:-Cate, ry IV:Wetlands require'.a _257oot.,setb-acki4roth' the geof,the."ordinary.high watermark of:the:identified Aland. "Constriction of the ,propdsed`, patFiway. within feet ofiheordinary high'watermark will::regtiire appli- libn oftlie;Public Agency and Utility. Exception. • - 'Reflection:Pond is a' stocked- fish=bearing' pond• and tre[o�e;the following protectivemeasures will be re- Ttie'•.proposed:patfiway will':be:required to be sloped 'ayirorn.;pond in.a'ccordance,with;the,!•recommenda- is:ofTh Washington' State' Department• of: Ecology; A'slittenc@'will be required adjacent to the pond dur- 'construction to avoid release. of sediment during istruetion;; ,, .. AR; Aretlarlds, end.ttjeira'buffefs: shad be..avoided as cFiaspossible;nd.••- " Nherewetland-or wetland buffer -disturbance occurs ive wetland' plants shall be replaced with native'wet- d species utilizing a 3:1 ratio. ;:`:' •' flareb.-StimAridih1'g h pond"atthis'loca- r. has been' impacted by- human disturbances and rte -*esteration may be 'required which includes: - Installation, of native vegetation between the new 'ed trail and the pond in order..to stabilize the bank I protectthe'wetland from sedimentation.' Juring.construction'high visibility fencing will be.re- ed to be installed to mark.the limits'of disturbance to tect the various sensitive areas;•w, ; ?ie proposed project involves, grading,.site prepara- ; construction; and/or landscaping work. Therefore, ust control plan rriust be filed with .the Yakima Pe- tal Clean Air Authority. • he proponent will be required to contact Department AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION RECEIVED STATE OF WASHINGTON,) APR 0 7 2008 ) CITY OF YAKIM� COUNTY OF YAKIMA ) PLANNING DIV. ' DEBBIE MARTIN, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she/he is the Accountant of Yakima Herald -Republic, Inc., a daily newspaper. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper approved by the Superior Court of the State • of Washington for Yakima County under an order made and entered on the 13th day of February, 1968, and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newpaper in Yakima, Yakima County, Washington. Said newspaper is now and has been during all of said time printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a: CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF APPLI, it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form) of said newspaper once each DAY and for a period of 1 DAY(S) to -wit; on the 6th day of MARCH, 2008 and the such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the.foregoing publication is the sum of $432.15 SUBSCRIBED AND Accountant SWORN to befo me thhis7lth day (�f March, 2008 NOTARY PUBLIC in and State of Washington, residing at Yakima. for the DOC. INDEX • CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF APPLICATION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A CRITICAL AREA PUBLIC AGENCY AND UTILITY EXCEPTION DATE: March 6, 2008 TO: SEPA Reviewing Agencies, Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners FROM: Bruce Benson Acting Planning Manager SUBJECT: Notice of Application and Environmental Review concerning property located at 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington. NOTICE OF APPLICATION Project Location: 206 S. 18`h Street, Yakima, Washington Project Applicant: Yakima Greenway Foundation / City of Yakima File Number(s): UAZO CAO #2-08, and EC #11-08. Date of application: February 19, 2008 Date of determination of completeness: February 29, 2008 Tax Parcel Number(s): 191320-13009 & 13007 Project Description: The City of Yakima Department of Community & Economic Development has received two related land use applications from the Yakima Greenway / City of Yakima. These two applications request: 1. Critical Area Review and approval under Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540 Pubic Agency and Utility Exception to allow the construction of a 10 -foot wide X 840 foot long pathway within the required 25 foot protective buffer around the west and south sides of Reflection Pond within Sarg Hubbard Park and the construction of two cantilevered fishing piers; and 2. Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed project in its entirety and any associated environmental impacts. INDEX # _3 Effect of Approval: Provided these applications are approved under the City of Yakima's Critical Area Ordinance Pubic Agency and Utility Exception (YMC 15.27.540), the proposed pathway and fishing piers would be allowed to encroach into the 25 -foot protective critical area wetland buffer of Reflection Pond to within six feet of the ordinary high water mark as proposed by the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Yakima has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) for this project. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination may be obtained on request and may be appealed pursuant to YMC 6.88.170. The optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 is being used. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Comment due date: March 26, 2008 Agencies, tribes,. and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed project and its probable environmental impacts. All written comments received by March 26, 2008 will be considered prior to issuing the final SEPA determination on this application. The following conditions have been identified that may be used to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposal: 1. This action is not exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197-11-800 Categorical Exemptions as this action involves the construction of a pathway within a designated Critical Area of the City of Yakima and will require environmental review and a Critical Area Development Permit. 2. The wetlands surrounding Reflection Pond as identified in the wetland biology report prepared by Thomas Environmental Services titled Yakima Greenway Foundation Sarg Hubbard Park Trail Expansion Project classifies the site as containing Category IV wetlands. Category IV wetlands require a 25 -foot setback from the edge of the ordinary high watermark of the identified wetland. Construction of the proposed pathway within six feet of the ordinary high watermark will require application of the Public Agency and Utility Exception. 3. Reflection Pond is a stocked fish -bearing pond and therefore the following protective measures will be required: a. The proposed pathway will be required to be sloped away from pond in accordance withthe recommendations of the Washington State Department of Ecology; - b. A silt fence will be required adjacent to the pond during construction to avoid release of sediment during construction; c. All wetlands and their buffers shall be avoided as much as possible; and DOC INDEX. # <a'3 • • • • d. Where wetland or wetland buffer disturbance occurs native wetland plants shall be replaced with native wetland species utilizing a 3:1 ratio. 4. The proposed area surrounding the pond at this location has been impacted by human disturbances and some restoration may be required which includes: a. Installation of native vegetation between the new paved trail and the pond in order to stabilize the bank and protect the wetland from sedimentation. 5. During construction high visibility fencing will be required to be installed to mark the limits of disturbance to protect the various sensitive areas. 6. The proposed project involves grading, site preparation, construction, and/or landscaping work. Therefore, a dust control plan must be filed with the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority. 7. The proponent will be required to contact Department of Ecology prior to construction to verify if Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and NPDES permits are required, and obtain permits if necessary. 8. During project construction all contractors will be required to adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. (YMC 6.04.180) Required Permits — The following local, state, and federal permits/approvals are needed for the proposed project: Grading permit, City of Yakima Critical Areas Review. Required Studies: None Existing Environmental Documents: Wetland Biology Report: Yakima Greenway Foundation Sarg Hubbard Park Trail Expansion Project Yakima, Washington: Prepared by Thomas Environmental Services. Preliminary determination of the development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and consistency: City of Yakima Critical Area Ordinance YMC 15.27 and City of Yakima Title 6.88 Environmental Policy Act Review. REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed applications and their probable environmental impacts. All written comments received by March 26, 2008 will be considered prior to issuing the final SEPA determination on this application. Please mail your comments on this proposal to: Bruce Benson, Acting Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development 129 North rd Street Yakima, WA 98901 DO( INDEX # C-3 Please be sure to reference the applicant's name or file number in your correspondence. (Yakima Greenway Foundation, UAZO CAO #2-08, and EC #11-08). NOTICE OF DECISION A copy of the SEPA threshold determination will be mailed to you after the ,end of the 20 -day comment period. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall. If you have any questions on this proposal, please call Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6163 or e-mail at jpeters @ci.yakima.wa.us. NOTICE OF "OPEN" RECORD PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Yakima Municipal Code 15.27.540, Public Agency and Utility Exception, an open record public hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner on April 24, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. If you have any concerns regarding this proposal, you can mail your comments to City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901. The Examiner's decision will be mailed to all parties of record within three -business days after receipt of the decision. If you have questions on this proposal, call Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6163. Encl.: Environmental Checklist, Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application Form, Narrative, Site Plan, Wetland Biology Report, Vicinity and Mailing Maps. DOC. INDEX G • • CITY OF YAKIMA LAND USE ACTION INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE Project Number: (J A -Lo a Z -v3 5 Date of Installation: 3 v( ._ pre Location of Installation (Check One) Land Use Action Sign is installed per standards described in YUAZO § 15.11.090(C). Land Use Action Sign is installed in an alternate location on the site. Note: this alternate location (if not pre -approved by the Code Administration and Planning Manager) may not be acceptable by the Code Administration and Planning Division and is subject to relocation (at the owner's expense) to a more visible site on the property. The alternative location is: I hereby testify that the sign installed fully complies with the Land Use Action sign layout specifications and installation standards, and that the sign will be maintained until a decision has been rendered. Applicants Name (please print) Date Applicants Signature A Telephone Number of Applicant The required comment period will begin when the Code Administration and Planning Division have received the Land Use Action Sign Installation Certification. The date of installation certificate receipt will begin the notice period. Failure to post a Land Use Action sign and return this form in a timely manner will cause a delay in the application review. Please remit the above certification and deliver; FAX at 509-575-6105; or mail to: City of Yakima, Code Administration and Planning Division, 129 North ,Sgc.ond Street, Yakima, WA 98901. INDEX Date: To: uir ii i raCry ; i CUMMUN/Y Y AND ECONOMIC DF`' LOPMENT William R. Coe,., Director Doug Maples, CBG, Code Admin. and Planning Manager Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 575-6183 c Fax (509) 575-6105 March 3, 2008 Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown 111 S. 18th Street Yakima, WA 98901 Subject: Determination of Application Completeness for requested State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review EC# 11-08 and Critical Area Ordinance Review (CAO) CAO 12-08. Proposal: Environmental review of construction of a pathway located upon property designated as a critical area associated with Reflection Pond within property owned by the City of Yakima. Location: 206 S. 18th Street, Yakima, Washington Parcel No(s). 191320-13009 & 13007 Your application was initially submitted the week ending February 23, 2008. Following additional information received February 28, 2008 your application has been determined to be complete for further processing as of March 3, 2008. Continued processing of your request will include, but is not limited to, the following actions: 1. A Notice of Application is to be sent to all property owners within 500 feet of your site. This notice will include a request for public comments during a 20 -day comment period as is required by the City of Yakima. Notice of Application is scheduled to be issued on March 6, 2008 and the comment period will end on March 26. 2008. 2. Following the comment period a SEPA threshold determination will be issued after March 26, 2008. This is followed by a 14 day SEPA Appeal period that will ends approximately April 15, 2008. If not appealed a staff report will be prepared by the Planning Division, which will include a recommendation to the hearing examiner as well as any recommended conditions of approval. 3. An open record public hearing is scheduled before the City of Yakima's hearing examiner for April 24, 2008 at 9:00AM in the City Council's hearing chamber at City Hall. The hearing examiner will then issue his decision ten businesses days following the conclusion of the public hearing. You may contact me at (509) 575-6163 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Retz., Jeff Peters Assistant Planner H'H'H'.ci _Vaki11ra.Wa.us • • S Ya i;ima DOC. INDEX \ ((:� # �tII • Yakima Greenway Foundation EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER H Comments and Site History EXHIBIT # _ DOCUIIIENT w' H-1 Letter: Yakima County Parks and Recreation Department 1/30/1984 H-2 Letter from Mr. Robert D. Swackhamer, Dept. of Ecology to Mr. Bill Hammett, Superior Asphalt and Concrete 09/11/2006 H-3 Letter from Mr. Robert Swackhamer, Dept. of Ecology to Mr. Al Brown, Greenway Foundation 11/19/2007 H-4 E-mail from Catherine Reed, Dept. of Ecology to Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner 11/30/2007 H-5 Letter from Mr. Donald Abbott, Dept. of Ecology to Mr. Bill Hammett, Superior Asphalt and Concrete 01/03/2008 H-6 Letter from Mr. Robert Swackhamer, Dept. of Ecology to Mr. Al Brown, Greenway Foundation 01/30/2008 • • • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY :IVSD FEB 0 1 2008 ,;3TY LEGAL DEPT. 15 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 • Yakima, Washington 98902-3452 • (509) 575-2490 January 30, 2008 Mr. Al Brown Executive Director Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 South 18th Street Yakima WA 98901 RE: Yakima Greenway Pond Access Path Plans Satisfy Restrictive Covenant Dear Mr. Brown: Thank you for the drawing by PLSA Engineering and Surveying and the information you provided me verbally during your January 17, 2008, visit to this office regarding the proposed extension of the access path along the west and south shore of the pond in Sarg Hubbard Park. Your verbal information included the facts that the thickness of the asphalt will be three inches and that the asphalt will be placed atop a gravel subgrade that also will be three inches thick. Motorized vehicles operated by the public will not be allowed on the path (just pedestrians, baby strollers, and bicycles) although Greenway maintenance workers will operate small motorized vehicles on the path. Ecology previously had received a letter from Brad Card on October 30, 2007, regarding the path extension. I responded with a letter to you November 19, 2007. Jeff Cutter, Randy Baer, you and I also met at the site on October 17, 2007, to discuss the same topic. Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program is involved because a cleanup conducted by Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company in the area included a restrictive covenant that requires Ecology approval for changes. Based on my review, I am pleased to inform you that I find the project to be in compliance with the requirements of the restrictive covenant. Accordingly, the project is hereby approved, subject to the fulfillment of the following condition: Construction and use of the path shall not result in exposure to hazardous substances remaining at the site. PC)C. INE)EX C) Mr. Al Brown January 30, 2008 Page 2 This approval does not relieve the Greenway of its obligation to comply with all other federal, state, and local requirements. My telephone number is (509) 454-7840 if you have questions or comments on matters contained in this letter. Sincerely, /F, -w Robert D. Swackhamer, PE Environmental Engineer Toxics Cleanup Program cc: Randy Baer, Baer Testing an&Consulting Brad Card, PLSA Jeff Cutter, City of Yakima Legal Department Cathy Reed, Ecology Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program INDLX • • • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 15 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 • Yakima, Washington 98902-3452 • (509) 575-2490 .i,AN 0 4 008 CITY LEui DEPT. January 3, 2008 CERTIFIED MAIL 7006 0100 0002 8191 7495 Mr. Bill Hammett Superior Asphalt and Concrete 2000 East Beech PO Box 10268 Yakima, WA 98909 RE: Superior Asphalt Beech Street, Facility Site ID # 488, Order No. 91TC-C444 Has Been Satisfied Dear Mr. Hammett: On October 31, 1991, Ecology issued Order No. 91TC-C444 to Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company ("Superior") regarding clean up of the site at 2000 East Beech Street in Yakima following discovery of a petroleum seep into an adjacent park pond. On October 20, 1997, Ecology issued Amendment No. 1 to Order No. 91 TC -C444. On June 6, 2000, Ecology issued Amendment No. 2 to Order No. DE 91 TC -C444. Section VI. of Order No. 91 TC -C444 states: "The provisions of this Order shall be deemed satisfied upon Superior Asphalt's receipt of written notification from Ecology that Superior Asphalt has completed the remedial activity required by this Order, as amended by any modifications, and that all other provisions of this Enforcement Order have been complied with." The Department of Ecology hereby determines that Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company has satisfied the requirements of Order No. 91 TC -C444 and its two amendments. Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company has completed the remedial activity required by the Order. All other provisions of the Order also have been complied with. Background Superior completed an interim action in 1994 by placing a liner and product collection system downgradient, of the affected area. From 1998 through 2002, Superior conducted cleanup activities that included removal of equipment from the site associated with asphalt batch plant operation, excavation of petroleum contaminated soil down to and below seasonal low groundwater elevation, removal of petroleum product floating on ground water, and restoration of the site to surrounding grade while maintaining the liner and product recovery system installed in the interim action. The excavated petroleum contaminated soil was transported to the location of the new Superior plant DOC. INDEX 0 Mr. Bill Hammett January 3, 2008 Page 2 near Selah, where it was incorporated into new asphalt being produced. At the Beech Street site, a small amount of petroleum contaminated soil remains east of the lined interception trench. The contaminatedsoilfrom this small area was not excavated in order to minimize damage to the existing wetlands and ponds and to maintain the integrity of the trench liner. In a June 24, 2003, letter, Site Manager Norm Hepner of Ecology approved a modification of the "Alternate Ground Water Monitoring Plan, Superior Asphalt Enforcement Order DE 91 TC -C444" submitted by Herrera Environmental Consultants on behalf of Superior. On June 7, 2006, Ecology received "2005 Annual Ground Water Monitoring Report" submitted by Herrera Environmental Consultants on behalf of Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company on monitoring conducted in accordance with the alternate monitoring plan. The document reports on sampling events for diesel and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons on eight dates from 4/18/03 to 1/9/06. In 49 of the 50 individual results, the constituent analyzed for was not found above the reported detection limit. The one instance in which a constituent was detected showed a diesel concentration of 0.37 mg/kg, which is below the MTCA Method A cleanup level of 0.5 mg/kg. That sample came from the earliest (4/18/03) round of sampling covered in the report. The last remaining requirement from Order DE 91 TC -C444 was satisfied when a restrictive covenant was recorded placingconditions on the property for the purpose of prohibiting activities that may interfere with the integrity of the cleanup or result in exposure to hazardous substances. Ecology again thanks Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company for pursuing this cleanup. Please call Bob Swackhamer at (509) 454-7840 if you have questions or comments on matters contained in this letter. Sincerely, Donald W. Abbott Section Manager Toxics Cleanup Program Central Regional Office cc: Randy Baer, Baer Testing and Consulting Al Brown, Yakima Greenway Aaron Davis, Superior Asphalt and Concrete Charles Flower, Flower & Andreotti Peter Jowise, Herrera Environmental Consultants Pete Matheson, Granite Northwest, Inc. Ray Paolella, City of Yakima NUL.}; # �S • • • • • Peters, Jeff From: Reed, Catherine D. (ECY) [CRAJ461@ecy.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 5:59 PM To: Peters, Jeff Cc: Swackhamer, Robert D. (ECY); Lewis, Jeff (ECY) Subject: Proposed Yakima Greenway path extension around upper pond in Sarg Hubbard Park Thanks for arranging a site visit to Sarg Hubbard Park (Park) today. Ecology has the following comments about the wetland issues associated with this preliminary project proposal: The wetland ponds are "associated" with the Yakima River even though they are outside of the 200 -foot distance from the River. They are influenced by the River and they have an influence on the River by their capacity to treat stormwater and provide open water off channel habitat for some waterfowl. The upper pond has much less habitat function than the lower pond and the upper pond has primarily a water quality and hydrologic support function. A shoreline permit for the project may be needed if there is work within or over the pond(s). The physical setting of the site and existing location of structures (including existing pathway and cyclone fence line) make it difficult to increase the existing buffers this area. There is only a small area to work within, especially on the west side of the pond. Fortunately, protection of water quality improvement and hydrologic support functional values require a smaller buffer than that which is needed to protect habitat functions. In addition, because public access to the shoreline is a preferential use under 90.58 RCW (the Shoreline Management Act) and the Park area is already in an Urban shoreline setting, placement of a asphalt pathway within the setback buffer around the upper pond is acceptable to Ecology in order to facilitate/control public access to the pond. The public is already using the pond and there are trampled footpaths within several feet of the upper pond. Placement of an asphalt pathway higher on the slope above the pond, with designated T -access paths to the shoreline or to a fishing platform would improve the situation. The placement of the asphalt pathway provides some benefits to balance against its intrusion into the buffer area. Those benefits include additional protection of the impermeable liner and a mechanism for funneling the ongoing fishing activities of the public to specific areas of the pond banks. Those benefits should help prevent erosion, especially if additional thorny native plants (like roses and hawthorns) are planted in buffer areas in between the pathway and the pond where you do not want the public to go. Extension of the cyclone fence along the south end of the upper pond (north end of the lower pond) should help prevent the public from accessing the lower pond, which has a higher habitat value. I checked with Bob Swackhamer (Ecology Toxic Cleanup program) about whether it was OK to plant trees or shrubs over the liner. He said that trees may be a problem, but that shrubs probably would be OK. If you need to take trees down (like the Russian olive tree adjacent to the upper pond) in order to install the pathway or to simply remove a non-native plant, you could plant native replacement trees in another location to avoid the liner area— maybe next to the lower pond. I would encourage the Greenway Foundation to plan a pathway location which allows for as big a densely planted buffer as makes sense for the design restrictions. Inexpensive native plants are typically available from the North Yakima Conservation District if you order them ahead of time. Thank your for the opportunity to review your project early in your planning phase to weigh in on the wetland issues. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Catherine D. 4ed '(l'et&znd andSfore[ands specialist 41 'ashington State Department of Ecology 15 'i l 'est t akima Avenue, Suite 200 4/2/2008 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 15 West Yakima Avenue; Suite 200 • Yakima, Washington 98902.3452 • (509) 575=2490 November 19, 2007 Mr. Al Brown Executive Director Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 South 18th Street Yakima WA 98901 RE: Yakima Greenway Pond Access Path Dear Mr. Brown: Thank you for the letter from Brad Card of PLSA Engineering & Surveying on behalf of the Yakima Greenway Foundation regarding the proposed extension of the access path along the west and south shore of the pond in Sarg Hubbard Park. Ecology received the letter from Mr. Card on October 30, 2007. Jeff Cutter, Randy Baer, you and I also met at the site on October 17, 2007, to discuss the same topic. Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program is involved because a cleanup conducted by Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company in the area included a restrictive covenant that requires Ecology approval for changes. During the on-site meeting we discussed two general path routes. One would leave the remaining contaminated soil protected by a fence and go around the fence up into the parking lot The other one closely follows the shore and is proposed in Mr. Card's letter. As I said at our meeting, the option leaving the contaminated soil protected by a fence could be approved without Ecology becoming too closely involved in the details. Your proposed route along the shore requires more scrutiny. I can say at this point that paths over contaminated soil have been approved elsewhere and I am not aware of a reason the concept would not work here. Mr. Card's letter does describe the proposed path in words, but does not contain the construction details that would enable Ecology to provide the concurrence he seeks. DOC INDEX # u 3 Ct • • • • • Mr. Al Brown November 19, 2007 Page 2 There also are wetlands issues that must be considered along the entire route of the new path, not just the portion that coincides with the Superior Asphalt cleanup liner. I have spoken with Cathy Reed of this office, who told me that it is best for wetlands impacts to be considered from the very beginning in designing the project. She is willing to visit the site and discuss wetlands issues, although such discussions with Ecology do not take the place of you retaining an experienced specialist to work on the project. The phone number for Cathy Reed is (509) 575-2616. My telephone number is (509) 454-7840 if you have questions or comments on matters contained in this letter. Sincerely, Robert D. Swackhamer, PE Environmental Engineer Toxics Cleanup Program cc: Randy Baer, Baer Testing and Consulting Brad Card, PLSA Jeff Cutter, City of Yakima Legal Department .Cathy Reed, Ecology Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program D CY INDEX La_3 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 15. West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 • Yakima, Washington 98902-3452 • (509) 575-2490 September 11, 2006 CERTIFIED MAIL 7005 1820 0006 5952 7849 Mr. Bill Hammett Superior Asphalt and Concrete 2000 East Beech PO Box 10268 Yakima, WA 98909 RE: Superior Asphalt Beech Street, Facility Site ID # 488, Institutional Controls Needed to Close Out Order No. 91TC-C444 Dear Mr. Hammett On October 31, 1991, Ecology issued Order No. 91TC-C444 to Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company ("Superior") regarding clean up of the site at 2000 East Beech Street in Yakima following discovery of a petroleum seep into an adjacent park pond. On October 20, 1997, Ecology issued Amendment No. 1 to Order No. 91TC-C444. On June 6, 2000, Ecology issued Amendment No. 2 to Order No. DE 91TC-C444. Superior completed an interim action in 1994 by placing a liner and product collection system downgradient of the affected area. From 1998 through 2002, Superior conducted cleanup activities that included removal of equipment from the site associated with asphalt batch plant operation, excavation of petroleum contaminated soil down to and below seasonal low groundwater elevation, removal of petroleum product floating on ground water, and restoration of the site to surrounding grade while maintaining the liner and product recovery system installed in the interim action. The excavated petroleum contaminated soil was transported to the location of the new Superior plant near Selah, where it was incorporated into new asphalt being produced. At the Beech Street site, a small amount of petroleum contaminated soil remains east of the lined interception trench. The contaminated soil from this small area was not excavated in order to minimize damage to the existing wetlands and ponds and to maintain the integrity of the trench liner. In a June 24, 2003, letter, Site Manager Norm Hepner of Ecology approved a modification of the "Alternate Ground Water Monitoring Plan, Superior Asphalt Enforcement Order DE 91TC-C444" submitted by Herrera Environmental Consultants on behalf of Superior. On June 7, 2006, Ecology received "2005 Annual Ground Water Monitoring Report" submitted by Herrera Environmental Consultants on behalf of Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company on monitoring conducted in accordance with the alternate monitoring plan. The document reports on sampling events for diesel and heavy oil -range hydrocarbons on eight dates from 4/18/03 to 1/9/06.. In 49 of the 50 individual results, the constituent analyzed for was not found above the reported detection limit. The one instance in which a constituent was detected showed a diesel concentration of 037 mg/kg, which is below the MTCA Method A cleanup level of 0.5 mg/kg. That sample came from the earliest (4/18/03) round of sampling covered in the report. • DOC. INDEX • Mr. Bill Hammett September 11, 2006 Page 2 The monitoring report also contains the following request: `Based upon WAC 173-340-720, Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company requests that no further action be designated for this site." Section VI. of Order No. 91 TC -C444 states: "The provisions of this Order shall be deemed satisfied upon Superior Asphalt's receipt of written notification from Ecology that Superior Asphalt has completed the remedial activity required by this Order, as amended by any modifications, and that all other provisions of this Enforcement Order have been complied with." Ecology is motivated to close out order No. 91TC-0444, but believes that there is one issue that requires resolution before Ecology can determine that Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company has satisfied the e requirements of Order No. 91 TC -0444 and its two amendments. That issue is institutional controls. Institutional controls, as described in WAC 173-340-440, are measures to limit activities that may interfere with the integrity of a cleanup. A restrictive covenant, executed by a property owner and recorded with the register of deeds to run with the property, is the usual way to implement institutional controls. For this site, I believe the logical institutional controls would be a prohibition on disturbance of the interception trench, liner, or soil cover that would allow migration of contamination without prior notification • to and approval by Ecology or its successor agency, physical measures such as fencing to prevent access to the small area where contaminated soil remains, a prohibition on residential use, and a prohibition on conveyance of title or other interest in the property without complete provision for continued compliance with the institutional controls. I also would be okay with the (slightly longer) list of institutional controls contained in \,_____. the Stage 3 Cleanup Plan prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants and dated April 14, 1999. Ecology thanks Superior Asphalt and Concrete Company, your consultants, and you personally for your persistence in pursuing this cleanup. My telephone number is (509) 454-7840 if you have questions or comments on matters contained in this letter. Sincerely, • -- Robert Robert D. Swackhamer, PE Site Manager Toxics Cleanup Program cc: Randy Baer, Baer Testing and Consulting Al Brown, Yakima Greenway Aaron Davis, Superior Asphalt and Concrete Charles Flower, Flower & Andreotti Peter Jowise, Herrera Environmental Consultants Ray Paolella, City of Yakima • DC) INlDE>:. # -1_ f. .-YAKIMA COUNTY r. PARKS AND ION ;DEPARTMENT January 30, 1984 Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation ATTN: Ron Taylor 4808 Capitol.Blvd., KT -.L1 Tumwater, WA 98504 R£: Sarg Hubbard Park - Environmental Assessment Dear Mr. Taylor: 1 1000 AhtArlum Road Yakima, Waahingt i1 98,03 Enclosed is the required Environmental Impact Assessment for the Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park just East of Yakima. The assessment provides a project description, description of the environment,'environmental impact of the proposal, floodplain analysis, and maps. The assessment disclosed no significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposal. For those environmental concerns that have been identified, mitigating measure& have been incorpot.;e,r+' into site design to reduce the potential impacts. We theref;,„� . cot ...ode that the project does not result in significant adverse environmental. impacts and recommend the National Park Service issue a Finding of No Significant impact (FON'SI) for the project. Finally, in compliance with public notice requirements of environmental assessments involving floodplain/wetland areas, the Yakima County Planning Department will incorporate notice of the availability of the assessment when advertisements for the required Shoreline.' t Permit are published. This will. allow further �gnt in '':.o overall development design and decision makingprocess iess;as ret in uired by National Park Service rules. Those notices will pbecpublished gwithin the next two weeks. Should any questions arise concerning this environmental assessment, please contact this office at (509) 575-4363. Sincerely, CHARLES BUTLER Parks and Recreation Director 1 PHONE 15091 575.4383 • Description of Project Yakima County, in cooperation with the City of Yakima, the Yakima River Greenway Foundation, and many other private citizens and organizations, proposes to construct the Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park, a multi -use public park on approximately 37 acres along the west bank of the Yakima River. The site is located 1/2 mile east of the Yakima city limits on the east side of South 18th Street about 700 feet south of Terrace Heights Drive (see maps). The development of Sarg Hubbard Riverside Park is part of an on- going effort to make available more recreationally -oriented uses within the Yakima River Regional Greenway, a 9.5 mile stretch of the Yakima River and its adjoining environs from Selah Gap to Union Gap. The Greenway was designated as a state conservation corridor by the Washington State Legislature in 1979 following preparation of a master plan in 1976 which detailed conservation and development concepts for the Greenway's various segments. Sarg Hubbard Park will be the third construction project within the Greenway. Of all.planned projects, it will be the most significant since the park's location, size and features will provide a focal point for the overall Greenway project. The park will include: Phase I On-site paved parking for 90 cars, .5 miles of interior paved roadway, .67 miles of asphalt jogging path, a 20' x 40' restroom structure, picnic sites, a commemorative column, 2-3 acres of lawn, irrigation system/well, connection to City of Yakima domestic sewer and water systems and miscellaneous tree and shrub plantings. F -1()C. r r '4-( Phase II Observation platform, picnic shelter, tot lot, bus shelter, heritage art display, community green and additional lawn totaling 8-10 acres. Phase III Reflection Pond, waterfall/fountain, boat launch, and .44 miles of asphalt jogging path. Each phase is anticipated to be completed within two years after commencement of construction. Phase I construction has been funded and construction is scheduled to begin in April, 1984. Description of the Environment Land Use - The 36 acre site is physically divided into three distinct areas: a) The river and natural floodway area east of the dike comprising 11.2 acres, b) the pond and the adjoining banks comprising 7.5 acres, and c) the landfill and property bordering South 18th Street which includes about 17 acres. The majority of park improvements will be located in area "c". The project site was used by Yakima County residents as a landfill since the early 1940's. Its use as a sanitary landfill was abandoned in 1965. Since 1965, materials dumped on the site have been limited to snow, leaves and tree trimmings by the City of Yakima. All other city refuse is disposed at the County sanitary landfill in Terrace Heights. The small lake on the site was created from gravel mining completed about eight years ago. The river dike now supports a recently constructed bicycle/ pedestrian path as part of the Greenway project. Lands lying easterly of the dike within the river floodway remain in their natural state. A mixture of commercial, single family residential and mining activities border the park site on the other three sides. The Central Pre -Mix and Superior Asphalt operations lie south of the park with two major car dealerships to the west. Land immediately north is vacant. -2- INDEX • • • • Transportation/Access - The site is served by South 18th Street, a paved access road which intersects with Terrace Heights Drive 700 feet to the north. This intersection received major improvements including an underpass and access ramps when a new Terrace Heights bridge was built in 1980. Terrace Heights Drive is a four lane arterial connecting Yakima with unincorporated Terrace Heights and also serves as Yakima's primary freeway interchange to Interstate 82. A secondary access route to the park will be from Southeast Yakima via the Beech Street underpass, Chalmers Street, and Riverside Road which connects to the southend of 18th Street. The site is also accessible from the south via the new bicycle/ pedestrian path along the Yakima River dike. Access by boat or raft from the river is also anticipated. Fish and Wildlife - Irrigation practices and high recreational demand for the fisheries has reduced fish populations of the Yakima River significantly in recent years. Renewed efforts to improve fish runs by both public and private organizations bring hope that future fish populations canmeet public demand. Currently, however, this reach of the Yakima River does not provide an adequate fish population. The pond on the site is too shallow to be stocked. Wildlife has been severely limited by the refuse dumping activities on the site over the past years. The only resident species known to exist on the site include quail, cottontail and various urbanized songbirds. Vegetation - Because of landfill operations, the portion of the site west of the dike is, with the exception of cheat grass, generally void of vegetation which accounts for the limited wildlife population. There are a few willows starting along the banks of the pond. The area on the river side of the dike does support some riparian vegetation and will remain undisturbed. -3- DOC, INDEX Geology and Soils - The underlying soil type is Weirman Sandy Loam common to Yakima Valley bottomlands. The subsurface is quite gravelly and well drained. Limitations to development include flood potential (see floodplain analysis). A variety of medium size tree species can success- fully adapt to the Weirman soil providing a fair to good wildlife habitat. Irrigation would most likely be necessary. Mineral Resources - Mineral resource potential of the project site would be limited to river run gravels. This potential is evidenced by the pond on the site formed after gravel was removed and by other nearby excavation operations. No other significant mineral resources are known in this area. Air and Water Quality - Regional air quality is fair to good. Seasonal problems occur with temperature inversions common to the Yakima Valley. These inversions, combined with heavy wood burning stove use and seasonal orchard heating, tend to deteriorate air quality for short periods of time. The project site will have slightly better air quality during these periods due to the gentle breezes that occur adjacent to the river. Yakima River water quality is poor to fair in this reach. Upstream irrigation diversions and agricultural discharges into the river impact water quality. Because of urban drainage, river water quality deteriorates significantly downstream from the Sarg Hubbard Park site. Water Resources/Hydrology - The Yakima River drains a 6000 square mile area east of the Cascade Range into the Columbia River. River flow is derived from snowmelt and rainfall on the eastern slopes of the -Cascades. The river gradient upstream of Union Gap (including the project site) ranges from 11 to 19. feet per mile with discharges generally between 3,000 and 5,000 cfs. The average peak discharge of the Yakima River at Parker (about six miles downstream of project site) is approximately 16,200 cfs. Flood damage in the valley can be anticipated during discharges of over -4- 4-1 • • • 12,000 cfs which on the average occurs every other year. Significant diking projects and irrigation flow control dams and reservoirs have reduced flood threats to the Yakima Valley over the past 50 years. The Yakima River is considered a high sediment transport system. Most of the of carrying meanders significantly throughout the Greenway reach with floodplain consistently in the 1 1/2 mile range, now significantly reduced by diking. Other human activities in the floodplain have altered natural meandering of the river including roads, bridges, gravel pits, and farming. sediment transported is sand, but in flood the river is capable rocks with diameters greater than two feet. The river channel widths Historic/Archaeologic Resources - There are no unique or historically significant features known to exist on or near the project site. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action Land Use - The project site will be transformed from an abandoned landfill into a public park consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan and local zoning codes. The project is also consistent with the Washington State Shorelines Management Act. Impacts on adjoining lands will be primarily related to traffic (see Transportation/Circulation). Existing auto dealerships will benefit by additional "drive-by" traffic. Trespass onto'adjacent gravel mining operations may increase. Fish and Wildlife/Vegetation - Project development would have a limited impact on the Yakima River'fisheries. Excepting the boat launch in Phase III, no development will occur near the water. Increased public access to the river will, however, tend to invite increased fishing activity and hence an increased demand on the fisheries of the river. Other Greenway Foundation projects will also result in increased public access and may increase pressure to improve Yakima River fish runs. -5- DOC. INDEX Washington State Department of Game officials have conducted an on-site investigation of the project and concluded that project construction would have an insignificant impact upon wildlife. Interim wildlife impacts will be limited to those quail, rabbits, and other small rodents that now find shelter in thepiles of tree trimmings and leaves that have beer discarded on the site. Planned landscaping will improve vegetative canopies for a variety of wildlife, and will enchance game habitat over the long term. In addition to landscaping, game officials indicate that otherplanned improvements such as feeders, perches, variations in lake shoreline, etc., will 'attract not only urban bird species now frequenting the property, but other raptors common to the Greenway. Geology and Soils - Project development will result in alterations and disruptions to the present site topography. Slopes of the bank of the lake will be graded and flattened to provide a more gentle grade into the water. Some land leveling will also be necessary on the east side of the community green. No significant impacts on geology or soils will occur from these grading activities. Concern has been raised about the likelihood of methane gas generation by the old landfill. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Ecology officials have investigated the potential hazards of the site and concluded that there is no demonstrated environmental hazard at this time. Recommendations provided by the Department of Ecology to minimize future environmental risk upon site development include: 1) Avoid excess water application to the soil to prevent water percolating through the fill and into groundwater; 2) Stabilize the sides of the fill, including seeding, to prevent erosion; 3) Maintain. the overall integrity of the fill; and 4) Avoid locating any covered structures within the landfill area to prevent potential trapping of methane gas. -6- • • • • • • These recommendations have been incorporated into project plans and designs and will be used to maintain the current "no hazard" status of the site. Mineral Resources - Project development will preclude future use of the small pond as a gravel source and will result in the need to extract gravel from other sources available in the Yakima area. Air and Water Quality - Project construction activities will cause short term air quality problems by increasing dust levels. The project will be coordinated with the Yakima Clean Air Authority and the construction contract will require regular watering to minimize the impact. Water quality in the pond will be disturbed during sloping and con- struction work. Since this pond supports little or no fish and wildlife, impacts will be minor. These same construction impacts, to a lesser degree, will also apply to the Yakima River during site improvements for the raft launch. Water Resources/Hydrology - The park will not impact the hydrology of the Yakima River. Anticipated impacts on the fisheries of the river were discussed earlier in this section. Historic/Archaeological Resources - With no unique or historic features known in the project area, park development will not impact these resources. Transportation/Circulation - Park development will impact area trans- portation facilities. However, major reconstruction and widening of Terrace Heights Drive about three years ago has mitigated this impact. Anticipated traffic loads can easily be accommodated by this arterial. The secondary access via the Beech Street underpass will experience slightly higher traffic counts. This route will also experience an increase in bicycle traffic from urbanized residential areas of Yakima to the new park. "Caution -Truck Traffic" signs may be required at points of potential cement truck/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts. -7- DOG, INDEX #__..._._t -L-1 Floodplain Analysis The most recent floodplain study prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) as part of the National Flood Insurance Program indicates the Riverside Park property lies within the 100 -year floodplain of the Yakima River. Although not officially adopted by FIA, this study is used by state and local officials in administration of floodplain and shoreline management regulations as the most current floodplain data. The FIA study further shows the Yakima River floodway contained within the river's westerly bank dike. The park has been designed with this in mind, as the only improvement proposed on the river side of the dike is the boat launch/landing area. Study profiles show that the 100-yearflood elevation ranges from 1031.7 feet MSL at the northwest corner of the park property to 1026.7 feet MSL at. the southeast corner. Since the property has been used as a landfill site over the past few years, a significant amount of the property has been raised well above the 100 -year floodplain elevation. The attached map (Figure 3 ) shows the property and its relationship to the Yakima River floodplain. Excluding the floodway area east of the dike and the Reflection Pond, only about 33 percent of the land area of the park would actually be inundated by a 100 -year frequency flood. The only park improvements located within the 100 -year floodplain area will be the 20' x 40' restroom structure, parking and roadway areas. a portion of the jogging course, and the Sarg Hubbard commemorative column. The nature of these improvements are such that none will necessitate a significant amount of fill. Also, structural designs will include proper anchoring to prevent dislodging and other flood proofing features. Con- sequently, virtually no impact upon the floodplain regime of the Yakima River will occur as a result of park development. Additionally, recreationally -oriented uses are encouraged in flood- plain areas by regulations of all governmental levels. Park uses, - 8- • • such as the proposed Sarg Hubbard Park, require few improvements that obstruct flood water flow. The proposed park is consistent with goals and policies of the Washington State Shorelines Management Act, State floodplain regulations, local zoning and the Greenway Master Plan. Permit requests for park development are now being processed by various state and local agencies. -9- DOC INDEX # K- A J9941 IJ -3( B [I�71K Yx' 121 11K I 7 r evzace C HaLIICltSr-- crlti MAP[ E(J992/ tke'1.4nt 2 N-31) Sarg Hubba Restroom I®ad�,a 1 I Lot III 13°aa t �2V.J.-Tot L �I. al'nch • Column Picnic Shelter t�AItI11:W •I• R A c; •r!; Qz W R 9Beech n L, St eet der ass 11 • 1 24 23 S1 NIII sl: tI It iN N --rb-\ I‘ IsII.1c:'1•S __ ,I 30 (L / T / / i / / SUBJECT PROPERTY SCALE I" = 400' EC -108-1983 FIGURE 1 LIr 1 1-i a I •WROJECT AREA • SCALE 2"= I MILE EC -108-1983 FIGURE 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY SCALE lu = 400' EC -108-1983 FIGURE 3