Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-15-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. JANUARY 15, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 18, 2008 IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Development Big Pasco Industrial Center (Port of Pasco) (3295 E. Agreement Ainsworth Ave.) (MF# SMP 08-001) B. Special Permit Captain Gray Annex Modifications (Pasco School District No. 1) (1110 N. loth Ave.) (MF# SP 08-014) C. Special Permit Location of a Children's Learning Center in an R-1 District (Dolores Escalera) (1730 W. Park St.) (MF# SP 08- 011 D. Code Amendment Sign Code (Community Event Regional Signs - City wide) (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 08-005) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit CBC Research Farm (Columbia Basin College) (4 100 Block of Argent P1.) (MF# SP 08-015) VI. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Critical Areas Ordinance (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 08-003) VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING December 18, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Todd Samuel. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Todd Samuel, Chairman No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 David Little No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Ray Rose No. 7 Tony Schouviller No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Vacant APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Samuel read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Samuel asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No declarations were made. Chairman Samuel then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there was an objection to any commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections from the audience. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Samuel explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated November 20, 2008 be approved as mailed. The Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone R-S-12 (Suburban Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business) (Ron Oak) (7012 W. Argent Road) (MF# Z 08-005) -1- Chairman Samuel read the Master File number and explained that the proposed rezone was the subject of a public hearing last month. Chairman Samuel asked for discussion and or comments from staff. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions as contained in the December 18, 2008 staff report. The motion was unanimously approved. Commissioner Little further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the site from R-S-12 to C-1 with conditions as listed in the December 18, 2008 staff report. The motion was unanimously approved. Staff noted this item would go to the City Council at their first regular meeting in January. Staff briefly explained the appeal process. B. Rezone I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) (City of Pasco) (1000 Block of S. Sth Avenue) (MF# Z-08-0061 Chairman Samuel read the Master File number and explained that the proposed rezone was the subject of a public hearing last month. Chairman Samuel asked for discussion and or comments from staff. Staff explained that during the public hearing it was pointed out that the application was initially made for R-3 zoning but the recommendation was for R-2 to be consistent with other lots in the block. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions as contained in the December 18, 2008 staff report. The motion was unanimously approved. Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the site from I-1 to R-2. Staff noted this item would go to the City Council at their first regular meeting in January. Staff briefly explained the appeal process. -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Development Agreement Big Pasco Industrial Center (BPIC) (Port of Pasco) (3295 E. Ainsworth Ave.) (MF# SMP 08.001) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff explained the hearing was an open record hearing for the purpose of reviewing a development agreement with the Big Pasco Industrial Center (BPIC). Staff discussed the development agreement concept which is a tool authorized by State law to provide certainty in terms of land use and development regulations to facilitate development in conformance with local land use laws and comprehensive plans. In this case, the agreement concerns properties on both sides of Ainsworth Avenue, west of Sacajawea State Park, and east of Maitland Avenue. The agreement covers approximately 500 acres. The full agreement was provided in Exhibit E attached to the written report. It was further explained the Port planning process began in 1999 with the preparation of a detailed master plan concerning land use infrastructure and capital facility elements for property within the BPIC. In 2008, a master plan through the shoreline management process was approved for a conceptual site plan included in the written report as Exhibit C. Staff pointed out that with the adoption of the master plan, approval of the shoreline management permit and expenditures of several million dollars, the Port has positioned the property to be very marketable. The balance of the written report was reviewed for the benefit of the Planning Commission with an explanation that the development agreement was designed to provide certainty for investors who hope to fulfill the industrial component of the comprehensive plan in the port, to provide jobs, and provide for a very important component for public health and safety and public welfare in terms of economic development. Randy Hayden, Director of Planning and Engineering, Port of Pasco was present to speak in favor of the proposed development agreement. Mr. Hayden explained that planning for Big Pasco started in the mid 1990's when the Port Commission realized the property was unique due to the fact the property was along the shoreline and unencumbered by a levy. Through the planning process the Big Pasco site has been divided into three separate planning areas. Mr. Hayden briefly discussed these planning areas and the potential for industrial development in each area. Mr. Hayden explained the Port of Pasco has invested over $26,000,000 since 1998 in infrastructure improvements in the Big Pasco area. John White, JD White & Company, Vancouver Washington, explained he had been involved in the Port master planning process since 1999. The original master plan identified three areas known as the Retention area, Expansion area, and the -3- Riverfront Business Park. Mr. White then proceeded to explain in greater detail the three main planning areas within the Port. Jim Toomey, Executive Director Port of Pasco spoke in favor of the development agreement stating it would give the Port regulatory certainty over the next few years. An initial anchor building is planned in the near future and will likely be built by the Port of Pasco. Commissioner Little asked about ownership of the property and the process for businesses wanting to construct buildings. Mr. Toomey stated the Port of Pasco owns 600 acres of land. Certain portions of the land will be leased only. Commissioner Anderson asked what types of businesses are being marketed for the expansion area. Mr. Toomey stated they have looked at distribution centers, different types of food processing plants and even a windmill plant. Commissioner Schouviller asked how the development of areas for public use would be treated. Mr. Toomey explained the Port was looking for visually appealing public areas. Mr. Hayden added that areas 50 feet from the shoreline would be designated for public access. Commissioner Samuel asked about the timeframes for development of the first building and if funds were available to start building. Mr. Toomey anticipated the building to start in early 2009. Commissioner Samuel asked if there were any other Ports that they could look to for examples of what the Port of Pasco is planning on doing. Mr. Toomey stated the Port of Vancouver was a great example. Liberty ships were built there during World War II. The Port of Vancouver has been redeveloped with trails, waterfront related development and restaurants. Commissioner Samuel asked about the role the City has or can have in the proposed project. Mr. Toomey stated the City has acted as a point of contact. The City has also participated in building the Ainsworth overpass and constructing a sewage lift station. Mr. White stated the City and the Port of Pasco have been developing a memorandum of agreement which would involve the nearby non-Port owned property and City property. -4- Commissioner Anderson asked about future Port plans in the residential areas to the west. Mr. White stated plans would be worked out over the next few years. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing for public comments. Following three calls for public comment the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rose commended the Port on the proposed project. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the hearing on the proposed development agreement and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the January 15th, 2009 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Captain Gray Annex Modifications (Pasco School District No. 1)(1110 N. 10th Ave.) (MF# SP-08- 014) Chairman Samuel read the master file number, opened the hearing and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated that a notice of the hearing was published in the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the site. Staff explained that with the opening of the new High School the Captain Gary Annex is planned to revert back to use as a grade school. To accommodate the conversion the Captain Gray site will be modified with a new parking lot and bus loading area. The existing portable classrooms will be removed and the site will be fenced. Staff pointed out the Engineering Department has recommended the existing signalized crosswalk be removed (between 10th and 12th) and that the intersection of 10th Ave. and Court Street be fully signalized to accommodate students crossing Court Street. Staff then reviewed the balance of the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rose asked about the height of the fence on the north side of the school. Staff stated it was a 6 foot high fence. The new fence along the west side of the site was necessary to redirect foot traffic from the high school away from the grade school. Commissioner Anderson referenced the memorandum from the Washington Schools Risk Management Pool addressing the issue of the foot route for students. The memorandum stated it was not necessary to move the signal. Commission Anderson stated he felt it was unfounded and is waste of tax payer money to install a new signal at 10th Avenue and Court Street. Kim Marsh, Pasco School District, 1215 W Lewis Street stated the District would be converting Captain Gray back to an elementary school and the goal was to make the -5- area safer by separating bus loading areas from parking areas. Mr. Marsh briefly discussed the proposed site modifications. Commissioner Samuel asked the current fence along Court Street was to be revised. Mr. Marsh stated the fence would remain except for the area where the new bus driveway would be located. Commissioner Samuel asked when the building was last used for the grade school. Mr. Marsh stated 8 years. Commissioner Samuel asked if there were any issues with the businesses across the street. Mr. Marsh stated they have staff that monitors the area and the high school students use the crosswalk at 14thAve or the crosswalk midway between 9th Ave and 12th Ave. Commissioner Anderson explained the existing crosswalk was in use when Captain Gray was previously an elementary school. He asked how students will get to school. Mr. Marsh mentioned the majority of students will be bused or driven by parents. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing for public comments. Following three calls fro public comment the hearing was closed. Commissioner Anderson requested more information on the traffic signal prior to forming a decision on condition U. Mr. Anderson requested this item be stricken from the recommendation. Staff stated the recommendations need to be supported by findings of fact and the Engineers have provided findings related to the traffic signal which was based on the School Districts survey of the pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Anderson stated the findings of fact are not supported by the information in the Risk Management memo. Mr. White agreed with Commissioner Anderson and recommended that justification be provided with information from the Engineering Department. Commissioner Rose moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to close the hearing on the proposed Captain Gray modifications and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the January 15th, 2009 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Special Permit Location of a Children's Learning Center in an R- 1 District (Dolores Escalera) (1 730 W. Park St.) (MF# Z-08-0111 -6- Chairman Samuel read the master file number opened the hearing and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated that a notice of the hearing was published in the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the site. Staff explained the applicant was proposing to locate a daycare to the existing church. The current zoning and land uses were discussed and the written report was reviewed for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Staff then reviewed the recommended conditions which included the requirement for dedication of additional right-of-way at street corners to accommodate larger handicap ramps that meet current standards. Commissioner Hay asked if the handicapped ramps were being provided by the City's Block Grant Program. Staff stated the City had completed the installation of handicapped ramps thought the community last year. The ramp improvements were funded through the Block Grant Program. Commissioner Hay asked why the handicap ramps are being requested to be redone. Staff explained the handicap ramps have smaller radiuses at the intersections and the standard for ramps had changed. The Engineering Department recommended the additional right-of-way be provided and new handicap ramps be installed. Commissioner Samuel asked what it costs to install handicap ramps. Staff stated it could cost roughly $1,500 per ramp. Commissioner Anderson stated on the east side of the property a dirt parking lot exists and asked if there were plans to pave the lot. Staff stated it was not a recommended requirement at this time. Commissioner Anderson asked why there was a requirement for a sidewalk along 18th Ave. Staff explained there was no sidewalk along 18th Ave. Denise Escalera, P.O Box 3004, Pasco explained they currently have a home daycare and they have a waiting list for parents seeking daycare. They would like to open a daycare in the church at 1730 West Park. Their clientele are mostly low income families or families with special needs. Commissioner Samuel asked how many children they currently serve. Ms. Escalera stated they currently have 12 children and would like to add 20 children totaling 32 children. Current hours of operation are from 5 am to 7 pm and would change from 5 am to 6 pm. -7- Commissioner Schouviller asked Ms. Escalera if she had any issues with outdoor play areas. Ms. Escalera stated there was a section of the property that was used as a playground. The area is fenced with a brick wall. The wall can be modified depending on the requirements of the State Licensing Department. Commissioner Anderson asked who would be responsible for installing the sidewalk and handicapped ramps. Ms. Escalera stated the dollar amount was more than they anticipated for this project. Commissioner Hay asked if the church was financially capable of covering the improvement costs. Ms. Escalera stated the church was not wealthy and they reach out to the community for resources. Commissioner Little stated the City had already paid for the handicap ramps and it would be costly to revise the ramps. Commissioner Samuel asked if the location being next to the Pasco Stadium would be an issue. Ms. Escalera stated the Stadium was next to the Boys and Girls Club which has a daycare and there are no issues with the Stadium. Commissioner Samuel stated there is a great need for daycare. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing for public comments. Following three calls for public comment the hearing was closed. Commissioner Samuel stated the Planning Commission would need additional information on the sidewalk and handicapped issue for the next meeting. Commissioner Schouviller moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, to close the hearing on the proposed Learning Center Daycare modifications and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the January 15th, 2009 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Code Amendment Sign Code Amendment (Community Event Regional Signs) (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 08-0051 Chairman Samuel read the master file number, opened the hearing and asked for comments from staff. Staff explained this item had been discussed at the last regular meeting during a workshop. The proposal was to amend the existing sign code dealing with off- premise signs. The proposal would permit community regional event signs for large -8- facilities which would house entertainment, recreation, and community wide events on sites of 60 acres or more provided the site was adjacent to highways of statewide significance. Additionally the site would need to be near a major interchange. Additional discussion centered on the design standards for regional event signs. Commissioner Samuel asked what organizations would be eligible for use of the proposed sign code. Staff stated currently there was only one in Pasco and that was the Trade and Recreation Center. The TRAC site was large enough to meet the parameters listed in the proposed code. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing for public comments. Following three calls for public comment the hearing was closed. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, the Planning Commission recommends the City amend Title 17 to include provisions for regional event signs as indicated in the proposed ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: OTHER BUSINESS: With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8.45 pm. David McDonald, Secretary -9- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SMP08-001 APPLICANT: Port of Pasco HEARING DATE: 12/18/08 PO Box 769 ACTION DATE: 1/15/09 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Development Agreement with the Port of Pasco for property within the Big Pasco Industrial Center (BPIC). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Please see Exhibit "A". General Location: North and south sides of Ainsworth Avenue west of the Sacajawea Park Road and east of Maitland Road. Property Size: Approximately 500 Acres. 2. ACCESS: The BPIC is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and 1-3 (Heavy Industrial) (Exhibit "B"). Zoning to the north of the BPIC is light industrial as is zoning to the west. The State Park and Columbia River abut the BPIC on the east and south respectively. Access to the property is generally provided by Ainsworth and Oregon Avenues; but also provided by a series of private and local access roads/drives. 3. UTILITIES: Portions of the BPIC are served by all utilities and portions are only partially served. The provision of necessary utilities to applicable portions of the BPIC is contemplated through the provisions of the Master Plan 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: NORTH- Various industrial and heavy commercial uses in a Light, Industrial zoning district SOUTH- Columbia River EAST- State Park and Snake River WEST- Various industrial and heavy commercial uses in a Light, Industrial zoning district 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is "Industrial" 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of nonsignificance by adopting SEPA document #SEPA 08-004 (DNS issued by the City of Pasco in May 2008 for the BPIC Master Plan) DISCUSSION The City and the Port of Pasco have been working to increase marketability of lands in the BPIC. The latest tool that has been chosen to further this effort is a "Development Agreement". Development Agreements are authorized by RCW 36.70(b).170, and allow a local government to enter into an agreement with an individual or group of owners of property within its jurisdiction. Development agreements call out the standards that govern property and may include permitted uses, densities, impact fees, design, phasing, review procedures, and other appropriate development requirements. This proposed development agreement (Exhibit "F") is the culmination of effort that began in 1999. Then, the Port commissioned an engineering firm to prepare a detailed master plan for the BPIC. This 1999 master plan included designation of land use, a discussion of financial and infrastructure issues and a capital improvement program. Since 60 of the 500 acres in the BPIC are within 200 feet of the Columbia River shoreline, a more detailed and comprehensive look at the activities proposed in the 1999 Master Plan was needed. The 1999 master plan was then followed by a Shoreline Management Permit (for redevelopment) that was approved by the City in 2008 (Exhibit "C") Here, the proposed development agreement between the City and the Port affects property shown on Exhibit "D". This Exhibit is also a land use plan that provides the base for future redevelopment of the Port property. This proposed development agreement centers on zoning and permitted uses, development regulations, transportation improvements, public use and access, utilities, and impact fees. This development agreement establishes an initial term of 15 years from its approval with the possibility of an extension. Exhibit "E" is also contained with the list of attachments for this item. This exhibit identifies additional non-Port owned properties directly adjacent to the BPIC on the west (Boat Basin). Between these non-Port owned properties and the Cable Bridge is the "Tank Farm" remediation area owned by the Port. The Port and the City have been in discussion about a joint planning effort that would focus on the Boat Basin and Tank Farm areas - recognizing that the entire contiguous rivershore area west of Sacagawea Park and the Cable Bridge would benefit from a coordinated effort at land use, infrastructure and amenity planning. This effort is proposed to begin in 2009, after the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement. Following is a sectional summary of the proposed development agreement. 2 • Section 3. Property Governed. This paragraph describes the property covered in the agreement (Exhibit "D") • Section 4. Master Plan/Conceptual Site Plan. This section covers basic land use for the planning area and describes how detailed site plans will be prepared and submitted to the City for the term of the agreement. • Section 5. Zoning and Permitted Uses. This section describes the current zoning (I-1 and I-3) and the permitted and prohibited uses. • Section 6. Development Standards and Regulations. This section recites the applicable development standards that pertain to the property. • Section 7. Vested Rights. This section describes when the provisions of the development agreement become effective and "vest" the development regulations on this site. This is a key provision. One of the important factors that provide an advantage for investment in property is the predictability of land use regulations. This component better positions the Port to market the property and prepare for industrial infrastructure. • Section 8. Transportation Improvements. This section covers transportation standards that will be provided by the Port (Pasco City standards in effect at the time of development). • Section 9. Public Use and Access. This section describes the proposed amenities for public use and access on the property, essentially establishing an extension of the existing trail system (Exhibit"D"). • Section 10. Utility Oversizing. This section accommodates the City's policy that utility infrastructure be installed to meet the future needs of development on adjoining or additional properties. • Section 11. Impact Fee Credits and Latecomers Fees. This section allows the Port to receive fees for development impacts or as a result of latecomer's agreements. • Section 12. Conforming Use. This section establishes the primacy of the development agreement for determining legal land uses in the future. • Section 13. Environmental Review. This paragraph covers applicable law governing conformance with the State Environmental Policy Act; and to the extent practical, uses the environmental analysis that accompanied the 1999 Master Plan and the 2008 Shoreline Permit. 3 • Section 14. Term. This section describes the proposed terms for the development agreement (15 years initially with the possibility of an additional 15 year extension). STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1) The site is located in a Light, and Heavy Industrial zoning district. 2) The site is owned and operated by the Port of Pasco. 3) The property contains approximately 500 acres, 60 of which are located within 200 feet of the Columbia River shoreline. 4) In 1999, the Port of Pasco engaged in a Master Planning effort for the property that included designation of land uses, establishment of financial and infrastructure targets and a capital improvement program. 5) Through the City of Pasco, the Port obtained a Shoreline Management Permit for redevelopment of a portion of the property in 2008. 6) Development Agreements are authorized by RCW 36.70(b).170 and permit local governments to enter into agreements with individual or groups of property owners within its jurisdiction. 7) Development Agreements may call out the standards for development that govern particular properties and may include permitted uses, densities, impact fees, design, phasing, review procedures and other similar and appropriate requirements. 8) The Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development Element within the Plan encourage planned development of economic infrastructure in conformance with land use, utility and transportation goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of this proposed development agreement, the Planning Commission should draw its conclusion from the record. Staff has put forth the following conclusions for the Commission's consideration: 4 (1) The proposed Development Agreement supports the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. The proposed use supports plan policies or goals as follows: (a.) Comprehensive Plan goal ED-1 supports the maintenance of Economic Development as an important and ongoing City initiative. (b.) The GMA and the narrative in the Economic Development Element encourage economic development that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. Pasco's Comprehensive Plan encourages development in urban areas where public facilities and services are available to support development and where services necessary to support development are adequate and does not decrease service levels below established standards. (2) The proposed agreement will not adversely affect public infrastructure. One of the prime benefits of a development agreement is that it provides the predictability necessary for a substantial investment in infrastructure. In this case, a master land use concept plan has been developed for the BPIC. This master plan contained a utility and transportation element. The purpose of this element is to serve the BPIC properties with appropriate, property specific service related to transportation and utilities that is coordinated with the City. (3) Will the proposal use be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The surrounding area is zoned light industrial with accompanying heavy commercial and industrial uses. The proposed development agreement seeks to "set" land use regulations for the term of the agreement (initially 15 years) and provide for infrastructure needs in conformance with current and future Pasco City standards. The Port has prepared two planning documents that precede the proposal. This includes the 1999 Master Plan and the 2008 (City- approved) Shoreline Permit for redevelopment. The overall intent is to fully develop properties within the BPIC for industrial uses as current zoning allows. These three planning efforts - 1999 Big Pasco Industrial Master Plan, the 2008 Shoreline Management Permit and this proposed development agreement are intended to provide the certainty in terms of land use, infrastructure and capital programs that a successful marketing effort requires. As noted earlier, the development agreement is the tool provided by 5 state law that "vests" regulations in the project and project permit process and provides this certainty. (4) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed agreement does not seek to change permitted uses within the Light/Heavy Industrial classifications, but reiterates that the permitted uses in those zoning districts are the uses that will occur within the lands affected through the proposal. (5) Will the proposal promote the public health, safety and general welfare within the community The Comprehensive Plan designates the BPIC as "Industrial" and the Light and Heavy zoning districts are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal incorporates two key planning products - 1999 Master Plan and the 2008 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Both of these planning products and the proposed development agreement seek to implement the Comprehensive Plan by leveraging public resources to provide infrastructure and position properties to realize private investment. This private investment, in turn, provides employment and creates wealth within the community, thereby providing for an important component of overall community benefit. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed development agreement and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the January 151h, 2009 meeting. 6 • • *' �■ :1��IMn„ilsr�_L� if+ SN�ti�'1q~,its • ��� �X11 ��������1��■■�aarti�� 4�1��'�i�kl�+�Pi��+ � ',r° E -=■�Ir�ii/r.0 air `""laal�la�i�lZ�M�.�._ 4 1♦�■ 1■ f ! •rl1A r• � � �� ■ � � �■� qP Los im • � � ++:` _ sly �!� • fF 1/ RI 1 91 i l IN jd white tAl PORT OF Exhibit • • Map INEPASCO i • Pasco Industrial LAND USE O/C Office/Commercial 1 to 3 Story Buildings Office 1 to 3 Story Buildings To HWY 395 Industrial/Office Flex Los I/OF 1 to 2 Story Buildings \ Industrial/Warehouse I/W 1 Story Buildings � Potential Buildings OAS Open Space 0 0 Q 11w Reten ion Area c6 East Ainsworth IIOF II© Ainsworth Ave. INV El E.Dock St O/C O/C INV Existing Barge Terminal Potential Existing Trail Viewing Dock 200'Shoreline Zone Existing Trail Expansion Area Riverfront Business Park Potential Barge Terminal Columbia River N 1200 600 0 1200 FT. �4` PORT OF Exhibit C: Approved 2008 Master Plan jd whifea���.Oq 1:00PASCO Big Pasco Industrial Center as sue:c rone xmmmwmnon and ­*-1 LAND USE 0 O/C Office/Commercial 1 to 3 Story Buildings Office O 1 to 3 Story Buildings Industrial/Office Flex I/OF 1BSF 0 1 to 2 Story Buildings _ — Industrial/Warehouse oi m �� 11W 1 Story Buildings I o New Track 410 New Tracks O/S Open Space zzsso zo,aoo m . BSF - 22,660 zo,aoo r Future Track 415 ® BSF BSF I6 ® mm a �� Office/Commercial 1to3StoryBuildings Adjacent Non-Port Owned ffic 10 o 3 Story Buildings Development i � Potential Buildings l Marina -- Parks&Open Space - - --- - --- _----- ------------ Ainsworth Ave. -- -- Residential 0 0 _M0 I R OIS - I 000 O/C 3 Existing Existing Trail Marina 0 200'Shoreline Zone low 4V *F Columbia River 0 It 100 1 200 0 a PORT OF Exhibit E: Additional Non-Port Owned land jd H3.PASC0 Big Pasco Industrial Center ►� am a O Master File # SMP 08-001 Development Agreement with the Port of Pasco STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1) The site is located in a Light, and Heavy Industrial zoning district. 2) The site is owned and operated by the Port of Pasco. 3) The property contains approximately 500 acres, 60 of which are located within 200 feet of the Columbia River shoreline. 4) Notice of the 12/18/08 public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the area and published in the Tri - City Herald on 12/7/08 and 12/14/08. 5) In 1999, the Port of Pasco engaged in a Master Planning effort for the property that included designation of land uses, establishment of financial and infrastructure targets and a capital improvement program. 6) Through the City of Pasco, the Port obtained a Shoreline Management Permit for redevelopment of a portion of the property in 2008. 7) Development Agreements are authorized by RCW 36.70(b).170 and permit local governments to enter into agreements with individual or groups of property owners within its jurisdiction. 8) Development Agreements may call out the standards for development that govern particular properties and may include permitted uses, densities, impact fees, design, phasing, review procedures and other similar and appropriate requirements. 9) The Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development Element within the Plan encourage planned development of economic infrastructure in conformance with land use, utility and transportation goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONCLUSIONS (1) The proposed Development Agreement supports the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. The proposed use supports plan policies or goals as follows: (a.) Comprehensive Plan goal ED-1 supports the maintenance of Economic Development as an important and ongoing City initiative. (b.) The GMA and the narrative in the Economic Development Element encourage economic development that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. Pasco's Comprehensive Plan encourages development in urban areas where public facilities and services are available to support development and where services necessary to support development are adequate and does not decrease service levels below established standards. (2) The proposed agreement will not adversely affect public infrastructure. One of the prime benefits of a development agreement is that it provides the predictability necessary for a substantial investment in infrastructure. In this case, a master land use concept plan has been developed for the BPIC. This master plan contained a utility and transportation element. The purpose of this element is to serve the BPIC properties with appropriate, property specific service related to transportation and utilities that is coordinated with the City. (3) Will the proposal use be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The surrounding area is zoned light industrial with accompanying heavy commercial and industrial uses. The proposed development agreement seeks to "set" land use regulations for the term of the agreement (initially 15 years) and provide for infrastructure needs in conformance with current and future Pasco City standards. The Port has prepared two planning documents that precede the proposal. This includes the 1999 Master Plan and the 2008 (City- approved) Shoreline Permit for redevelopment. The overall intent is to fully develop properties within the BPIC for industrial uses as current zoning allows. These three planning efforts - 1999 Big Pasco Industrial Master Plan, the 2008 Shoreline Management Permit and this proposed development agreement are intended to provide the certainty in terms of land use, infrastructure and capital programs that a successful marketing effort requires. As noted earlier, the development agreement is the tool provided by state law that "vests" regulations in the project and project permit process and provides this certainty. (4) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed agreement does not seek to change permitted uses within the Light/Heavy Industrial classifications, but reiterates that the permitted uses in those zoning districts are the uses that will occur within the lands affected through the proposal. (5) Will the proposal promote the public health, safety and general welfare within the community The Comprehensive Plan designates the BPIC as "Industrial" and the Light and Heavy zoning districts are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal incorporates two key planning products - 1999 Master Plan and the 2008 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Both of these planning products and the proposed development agreement seek to implement the Comprehensive Plan by leveraging public resources to provide infrastructure and position properties to realize private investment. This private investment, in turn, provides employment and creates wealth within the community, thereby providing for an important component of overall community benefit RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions as contained in the January 15, 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council enter into the proposed Development Agreement with the Port of Pasco as presented in the January 15, 2009 staff report. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 08-014 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #I HEARING DATE: 12/18/08 1215 W Lewis St ACTION DATE: 1/15/09 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Captain Gray Annex Modifications (Pasco School District) (Court St 8s 10th Ave) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Blocks 1-8, Sylvester's 3rd Addition General Location: 1102 North 10th Avenue Property Size: Approximately 6 acres (only the portion occupied by Captain Gray Annex). 2. ACCESS: The site has access from 10th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal services are available on surrounding streets. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is developed with the Captain Gray Annex. Pasco High School is directly to the south. The properties to the west, south and east are generally zoned R-1 with some small areas of C-1 (Retail Business) located along Court Street. The properties to the north are zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and C-1. These properties are developed with churches, retail establishments and residential units. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for public or quasi public uses such as schools. The proposed use is to convert the property from high school use to a kindergarten facility. Goal OF-5 suggests adequate provisions for educational facilities should be located throughout the urban growth area. Policy-5-A encourages the appropriate location and design of schools through out the community. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of non-significance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 (c) (RCW). DISCUSSION Grade schools are listed as unclassified uses in the Pasco Municipal Code Title 25 (Zoning). Unclassified uses may be permitted in any zoning district following a review through the Special Permit process. The Captain Gray Annex has been located at the southwest corner of Court Street and 10th Avenue for over 20 years. The Annex replaced the original Captain Gray Elementary School that stood on the site for more than 30 years prior to the construction of the Annex. The neighborhood surrounding the annex is fully developed. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors records (December 2008) revealed that values of residential properties located across Henry Street and or 10th Avenue from the Pasco High School campus have maintained value or appreciated in value. Surrounding properties have increased in value an average of nearly $30,000 since the last revaluation in 2006. The Pasco School District desires to re-configure the existing bus loading/unloading, parent pickup and staff parking areas to increase staff/student safety and to accommodate the busing of kindergarten students. Site modifications include the following: 1) Removing the 8 portable units from the west side of the annex; 2) Installing a ten-bus loading area (40' buses) that would come off Court Street and exit onto 10th Avenue; 3) Adding 52 staff parking stalls just north of the bus loading zone; 4) Reconfiguring the public parking area north and east of the school building with 13 drop-off spaces, 15 parking spaces, and 4 handicap accessible spaces; and 5) Installing a 6' fence along the west border of the school and on the inside of the bus loading zone. Any improvements needed in infrastructure, the moving of water lines on-site and/or street repairs associated with construction activities shall be the responsibility of the School District. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The Captain Gray Annex is located in an R-1 zone. 2. A school building has been located on the site for approximately 50 years. 2 3. The Captain Gray Annex is being converted to a kindergarten facility. 4. Grade Schools are unclassified uses that require review through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction. 5. The Captain Gray Annex site is fully developed with surrounding infrastructure in place. 6. The site is within the City limits of Pasco. 7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for public or quasi-public uses. 8. Comprehensive Plan Goal OF-5 suggests adequate provisions for educational facilities should be located throughout the urban growth area. 9. The site is bounded on two sides by major streets. 10. A risk management study was performed by the Washington Schools Risk Management Pool. According to this study the Pasco High School Students would logically follow 10th Avenue as the walking route to and from the high school. 11. There is currently no marked or lighted crossing at 10th Avenue. The existing crossing is located approximately 250 feet west of 10th Avenue. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: OF-5 suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. Policy-5-A encourages the appropriate location and design of schools through out the community. The future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan designates the site for public and quasi-public uses. Schools are public uses. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The Captain Gray Annex site is fully developed. Surrounding streets and utilities have been in place for many years. These utilities have been sized to accommodate the needs of the grade school. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? 3 The Captain Gray Annex has been located at the southwest corner of Court Street and 10th Avenue for over 20 years. Single family houses, churches and businesses have all developed around the school. The school is a major part of the general character of the neighborhood. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The neighborhoods surrounding the Captain Gray Annex are fully developed. An on-line search of the County Assessors property records indicates property values near the Captain Gray Annex have increased in recent years. The revisions to parking/loading area and the removal of portable structures will not adversely impact the neighborhood. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed modifications of the Captain Gray Annex will not increase the schools capacity to house more students in classrooms. The modifications are designed to increase staff/student safety and to accommodate the rerouting of bus traffic. With the completion of the new high school on Argent Road student enrollment at the Pasco High School will decrease, thus freeing up the annex for other needed classroom uses. The Captain Gray Annex has a long history of being part of the neighborhood in which it is located. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed school parking lot and bus lane modifications are designed to enhance the safety of students, teachers and visitors to the school. The neighborhood has a long history with this property being developed with school buildings. Schools have a long history of acceptance in residential neighborhoods. In most communities schools are located in or near residential neighborhoods. The education and social development of children is generally not viewed as a nuisance. (Proposed) Approval Conditions (1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; 4 (2) The site modifications shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted with the special permit application; (3) The relocation of water lines, street repairs, storm water modifications modification of sidewalks and related infrastructure improvements associated with the parking lot modifications shall be the responsibility of the School District. (4) The existing lighted crosswalk located on Court Street between 10th Avenue and 121h Avenue must be relocated to the intersection of Court Street and 10th Avenue. This would require the intersection to be converted to a fully signalized intersection. (5) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by July 30, 2009. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed Captain Gray modifications and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the January 15, 2009 meeting. 5 iCinitY Item- p�eclal Permit - Ccl"t. Gray Annex A Map Pasco School bistrict N - File : SP 08-014 ' RUBY S La <l t�j 21 lffAf COURTST . u r, e 1 f. Lr . .. A .. _ _ l _ .SITE _ AM- BROWNS�. . r-BFTOWN Sr PM Lu w! dlW I cc Zt _ Q IET ,. R I E"ST_ m r Ok .5 •— - - - .. - A F - -_ _ t � Y Land Item: Special Permit - Ca pt. Gray Annex 1 Use Applicant: Pasco School District -(x)- Mae File # : SP 08-014 ` RUBY ST - RUBY F Mixed I � 'i Commercial Res. Com � IComm . COURT ST r I BROWN ST BROWN ST 7w SFDU S—,- Pasco = ,Stmuu 'sa C� � � v � � � � HighMARIE ST MgRIE ST School �� L School OCTAVE ST Zonin Item: Special Permit - Cap t. Gray Annex g Applicant: Pasco School District N Map File #: SP 08-014 R=;j RUBY ST RUBY S a ¢ a Q R=3 Iv0ll J C � M N O Irl- F COURT ST � � CA SITE BROWN ST BROWN ST w R-1 � R-1 -R-1 CD 00 MARIE ST :��ARIE ST OCTAVE ST Z Y fi 6 W V, a 2 Z> G co 2J5 0 3 U_ O S R z d o a W O R cLIO v 3f1 m UIOI J.1 ° W � cn Z w 13 O m Q z V O ¢ C7 b v Q o - O � O cn Q x q � W 3II � i Z LL - Q Z 0 � Q z cn ---- i Q ° I100 W CD w z o WO W X 0 II 30 cc w� III ° a C ¢ ` X oW ow W w AAV Uldl w - - U 1 z LL r mIIII col w El r y W REPORT SUPPLEMENT MASTER FILE NO: SP 08-014 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #I HEARING DATE: 12/18/08 1215 W Lewis St ACTION DATE: 1/15/09 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND On December 18, 2008 the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the Pasco School District application for parking lot modifications for the Captain Gray Annex at 10th and Court Street. The initial staff report reviewed during the December 18th meeting contained a recommendation for the relocation of the existing lighted crosswalk on Court Street to the intersection with 10th Avenue. The recommendation further suggested the 10th Avenue intersection be converted to a fully signalized intersection. After reviewing the proposed recommendations the Planning Commission expressed concern over the cost of the recommended traffic signal. Following the hearing staff indicated two sets of findings and motions with conditions would be prepared for Planning Commission discussion at the January 15, 2009 regular meeting. One motion would include requirements for a new signal at 10th avenue and Court Street and the other would not. ALTERNATE # 1 (No Traffic Signal) FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The Captain Gray Annex is located in an R-1 zone. 2. A school building has been located on the site for approximately 50 years. 3. The Captain Gray Annex is currently being used for High School classrooms. 4. With the opening of the new high school (Chiawana High) on Argent Road student enrollment at the Pasco High School will decrease by approximately 1,800 students. 5. The music classroom in the Captain Gray Plaza has been or will be closed this year (2009). 6. The Captain Gray Annex is being converted to a K-5 facility. 7. Eighty-five Pasco High School students currently live north of Court Street and east of 14th Avenue. 8. Grade Schools are unclassified uses that require review through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction. 9. Eight portable high school classrooms will be removed form the Captain Gray site. 10. The Capitan Gray site will be fenced to isolate the K-5 school from the high school. 11. The Captain Gray Annex site is fully developed with surrounding infrastructure in place. 12. The site is within the City limits of Pasco. 13. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for public or quasi-public uses. 14. Comprehensive Plan Goal OF-5 suggests adequate provisions for educational facilities should be located throughout the urban growth area. 15. The site is bounded on two sides by major streets. 16. A risk management walking route study was performed by the Washington Schools Risk Management Pool. 17. The risk management study concluded the current Court Street cross walk between 10th Avenue and 12th Avenue "does not present any unusual walking route hazards for Pasco High School Students. 18. The risk management study concluded a change in the existing Court Street crosswalk is not necessary. 19. The risk management study did not include the proposed site plan modifications for the Captain Gray site. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: OF-5 suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. Policy-5-A encourages the appropriate location and design of schools throughout the community. The future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan designates the site for public and quasi-public uses. Schools are public uses. 2 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The Captain Gray Annex site is fully developed. Surrounding streets and utilities have been in place for many years. These utilities have been sized to accommodate the needs of the Captain Gray School site. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? Captain Gray school building has been located at the southwest corner of Court Street and 10th Avenue for over 20 years. The original Captain Gray School was established on the site well over 30 year ago. Single- family houses, churches and businesses have all developed around the school. The school is a major part of the general character of the neighborhood. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The neighborhoods surrounding the Captain Gray Annex are fully developed. An on-line search of the County Assessors property records indicates property values near the Captain Gray Annex have increased in recent years. The revisions to the parking and loading areas and the removal of portable structures will not adversely impact the neighborhood. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed modifications of the Captain Gray Annex will not increase the schools' capacity to house more students in classrooms. The modifications are designed to increase staff/student safety and to accommodate the rerouting of bus traffic. With the completion of the new high school on Argent Road student enrollment at the Pasco High School will decrease, thus freeing up the annex for other needed classroom uses. The Captain Gray Annex has a long history of being part of the neighborhood in which it is located. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? 3 The proposed school parking lot and bus lane modifications are designed to enhance the safety of students, teachers and visitors to the school. The neighborhood has a long history with this property being developed with school buildings. Schools in Pasco have a long history of acceptance in residential neighborhoods. In most communities schools are located in or near residential neighborhoods. MOTION FOR ALTERNATE # 1 MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions in Alternate # 1 as contained in the January 15, 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Pasco School District for the modification of the Captain Gray with conditions under alternate # 1 as contained in the January 15, 2009 staff report: APPROVAL CONDITIONS (1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; (2) The site modifications shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted with the special permit application; (3) The relocation of water lines, street repairs, storm water modifications modification of sidewalks and related infrastructure improvements associated with the parking lot modifications shall be the responsibility of the School District. This does not include the relocation of the crosswalk signal on Court Street or the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of 101h Avenue and Court Street. (4) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by February 1, 2010. 4 ALTERNATE # 2 (Traffic Signal Required) FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The Captain Gray Annex is located in an R-1 zone. 2. A school building has been located on the site for approximately 50 years. 3. The Captain Gray Annex is being converted to a kindergarten facility. 4. Grade Schools are unclassified uses that require review through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction. S. The Captain Gray Annex site is fully developed with surrounding infrastructure in place. 6. The site is within the City limits of Pasco. 7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for public or quasi-public uses. 8. The proposed modifications to the school site will involve a new driveway entrance on Court Street. 9. The Captain Gray site will be fenced to isolate the elementary school from the High School campus. 10. Access to the Pasco High School Site from the Court Street gate will no longer be available as a result of the proposed site modifications. 11. Comprehensive Plan Goal OF-5 suggests adequate provisions for educational facilities should be located throughout the urban growth area. 12. The site is bounded on two sides by major streets. 13. The existing crossing between 10th Avenue and 12th Avenue was installed approximately 20 years ago to create a safe crossing for students. A fence was also installed to direct students to the crossing. No openings were allowed in the fence except at the crossing to reduce jaywalking. The modifications proposed in the site plan would create an opening in the fence away from the existing crossing and would restrict direct student access to the crossing from the high school. In the proposal students would be redirected to use 10th Avenue and 141h Avenue as the north-south routes across Court Street to and from the school. 14. There is currently a fully signalized intersection at 14th Avenue. 5 15. A risk management study was performed by the Washington Schools Risk Management Pool. According to this study the Pasco High School Students would logically follow 10th Avenue as the walking route to and from the High School. 16. There is currently no marked or lighted crossing at 10th Ave. The existing signalized crossing is located approximately 300 feet west of 10th Avenue. Access to school grounds will no longer be available at this signal crossing. The students would not be likely to walk down to the signalized crossing and would cross at the 10th Avenue intersection. 17. The risk management study did not include the proposed site plan modifications for the Captain Gray site. 18. The risk management study did not included impacts to Court Street traffic that will result from the new driveway approach to the Captain gray site from Court Street. 19. The distance between the new Court Street driveway and the crosswalk stop bar is only 80 feet. 20. There is only enough room for 4 cars to stack behind the Crosswalk signal before the new bus driveway on Court Street is blocked. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: OF-5 suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. Policy-5-A encourages the appropriate location and design of schools through out the community. The future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan designates the site for public and quasi-public uses. Schools are public uses. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The Captain Gray Annex site is fully developed. Surrounding streets and utilities have been in place for many years. These utilities have been sized to accommodate the needs of the grade school. The new bus driveway on Court Street is only 80 feet from the Court Street crosswalk signal stop bar. Cars stopped behind the stop bar could stack up across the new driveway causing busses to be stacked on Court Street congesting Court Street traffic. 6 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The Captain Gray Annex has been located at the southwest corner of Court Street and 101h Avenue for over 20 years. Single-family homes, churches and businesses have all developed around the school. The school is a major part of the general character of the neighborhood. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The neighborhoods surrounding the Captain Gray Annex are fully developed. An on-line search of the County Assessors' property records indicates property values near the Captain Gray Annex have increased in recent years. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed modifications of the Captain Gray Annex will not increase the schools' capacity to house more students in classrooms. The modifications are designed to increase staff/student safety and to accommodate the rerouting of bus traffic. With the completion of the new High School on Argent Road, student enrollment at the Pasco High School will decrease, thus freeing up the annex for other needed classroom uses. The Captain Gray Annex has a long history of being part of the neighborhood in which it is located. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed school parking lot and bus lane modifications are designed to enhance the safety of students, teachers and visitors to the school. The modifications created to Court Street by the new driveway entrance have the potential to cause bus congestion on Court Street if the current crosswalk signal is not relocated further to the east. The proposed site modifications will eliminate student access to the school grounds at the crosswalk signal. This situation creates safety concerns for high school students that will cross Court Street at other unsignalized (jaywalking) locations. MOTION FOR ALTERNATE # 2 7 MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions in Alternate # 2 as contained in the January 15, 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Pasco School District for the modification of the Captain Gray with conditions under Alternate # 2 as contained in the January 15, 2008 staff report: APPROVAL CONDITIONS (1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; (2) The site modifications shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted with the special permit application; (3) The relocation of water lines, street repairs, storm water modifications modification of sidewalks and related infrastructure improvements associated with the parking lot modifications shall be the responsibility of the School District; (4) The existing lighted crosswalk located on Court Street between 10th Avenue and 12th Avenue must be relocated to the intersection of Court Street and 10th Avenue. This would require the intersection to be converted to a fully signalized intersection; (5) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by July 30, 2009. 8 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 08-011 APPLICANT: Dolores Escalera HEARING DATE: 12/18/2008 1730 W. Park St. ACTION DATE: 1/15/2009 Pasco WA. 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Children's Learning Center/Daycare in an R-1 District. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Blk 8, Stadium Park Addition, together with the North 1/2 And South 1/2 Vac Alley Adjacent. General Location: 1730 West Park Street Property Size: 296 ft x 272 ft or 80,512 square feet (1.85 acres) 2. ACCESS: The site's principle access is from 18th Avenue; however, access also exists from Nixon & Park Street and 181h Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and contains one church building. The properties to the south are zoned R-2 and R-1, containing four duplexes and one single family home. The properties to the west are zoned R-1 and contain single-family dwellings. Pasco School District High School Stadium/Boys and Girls Club to the east is zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and the properties to the north are zoned R-1 which contain single-family dwellings and one duplex. S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Goal LU-3-A encourages the location of daycare facilities in residential neighborhoods. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of non-significance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS The site was originally developed in 1965 with a church and supporting parking facilities. The church has been a part of the surrounding neighborhood for the last 43 years. The applicant is proposing to locate a children's learning/daycare center in a portion of the church. The applicant's proposal involves the use of 5 rooms within the church to provide daycare and learning services for up 50 children. The ages of the children will range from 1 month to 11 years. Initial hours of operation will be from 5:00 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday. The site is located one block east of 20th Avenue and one block north of Sylvester Street and as such is functionally convenient to both arterial streets. The site is fully developed with streets and curbing on all four sides. A sidewalk is located on all sides of the property except along 18th Avenue. Although not a residential use, daycare facilities and churches are often located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Church and daycare activities in residential neighborhoods usually do not generate complaints from neighbors. The church was built on the site after most of the homes were built in the neighborhood. Traffic to and from the proposed learning/day care center will typically coincide with the morning and afternoon peak traffic through the neighborhood (Per ITE Trip Generation Manual Vol. 7) The Trip Generation Manual indicates the existing church (8,000 sq ft) could generate up to 300 vehicle trips on a Sunday with 94 trips being generated during peak hours. There are 34 hard-surfaced parking spaces and 33,980 square feet of gravel parking surface on the site. Approximately 42% of the 1.85 acre site is devoted to parking. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) typically requires outdoor play areas for daycare facilities. No such play area is proposed at this time. However, the site has an area (approximately 1,882 square feet) enclosed by a six (6) foot masonry wall which may be suitable as a play area. INTIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 2 3. The Pasco High School Stadium/Boys and Girls Club site is located directly to the east of the site and are in the R-1 zoning district. 4. The building proposed for child learning/daycare center use is currently a church. 5. A church has existed at this location for approximately forty four (44) years. 6. Franklin County Assessor records indicate residential property values within the neighborhood have increased in the last 3 years. 7. The proposed learning/day care center could generate approximately up to 120 vehicle trips a day (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 8. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of fifty (50) children for the learning/daycare center. 9. Sidewalks exist on three sides of the property. 10. There are two driveway entrances to the church parking lot on Nixon Street and two on Park Street. However, one entrance on Park Street is barricaded. 11. Existing handicap accessible pedestrian ramps do not meet current City of Pasco Standards. 12. Insufficient right of way exists to install approved handicap accessible pedestrian ramps. 13. The driveways entrances on the church property are severely deteriorated or consist of gravel. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INTIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. Churches, schools and daycare facilities are often located with residential zoning districts. The proposed learning/daycare center supports Plan Goal LU- 3-A that encourages such facilities to be located in residential neighborhoods. 3 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities serve the proposed site. The utilities serving the property are sized to serve utility demands of greater intensities than the proposed use. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed use will be located within an existing church and will not alter the existing or intended character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The proposal involves the use of an existing church. The church building will not be altered or changed. The existing church has not negatively affected existing residential development nor has the church affected recent redevelopment of the Boys and Girls Club of the Edgar Brown Stadium facilities. Franklin County Assessor records indicate property values around the church have increased in recent years. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Traffic to and from the site will correspond to the morning and evening peaks through the neighborhood. The proposed learning center/daycare use inside the church will be similar to activities in the Boys and Girls Club directly across 18th Avenue. This use will not generate vibrations, fumes and other items that would be objectionable to the neighborhood. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed learning center/daycare facility will be located inside an existing church building and will have a low probability of creating a nuisance for the surrounding neighborhood. Approval Conditions 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 4 2) The applicant shall maintain a current Department of Social and Health Service license at all times for the activities allowed on the site; 3) The number of children permitted on the site shall be determined by the strict application of the DSHS day care criteria and shall in no case exceed 50 children; 4) The applicant shall comply with all DSHS operational requirements for the daycare; 5) Sidewalk must be constructed along 18th Avenue. 6) All driveway entrances (existing or proposed) must be constructed to City of Pasco standard 3-5 and must have a minimum of 40 feet of hard surface pavement from the right of way line into the property. The pavement width must equal the width of the driveway entrance. Existing driveways cut outs that are not being used must be removed and replaced with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. 7) Handicap accessible pedestrian ramps must be constructed to current City of Pasco construction standards at all four property corners. Curb returns must have a minimum radius of 25 feet. All rights-of-way required for the new curb returns and pedestrian ramps must be dedicated to the City of Pasco. 8) The special permit shall be null and void if a modified business license has not been obtained by August 3, 2009. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed learning center/daycare and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the January 15, 2009 meeting. 5 Item: Special Permit Preschool in R- 1 Zo e ViCinitY - A licant: Dolores Escalera N Map File : SP 08-011 rxw mA►RGARET.ST '" . , gift ME .111w, PAID ST US ~ _ �ui , i r ui vp SITE of F IL .r a` F y. Land Item : Special Permit Preschool in R- 1 Zone Use Applicant: Dolores Escalera N Map File # : SP 08-011 ` MARGARET ST --I� Boys & SFDU 's—_ PARK ST Girls Club/ a i � SlTE High CD CN School NIXON ST Stadium Commercial SVLVESTER ST Zoning Item: Special Permit Preschool in R- 1 Zo e Applicant: Dolores Escalera N Map File # : SP 08-011 MARGARET ST R=1 PARK ST R=1 w w > > Q SITE Co 0 N NIXON ST IR117 C-1 SYLVESTER ST REPORT SUPPLEMENT MASTER FILE NO: SP 08-011 APPLICANT: Dolores Escalera HEARING DATE: 12/18/2008 1730 W. Park St. ACTION DATE: 1/15/2009 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND On December 18, 2008 the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the Escalera application for a Children's Learning Center/Daycare proposed for the existing church at 1730 West Park Street. The initial staff report reviewed during the December 18th meeting contained several recommendations in the form of approval conditions for improvements to curbing, sidewalks and handicapped ramps. After reviewing the proposed conditions the Planning Commission expressed concern over how the recommended improvements could be linked to locating a daycare in the church building. After reviewing the Planning Commission's concerns over the handicapped ramp replacement recommendation with the Engineering Department staff, the Engineers agreed that the existing handicapped ramps did not have to be replaced. However, the Engineers are still concerned about the lack of sidewalk on 181h Avenue and the poor quality driveway approaches. Following the hearing staff indicated two sets of findings and motions with conditions would be prepared for Planning Commission discussion at the January 15, 2009 regular meeting. One motion would include requirements for sidewalk and handicapped ramp improvements and the other would not. In light of the Engineers agreeing to drop the request for handicapped ramp alterations the alternate findings and approval conditions listed below have been modified to deal only with the sidewalk issue. Both alternates contain the requirements for driveway approach improvements. The approaches into the gravel parking area cause rocks, sand and silt to be knocked into the street. These materials are washed into the nearby storm water system and plug the catch basin. Additional and sometimes costly public maintenance of the storm water system is then required. ALTERNATE # 1 (No sidewalk improvements required) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The site is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 3. The Pasco High School Stadium and Boys and Girls Club are located directly to the east of the site and are in an R-1 zoning district. 4. The building proposed for the child learning/daycare center use is currently a church. 5. The daycare/child learning center is located in the Stadium Park Addition which was platted in 1952. 6. Subdivision standards in 1952 typically did not require a radius on corner lots at the intersection of two streets. 7. Almost all subdivisions within the central core of the City were platted without radii at the intersection of streets. 8. Over the past 15 plus years the city has retrofitted every street corner with handicapped ramps. 9. The retrofitted handicapped ramps were installed at most street intersections without enlarging the curb radii. 10. The handicapped ramps around the daycare/child learning center site were installed by the City in 2005 without modification to the curb or right-of-way width. 11. The Vocational Training Center (Sheet Metal Training Trust) was granted a special permit in June of 2007 for 1718 W. Sylvester without a condition requiring the dedication of enlarged radii at street corners. 12. The Vocational Training Center was granted a special permit in June of 2007 for 1718 W. Sylvester without a condition requiring new curb gutter and handicapped ramps. 13. The Vocational Training Center is about one block south of the proposed daycare/child learning center. 14. A church has existed at this location for approximately forty-four (44) years. 15. The proposed daycare/child learning center will occupy existing classroom space within the church that has been on the site for over 40 years. 16. A daycare has been located in the existing church for many years. 17. No occupancy classification change is required for the proposed use. 18. The church use and function of the site will not change. 19. No building improvements are being proposed. 2 20. The 33% threshold for improvement costs versus property value will not be met to require major on site improvements. 21. Franklin County Assessor records indicate residential property values in the neighborhood have increased in the last 3 years. 22. The proposed learning/daycare center could generate up to approximately 120 vehicle trips per day (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 23. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of fifty (50) children for the learning/daycare center. 24. There are two driveway entrances to the church parking lot on Nixon Street and two on Park Street. One entrance on Park Street is barricaded. 25. The driveways entrances on the church property are severely deteriorated or consist of gravel. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. Churches, schools and daycare facilities are often located within residential zoning districts. The proposed learning/daycare center supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in residential neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities serve the proposed site. The utilities serving the property are sized to serve utility demands of greater intensities than the proposed use. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed use will be located within an existing church and will not alter the existing or intended character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The church building and a daycare have been apart of the neighborhood character for many years. 3 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The proposal involves the use of an existing church. The church building will not be altered or changed. The existing church has not negatively affected existing residential development nor has the church affected recent redevelopment of the Boys and Girls Club or the Edgar Brown Stadium facilities. Franklin County Assessor records indicate property values around the church have increased in recent years. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Traffic to and from the site will correspond to the morning and evening peaks through the neighborhood. The proposed learning center/daycare use inside the church will be similar to activities in the Boys and Girls Club directly across 18th Avenue. The proposed use will not generate vibrations, fumes and or flashing lights that would be objectionable to the neighborhood. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed learning center/daycare facility will be located inside an existing church building and will have a low probability of creating a nuisance for the surrounding neighborhood. MOTION FOR ALTERNATE # 1 (No sidewalk improvements required) MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions in Alternate # 1 as contained in the January 15, 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Dolores Escalera for the location of a Child Learning center/daycare at 1730 West Park Street with conditions under Alternate #1 as contained in the January 15, 2009 staff report: 4 APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The applicant shall maintain a current Department of Social and Health Service license at all times for the activities allowed on the site; 3) The number of children permitted on the site shall be determined by the strict application of the DSHS daycare criteria and shall in no case exceed 50 children; 4) The applicant shall comply with all DSHS operational requirements for the daycare; 5) All driveway entrances (existing or proposed) must be constructed to City of Pasco standard 3-5 and must have a minimum of 40 feet of hard surface pavement from the right of way line into the property. The pavement width must equal the width of the driveway entrance. Existing driveway drops that are not being used must be removed and replaced with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. 6) The special permit shall be null and void if a modified business license has not been obtained by August 3, 2009. ALTERNATE # 2 (Sidewalk improvements required) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The site is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 3. The Pasco High School Stadium and Boys and Girls Club are located directly to the east of the site and are in an R-1 zoning district. 4. The building proposed for the child learning/daycare center use is currently a church. 5. The daycare/child learning center is located in the Stadium Park Addition which was platted in 1952. 5 6. Subdivision standards in 1952 typically did not require a radius on corner lots at the intersection of two streets. 7. Almost all subdivisions within the central core of the City were platted without radii at the intersection of streets. 8. Over the past 15 plus years the city has retrofitted every street corner with handicapped ramps. 9. The retrofitted handicapped ramps were installed at most street intersections without enlarging the curb radii. 10. The handicapped ramps around the daycare/child learning center site were installed by the City in 2005 without modification to the curb or right-of-way width. 11. The Vocational Training Center (Sheet Metal Training Trust) was granted a special permit in June of 2007 for 1718 W. Sylvester without a condition requiring the dedication of enlarged radii at street corners. 12. The Vocational Training Center was granted a special permit in June of 2007 for 1718 W. Sylvester without a condition requiring new curb gutter and handicapped ramps. 13. The Vocational Training Center is about one block south of the proposed daycare/child learning center. 14. A church has existed at this location for approximately forty-four (44) years. 15. The proposed daycare/child learning center will occupy existing classroom space within the church that has been on the site for over 40 years. 16. A daycare has been located in the existing church for many years. 17. No occupancy classification change is required for the proposed use. 18. The church use and function of the site will not change. 19. No building improvements are being proposed. 20. The 33% threshold for improvement costs versus property value will not be met to require major on site improvements. 21. Franklin County Assessor records indicate residential property values within the neighborhood have increased in the last 3 years. 22. The proposed learning/daycare center could generate up to approximately 120 vehicle trips per day (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 23. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of fifty (50) children for the learning/daycare center. 6 24. There are two driveway entrances to the church parking lot on Nixon Street and two on Park Street. However, one entrance on Park Street is barricaded. 25. The driveways entrances on the church property are severely deteriorated or consist of gravel. 26. The site has sidewalk on three street frontages. 27. No sidewalk exists along 181h Avenue. 28. The site is the only property on 18th Avenue between Court Street and Sylvester Street that lacks sidewalk. 29. The site is the only developed property between Court Street and Sylvester Street from 20th Avenue to 15th Avenue lacking sidewalk. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: I) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. Churches, schools and daycare facilities are often located within residential zoning districts. The proposed learning/daycare center supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in residential neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities serve the proposed site. The utilities serving the property are sized to serve utility demands of greater intensities than the proposed use. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed use will be located within an existing church and will not alter the existing or intended character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The church building and a daycare have been apart of the neighborhood character for many years. The surrounding neighborhoods are fully developed with sidewalks. The site can be brought into harmony with the neighborhood by having sidewalk installed along 181h Avenue. 7 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The proposal involves the use of an existing church. The church building will not be altered or changed. The existing church has not negatively affected existing residential development nor has the church affected recent redevelopment of the Boys and Girls Club or the Edgar Brown Stadium facilities. Franklin County Assessor records indicate property values around the church have increased in recent years. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Traffic to and from the site will correspond to the morning and evening peaks through the neighborhood. The proposed learning center/daycare use inside the church will be similar to activities in the Boys and Girls Club directly across 18th Avenue. The proposed use will not generate vibrations, fumes and or flashing lights that would be objectionable to the neighborhood. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed learning center/daycare facility will be located inside an existing church building and will have a low probability of creating a nuisance for the surrounding neighborhood. The site has not participated in constructing sidewalk along 18th Avenue. Permitted uses in the neighborhood are fully developed with sidewalks providing for the safe passage of pedestrians through the neighborhood. MOTION FOR ALTERNATE # 2 (Sidewalk improvements required) MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions in Alternate # 2 as contained in the January 15, 2009 staff report. 8 MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Dolores Escalera for the location of a Child Learning center/daycare at 1730 West Park Street with conditions in Alternate #2 as contained in the January 15, 2009 staff report: APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The applicant shall maintain a current Department of Social and Health Service license at all times for the activities allowed on the site; 3) The number of children permitted on the site shall be determined by the strict application of the DSHS daycare criteria and shall in no case exceed 50 children; 4) The applicant shall comply with all DSHS operational requirements for the daycare; 5) All driveway entrances (existing or proposed) must be constructed to City of Pasco standard 3-5 and must have a minimum of 40 feet of hard surface pavement from the right of way line into the property. The pavement width must equal the width of the driveway entrance. Existing driveway drops that are not being used must be removed and replaced with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. 6) Sidewalk shall be installed along 18th Avenue per City's standard specifications. 7) The special permit shall be null and void if a modified business license has not been obtained by August 3, 2009. 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 15, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Sign Code Amendment Approximately 2 years ago the City Council adopted a sign code to provide direction for the placement of signs within the City. The purpose of the sign code was to increase the effectiveness of visual communication within the city while promoting the general welfare of the community. The Sign Code established design, construction and maintenance standards for all signs erected in the City. The Code also lists and defines various types of signs. Included in the sign definitions are freeway interchange signs, directory of tenant signs and community event signs. These sign all provide identification or advertising for businesses or events that may or may not be on the property where the sign is located. Freeway interchange signs for example,provide regional identification for a group of businesses that collectively occupy a minimum of 15 acres of land. Community event signs are temporary signs that are permitted on or off the property where the community event is taking place. In reviewing the various types of signs in the sign code, staff has recently been made aware of the fact that there is a need for a sign that provides identification of large community sports, entertainment or trade show events. Attached is a proposed code amendment that provides a definition and some location standards for Regional Community Events signs. The proposed code amendment limits the use of Regional Community Event signs to facilities that are located on 60 or more acres within 1,000 feet of a freeway interchange. The proposal limits signs to 50 feet in height with no more than 200 square feet of display area per face. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in December to review the proposed code amendment. Recommendation MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City amend Title 17 to include provisions for Regional Community Event signs as indicated in the proposed ordinance. 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC Chapter 17.13 DEALING WITH OFF-PREMISE SIGNS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the community; and, WHEREAS, the Pasco Municipal code defines a variety of signs including freeway signs that provide regional identification for a group of businesses within a defined business association where said businesses occupy a minimum of 15 acres of land; and, WHEREAS, the Pasco Municipal Code permits business complex signs that identify a business complex with multiple businesses that may or may not be located where the business complex sign is located; and, WHEREAS, the Pasco Municipal Code permits special event signs for community events to be displayed on or off the premises where the event is taking place; and, WHEREAS, Community event facilities used for sports events, entertainment, conventions, trade shows and events of region wide interest are functionally similar to regional business complexes and or community events activities that are permitted to have off-premise signage and or large business complex signs; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of the sign code and the proper identification of community wide events and activities at regional community event centers it is necessary to amend PMC Chapter 17.13; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 17.03 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended to include a new subsection 17.03.01 (A) (49.01) to reads as follows: 49.01) SIGN— COMMUNITY EVENT REGIONAL means a sign that identifies events occurring at a regional sports/entertainment/convention/trade facility containing 60 or more acres located within 1,000 feet of a freeway interchange and adjacent a highway of statewide significance. Section 2. That Chapter 17.13 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended to include a new subsection to reads as follows: 17.13.080 Community Event Regional Signs. Community events regional signs are permitted on public or private property within 1,200 feet of the facility property. Public community events signs shall not be more than 200 square feet per face and shall not be greater than 50 feet in height and shall be a single pole mount system. Said pole shall be painted gray, tan, light brown or other neutral color as approved by the Community and Economic Development Director. Signs not conforming to the provisions herein may be reviewed and approved on case-by-case basis through the special permit process. Provided, however, no sign greater than 50 feet in height or more than 200 square feet in size shall be permitted. Community Event Regional signs shall only be used for advertizing events and activities at the facility and or non commercial events of community wide interest. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective 5 days after publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington and approved as provided by law this day of , 2008. Joyce Olson Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 08-015 APPLICANT: Columbia Basin College HEARING DATE: 1/15/09 2600 N. 20th Avenue ACTION DATE: 2/19/09 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in an R-T Zone (4100 Block of Argent Place) (MF# SP 08-015) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: That portion of the SW quarter of the SE quarter of Sec. 14, T9N, R29E, W.M., in Franklin County, Washington, lying South of A line 100 feet southerly and parallel to the centerline of Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1 canal, except a strip of land 70 feet in width, being 30 feet on the East side and 40 feet on the west side of Franklin County Irrigation District #I pipeline, and except rights of way for Argent Road and Road 44. And together with the West half of the SW quarter of the SE quarter of the SE quarter of Sec. 14, T9N, R29E, W.M., in Franklin County, Washington; except any portion thereof lying west of A line 40 feet easterly of Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1 pipeline and except right of way for Argent Road in Franklin County, Washington. General Location: 4100 Blk. of Argent Place Property Size: Approximately 19 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Argent Place. 3. UTILITIES: City water is available to the site, and is located in the Argent Place right-of-way. Sewer service is located at the intersection of Road 44 and Argent Road, approximately 211 feet from the southwest property corner. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned R-T (Residential Transition) and is bordered on the south by the City Boundary, on the west by lands zoned C-1, and on the north by lands zoned R-T. The lands to the north and west are vacant. Lands to the northeast contain the FCID storage yard and tail water pound. One house is located 500 plus feet to the east. The lands to the south are in Franklin County and are zoned R-S-20. The properties in the County contain small pastures mixed with five homes. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Parks/Open Space. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of non-significance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS Columbia Basin College, has submitted an application to relocate all or a major portion of the existing research farm from the college campus to Port property on Argent Place. The current College research farm is located immediately west of the main entrance to the College on Argent Road. College expansion plans call for a new building to be located in this area necessitating the need for locating a new site for much of the farm. The College has entered into a lease agreement with the Port of Pasco for 19 acres of land near the intersection of Road 44 and Argent Place as a replacement site for the research farm. The proposed site is located conveniently near (3/4 of a mile away) the College Campus. The proposed farm will be used to provide educational training and research with an emphasis in researching potential bio-fuel crops (specialty alfalfa crops). The site is located on property the Port purchased many years ago to control development around the end of Runway 3L. The surrounding Port property contains the Big Cross Cross Country track and the City Soccer Park. Part of the site has been used in the past for hay storage. The development of farms within the city is not new or unique. Pasco has been an agricultural community from its inception. Considerable acreage devoted to farm fields can be found within the City limits and such has been the case for many years. Approximately 400 acres of airport property is currently being farmed and until recently there was a large farm (125 acres) to the west of the site along Road 44. In 1990 agricultural uses were also added as an unclassified uses in the zoning regulations and as such required review thorough the Special Permit process when they are within 1,000 feet of a dwelling or residential subdivision. 2 In reviewing this proposal Staff has identified five (5) issues for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1) dust control; 2) noise; 3) general farming operations; and 4) ground water concerns. During the initial grading and leveling of the site fugitive dust could potentially impact adjacent lands if not properly monitored. This impact would be eliminated once a crop is established. Staff would suggest the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during the initial grading and leveling so that during wind events the site can be managed to prevent dust from leaving the site. The proposed farm is not a commercial farm and will not be operated with the same intensity as a typical farm. Noise and the operation of machinery will be minimal compared to the operation of a commercial farm. Nearby freeway (1-182) may be a grater source of noise than the operation of the proposed research farm. Over irrigation and the use of farm chemicals often creates concerns for neighbors over ground water contamination. The production of alfalfa typically does not require the application of many farm chemical compared to other crops. The lease agreement between the Port and the College requires the College to operate the farm in a husbandlike manner in accordance with best prevailing crop irrigation practices. The lease agreement also requires the College to not apply any chemicals to the farm in such a manner that would endanger plantings on nearby properties. The concerns a list above can be addressed through implementing a farm management plan. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned R-T. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Parks/Open Space development. 3. The site is owned by the Port of Pasco. 3 4. The site is not designated as a critical area. 5. Farming is listed as a conditional use in the RT District. 6. The site is in the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 7. The site contains 19 acres. 8. The site is vacant. 9. The subject site is within 1000 ft of a residential zone. 10. The site is adjacent Road 44, a major street. 11. The site is accessible from two sides. 12. Irrigation water is available to the site via the Franklin County Irrigation District canal which forms the northern property boundary. 13. Columbia Basin College currently operates a similar research farm on campus (approximately 18.6 acres). The on-campus farm site has been slated for development in order to expand campus facilities. 14. The site is located less than a mile from the current on campus farm. 15. The proposed crop is alfalfa. 16. The Farm Lease between the Port of Pasco and Columbia Basin College has a term of (5) years, terminating October 30, 2013. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INTIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for Parks/Open Space development. The proposed can be considered and open space use that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of open space. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? 4 The proposed farm will have no adverse impact on public infrastructure. A farm is not dependant upon City utilities or infrastructure as are residential and commercial developments. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed use will not conflict with the open space nature of the surrounding Port lands.. The location of other farms within the I-182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses. Farms have operated simultaneously with the development of Island Estates, Sunny Meadows, the Village of Pasco Heights, and in harmony with other residential developments in the I-182 Corridor. The proposed use will not make intensive use of the land or lead to the disorderly growth of the community. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? There will be no structures erected with this proposal other than a pivot irrigation system. Development over the last 10 years within the I-182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Nearby properties contain the FCID storage yard and tail water pound a large horse corral, small pastures and vacant land. The proposed use will not create more traffic, flashing lights, fumes, noise or vibrations than the traffic on Argent Place or Road 44 or I-182. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? 5 The existence of numerous farming operations within the I-182 Corridor demonstrates that the proposed use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. (Proposed) Approval Conditions (1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; (2) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; (3) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; (4) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; (5) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa only; (6) The property shall be posted to indicate no motorcycling or four wheeling is permitted; (7) The special permit shall be null and void if the farming activity has not begun by March 1, 2010. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed Captain Gray modifications and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the February 19, 2009 meeting. 6 Item: Special Permit - Research Farm Overview Applicant: Columbia basin College N Map File #. SP 08-015 PIS(PHIL DR p r Proposed Site Existing :, ON, = INHUEN r PL Site \� 1 `7 rk va l DOIJGVILLC'RD � Wp.. �• rJ� s! � �rk. � / •� \ - it 1.�1� - - WERN€IT RD 'c*n'ty Item: Special Permit - Research Farm Vi Applicant: Columbia basin College N Map File #. SP 08-015 GP' PRSK SITE r.�w4A&.ARGEUT PL o t ! '. ' 1 k � .I 7 • a A y y CD l Land Item: Special Permit - Research Farm � Use Applicant : Columbia basin College -(x - Map File #: SP 08-015 ` 0 > < FCID SFDU 's � — Cross-Country Laydown Track / Vacant��palsKe�\ Yard o00 Vacant SIT SFDU D U 'S Golf ��GFNT p� ,al Course Zoning Item: Special Permit - Research Farm Applicant : Columbia basin College x Map File #: SP 08-015 0 R=S= 1 � RT rz- ---RT C- 1 � o00 SITE" N, J RS- 12 RS-20 ( County) � MEMORANDUM DATE: January 15, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment Critical Areas Ordinance The original Growth Management Act required the City to adopt a critical areas ordinance. Updates to the Growth Management Act required local jurisdictions to undertake significant modifications of the original update critical area ordinances. In response to state mandates the Planning Commission held a public hearing last fall to review a revised critical areas ordinance for the City. Following the Planning Commission hearing the proposed ordinance was transmitted to the state for the required 60-day review by state agencies. The Department of Ecology and the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development made a number of comments and suggestions for changes and corrections to the proposed ordinance. Most of the suggestions related to the Chapter 28.16 of the proposed ordinance addressing wetlands. The wetland definitions and buffer standards in the proposed ordinance were not consistent with the Department of Ecology standards. The corrections and modifications to the ordinance have been highlight in the text of the proposed ordinance. The corrections can be found on pages, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, and 36. The proposed critical areas ordinance has been scheduled for a workshop on January 15, 2009. Within the next month or two the Planning Commission will need to hold another hearing prior to developing a final recommendation for the City Council. 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to Critical Lands repealing PMC Chapter 23.11 and establishing a new PMC Title 27 for regulating Critical Lands WHEREAS, cities are required by the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A 170)to identify and designate critical areas; and, WHEREAS, Critical areas are defined by RCW 36.70A.030 to include wetlands, areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas; and, WHEREAS, all cities and counties in Washington planning under RCW 26.70A.040 must take action to review and update as necessary development regulations dealing with critical areas every seven years; and, WHEREAS, historical priority habitat and species data prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife indicate there are at least 6 significant habitat areas within the Pasco UGA; and, WHEREAS, a review of the Pasco Urban Growth Area was conducted in 2008 (Critical Areas Review Pasco Planning Dept 2008)to determine the extent of critical areas within the sphere of Pasco's planning responsibilities, and, WHEREAS, much of the data identifying the historical priority habitats within the Pasco UGA was obtained prior to 1990; and, WHEREAS, since 1990 the City of Pasco has experience phenomenal growth increasing in population by 31,935; and, WHEREAS, the native or natural landscape and environment within the Pasco UGA has been subject to high levels of disturbance because of ongoing agricultural production, industrial and commercial activities and other forms of urban development for over 100 years; and, WHEREAS, the construction and operation of the transportation system (barge, rail, highway, and airport) mineral extraction, development of urban parks, schools and other concentrated urban development has significantly diminished the functions and values of natural areas for habitat; and, WHEREAS, the historical habitat areas have been reduced 90 percent in size by urban development; and, WHEREAS, the remaining natural sites containing remnants of the original shrub-steppe environment are fragmented in areas that pose serious conflicts for the encouragement of wildlife habitat. The areas enclosed within the Tri-Cities Airport (the third busiest airport in the state) are marginal habitat. For the safety of airport operations and the threat these operations pose to wildlife encouraging the protection of habitat around the runways is not appropriate; and, WHEREAS, the site at the northwest corner of Broadmoor Boulevard and Harris Road is occupied by a farming operation, South Columbia Irrigation District facilities and the Central Pre- Mix mineral extraction facility. Much of this area is reserved for the production of mineral 1 resources and must be preserved for mineral extraction as required the GMA(RCW 36.79A.060 (1) (a); and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the with relatively level ground and few geological features, Pasco and the Pasco UGA are located on some of the earliest and continuously used agricultural lands in Franklin County even predating the Grand Coulee irrigation project. Consequently standard farming practices including, land clearing, land leveling, tilling, planting, irrigating, applying farm chemicals to the land, harvesting, sheep grazing and crop residue burning have significantly alter the natural environment. Urban development followed the establishment of the farms and further altered natural ecosystems. The City Council further finds that: o Wetlands can be found in Franklin County along the margins, side channels and islands of the Columbia and Snake Rivers and in the low lying areas of the County around Scooteney Reservoir and Eagle Lakes. These wetland areas are located outside the Pasco UGA. o Irrigation canals, farm ponds,wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities are located through out the UGA. By GMA definition these facilities are not wetlands. o Hydric soils are located within Sacajawea State Park in along the shoreline in the Columbia Bend area of the Pasco UGA. o Coulees and canyons within the County can develop wetlands where ground water emerges. There are no coulees or canyon in the Pasco UGA. o The native or natural landscape and environment within the Pasco UGA has been subject to high levels of disturbance because of ongoing agricultural production, industrial and commercial activities and other forms of urban development for over 100 years. o Much of the Pasco shoreline has been altered by the construction of large levees, past industrial development, the construction of port facilities, residential development and the development of large urban parks. • The Columbia River levees are armored with large basalt rip rap. • The shoreline in the Columbia Bend area and around Sacajawea State Park contains riparian lands. o A 2002 study [BPIC Shoreline Wetlands Report (East of Boat Basin)], (HDR Engineering 2002) indicated there may be some marginal low quality wetlands (perhaps a Category IV) areas within 5-20 feet of the Columbia River along portions of Big Pasco Industrial Park. o The varied topography of the county including steep bluffs along the Columbia River(White Bluffs), bluffs along the Snake river, cliffs, coulees, canyons, the Juniper Dunes, the Scooteney-Eagle Lakes area, river islands, shorelines and intact steppe and shrub-steppe areas all provide important fish and wildlife habitat. With few exceptions these significant habitat areas are located outside the Pasco UGA. o The values and functions of the riparian environment in the Pasco UGA has been significantly altered over the years due to the results of levee construction and 2 maintenance, industrial development, urban park development and other urban development activities. • Sacajawea State Park and the Columbia Bend area contain riparian habitat. • There are no known spawning beds in the Pasco UGA. • The Pasco UGA contains no steppe ecosystems. • The remaining remnants of the original shrub-steppe environment are fragmented in areas that pose serious conflicts (airport & mineral extraction) for the encouragement of wildlife habitat preservation. o The remaining remnants of the shrub steppe environment are located in fragmented ownerships near industrial development and arterial streets with no variety of natural features indicative of priority or quality habitat areas. These areas are isolated from large continuous shrub-steppe environments that contain substantial amounts of interior habitat. o The US Fish and wildlife Service lists the Bull Trout/Dolly Varden as a threatened species. The National Marine Fisheries Service lists the Snake River Sockeye, Spring/Summer and Fall Chinook as threatened species. Steelhead are also listed as a threatened species. o Washington State Fish and Wildlife sensitive habitat maps for the Pasco UGA do not accurately reflect current land uses. o The River system through the Pasco UGA is listed as a critical habitat for the threatened anadromous fish species. o Franklin County contains a number of species and habitats of local importance. These habitat areas and species are found primarily along the breaks of the Columbia and Snake Rivers, the Juniper Dunes Wilderness area, Scooteney-Eagle Lakes area, river islands, shorelines and intact steppe and shrub-steppe areas. These significant habitat areas are principally located outside the Pasco UGA. o The Franklin Conservation District indicates significant aquifer recharge areas within Franklin County are located outside the Pasco UGA. o The areas most susceptible to flooding in Franklin County are the Esquatzel Coulee and the Kahlotus Creek areas. Both of these flood prone areas are located to the north of the Pasco UGA. • According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps most of the Pasco UGA is located in •minimal flood hazard zone. • The Pasco UGA is in an area of low seismic activity. • Certain areas of Pasco may be susceptible to soil liquefaction during a seismic event. 3 o There are no cliffs, canyons or coulees or other significant types of geological feature within the Pasco UGA. o Slopes in access of 15 percent are found in Sections 11 and 14 West of the airport and along the west side of the north/south portion of Dent Road. o Pasco receives between 5 and 7 inches of precipitation a year, an insignificant amount to cause any concern about slope saturation. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has completed the public review process on a proposed draft Critical Area ordinances,NOW,THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That section 23.11 Critical Areas Protection of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby repealed. Section 2. That a new Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 27 be and the same is hereby enacted to read as follows: Chapter 28.04 Critical Areas Sections: 28.04.040 Title 28.04.020 Purpose and Intent 28.04.030 Critical Areas 28.04.040 Critical Area Categories 28.04.050 Intent of Critical Area Regulation 28.04.060 Legislative Authority 28.04.070 Interpretation 28.04.080 Relationship to Other Regulations 28.04.040 This Title shall be known as the Critical Area Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington. 28.04.020 PURPOSE OF TITLE. The purpose of this Title is to conserve and protect the values and functions of environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas which contribute to public health, safety, and welfare of the community without violating any citizen's constitutional rights to the use of property. 28.04.030 CRITICAL AREAS. Critical areas defined by the Growth Management Act, and of concern to Pasco, include: (a) Wetlands; (b) Fish and wildlife habitats; (c) Aquifer recharge areas; (d) Flood hazard areas; and (e) Geologically hazardous areas such as those subject to landslide and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, mine collapse, and volcanic hazards. 4 28.04.040 CRITICAL AREA CATEGORIES. The City finds that these critical areas fall into one or both of the following categories: a) Critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit the City and its residents; and b) Critical areas pose a potential threat to human safety or to public and private property. 28.04.050 INTENT OF CRITICAL AREA REGULATION. The intent of this Title is to implement the provisions of the Growth Management Act and the Pasco Comprehensive Plan by managing development in harmony with critical areas. This Title seeks to: (a) Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, volcanic eruptions, or flooding; (b) Protect unique, fragile and valuable elements of the environment, including fish and wildlife and their habitats; (c) Mitigate unavoidable impacts to environmentally sensitive areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas; (d) Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality and wetlands; (e) Meet the requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) with regard to the protection of critical area lands; (f) Meet the requirements of the "Best Available Science" rule intended to ensure that best available science is included in the development of local policies and regulations for critical areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172(1). The rule also identifies ways to provide special consideration for preserving or enhancing anadromous fisheries, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172 (1); and (g) Coordinate environmental review and permitting of proposals to avoid duplication and delay of desirable actions. 28.04.060 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. This Title is adopted under the authority of Chapters 36.70 and 36.70A, RCW and Article 11 of the Washington State Constitution. 28.04.070 INTERPRETATION. In the interpretation and application of this Title, all provisions shall be: (a) Considered the minimum necessary; (b) Liberally construed to serve the purposes of this Title; and, (c) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers under state statute. 28.04.080 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER REGULATIONS. The regulations of this Title shall apply as an overlay and shall be used in addition to zoning and other regulations established by the City of Pasco. In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other regulations of the City, the regulations that provide greater protection to environmentally sensitive areas or greater protection from environmental hazards shall apply. 5 It is recognized that many city, county, state, and federal permit conditions may be applied to the proposed action, and that compliance with the provisions of the Title does not constitute compliance with other such requirements. Satisfaction of the requirements of this Title shall also be sufficient to satisfy the requirement for critical areas analysis and mitigation pursuant to RCW 43.21C (State Environmental Policy) and Title 23 (Environmental Impact)of the City of Pasco Municipal Code. Chapter 28.08 Definitions Sections: 28.08.010 Definition Interpretation 28.08.015 Activity 28.08.020 Administrator 28.08.025 Alteration 28.08.030 Anadromous Fish. 28.08.035 Applicant 28.08.040 Best Available Science(BAS) 28.08.045 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 28.08.050 Buffer or Buffer Area 28.08.055 Confined Aquifer 28.08.060 Compensatory Mitigation 28.08.065 Conservation Easement 28.08.070 Critical Areas 28.08.075 Critical Area Designation 28.08.080 Critical Area Detailed Study 28.08.085 Development 28.08.090 Development Proposal 28.08.095 Emergent Wetland 28.08.100 Enhancement 28.08.105 Environmentally Sensitive Area 28.08.110 Exemption 28.08.121 Existing and Ongoing Agriculture 28.08.120 Exotic 28.08.125 Facility 28.08.130 Favorable Determination 28.08.135 Final Determination 28.08.140 Function 28.08.145 Geologic Hazard Area 28.08.150 Habitat Areas of Local Importance 28.08.155 Hazardous Substance(s) 28.08.160 Hazardous Substance Processing or Handling 28.08.165 Hazardous Waste (a) Dangerous waste (b) Extremely hazardous waste 28.08.170 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facility 28.08.175 Hydric soil. 28.08.180 Hydrogeologic Assessment 6 28.08.185 In-Kind 28.08.190 Lakeshore Management Plan 28.08.195 Landslide Hazard Areas 28.08.200 NRCS 28.08.205 Off-site 28.08.210 On-site 28.08.215 Out-of-kind 28.08.220 Primary Association 28.08.230 Proposal 28.08.235 Qualified Consultant. 28.08.240 Qualified Fish and Wildlife Biologist 28.08.245 Qualified Wetlands Biologist 28.08.250 Reasonable Use or Reasonable Economic Use 28.08.255 Reasonable Use Exception 28.08.260 Remediation 28.08.265 Restoration 28.08.270 Seismic Hazard Area 28.08.275 Setbacks 28.08.280 Site Assessment 28.08.285 Slump 28.08.290 Sole Source Aquifer 28.08.395 Temporary Erosion Control 28.08.300 Threatened Species 28.08.305 Unfavorable Determination 28.08.310 Unprotected Aquifer 28.08.315 Values 28.08.320 View Corridor 28.08.325 Vulnerability 28.08.330 Wetland 28.08.335 Wetland Categories 28.08.340 Wetland Community Description 28.08.345 Wetland Creation 28.08.350 Wetland Delineation 28.08.355 Wetland Enhancement 28.08.360 Wetland Functions 28.08.365 Wetland Protection/Maintenance(Preservation) 28.08.370 Wetland Restoration 28.08.375 Wetland Values 28.08.010 Definition interpretation. Unless otherwise provided for in this Title, all words and phrases shall be interpreted to have their customary meanings and usages. 28.08.015 Activity. Any development or land use action, or composite of such actions,which falls under the jurisdiction of this Title. 28.08.020 Administrative official, administrator. The City Planner shall administer the provisions of this Title. 28.08.025 Alteration. Any human-induced activity that changes the existing condition of a critical area. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; clearing or removing vegetation; applying herbicides, pesticides or any hazardous substance; discharging pollutants; modifying for surface water management purposes, 7 cutting, pruning or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; paving; construction; applying gravel; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife, or wildlife habitat of a critical area. Alterations do not include walking, fishing, or any other passive recreation or other similar activity. 28.08.030 Anadromous fish. Species, such as salmon, which are born in fresh water, spend a large part of their lives in the sea, and return to fresh water rivers and streams to procreate. 28.08.035 Applicant. The person, parry, firm, corporation, or other entity that proposes any activity that could affect a critical area. 28.08.040 Best Available Science (BAS). Current and scientific information used in the process to designate, protect, or restore critical areas that is derived from a valid scientific process as defined by WAC 365-195-900 through 925. Sources of best available science are included in "Citations of Recommended sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas"published by the State Office Of community Development. 28.08.045 Best Management Practices (BMPs). Best management practices are accepted, state-of-the-art measures for obtaining the highest quality mitigation possible in a given situation. BMPs encompass a variety of behavioral,procedural, and structural measures. 28.08.050 Buffer or Buffer Area. A naturally vegetated and undisturbed or revegetated zone surrounding a critical area that protects the critical area from adverse impacts to its integrity and value, or is an integral part of the resource's ecosystem. 28.08.055 Confined Aquifer. Any aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable or relatively impermeable layers. 28.08.060 Compensatory Mitigation. The process or action of replacing project- induced wetland losses or impacts including, but not limited to, restoration, creation, and enhancement. 28.08.065 Conservation Easement. An agreement between a landowner and a land trust organization whereby the landowner forms a perpetual legal agreement to permanently restrict harmful uses and development of a property. The land stays in private ownership and use, and the land trust sees that the restrictions are carried out. Land trusts are local, regional or statewide nonprofit organizations directly involved in protecting important land resources for the public benefit. 28.08.070 Critical Areas. Includes wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, flood hazard areas, and aquifer recharge areas as designated in this Title and required by RCW 36.70A and WAC 365-190-080. 28.08.075 Critical Area Designation. The legal identification and specification for regulatory purposes of critical areas. 28.08.080 Critical Area Detailed Study. A thorough investigation of an activity and the critical area(s)it may impact as required by this Title. 28.08.085 Development. Any construction or exterior alteration of structures, dredging, drilling, dumping, filling, earth movement, clearing or removal of vegetation, or other 8 site disturbance which either requires a permit, approval or authorization from the City or is proposed by a public agency. 28.08.090 Development Proposal. Any of the activities relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the City of Pasco. 28.08.095 Emergent Wetland. A wetland with at least thirty percent (30%) of the surface area covered by erect,rooted,herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata. 28.08.100 Enhancement. For the purposes of critical areas regulations, enhancement is an action that improves the functions or values of a sensitive area or buffer. Enhancement may or may not be mitigation. 28.08.105 Environmentally Sensitive Area. Any area whose functions and values are subject to disruption by any regulated activity. 28.08.110 Exemption. Release from the liability or requirement of a regulation as a result of meeting the specific identified criteria. 28.08.115 Existing and Ongoing Agriculture. Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.080(2), and those existing activities involved in the production of crops or livestock. Activities may include the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches; operation and maintenance of existing ditches or irrigation systems; changes from one type of agricultural activity to another agricultural activity; and normal maintenance, repair, and operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Activities that bring a nonagricultural area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five (5)years. 28.08.120 Exotic. Any species of plants or animals that is foreign to the planning area. 28.08.125 Facility. Any structure, contiguous land, appurtenances, and other improvements on the land used for recycling, reusing, reclaiming, transferring, storing, treating, disposing, or otherwise handling a hazardous substance. Use of the term "facility" includes underground and aboveground tanks, and operations that handle, use, dispose of, or store hazardous substances. 28.08130 Favorable Determination. The determination by the City Planner that the activity will adequately mitigate its impact upon the critical area(s) and comply with performance standards of this Title and is authorized. 28.08.135 Final Determination. The determination by the City Planner of the adequacy of the project, as proposed, to mitigate any effects it may have on critical areas that are included within or adjacent to the project site. In addition, the City Planner will assess the adequacy of the project proposal's compliance with the applicable performance standards. The determination will be either favorable or unfavorable, indicating that the activity is or is not, respectively, authorized. 28.08.140 Function. The natural processes performed by a critical area and its components. 9 28.08.145 Geologic Hazard Areas. Lands or areas characterized by geologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions that render them susceptible to potentially significant or severe risk of landslides, erosion, or volcanic or seismic activity or that are. 28.08.150 Habitat Areas of Local Importance. A seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that area of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration such as wetlands. 28.08.155 Hazardous Substance(s). Any liquid, solid, gas or sludge, including any materials, substance, product, commodity or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste, and including waste oil and petroleum products. 28.08.160 Hazardous Substance Processing or Handling. The use, storage,manufacture or other land use activity involving hazardous substances, but does not include individually packaged household consumer products or quantities of hazardous substances of less than five (5) gallons in volume per container. 28.08.165 Hazardous Waste. All dangerous waste and extremely hazardous waste as designated pursuant to Chapter 70.105 RCW, Chapter 173-303,WAC. (a) Dangerous waste. Dangerous waste means any discarded, useless, unwanted, or abandoned substances including, but not limited to, certain pesticides, or any residues or containers of such substances which are disposed of in such quantity or concentration as to pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, wildlife, or the environment because such wastes or constituents or combinations of such wastes: 1. Have short-lived, toxic properties that may cause death, injury, or illness or have mutagenic,teratogenic, or carcinogenic properties; or, 2. Are corrosive, explosive, flammable, or may generate pressure through decomposition or other means. (b) Extremely hazardous waste. Extremely hazardous waste means any waste which: 1. Will persist in a hazardous form for several years or more at a disposal site and which in its persistent form presents a significant environmental hazard and may be concentrated by living organisms through a food chain or may affect the genetic make-up of humans or wildlife, and 2. Is disposed of at a disposal site in such quantities as would present an extreme hazard to humans or the environment. 28.08.170 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facility. A facility that treats and stores hazardous waste and is authorized pursuant to Chapter 70.105 RCW, Chapter 173- 303 WAC. It includes all contiguous land and structures used for recycling, reusing, reclaiming, transferring, storing,treating, or disposing of hazardous waste. 10 28.08.175 Hydric Soil. Soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper portions of the soil profile. 28.08.180 Hydrogeologic Assessment. A report detailing the subsurface conditions of a site and which indicates the susceptibility and potential for contamination of groundwater supplies. 28.08.185 In-kind. An action to replace a critical area with a substitute critical area whose characteristics closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. 28.08.190 Lakeshore Management Plan. Means the McNary Lakeshore Management Plan, Lake Wallula, Oregon and Washington prepared by the US Army Corp of Engineers intended to manage and protect the shoreline and to promote recreation and to operate and maintain water resource projects in the public interest. 28.08.195 Landslide Hazard Areas. Areas that, due to a combination of slope inclination, relative soil permeability and hydrologic factors, are susceptible to varying risks of landsliding 28.08.200 NRCS. The Natural Resource Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. 28.08.205 Normal Maintenance and Repair. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. Normal maintenance includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. Normal repair means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to environment or shoreline resources. 28.08.210 Off-site. Action away from the site on which the critical area has been or will be impacted by a regulated activity. 28.08.215 On-site. Action at or within two hundred (200) feet of the site on which the critical area has been or will be impacted by a regulated activity. 28.08.220 Out-of-kind. An action to replace a critical area with a substitute critical area whose characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. 28.08.225 Primary Association. The fundamental link between a species and land and or aquatic area. For the purposes of this Title, these areas are those where species breed or feed. 28.08.230 Proposal. See Development Proposal. 11 28.08.235 Qualified Consultant. A person with expertise through training and/or experience in the area cited who is capable of performing the required services at a level approximating the state of the practice. 28.08.240 Qualified Fish and Wildlife Biologist. A person with expertise in habitat issues with a degree in an appropriate field and experience as a biologist. 28.08.245 Qualified Wetlands Biologist. A qualified professional perset+--with expertise in wetland issues, and with experience in performing delineations using state and federal manuals analyzing wetland functions and values, analyzing wetland impacts, preparing wetland reports, and °,,,...u. neadi .developing_wetland mitigation and restoration lU ans. 28.08.250 Reasonable Use or Reasonable Economic Use. A common law principle that no one has the right to use his or her property in a way that deprives others of the lawful enjoyment of their property. A legal concept articulated by federal and state courts in regulatory takings cases. 28.08.255 Reasonable Use Exception. An exception to the specific standards identified in this Title granted to a property owner on the basis that a property owner should be allowed the reasonable use of his or her property. 28.08.260 Remediation. The cleanup and restoration of groundwater to some acceptable level. 28.08.265 Restoration. For the purposes of sensitive areas regulation, restoration is an action which returns a sensitive area or buffer to a state in which its stability and functions approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. 28.08.270 Seismic Hazard Areas. Areas that, due to a combination of soil and groundwater conditions, are subject to severe risk of ground shaking, subsidence, or liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. These areas are typically underlain by soft or loose saturated soils (such as alluvium), have a shallow groundwater table and are typically located on the floors of river valleys. 28.08.275 Setbacks. The required distances between every structure on a lot and the lot lines of the lot on which it is located, or from rights of way, access easements, or the edges of critical areas as delineated according to the standards and procedures defined in this Title. 28.08.280 Site Assessment. A site-specific analysis which identifies the presence of critical areas, classifies and designates the critical area, documents site conditions, analyzes project- generated impacts, and identifies appropriate mitigative measures. Site assessments include wetland reports,hydrogeologic reports, and habitat management plans. 28.08.285 Slump. The downward and outward movement of a mass of bedrock or regolith along a distinct surface of failure. 28.08.290 Sole Source Aquifer. An area so designated by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Drinking Water Act. 28.08.295 Temporary Erosion Control. On-site and off-site control measures that are needed to control conveyance or deposition of earth, turbidity, or pollutants during development, construction, or restoration. 12 28.08.300 Threatened Species. A species, native to the State of Washington, that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the State without cooperative management or the removal of threats as designated by WAC 232-12-011. 28.08.305 Unfavorable Determination. The determination by the City Planner that the activity will not adequately mitigate its impact upon the critical area(s) and/or comply with performance standards of this Title and is not authorized. 28.08.310 Unprotected Aquifer. Any aquifer that is neither confined nor protected by overlying surface or subsurface impermeable layers. 28.08.315 Values. The desirable attributes associated with a critical area and its components that contribute to public health, safety, and welfare. 28.08.325 Vulnerability. The degree to which groundwater may become contaminated depending on the local hydrologic characteristics and amounts of potential groundwater contaminant present. 28.08.330 Wetland. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, shallow open waters, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands purposefully and intentionally created from non- wetland sites by human actions, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass- lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands include those artificial wetlands intentionally created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. 28.08.335 Wetland Categories. (1) Category 1. ". Generally,these Weda are not eenffnea and would make " a small pefeentage E)f the weda-fids in the state. These afe values, i.e.,they afe impossible to r-eplaee wit-bin a huma-a lifetime, if at all. These wetlands r-eeeive the highest level of pr-oteetion due to their- importance. wetlands are: 1) alkali wetlands; 2) wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as high quality wetlands; 3) bogs; 4) mature and old-growth forested wetlands over 1/4 acre with slow- growing trees; 5) forests with stands of aspen; and 6) wetlands that perform many functions very well (2) Category II. These wetlands are those that: 1) provide habitat fef very sensitive rtant wildlife of plants; 2) afe eithef diffiettit to r-eplaee; or- 3) provide very high fitnetions A�Rlllies,paffiettlafly for-wildlife habitat. These wetlands oeeiff more eemmenly than Category 1 wetlands, and they also need a high level of . forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers; 2) mature and old-growth forested wetlands over 1/4 acre with fast-growing trees; 3• vernal pools; and 4) wetlands that perform functions well. These wetlands are difficult, though not impossible,to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. (3) Category III. These wetlands provide impei4ant ftmetiens and values. They afe important for- a variety of wildlife speeies and oeeuf more eommonly thr-oughout the state than 13 either- GeAegei:y 1 or- 11 wetlands. Gener-ally these weda-ads are sma4lef, less diverse andler- more isolated than Category 11 wetia-ads. They eeetif most fte"eatly, afe diffietilt to r-eplaee, and need moderate 1°"°1 of pfateetio . forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers; 2) mature and old- prowth forested wetlands over 1/4 acre with fast-growing trees; 3• vernal pools; and 4)wetlands that perform functions well. These wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. TL .7 these theA 11 isolated .1 L (4) Category 1V. ��� u�o�����er���-.ute -vless &ver-se vegetatien. These wetlands provide impoAant ftinetions and vaittes. in some areas, these a-ad thefefer-e may be more impef4ant firem a leeal point of view. They may also provide ifflPeftan eategefy. it should be possible to feplaee Gategefy Al wetlands a-ad, ffem a habita4 standpoint, to °°'use. Category IV wetlands have the lowest level of functions and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that could be replaced, and in some cases improved. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be ,guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may_provide some important functions and also need to be protected. (These definitions are based on those provided in the Washington Pepa#ment of Eeelegy's Wetlands Rati System f Easte..., Washi to (Oete er- 1991 28.08.340 Wetland Community Description. A thorough description of the wetland and any resident plant and animal species. 28.08.345 Wetland Creation. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Establishment results in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically involve excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod, create hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species. 28.08.350 Wetland Delineation. The mapping of a wetland and establishment of its boundary or edge. 28.08.355 Wetland Enhancement. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a change in some wetland functions and can lead to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically consist of Planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination of these activities. 28.08.360 Wetland Functions. Those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing, and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial, or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water acting as recharge, and discharge for groundwater aquifers; moderating surface water and stormwater flows; and other functions including, but not limited to, those identified in the Code of Federal Regulations 320.4(b)(2). 14 28.08.365 Wetland Protection/Maintenance (Preservation): Removing a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This includes the purchase of land or easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural protection such as repairing a barrier island. This term also includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not result in a ,gain of wetland acres, may result in a gain in functions, and will be used only in exceptional circumstances. 28.08.370 Wetland Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into: • Re-establishment. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former wetland. Re- establishment results in a gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include removing fill material,plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles. • Rehabilitation. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland. 28.08.375 Wetland Values. Wetland values are estimates,usually subjective, of the benefits of wetlands to society, and include aesthetics, education, scientific research, and recreation. Chapter 28.12 General Provisions Sections: 28.12.010 Authorizations Required 28.12.020 Jurisdiction 28.12.030 Exemptions 28.12.040 Reasonable Use Exceptions 28.12.050 Waivers for Subsequent Approvals 28.12.060 Vested Development and Pending Development Approvals 28.12.070 Variances 28.12.080 Critical Area Review 28.12.090 Minimum Standards 28.12.100 Concurrent Requirements 28.12.110 Pre-Application Meeting 28.12.120 Critical Area Checklist 28.12.130 Initial Determination 28.12.140 Waivers from Critical Area Detailed Study Requirements 28.12.150 Critical Area Detailed Studies 28.12.160 Final Determination 15 28.12.170 Completion of the Critical Area Review 28.12.180 Mitigation Standards 28.12.190 Buffers 28.12.200 Bonding 28.12.210 Incentives 28.12.220 Critical Areas Map 28.12.010 Authorizations Required. Prior to fulfilling the requirements of this Title, the City shall not grant any approval or permission to alter the condition of any land, water or vegetation, or to construct or alter any structure or improvement including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Building Permit; (b) Conditional Use Permit; (c) Shoreline Conditional Use Permit; (d) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; (e) Shoreline Variance; (f) Short Subdivision; (g) Subdivision; (h) Zoning Variance; (i) Zoning Code Amendment; or 0) Any other adopted permit or required approval not expressly exempted by this Title. 28.12.020 Jurisdiction. This Title shall apply to all lands, all land uses and development, and all structures and facilities in Pasco, except as exempted under Section 28.12.120 of this Title. This Title shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, corporation, governmental agency or other entity that owns, leases, or administers land within Pasco. This Title provides regulations for land use and development in and adjacent to critical areas as defined herein. These regulations are additional to, and coordinated with, the Pasco Comprehensive Plan, the Pasco Shoreline Master Program, and regulations adopted pursuant to the Pasco Urban Area Zoning Code and any other applicable regulations adopted by the City of Pasco. This Title does not apply to environmentally sensitive areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark. If there are any conflicts between this Title and other applicable regulations, the most restrictive requirements apply. 28.12.030 Exemptions. The following developments, associated uses, and activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Title, PROVIDED that they are otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of other City of Pasco Titles. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods supported by Best Available Science or accepted Best Management Practices with the least amount of potential impact to the critical areas. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible parties' expense. This includes, but is not limited to, accessways or paths, vegetation removal or damage beyond a reasonable work zone, and grading and clearing not essential to the ongoing operation of the site's use. To be exempt from this Title does not give permission to destroy a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Exempted activities are: (a). Emergency activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. An emergency is an unanticipated and imminent threat to the public health or safety or to the environment that requires immediate action within a period of time too 16 short to allow compliance with this Title. Restoration must be initiated within one year of the date of the emergency and must be completed within six months of the initiation date. (b) Maintenance, operation, and reconstruction of existing structures, facilities, improved areas, utilities, sewage disposal systems, water systems, ponds, or public and private roads and driveways. When such structures are damaged by an act of nature, they may be reconstructed or replaced within two (2) years of the act of nature, provided that the new construction or related activity does not further intrude into a critical area or established buffer. Such reconstruction and replacement is subject to other applicable City regulations and permit requirements. (c) Modification of any existing structure that does not alter the structure to further intrude into a critical area or established buffer and there is no increased risk to life and property. (d) Operation and maintenance of any system of existing dikes, levees, ditches, drains, or other facilities which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of a drainage or diking system. Operation and maintenance does not include the expansion or new construction of drainage ditches and related facilities. (e) Removal of hazardous trees and vegetation and, when necessary, measures to control or prevent a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act; Chapter 76.09 RCW, PROVIDED that no vegetation shall be removed from a critical area or its buffer without approval from the City. (f) Activities involving artificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non- wetland sites, including, but not limited to, grass-lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, detention facilities, and landscape features, except those features that provide critical habitat for anadromous fish and those features which were created as mitigation for projects or alterations subject to the provisions of this Title. (g) Outdoor recreational activities, including, but not limited to, fishing, bird-watching, boating, swimming,hiking, and use of nature trails. (h) The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling soil, planting crops, or changing existing topography,water conditions or water sources. (i) Educational and scientific research. 0) Construction or modification of navigational aids and boundary markers. (k) Site investigation work necessary for land use applications such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests and other related activities. In every case, disturbed areas shall be immediately restored. (1) Existing and ongoing agricultural activities and related development activities, PROVIDED no alteration of flood storage capacity or conveyance, or increase in the extent or nature of impact to a critical area or its buffer occurs, beyond that which has occurred prior to the effective date of this Title. If the proposed activity meets any of the listed exemptions, including any Best Management Practice and/or restoration requirements, completion of a critical area checklist or further critical 17 area review is not required. The permit Applicant shall describe the proposed project in writing and identify the criteria in this Section that apply to the requested exemption and submit this to the City Planner. The City Planner will review the exemption request to verify that it complies with this Title and certify or reject the exemption. If the project is rejected, the Applicant may continue in the review process and shall submit to the requirements of the review process. 28.12.040 Reasonable Use Exceptions. If the application of this Title would deny all reasonable use of the property, and if such viable use of the property cannot be obtained by consideration of a variance pursuant to Section 28.04.060 to one or more individual requirements of this Chapter, then a landowner may seek a reasonable use exception from the standards of this Title. Reasonable Use Exception requests shall follow the variance procedures of Chapter 2.19 of the Pasco Municipal code , and shall only be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (a. The application of this Title would deny all reasonable and economically viable use of the property; (b) There is no other reasonable and economically viable use with less impact on the critical area than that proposed; (c) The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site; (d) Any alterations permitted to these critical areas shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable and economically viable use of the property; (e) The proposal mitigates the impacts on the critical areas to the maximum extent possible, while still allowing reasonable use of the property; (f) The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in subdividing the property or adjusting a boundary line thereby creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this Title; and (g) That the granting of the exception is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan. An application for a Reasonable Use Exception shall be filed with the City Planner. The burden of proof shall be on the Applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the application. Any authorized alteration of a critical area under this Section shall be subject to conditions established by the City of Pasco and shall require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. 28.12.050 Waivers for Subsequent Approvals. For development permit requests that involve both discretionary land use approval/s (such as a subdivision, rezone, planned unit development, or conditional use permit) and construction permit approval/s (such as building permit), if the provisions of this Title have been addressed fully as part of the initial discretionary approval, then subsequent construction permit requests shall not require additional critical area checklists or review, PROVIDED the subsequent permit requests comply with all critical areas conditions contained in the initial land use approval and no substantial changes in the nature or extent of the proposed activity have been made. If a Critical Area Review is to be waived on the basis of the provisions of this Section, the Applicant shall submit a written request for the waiver including: (a) Citation of the previous approval; (b) Description of the proposed activity; (c) Documentation of compliance with or plans for compliance with any critical area conditions imposed by the previous approval; and 18 (d) Identification of any changes in the nature or extent of the proposed activity subsequent to the previous approval. The City Planner will review the waiver request to verify that it complies with this Title and certify or reject the waiver. 28.12.060 Vested Development and Pending Development Approvals. The provisions of this Title shall not apply to any development permit review for which a complete application was filed prior to the effective date of this Title subject to the following: (a) For pre-existing legal lots of record existing on the effective date of this Title that have not previously completed a critical area review, the provisions of this Title shall apply at any subsequent building or construction permit stage, including, but not limited to, the consideration of a reasonable use exception, if necessary to address development on pre- existing legal lots. (b) For development permit requests for which a complete application was filed prior to the effective date of this Title, the provisions of this Title shall not apply to that permit or approval, PROVIDED, however, if the development proposal later requires a building or construction permit and a complete application for that building or construction permit was not filed prior to the effective date of this Title, and if the provisions of this Title were not addressed in the prior development approval, then critical area review pursuant to this Title shall be required as part of the later building or construction permit review, including, but not limited to consideration of the reasonable use exception provisions,if necessary. (c) Existing development and land uses lawfully in existence on the effective date of this Title are subject to the nonconforming use provisions of the Pasco Urban Area Zoning Code and further subject to the general exemption provisions of this Chapter, Section 28.12.120. 28.12.070 Variances. Variances from the standards of this Title may be authorized by the City of Pasco Hearing Examiner in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.19. The Hearing Examiner shall grant the variance only if the Applicant demonstrates that the requested variance conforms to all of the criteria set forth as follows: (a) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land including, and which are not applicable to other lands in the same district; and (b) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the Applicant; and (c) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title; and (d) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the Applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances. (e) That the granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this Title and will not create significant adverse impacts to the associated critical areas or otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare. (f) That the granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan. 19 (g) In granting any variance, the Hearing Examiner may prescribe such conditions and safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to ensure conformity with this Title. (h) If the Hearing Examiner decides to grant the variance, the Examiner shall make a finding that the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum necessary that will make possible the reasonable use of land, building, or structure. (i) That the Hearing Examiner shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun or completed or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the time limit set shall void the variance. An application for a variance shall be filed with the City Planner. The burden of proof shall be on the Applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the application. 28.12.080 Critical Area Review. The City of Pasco shall complete a Critical Area Review prior to granting any permit approval for a development or other alteration on a site that is found to likely include, or be adjacent to, or have significant impact upon one or more critical areas, unless otherwise provided in this Title. As part of this review, Pasco shall verify the information submitted by the Applicant, and: (a). Confirm the extent, nature, and type of any critical areas identified, and evaluate any required Critical Area Detailed Study; (b) Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of this Title; (c) Assess impacts on the critical area from the activities and uses proposed and determine whether any proposed alterations to, or impacts upon, critical areas are necessary and unavoidable in order to meet the objectives of the proposal; and (d) Determine if any required mitigation plans proposed by the Applicant are sufficient to protect the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals,purposes, objectives, and requirements of this Title. The Applicant shall be responsible for the initiation, preparation, submission, and expense of all required assessments, studies, plans, reconnaissance, and other work in support of the application. The Applicant shall provide the City with both digital copies and paper copies of reports/studies and maps prepared for the reports/Studies including all geotechnical studies and mapping. 28.12.090 Minimum Standards. Any proposed activity shall be conditioned as necessary to mitigate impacts to critical areas and conform to the Performance Standards required by this Title. Subject to the Reasonable Use Exception of Section 28.12.040, any project that cannot adequately mitigate its impacts to critical areas or meet the Performance Standards required by Chapters 28.16 through 28.32 shall be denied. 28.12.100 Concurrent Requirements. Lands characterized by one or more critical area feature may also be subject to other regulations established by this Title due to overlap or multiple functions of some critical areas. In the event of conflict between regulations the most restrictive regulations shall apply. 20 28.12.110 Pre-Application Meeting. Any person preparing for the permitting of activity that may be regulated by the provisions of this Title may request a pre-application meeting with the City prior to the Critical Area Review process. At this meeting, the City Planner shall discuss the requirements of this Title, outline the review process, and work with the activity proponent to identify any potential concerns that might arise during the review process. 28.12.120 Critical Area Checklist. For any proposed activity not found to be exempt under Section 28.12.120, the Applicant shall complete a critical area checklist on forms provided by the City. The checklist must be submitted to the City Planner prior to consideration of any permit request that requires a critical area review, as described in Section 28.12.010. Following receipt of the checklist, the City Planner will conduct a review to determine whether there are any critical area indicators present that required may be impacted by the proposal. 28.12.130 Initial Determination. If the City Planner determines that the site potentially includes, or is adjacent to critical areas, or that the proposed project could have significant adverse impacts on critical areas, the City Planner shall notify the Applicant that a Critical Area Detailed Study is required for each of the indicated critical area types. If the review of the checklist and critical area resources do not indicate that critical areas are included or adjacent to the activity, or could suffer probable significant adverse impacts from the activity, then the City Planner shall rule that the Critical Area Review is complete. The determination shall be noted on the checklist. The Applicant shall acknowledge in writing that a determination regarding the apparent absence of one or more critical areas by the City Planner is not intended to be an expert certification regarding the presence of critical areas and that the determination is subject to possible reconsideration and reopening if new information is received. If the Applicant wants greater assurance of the accuracy of the Critical Area Review determination, the Applicant may hire a qualified consultant to provide such assurances. 28.12.140 Waivers from Critical Area Detailed Study Requirements. The City Planner may waive the requirement for a Critical Area Detailed Study if there is substantial evidence that: (a) There will be no alteration of the critical areas or required buffer; and (b) The development proposal will not impact the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent and requirements of this Title; and (c) The performance standards required by this Title will be met. Notice of the findings substantiating the waiver will be attached to the permit and filed with the application records. 28.12.150 Critical Area Detailed Studies (a) Preliminary Reconnaissance. If a Critical Area Detailed Study is determined to be necessary then a data review and field reconnaissance shall be performed by a qualified consultant for that type of critical area. If the Detailed Study reveals no critical area is present, then a statement of this finding along with supporting evidence shall be prepared by the consultant and submitted to the City.. An 21 approved finding of the lack of a critical area shall satisfy all of the requirements for a Detailed Study. (b) Minimum Requirements. If the data review and field reconnaissance reveals that a critical area is present, then a complete Detailed Study shall be prepared by the Applicant and submitted to the City. At a minimum, a Critical Area Detailed Study shall comply with the specific criteria in Chapters 28.16 through 28.32, and clearly document: (1) The boundary and extent of the critical area; (2) The existing function,value, and/or hazard associated with the critical area; (3) The probable impact upon the function, value, and/or hazard associated with the critical area from the project as proposed; and (4) A mitigation plan as described in Sections 28.12.180 through 28.12.220. (c) Limitations to Study Area. If the Applicant, together with assistance from the City, cannot obtain permission for access to properties adjacent to the project area, then the Critical Area Detailed Study may be limited accordingly. (d) Preparation and Determination of Completeness. The Critical Area Detailed Study shall be prepared by a qualified consultant for the type of critical area or areas involved. The qualified consultant may consult with the City Planner prior to or during preparation of the critical area special study to obtain City approval of modifications to the contents of the study where, in the judgment of the qualified consultant, more or less information is required to adequately address the critical area impacts and required mitigation. If the Critical Area Detailed Study is found to be incomplete, the Applicant shall be notified and the Critical Area Review process shall be suspended pending correction of the inadequacies. Upon receipt of a Critical Area Detailed Study a final determination is to be rendered. 28.12.160 Final Determination. Following submission of a completed Detailed Study, the City Planner will review the Detailed Study and make a determination, based on the Critical Area Detailed Study and any other available and appropriate materials. The City Planner's determination will address the adequacy of the project, as proposed, to mitigate any effects it may have on critical areas that are included within or adjacent to the project site. The City Planner may elect to request assistance from state resource agency staff if necessary. In addition, the City Planner will assess the adequacy of the project proposal's compliance with the applicable performance standards. Notice of this determination shall be attached to the permit and the Critical Area Review shall be complete. (a) A Favorable Determination. A determination that the project proposal adequately mitigates its impacts on the critical areas and complies with the applicable performance standards satisfies the provisions of this Title only. It should not be construed as endorsement or approval of the original or any subsequent permit applications. (b) An Unfavorable Determination. When a project proposal is found to not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or not comply with applicable performance standards, the City Planner shall prepare written notice of the reasons for the finding of noncompliance. Such notice shall identify the critical area impacted, the nature of the impact. 22 Following notice of a determination from the Critical Area Review that the proposed activity does not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or does not comply with applicable performance standards, the Applicant may request consideration of a revised mitigation plan. If the revision is found to be substantial and relevant to the Critical Area Review, the City Planner may reopen the Critical Area Review and make a new determination based on this revised mitigation plan. 28.12.170 Completion of the Critical Area Review. If at any time prior to completion of the public input process on associated permits or approvals, the City receives new evidence that a critical area may be included in, adjacent to, or significantly impacted by the proposed activity, then the City shall reopen the critical area review process and shall require whatever level of critical area review and mitigation as is indicated by the evidence. Once the public input process on all associated permits or approvals is completed and the record is closed, then the City's determination regarding critical areas shall be final,unless appeal is filed as per Chapter 2.19 of the Pasco Municipal Code 28.12.180 Mitigation Standards. All proposed critical area alterations shall include mitigation sufficient to maintain the function and values of the critical area, or to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area. Mitigation of one critical area impact should not result in unmitigated impacts to another critical area. Mitigation includes avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse impacts to critical areas or their buffers. The preferred sequence of mitigation is defined below(1 -most preferred, 6 - least preferred): 1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimize the impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. 3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. 4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time through use of preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 6. Monitoring the and taking corrective measures. Possible mitigation techniques include, but are not limited to: buffers, setbacks, limits on clearing and grading, creation of artificial wetlands, streambank stabilization, modified construction methods, and best management practices for erosion control and maintenance of water quality. All proposed mitigation shall be documented in a mitigation plan as included as an element of the Critical Area Detailed Study. The mitigation plan shall include a description of the following: (a) What mitigation, specifically, is proposed; (b) How the proposed mitigation will maintain the critical area function, any ongoing monitoring and/or inspection that may be required to ensure the adequacy of the proposed mitigation, and an evaluation of the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed mitigation; (c) Any remedial measures that may be required, depending on the outcome of that ongoing monitoring and/or inspection; (d) Any required critical expertise necessary to install, monitor or inspect the proposed mitigation; and 23 (e) Any bonding or other security required to insure performance and/or maintenance of the proposed mitigation. 28.12.190 Buffers. Buffers have, in some cases,been determined necessary and appropriate to protect critical areas and their functions. Where specific buffers are identified, those buffers are deemed"required" or"standard" buffers. (a) Except as otherwise specified herein, required buffers shall be retained in their pre-existing condition. If a project does not propose any alteration of buffers or of the associated critical area, then subject to the following provision, no additional mitigation will be required to protect the critical area. Additional mitigation beyond the required buffer shall be required if the City Planner finds that,based on unique features of the critical area or its buffer or of the proposed activity, the required buffers will not adequately protect the function of the critical area or prevent risk of hazard from the critical area and that additional mitigation or buffering is required to protect the critical area function or to prevent risk of hazard from the critical area. (b) The buffer shall be marked prior to any site alteration and boundary markers shall be visible, durable, and permanently affixed to the ground. The boundary markers shall remain until all activity is completed and a final site inspection is completed. (c) An eight (8) foot minimum setback shall be required from the buffer area for any construction of impervious surface area greater than one hundred and twenty (120) square feet. Clearing, grading, and filling within this setback shall only be allowed when the Applicant can demonstrate that vegetation within the buffer will not be damaged. (d) Where temporary buffer disturbance or alteration has or will occur in conjunction with regulated activities, revegetation with appropriate native vegetation shall be required and completed one(1)month before the end of the growing season. (e) Normal nondestructive pruning and trimming of vegetation for maintenance purposes; or thinning of limbs of individual trees to provide a view corridor, shall not be subject to these buffer requirements. Enhancement of a view corridor shall not be construed to mean excessive removal of trees or vegetation that impairs views. If the Applicant proposes to reduce required buffers or to alter the required buffer, then the Applicant shall demonstrate why such buffer modification, together with any alternative mitigation proposed in the Critical Area Detailed Study, is sufficient to protect the critical area function or to prevent risk of hazard from the critical area. The Critical Area Detailed Study shall make adequate provision for long-term buffer protection. Periodic inspection of the buffers may be required if deemed to ensure long-term buffer protection. 28.12.210 Bonding. The City Planner shall have the discretion to require a bond which will ensure compliance with the mitigation plan if activity related to the protection of the critical area(s) (for example, monitoring or maintenance) or construction is scheduled to take place after the issuance of the City's permit. The bond shall be in the form of either a surety bond, performance bond, assignment of savings account, or an irrevocable standby letter of credit guaranteed by a financial institution with terms and conditions acceptable to the City's Attorney. The bond shall be in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or construction or the estimated cost of restoring the function and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is higher. The term of the bond shall be two 24 (2) years, or until the additional activity or construction has been completed and passed the necessary inspections,whichever is longer. 28.12.210 Incentives. The following incentives are intended to minimize the burden to individual property owners from application of the provisions of this chapter: (a) Open Space. Any property owner on whose property a critical area or its associated buffer is located and who proposes to put the critical area and buffer in a separate tract may apply for current use property tax assessment on that separate tract through Franklin County, pursuant to RCW 84.34. (b) Conservation Easement. Any person whose property contains an identified critical area or its associated buffer may place a conservation easement over that portion of the property by naming a beneficiary under RCW 64.04.130 as beneficiary of the conservation easement. This conservation easement may be in lieu of a separate critical areas tract that qualifies for open space tax assessment described in Section 28.12.220(a). The purpose of the easement shall be to preserve, protect, maintain, restore and limit future use of the property affected. The terms of the conservation easement may include prohibitions or restrictions on access. 28.12.220 Critical Areas Map. The approximate location and extent of critical areas in the City of Pasco are shown on the critical areas map adopted as apart of the Comprehensive Plan. The map is to be used only as a guide to alert the user to the possible distribution, location, and extent of critical areas. The Map shall be utilized as a source of generalized information and shall not be considered as regulatory standards or substitute for site-specific assessments. The actual type, extent, and boundaries of critical areas shall be determined in the field by a qualified specialist according to the procedures, definitions, and criteria established by this Title. Chapter 28.16 Wetlands Sections: 28.16.010 Wetland Designation 28.16.020 Wetland Rating 28.16.030 Wetland Indicators 28.16.040 Wetland Detailed Study 28.16.050 Wetland Detailed Study Exemptions 28.16.060 Basic Wetland Requirement 28.16.070 Required Buffers 28.16.080 E�Eeepfiens to Btt�fs for-Lots Adjaeent We R*isting Development 28.16.080 Compensatory Mitigation 28.16.090 Innovative Mitigation 28.16.100 Mitigation Exceptions 28.16.110 Restoration 28.16.010 Wetland Designation Under this Title, wetlands shall be designated in accordance with the definitions, methods and standards set forth in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual as amended (Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Ecology Publication #96-94). This ma*ual is eensistent with the U.S r r All areas within the City of Pasco meeting the criteria identified in this delineation manual, regardless of whether or not these areas 25 have been formally identified as wetlands, are hereby designated as wetland critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Title. 28.16.020 Wetland Rating (Classification) The wetlands rating system is intended to differentiate between wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance,rarity, irreplaceabliltiy, and the functions and values they provide. A general description of wetland categories and the rationale for each category is provided in the definitions section of this Title (see "Wetland Categories"). (a) Wetlands shall be rated (classified) as either Category I, Category II, Category III, or Category IV according to the criteria listed in this section. This rating system is based on the Washington Department of Ecology's Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington--Revised(Oe-teber 'wand the most current copy of that document should be referred to for additional information on classification of wetlands. 26 Wetland ClassifiGation and Rating Criteria for Carh ra4sgGry Data Sourc;es Category 1 Wetlands Category 1 yetlands meet n of following criteria and: _ :�°rrtcrra-rnTCr I woe rrc +h a+l a nrl f a f-�f I ve a 6tlC�lc v66�FiTeRCe crre�l4� eFi r DNIp _ Natural Heritage Dregr�m state lister!threatener! n nrlangererl plant animal, Heritage Fgc�and- � \A/A Department pf Cish aprl\A/ilrllife fish spesieS; eF DAIR_Nat. Cal Heritage oregram er been dE)GUmeRted by, or qualify for iRdwsien 'R,the Natural I nnC Field Data germ Heritage Inferma+'en Cyystem• ., ' v fYmc rs ed�S��°"F ll y s'gr"'fTi Gant foF pigrpterY \A/N nnnnr+m.,n+..f Fish nnr!Wildlife GOnGeRtFations�w 4. AFe FegieRally raFe native vvetlaadtiarnrnl61flifies; OF nnC Ciol,+ n,+, C„rm Are I..yetlanrls Bey'+h i plaeeahle a elegieal f lne+'e DOF Cielrl Data Cnrrn 4. WetlAnd-.;+, irr gable eselagiEal attributes. nnC Ciolr! na+A C„rm CategeFy 11 Wetlands Category 11 wetlands satisfy na Category 1 eriteria and +h;;t havow rlr�e—man+ +h rl f se e a vE6FkrTeF}Ce cTTe VVe �R_Natural He Fitage PFGgFom a federal n stn+e lister! c sitive plant, animal, r fish \A/A Department of Fish and\A/ilrl Gfe speGies; eF se a+ren+a'n erifiy speGies 6 rr habitats Fe6E)gR^Ze hy \A/A Department of Fish apri\A/ilrllifo s+ate ageRG!86; OF 3 Wetlands with signifiGaRt habitat value of twenty two`222T 1 nr DOE Field Data Form point MOM �� Category III Wetlands Category 111 wetlands satisfy no Category I 11 OF IV eri+erin nr1 n 1. Wetla;ass_Mh� ni +habitat value of 21 points or DOE Cielrl Data Corm Category IV Wetland Category IV wetlands sa+isfy no Category I II r Ill eri+erin and n nOF Ciel.t Data Cnrm (>80%area' r er) by e a 22 \A/e+lands less than two M\ a nrl h,yrlrelr,g'Gall.y nnC Ciel.t Data Form plater! with one(1)vegetated el Note: DNR-Wash'Rgton State D nr+men+of Natural oesourGes DOE-Washington State Department of Ecoloy s — Less tha > — MoFe than SOUrGe: Washington State Department of F=GOIE)gy, Washangton State Wetlands Ratang System-4or Eastern 27 28.16.030 Wetland Indicators. The following indicators of wetland presence shall be used by the City Planner to determine if a wetland Detailed Study is needed: (a) Listing in the City's Critical Areas Map as a wetland; or (b) Documentation, through references state or federal handbooks and or reports by qualified experts; or (c) A finding by a qualified wetland biologist that an appropriate hydrologic, soil, and/or vegetation regime indicative of a wetland exists; or (d) A reasonable belief by the City Planner that a wetland may exist, supported by a site visit and subsequent consultation with a qualified wetland biologist. 28.16.040 Wetland Detailed Study - Requirements. If a Wetland Detailed Study is required, it shall meet the following requirements in addition to the Basic Requirements identified in Sections 28.12.150 (a) The Wetland Detailed Study shall be completed by a qualified wetlands biologist. (b) The extent and boundaries of any wetlands shall be determined in accordance with the methodology specified under Section 28.16.010. The boundary shall be surveyed and mapped at a scale no smaller than one (1)inch equals two hundred(200)feet. (c) A wetland community description and wetland classification shall be completed, consistent with the requirements of Section 28.16.020. (d) A written values and functions assessment shall be completed and address site hydrology (source of water in the system, water quality, flood and stream flow attenuation, seasonality of presence of water, if applicable), soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetics. (e) The site plan for the proposed activity shall be mapped at the same scale as the wetland map, showing the extent of the proposed activity in relationship to the surveyed wetland, and including a detailed narrative describing the project, its relationship to the wetland, and its potential impact on the wetland. (f) The proposed mitigation plan shall follow the general mitigation plan requirements described in Section 28.12.180, and shall address how the activity has been mitigated to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands and. Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals, Department of Ecology, March 1994 (or any succeeding documents) should be used as a basis for mitigation. 28.16.050 Wetland Detailed Study Exemptions. In addition to activities exempted in Section 28.12.030, the following activities shall not require a Wetland Detailed Study, PROVIDED they are conducted using accepted Best Management Practices, as determined by the City Planner: (a) Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish or other wildlife. 28.16.060 Basic Wetland Requirement. A regulated wetland or its required buffer can only be altered if the Wetland Detailed Study shows that: (a) The proposed alteration does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functioning of the wetland, or (b) any degradation can be adequately mitigated to protect the wetland function. Any proposed alteration approved pursuant to this section shall include mitigation necessary to mitigate the impacts of the proposed alteration on the wetland as described in this Chapter and Section 28.12.180. 28.16.070 Required Buffers (a) Buffer Requirements. The following buffers shall be required for wetlands based on the rating of the wetland as outlined in Section 28.16.020: 28 Wetland Category Minirnurn Buffer\ wdth GategeFy 150 fee Category 1 100 fee Category 4a 4 50 feet Sa#egery IV 25 feet as noted this sep-tie-In. f.n-.r lNeflands adjaGent to slopes, or as defined Sub Wetland Buffer Requirements Category of Wetland Land Use with Land Use with Land Use with Low Impact* Moderate Impact* Hi 2h Impact* IV 25 ft 40 ft 50 ft III 75 ft 110ft 150 ft II 100 ft 150 ft 200 ft I 125 ft 190 ft 250 ft * See Table???in this section for types of land uses that can result in low,moderate,and high impacts to wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. (b) Measuring Buffer Dimensions. Wetland buffers shall be measured horizontally in a landward direction from the delineated wetland edge. (c) Wetlands Adjacent to Slopes. Where lands adjacent to a wetland display a continuous slope of twenty-five percent (25%) or greater, the buffer shall include such sloping areas. Where the horizontal distance of the sloping area is greater than the required standard buffer, the buffer shall be extended to a point twenty-five (25) feet beyond the top of the bank of the sloping area. 29 Table # ?? Land Use Intensi . Table Level of Impact from Proposed Types of Land Use Based on Common Zoning Designations Change in Land Use High •Commercial •Urban •Industrial •Institutional •Retail sales •Residential(more than 1 unit/acre) •High-intensity recreation(golf courses,ball fields,etc.) Moderate •Residential(1 unit/acre or less) •Moderate-intensity open space(Parks with biking,Jogging, etc. •Paved driveways and gravel driveways serving 3 or more residences • Paved trails Low •Low-intensity pen space(hiking,bird-watching preservation of natural resources,etc.) •Timber mana eg ment •Gravel driveways serving 2 or fewer residences •Unpaved trails •Utility corridor without a maintenance road and little or no vegetation management. LTnio pY.F TJ to Required h„T ers for Lots Apj aGent Pre-Existing Development Buffers listed in Seetion 28.16.070(a) may be redueed, under eertain conditions as listed in the table tmder-Seetion 29.16.090(5). (a) Conditions Neeessary to Allow Buffer-Width Redtietion Buffer. Buffer-widths may be H, 28.16.070,the adjacent lots to be used in ealeWating the r-edtteed buffer wi th mmust also be presented with similar wedand eir-ettmstanees, stieh that they would - -, s*eet to wedand buffer- requirements if developed under this Title. if one adjaeent lot would be stfl�ect to buff-er r-eqttir-ements, and the other adjaeent lot would be exempt from wetland btiff-er- mquir-emen4s, no eommon averaging o r-estilting from a wetland shall be evaluated as if it were tmdeveloped. , in ealettlating the pemissible btt�r-width for-the sttbjeet let, the buffer-width for- the lot without buffering restrietions shall be as defined in Seetion , 30 as if tha4 lot were affeeted by the same wetia-ad t-fpe as the subjeet let. The bu ,id4h shall then be d et°,., inedl by the ,..,1,.,,1.tid.,., defined Seeti,.,. 28 1 6 080(6 (3) in eases where the lot in question is bordered on twe sides by lots also adjaeent a- wedand havi - . . , sti=uetwe leeated within fifty (50) feet of the adja side pr-epefty line and having a buffef width less than the r-e"ked width idefftified in the pr-eeeding seetion, the btiff-er-width may be fe"eed to the avefage of the twe adjaeent btiffer-wiEfths, up to, but not e�ieeeding, the buffer-width identified in th-e table presented under-Seetion 28.16.080(6)—. (4) in eases wher-e the lot in question is adjaeent to a*undeveloped lot or- a lot with a . . .pal stmetwe set baek fner-e than fifty (50) f�et 4em the side pr-opefty line with bj t let and 1 1 1 e6r 'EErrvr,-F'�ncr-ii rl3t�k�2f�- �ti�kE�'c-'r9�vE&tE m`i+ (50) feet of the side efty line, the buffer-width may be f fRa than the aver-age between the adjaeef4 setbaek of the pr-ifieipal stfuetur-e within fifty (500) feet�-vi the sift et:ty lifie and the buffer- width e"ir-e'er-'iin seetion 28.16.02.01 (seeFigur-es 6 "-� m 7. ''gy ). Under- eases may the buffer- width be less Existing De+,elepnientPEee ,ptians table presented under-Seetion 28.16.080(6). (5) in eases whefe the lot in "estion is bey-der-ed on both sides by undevelOped lots or- lots with pr-ineipal stfuetur-es sEtbaek more than fifty (50) feet f..m she, side, pr-epefty line adjaeefit the subjeet let,no feduefien in the buffer-r-equir-emepAs list in the table in c°°ti„n 28 1 ti 040(6)is allowed. (6) Under-no eireumstanees may the width of the buffef allowed exeeed the smaller-of the adjaeePA buffers, unless these buffers exeeed the buffer- width r-equir-em identified in Seetion 29.16. 070(a). Wetland Buffer Requirements: Wetland Category Gategery 99 feet Category t 66 fee Category 33 fee Category 25�fe Drny',.;inns for u.°+londls onion°n+ to slnn°s as d!°f'n°rf in C°s+'d.n 78 1 R 7l1 le. (rl shall also apply fl +n weondls eligible to d7 r° rod! h ff°rs .!1 ** Ne r°d uGf;r.n in buffer wodl+h is allowed!for Gaten°r..I\/wetlands. 28.16.080 Compensatory Mitigation. As a condition of any development permit or approval which results in on-site loss or degradation of regulated wetlands and/or wetland buffers, the City may require the Applicant to provide compensatory mitigation to offset impacts resulting from the actions of the Applicant or violator. The following standards shall apply: 31 (a) The mitigation shall be conducted on property that shall be protected and managed to avoid further loss or degradation. The Applicant or violator shall provide for long term preservation of the mitigation area. (b) The— Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with following entitled Washington State Department of Ecology manual; Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1, Publication #06-06-011a, March 2006) and Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1, Publication #06-06-01 lb, March 20MI in the following table app! efeation of festefa4ioa whieh is in kind (that is, the safne type of wetland), on site, and is wetlands to be r-estefed or-er-ea4ed and the seeend speeifies the aefeage of wetlands lost: Rnctorafion Crna,. Created fion Area Ratios a1 CATEGORY !am,-- - 3-4 GATEGORV II Grill 2­4 CATEGORY 1\/ 1.25 : 1 (c) Mitigation shall follow an approved Mitigation Plan and reflect the restoration/creation ratios specified above. (d) The Applicant shall enter in to a flve—eight-year wetland mitigation monitoring agreement with the City as a condition of approval,with the agreement requiring wetland replacement ratios of one-to-one (1:1)upon completion of the agreement. (e) Mitigation shall be completed prior to, or concurrently with,wetland loss; or, in the case of an enforcement action,prior to continuation of the activity by the Applicant or violator. (f) On-site mitigation is generally preferred over off-site mitigation. (g) Off-site mitigation allows replacement of wetlands away from the site on which the wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. Off-site mitigation will be conducted in accordance with the restoration/creation ratios described above. Off-site mitigation shall occur within the same drainage basin as the wetland loss occurs,provided that Category IV wetlands may be replaced outside of the watershed if there is no reasonable alternative. 1 On-site mitigation is not feasible due to hydrology, soils, or other factors. 2 On-site mitigation is not practical due to probable adverse impacts from surrounding land uses or would conflict with a federal, state or local public safety directive. 3 Potential functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are greater than the lost wetland functional values. (h) When the wetland to be altered is of a limited functional value and is degraded,mitigation shall be of the wetland community types needed most in the location of mitigation and those most likely to succeed with the highest functional value possible. (i) Out-of-kind mitigation can be allowed when out-of-kind replacement will best meet the provisions of this section. (j) Except in the case of cooperative mitigation projects in selecting mitigation sites, Applicants shall pursue locations in the following order of preference: 1. Filled, drained, or cleared sites that were formerly wetlands and where appropriate hydrology exists. 32 2. Upland sites, adjacent to wetlands, if the upland is significantly disturbed and does not contain a mature forested or shrub community of native species, and where the appropriate natural hydrology exists. (k) Where out-of-kind replacement is accepted, greater restoration/creation ratios may be required. (1) Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and plants. Construction shall be timed to assure that grading and soil movement occurs during the dry season and planting of vegetation shall be specifically timed to needs of the target species. 28.16.100 Innovative Mitigation. One or more applicant(s), or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist: (a) Creation of one or several larger wetlands may be preferable to many small wetlands; (b) The group demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively; (c) The group demonstrates that long term management of the mitigation area will be provided; and, (d) There is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the identified mitigation site. Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process does not reduce or eliminate the required replacement ratios outlined in Section 28.16.090 (b), except where a compensatory mitigation plan including a five-year monitoring agreement is included as a condition of approval, such plan shall allow for one-to-one (1:1) replacement ratios upon successful completion of the monitoring agreement. Wetland mitigation and banking programs shall be consistent with the provisions outlined in the Department of Ecology's publication 92 12 (AATetla-nd Mitigation Ba*kiag) a-ad publie do 94 (Gui celifles f Pe. of F-°^1"v`Pate Wetlands Td:t;Racieea Thais and Pfopesqls-), o chef > unavoidable, wetland : ets . .,toa with f,t,,.o develep ff,o,.t_ Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1, Publication#06-06-011a, March 2006) and Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1, Publication#06- 06-011b,March 20061. 1. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: a. The bank is certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC; b. The [director] determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank's certification. 2. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank's certification. 3. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the bank's certification. In some cases,the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. 33 28.16.120 Mitigation Exceptions. Requirements for mitigation do not apply when a wetland alteration is intended exclusively for the enhancement or restoration of an existing regulated wetland and the proposal will not result in a loss of wetland function and value, subject to the following conditions: (a) The enhancement or restoration project shall not be associated with a development activity. (b) An enhancement or restoration plan shall be prepared and approved as described in Section 4.03.16. 28.16.130 Restoration. Restoration is required when a wetland or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Title. The following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a wetland, PROVIDED that if it can be demonstrated by the Applicant that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained,these standards may be modified: (a) The original wetland configuration should be replicated including depth, width, and length at the original location. (b) The original soil types and configuration shall be replicated. (c) The wetland and buffer areas shall be replanted with native vegetation which replicates the original in species, sizes, and densities. (d) The original functional values shall be restored, including water quality and wildlife habitat functions. (e) Required replacement ratios are shown in the following table: Wetland In-Kind (On-Site) Restoration: Restoration/Creation Area Ratios Wetland Category Wetland Created : Wetland Area Lost CATEGORY I 4: 1 CATEGORY II or III 2 : 1 CATEGORY IV 1.25 : 1 A restoration plan shall be prepared and approved prior to commencement of restoration work. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified wetland biologist and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described above. The City Planner shall, at the Applicant's or violator's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the Applicant or violator for revision and resubmittal. Chapter 28.20 Habitat Sections: 34 28.20.010 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas—Purpose 28.20.020 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Designation and Classification Criteria 28.20.030 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Rating 28.20.040 Determination of Need for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Detailed Study 28.20.200 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Detailed Study Requirements 28.20.060 Performance Standards Minimum Requirements 28.20.070 Bald Eagle Habitat 28.20.080 Wetland Habitat 28.20.010 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas — Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a framework to evaluate development and the design and location of buildings to ensure that critical fish and wildlife habitat is preserved and protected so that habitat fragmentation is avoided. These regulations seek to protect critical habitat areas so populations of endangered, threatened and sensitive species are given consideration during the development review process. 28.20.020 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Designation and Classification Criteria (a) Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall include the following: Criteria for Classification of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas Habitat Area Characteristic/Classification Source (1) Areas with which state or federally designated endangered,threatened, DF&W, US F&W and sensitive species have a primary association (NOAH) (2) Naturally occurring under twenty(20)acres in size and their submerged DOE aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat. (3) Waters of the state classified as fish and wildlife habitats under the Growth DNR, DOE, DF&W, Management Act, RCW 36.70A, and WAC 365-190-080(5)(c)(v) affected Indian tribes (i) Columbia River (ii) Snake River (4) State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas; DNR and, (5) Habitat areas of local importance as determined by resolution of the City DF&W Council. (b) The map references indicated are intended to serve only as a guide during development review. In all cases,the actual presence or absence of the listed species or habitat shall determine how this title applies. (c) All areas within the City of Pasco meeting one or more of these criteria, are hereby designated as critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Title. (d) Priority Habitats and Species for Franklin County are identified in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008 Priority Habitat and Species List published by the Washington State Department of fish and Wildlife. 28.20.030 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Rating. Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be rated as Primary or Secondary according to the criteria in this section. 35 Classification by Fish and Wildlife Areas Habitat Classification Source Area Primary Primary habitats are those areas that are valuable to fish and wildlife and support Habitats a wide variety of species due to an undisturbed nature, diversity of plant species, and structure, presence of water, or size, location or seasonal importance and which meet any of the following qualifying criteria (1) The documented presence of species listed by the federal government or DF&W, US F&W State of Washington as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. (NOAH) (2) Those rivers identified as"Shorelines of the State"under the City of Pasco DOE Shoreline Master Program, and streams within the shoreline jurisdiction.. (3) Those wetlands identified as Category I Wetlands, as defined in this title. Section 28.04.020 Wetland Rating (Classification) Secondary Secondary habitats are those which are valuable to wildlife and support a wide Habitats variety of species due to an undisturbed nature, diversity of plant species, and structure, presence of water, or size, location or seasonal importance but do not meet any of the qualifying criteria listed in section 28.06.02.01. 28.20.040 Determination of Need for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Detailed Study. (a) A Detailed Study shall be required for any activity that is within two hundred(200) feet of a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. (b) Due to the sensitive nature of certain species, the Applicant shall notify the City if the proposed activity will occur within 660 feet (1/8 of a mile) of a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area; the City may then contact appropriate agencies and determine if a Detailed Study should be prepared,based on the sensitivity of the site. (c) The City Planner shall require a Detailed Study of a habitat area if the following indicators are present: 1. The area is listed in the City's Critical Areas Map as a fish and wildlife habitat area; or 2. Documentation exists that shows that any of the classification criteria listed in Section 28.20.030 are present,based on any of the references listed in this Title; or 3. A qualified fish and wildlife biologist finds that habitat conditions appropriate to meet one or more of the classification criteria listed above in 28.20.030 exist; or 4. The City Planner possesses a reasonable belief that a fish and wildlife habitat may exist. Such reasonable belief shall be supported by a site visit and subsequent consultation with a qualified fish and wildlife biologist. 28.20.200 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Detailed Study Requirements. If a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Detailed Study is required,it shall include and/or meet the following requirements in addition to the Basic Requirements identified in Sections 28.12.150. (a) The Detailed Study shall be completed by a qualified fish and wildlife biologist with expertise in assessing the relevant species and habitats. Evidence of qualifications shall be provided with the Detailed Study. 36 (b) The site plan and map submitted shall be of a scale no smaller than 1 inch=200 feet. The Site plan shall indicate all Fish and Wildlife Habitat Critical Areas, as determined by the criteria in Section 28.20.030, and shall include the area within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. The Applicant may prepare the site plan, however it is subject to review by the qualified fish and wildlife biologist. The extent and boundaries of the habitat shall be determined by the qualified fish and wildlife biologist. (c) A habitat description that includes a habitat rating as described in Section 28.20.030, and a statement of functions and values that provides information on the species in question and the associated plant and animal communities. A complete list of species and special habitat features shall be included. (d) A regulatory analysis that includes a discussion of any federal, state, tribal, and/or local requirements or special management recommendations that have been developed for species and/or habitats located on the site. (e) The proposed mitigation plan shall address how the proposed development activity has been mitigated to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the habitat, and shall follow the general mitigation plan requirements described in Section 28.12.180. (f) A statement of management and maintenance practices, including a discussion of ongoing maintenance practices that will assure protection of all fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on-site after the project has been completed. (g) Habitat and Buffer Recommendations. (1) Where non-fish species have been identified that are classified as endangered or threatened by the federal government or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,the Detailed Study shall identify the required habitat and recommend appropriate buffers based on the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)management recommendations. (2) Where other fish and wildlife habitats areas have been identified,the Detailed Study shall identify the required habitat and recommend appropriate buffers based on the following recommendations: (i) For areas with endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, any protective measures recommended shall be consistent with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) management recommendations; and (ii) For naturally occurring ponds under twenty (20) acres, protective provisions that are consistent with the wetland performance standards of Chapter 28.16. (h) Habitats and species that have been identified as Priority Species or Priority Habitats by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Program should not be reduced and shall be preserved through regulation, acquisition, incentives and other techniques. 37 28.20.060 Performance Standards Minimum Requirements. This section describes the minimum performance standard requirements for the habitat areas, including wetland habitats, riparian habitats, and specific requirements for Bald Eagle habitat areas. (a) Wetland Habitats. All habitat sites containing wetlands shall conform to the wetland development performance standards set forth in Chapter 28.16. (b) Riparian Habitats. (1) Buffer Requirements. Native vegetation standard buffers for activities occurring adjacent to streams within fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be maintained. Buffer widths shall be based on the extent of prior modification of the stream channel. Riparian buffers are determined by whether or not a salmonid habitat is present. The buffer distance from the ordinary high water mark shall be as follows: Riparian Buffer Requirements Stream Minimum Buffer Width Columbia & Snake Rivers 100 feet (2) Exception for Lots Adjacent Pre-Existing Development. The required Riparian buffer width listed above shall not apply in cases where the adjacent pre-existing development (vested prior to the effective date of this Title) does not meet these established standards. In such cases, the buffer may be reduced by one-third (1/3) the difference between the required buffer and the larger of the two adjacent buffers, with "adjacent" meaning as defined in this For example, if the required buffer for a property was 100 feet, and the two neighboring properties have buffers of 5 feet and 10 feet, the Applicant could reduce his/her required buffer width by 30 feet to 70 feet. Adjacency in this situation shall be defined as being within fifty(50) feet of the side property lines. If there is only clearing on one side of the proposed activity within fifty(50) feet of the side property line,then the buffer can be reduced as shown in the following table: Riparian Buffer Requirements: Adjacent Pre-Existing Development Exceptions Stream Minimum Buffer Width Columbia & Snake Rivers 60 feet 28.20.070 Bald Eagle Habitat. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). A Habitat Management Plan shall be developed by the Applicant in coordination with the Department of Fish and Wildlife whenever activities that alter habitat are proposed near a verified nest territory or communal roost. 38 28.20.080 Wetland Habitat. All habitat sites containing wetlands shall conform to the wetland mitigation and restoration provisions set forth in Section 28.16.090 thought 28.16.130.. Chapter 28.24 Aquifer Recharge Areas Sections 28.24.010 Purpose 28.24.020 Aquifer Recharge Area Designation Criteria 28.24.030 Aquifer Recharge Area Classification 28.24.040 Determination of Need for Aquifer Recharge Detailed Study 28.24.050 Aquifer Recharge Area Detailed Study 28.24.240 Aquifer Recharge Area Detailed Study Special Exemptions 28.24.070 Performance Standards Basic Requirements 28.24.080 Storage Tanks 28.24.010 Purpose The intent of this section to safeguard groundwater resources from hazardous substance and hazardous waste pollution by controlling or abating future pollution from new land uses or activities. 28.24.020 Aquifer Recharge Area Designation Criteria. (a) Aquifer recharge areas shall be classified as following: Designation of Aquifer Recharge Areas Aquifer Recharge Area Characteristic / Designation Source (1) Wellhead Protection Areas pursuant to WAC 246-290; WA DOH, US EPA (2) Areas designated for special protection pursuant to a groundwater WA DOE management program, Chapters 90.44, 90.48, and 90.54 RCW and Chapters 173-100 and 173-200 WAC (3) Areas overlying unprotected aquifers. Such aquifers shall be identified USGS through any existing competent hydrogeologic study. WA DNR (4) Areas with no identified unprotected aquifers but possessing the following characteristics (1) Slopes less than fifteen percent(15%), and (2) Coarse alluvium or sand and gravel in the soil profile and no known impermeable layers. WA DOE=Washington State Department of Ecology WA DOH =Washington State Department of Health US EPA= United States Environmental Protection Agency (b) Any project area located within two hundred(200) feet of an area meeting the aquifer designation or soil classification criteria, or mapped as such, shall be treated as if it is located within the mapped area. (c) All areas within the City of Pasco meeting these criteria, regardless of the presence or lack of any formal identification as such, are hereby designated as critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Title. 39 28.24.030 Aquifer Recharge Area Classification (a) Aquifer recharge areas are classified as high, moderate, or low significance aquifer recharge areas according to the following criteria: Classification of Aquifer Vulnerability Documentation and Data Sources Vulnerability Classification High Vulnerability High significance aquifer recharge areas are areas with slopes of less than fifteen percent(15%)that are underlain by coarse alluvium or sand and gravel. Moderate Vulnerability Moderate significance aquifer recharge areas are: 1. Areas with slopes of less than fifteen percent(15%)that are underlain by fine alluvium,silt,clay,glacial till,or deposits from the electron mudflow;and, 2. Areas with slopes of fifteen percent(15%)to thirty percent(30%) that are underlain by sand and gravel. Low Vulnerability Moderate significance aquifer recharge areas are: 1. Areas with slopes of fifteen percent(15%)to thirty percent (30%)that are underlain by silt,clay,or glacial till;and, 2. Areas with slopes greater than thirty percent(30%). 28.24.040 Determination of Need for Aquifer Recharge Detailed Study a) The following information resources shall be utilized along with other documentation where noted: 1. Studies from the United States Geological Survey; 2. City of Pasco Wastewater Facility Plan,Pasco, Washington; 3. Soil Survey for Franklin County(Conservation District). b)Requirements for High Significance Aquifer Recharge Area An Aquifer Recharge Area Detailed Study shall be required for any activity occurring on or adjacent to a site that is, or contains, a High Significance Aquifer Recharge Area if the activity involves one or more of the following uses: 1. Hazardous substance processing or handling. 2. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facility. 40 3. Disposal of on-site sewage for subdivisions, short plats, and commercial and industrial sites. 4. Landfills. 28.24.050 Aquifer Recharge Area Detailed Study When required as described in Section 28.24.040, a Aquifer Recharge Area Detailed Study shall meet the following requirements: 1. The Detailed Study shall be prepared by a qualified consultant with experience in preparing hydrogeologic assessments. Evidence of these qualifications shall be provided with the Detailed Study. 2. The Detailed Study shall contain a map, of a scale no smaller than 1 inch=200 feet, of the site and the extent of the High Significance Aquifer Recharge Area as determined by the criteria in Section 28.24.020. 3. The Detailed Study shall contain a hydrogeologic assessment including, at a minimum: A. Information sources; B. Geologic setting; C. Background water quality; D. Location of, and depth to,water tables; E. Recharge potential of the facility site; F. Groundwater flow direction and gradient; G. Currently available data on wells within one thousand(1,000)feet of the site; H. Currently available data on springs within one thousand(1,000)feet of the site; 1. Surface water location and recharge potential; J. Water source supply to the activity(e.g.,high capacity well); K. Any sampling schedules necessary; L. Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on the groundwater resource; and M. Other information as may be required by the Town. 4. The Detailed Study shall include a mitigation plan detailing how the activity will offset any impact on the resource and control risk of contamination to the aquifer. 28.24.240 Aquifer Recharge Area Detailed Study Special Exemptions In addition to the exemptions listed in 28.12.040,the following uses shall be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Aquifer Recharge Area Detailed Study: I. Sewer lines and appurtenances. 28.24.070 Performance Standards Basic Requirements I. Any activity listed in Section 28.24.040 (b) may only be permitted in a High Significance Aquifer Recharge Area if the Detailed Study documents that the activity does not pose a threat to the aquifer system and that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer. 41 2. All activities located in an Aquifer Recharge Area shall minimize the creation of impervious surfaces to the extent practicable without creating a greater risk to the aquifer recharge area. 28.24.080 Storage Tanks All located in an Aquifer Recharge Area which involves a storage tank must conform to the following requirements. The following requirements shall be enforced by the person or agent acting in the capacity of Fire Marshall for the Town'. The Washington Department of Ecology also regulates and authorizes permits for underground storage tanks (WAC 1730360). a)Underground Tanks All new underground storage facilities used or to be used for the underground storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes shall be designed and constructed so as to: 1. Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of the tank; 2. Be protected against corrosion, constructed of noncorrosive material, steel clad with a noncorrosive material, or designed to include a secondary containment system to prevent the release or threatened release of any stored substances; and, 3. Use material in the construction or lining of the tank which is compatible with the substance to be stored. b)Aboveground Tanks No new aboveground storage facility or part thereof shall be fabricated, constructed, installed,used or maintained in any manner which may allow the release of a hazardous substance to the ground, groundwaters, or surface waters within an Aquifer Recharge Area. No new aboveground tank or part thereof shall be fabricated, constructed, installed, used, or maintained without having constructed around or under it an impervious containment area enclosing or underlying the tank or part thereof. A new aboveground tank will require a secondary containment system either built into the tank structure or a dike system built outside the tank for all tanks located within an aquifer recharge area. Chapter 28.28 Flood Hazard Areas Sections: 28.28.010 Classification 28.28.020 Designation 28.28.030 Regulation 28.28.010: Classification: The flood areas in the City of Pasco are classified as either one of two types: (1)Floodway: Floodways are defined as the channel of a stream and adjacent 42 land areas which are required to carry and discharge the flood water or flood flows of any river or stream associated with a regulatory flood. (2)Flood Fringe: The flood fringe is defined as that land area which is outside a stream's floodway,but is subject to periodic inundation due to flooding, associated with a regulatory flood. These flood areas have been delineated based on hydrologic and hydraulic studies completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1981 , and as subsequently revised and amended. The methodology and detail of these studies is accepted as the best available. 28.28.020: Designation: (1)All areas within the City meeting the frequently flooded designation criteria in the Identification and Delineation Manual,regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Title. (2) The approximate location and extent of frequently flooded areas are shown on the adopted Critical Areas Map (Exhibit 3, or the latest revision of this map). Maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (completed May, 1981; last revised June 15, 1994), clearly delineate frequently flooded areas. The present boundaries of the floodway and 100-year floodplain are those designated on the flood boundary and floodway maps contained in the Federal Emergency Management Agency report entitled, "Flood Insurance Study—City of Pasco, Washington" (completed May, 1981; last revised June 15, 1994) and areas of special flood hazard outlined on the City of Pasco Zoning Map. 28.28.030: Regulation: Title 16(Buildings and Construction) and Chapter 24.20(Flood Hazard Protection) of the City of Pasco Municipal Code regulate proposed activities in all areas of special flood hazards. If allowed, any structures permitted in the designated flood areas are subject to the flood-proofing regulations provided in Title 15 and Chapter 24.20. Chapter 28.32 Geologic Hazard Areas Sections: 28.32.010 Purpose-Geologic Hazard Areas 28.32.020 Geologic Hazard Area Classification and Designation Criteria 28.32.030 Geologic Hazard Area Rating Criteria 28.32.040 Determination of Need for Geologic Hazard Area Detailed Study 28.32.050 Determination of Need for Geologic Hazard Area Detailed Study 28.32.060 Performance Standards Minimum Requirements 28.32.070 Long-Term Mitigation and Restoration Standards 28.32.010 Purpose-Geologic Hazard Areas Geologic hazard areas pose a threat to the health and safety of residents when incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk,but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Some geologic hazards can be reduced or mitigated by engineering, design, or modified construction or mining practices so that the risks to health and safety are acceptable. When technology cannot reduce the risks to acceptable levels, development in the hazard area is best avoided. 43 Geologic hazard areas within Pasco are those areas that are susceptible to significant erosion, landslide and flood hazards, seismic hazards, and surface mine collapse hazards. All areas within the City of Pasco meeting the criteria described in Section 28.32.020 for known or suspected risk or unknown risk, regardless of the presence or lack of any formal identification as such, are designated as critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Title. (a) Volcanic Hazards. The Growth Management Act requires that volcanic hazards be addressed in local critical area regulations. However, since no volcanic hazards exist in the Pasco area, no volcanic hazards regulations are needed. (b) Flood Hazard Areas. Generally, areas subject to flood hazard conditions are regulated by the Pasco Flood Plain regulations (PMC Title 24) which regulates those areas identified and classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on their Flood Hazard Boundary/Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). 28.32.020 Geologic Hazard Area Classification and Designation Criteria (a) Geologic hazard area classification criteria are listed in the table below, along with the source agencies that provide the guidelines for classification and designation: Criteria for Classification of Geologic Hazard Areas Hazard Area Classification and Designation Source 1. Erosion 1. Areas with soil type possessing erosion hazard of"moderate to NRCS Hazard Areas. severe,""severe,"or"very severe." (Classification based on both soil type and slope) 2. Landslide 1. Areas with slopes of thirty percent(30%)or greater slope and NRCS Hazard Areas. with a vertical relief of ten (10)or more feet; 2. Areas with slopes steeper than fifteen percent(15%) NRCS on hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock where springs or groundwater seepage is present; 3. Areas with slopes parallel or sub-parallel to planes of weakness NRCS in subsurface materials (e.g., bedding planes,joint systems, and fault planes) 4. Areas with slopes having gradients steeper than eighty percent NRCS (80%)subject to rockfall during seismic shaking 5. Alluvial fans or canyon bottoms presently or potentially subject NRCS to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding 6. Areas that have shown movement during the Holocene epoch or NRCS which are underlain or covered by wastage debris of this epoch 7. Evidence of or risk from snow avalanches NRCS 8. A"severe"limitation for building site development due to slope NRCS conditions 9. Areas of historic failure such as areas designated as quaternary USGS,Wash.- slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps or DNR; or other technical reports(e.g.,topographic or geologic maps, or other government authorized documents) agencies. 44 Criteria for Classification of Geologic Hazard Areas Hazard Area Classification and Designation Source 3. Flood Hazard 1. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, PMC Title 24 Areas. stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action shall be addressed as a flood hazard. 4. Seismic 1. Areas subject to severe risk of damage from earthquake USGS,Wash.- Hazard Areas. induced ground shaking or soil liquefaction and soil strength DNR; or other loss, including lands designated as alluvium and recessional government outwash surficial geologic units and areas located on or agencies. adjacent to a Holocene fault line. 5. Mine Hazard 1. Mine hazard areas are areas directly underlain by, adjacent to or Areas abutting, or affected by mine workings such as adits, tunnels, drifts, or air shafts. Abbreviations: NRCS-U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service USGS—United States Geological Survey Wash-DNR—Washington Department of Natural Resources 28.32.030 Geologic Hazard Area Rating Criteria (a) All areas within Pasco shall be classified by the following risk categories for each geologic hazard type: Rating of Geologic Hazard Risk Risk Classification Documentation and Data Sources Known or Suspected Risk Documentation or projection of the hazard by a qualified expert exists. No Risk Documentation or projection of the lack of a hazard by a qualified expert exists. Risk Unknown Data are not available to determine the presence or absence of a geologic hazard. 28.32.040 Determination of Need for Geologic Hazard Area Detailed Study. A Detailed Study of a geologic hazard area shall be required if the following indicators are present: (a) If the project area is listed in the City of Pasco Critical Areas Map as possessing either a Known or Suspected Risk for erosion, landslide, flood, seismic, or mine hazard. (b) If the project area is listed in the City of Pasco Critical Areas Map as possessing an Unknown Risk for erosion, landslide, flood, seismic or mine hazard if any of the following are identified by the Applicant or City: (1) A qualified geologist finds that any of the following exist: evidence of past significant events of the hazard in question on or adjacent to the site, the presence of necessary and sufficient factors for events of the hazard in question on or adjacent to the site, or reasonable uncertainty concerning the hazard and the potential for significant risk to or from the proposed activity; or 45 (2) The City Planner possesses a reasonable belief that a geologic hazard may exist. Such reasonable belief shall be supported by a site visit and subsequent consultation with a qualified geologist. 28.32.050 Geologic Hazard Area Detailed Study Requirements. The minimum requirements for a Geologic Hazard Area Detailed Study include the following in addition to the Basic Requirements identified in Sections 28.12.150 (a) Basic Requirements. A geologic hazard critical area Detailed Study shall meet the following: (1) The Detailed Study shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer or geologist. Evidence of qualifications shall be provided with the Detailed Study. (2) A map, of a scale no smaller than 1 inch=200 feet, of the site and the extent of the geologic hazard area as determined by the criteria in Section 28.32.020. (3) An assessment of the geologic characteristics and engineering properties of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the subject property and potentially affected adjacent properties, and a review of the site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading. The Study shall include a soils analysis consistent with the accepted regional taxonomic classification system, and a description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic events. Documentation of data and methods shall be included. (4) A geotechnical analysis including a detailed description of the proposed project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area,the subject property and affected adjacent properties shall be included. (5) A mitigation plan, if appropriate, prepared by a professional engineer or geologist under the supervision of a professional engineer qualified to prepare a geologic hazard area detailed study. The mitigation plan shall include a discussion on how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize the impacts discussed in the geotechnical analysis see mitigation standards provided in PMC 28.12.180 The plan shall make a recommendation for the minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the geotechnical analysis. The plan shall also address the potential impact of mitigation on the hazard area, the subject property and affected adjacent properties. (6) Where more than one geologic hazard critical area is within, adjacent to, impacts, or is impacted by the activity site, then only one Detailed Study is required to be completed to conduct a geologic hazard critical area review of the activity. The comprehensive report shall meet all of the requirements of each critical area type but may present a unified mitigation plan. (7) Where a valid geotechnical report has been prepared within the last five (5) years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the Detailed Study. The applicant shall submit a geotechnical assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. 46 (b) Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. In addition to the Requirements of 28.32.050 (a), a erosion hazard or landslide hazard area Detailed Study must also meet the following requirements: (1) The map shall depict the height of slope, slope gradient, and cross section of the site. The site plan shall also include the location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of groundwater. The site plan shall also depict any evidence of surface or storm water runoff. (2) A description of load intensity including surface and groundwater conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations and all structural development. (3) An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure. (4) An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a one hundred year storm event. (5) An assessment describing the extent and type of vegetative cover. (6) The geotechnical analysis shall specifically include: A. Slope stability studies and opinion(s)of slope stability; B. Proposed angles of cut and fill slopes and site grading requirements; C. Structural foundation requirements and estimated foundation settlements; D. Soil compaction criteria; E. Proposed surface and subsurface drainage; F. Lateral earth pressures; G. Vulnerability of the site to erosion; H. Suitability of on-site soil for use as fill; and, I. Building limitations. (7) Mitigation proposals shall include the location and methods of drainage, surface water management, locations and methods of erosion control, a vegetation management and/or restoration plan and/or other means for maintaining long term stability of slopes. (c) Flood Hazard Area. Flood Hazard Areas are addressed through the Pasco Flood Plain regulations (Title 24). If evidence exists that the proposed development area is subject to flood hazards that are not indicated on the City's Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, and site characteristics do not warrant an erosion or landslide hazard Detailed Study, the City may require additional analysis and preparation of a mitigation plan to determine if the site it suitable for development. (d) Seismic Hazard Areas. In addition to the Basic Requirements 28.32.050 (a), a Detailed Study for a seismic hazard critical area shall also meet the following requirements: (1) The site map shall show all known and mapped faults in the project vicinity. 47 (2) The geotechnical analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity reasonably probable on the site (for example, forces generated and fault displacement). (e) Mine Hazard Areas. In addition to the Basic Requirements 28.32.050(a), a Detailed Study for a mine hazard critical area shall also meet the following requirements: (1) The site plan shall delineate the existence of mine working adjacent to or abutting the site, or nearby mine workings which may impact the site; and (2) The geotechnical analysis shall include a discussion of the potential for subsidence on the site. (f) Volcanic Hazard Areas. Pasco is located in an area of minimal risk from Volcanic Hazard Areas. 28.32.060 Performance Standards Minimum Requirements. This section describes the minimum performance standard requirements for Geologic Hazard Areas (a) Basic Requirements. (1) Alteration of geologic hazard critical areas is permitted only if the development proposal can be designed so that the hazard to the project and any increase of hazard to adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated and the development proposal on that site is certified as safe by a geotechnical engineer licensed in the State of Washington. (2) All proposals involving excavations and placement of fills shall be subject to structural review under Chapter 33, Site Work, Demolition and Construction, of the 2003 International Building Code. (3) Essential public facilities as defined by RCW 36.70A.200 shall not be sited within designated geologic hazard areas. (b) Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing landslide or erosion hazards shall also meet the following requirements: (1) Alterations of the buffer and/or geologic hazard area may only occur for activities meeting the following criteria: A. No reasonable alternative exists; and B. A geotechnical report is submitted and certifies that: i. The development will not significantly increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre- development conditions; ii. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and 48 iii. That such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. (2) A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of the standard specification of City of Pasco (3) A drainage plan for the collection, transport, treatment, discharge and/or recycle of water in accordance with the standard specification of City of Pasco (4) Surface drainage shall not be directed across the face of a landslide hazard (including riverine bluffs or ravines). If drainage must be discharged from the hazard area into adjacent waters, it shall be collected above the hazard and directed to the water by tight line drain and provided with an energy dissipating device at the point of discharge. (5) All infiltration systems, such as stormwater detention and retention facilities, and curtain drains utilizing buried pipe or French drain, are prohibited in landslide hazard areas and their buffers unless a geotechnical report indicates such facilities or systems or the failure of the same will not affect slope stability and the systems are designed by a licensed civil engineer. (6) Buffer. A minimum standard buffer width of thirty (30) feet shall be established from the top, toe, and all edges of landslide and erosion hazard areas. Existing native vegetation shall be maintained. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet when an applicant demonstrates the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical area. The buffer may be increased by the City Planner for development adjacent to a river bluff or ravine, or in other areas that circumstances may warrant, where the City Planner determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development as in the case where the area potentially impacted by a landslide exceeds thirty (30)feet. (7) On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be PROHIBITED within landslide and erosion hazard areas and related buffers. (8) Development designs shall meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design which deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other criteria of this Title. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require periodic maintenance or other actions to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are: A. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to retain as much open space as possible and to preserve the natural topographic features of the site. B. Structures and improvements shall conform to the natural contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography. C. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation. D. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes. E. All development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. 49 (c) Flood Hazard Areas. Activities in flood hazard areas shall comply with the Flood Plain regulations, Title 24. (d) Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing seismic hazards shall also meet the following requirements: (1) Mitigation is implemented which reduces the seismic risk to a level equivalent to that which the activity would experience if it were not located in a seismic hazard area. (2) Seismic Hazards Areas: Structural development proposals shall meet all applicable provisions of Chapter 16 of the 2003 International Building Code (Structural Forces/Structural Design Requirements). (3) No residential structures or Essential Public shall be located on a Holocene fault line as indicated by USGS investigative maps and studies. (e) Mine Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing mine hazards shall also meet the following requirements: (1) Mitigation is implemented which reduces the risk from mine hazards to a level equivalent to that which the activity would experience if it were not located in a mine hazard area. (f) Volcanic Hazard Areas. No additional requirements. 28.32.070 Long-Term Mitigation and Restoration Standards (a) The mitigation plan shall specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the pre-existing level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation). Mitigation techniques providing long-term hazard reduction are those that do not require periodic maintenance or other actions to maintain their function. (b)Mitigation may be required to avoid any increase in risk above the pre-existing conditions following abandonment of the activity. (c) Any required restoration shall meet the long-term hazard reduction standards. In the case of restoration, long-term shall be defined as the equivalent of natural function. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting, this day of ,2009. Joyce Olson Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 50 Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney 51