Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3998 Resolution - Comprehensive Plan (CPA2020-002)RESOLUTION NO. 3998 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON ADOPTING VOLUME 1 AND VOLUME 2 OF THE 2018-2038 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of Washington (RCW 36.70A) requires that the City of Pasco and other jurisdictions in Franklin County adopt Comprehensive Plans; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A.130 requires the City of Pasco to take legislative action to review, and if needed, revise its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to ensure their continued compliance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the current Pasco Comprehensive Plan was adopted on September 2, 2008 Ordinance 3866) and is amended annually as necessary; and WHEREAS, in 2018, the Pasco Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2018-001 establishing the public participation process to be used for the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan Update as required by RCW36.70A.130; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council established, via Council Goals a set of principles to guide the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has undergone significant changes and continued growth since the last major update in 2008; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has grown by 24% (almost 18,000 residents) since 2008; and WHEREAS, the City has engaged in a multi-year planning process to update the Comprehensive Plan that included public events in 2018 and over 26 public meetings from January 2018 through September 2020; and WHEREAS, the community identified that Pasco will be a livable, family -friendly, multi- cultural, affordable, safe, connective, attractive and welcoming community; and WHEREAS, the community envisions that as one of the fastest growing communities in the state, Pasco will be a distinctive and highly livable city that makes timely and strategic investments in innovation, private enterprise, job creation, education, infrastructure and services; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates growth of an additional 48,200 additional residents, 15,200 housing units and home to over 41,000 jobs between 2018 and 2038; and Resolution - Comp Plan (CPA2020-02) - 1 WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan includes significant updates to the Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Economic Development, Capital Facilities, Public Services, Parks and Open Space, Resource Lands, Critical Areas and Shorelines and Implementation Elements based on a continued data driven approach to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and to meet the overall interests and needs of the community; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the relationship between land use and transportation and its importance to Pasco's future and further emphasizes that the balance of the two elements must be strategic to ensure that future residents and businesses benefit from a well- connected neighborhoods that allow residents to travel via various modes rather than relying solely on private automobiles; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan includes the Transportation Element which is being updated through a separate and ongoing Transportation System Master Plan process with coordination from local, regional and state transportation agencies incorporating input from the community; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan will be realized by the entire city organization, in concert with the community of Pasco and local and regional partners; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act allows for amendments to comprehensive plans once annually; and WHEREAS, the Pasco Planning Commission has held eighteen discussion and workshop items on the Comprehensive Plan, including nine public hearings; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, the Pasco Planning Commission recommended for approval the Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Pasco Planning Commission's recommendation was presented to the Pasco City Council on September 14, 2020 with representatives from Oneza & Associates, White Bluffs Consulting and city staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council has been provided with the Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1, Volume 2, and supporting analysis; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco complied with the requirements of the State Environmental Protection Policy Act (Chapter 43.21 C RCW) and the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC Title 23); and WHEREAS, the projected growth could have significant impacts to both the natural and built environments, the City of Pasco elected to prepare a Non -Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating the expansion of the Urban Growth Area for the Comprehensive Plan Update; and Resolution - Comp Plan (CPA2020-02) - 2 WHEREAS, the EIS provided for three UGA expansion alternatives for consideration and action by the Pasco Planning Commission, which included a No -Action, Tradition Growth Target and Compact Growth (Higher Density) Target; and WHEREAS, the EIS analyzed the current state of the City and UGA with expected changes under each alternative and evaluated the possible impacts of different land use options for each alternative; and WHEREAS, the EIS indicates that the preferred Urban Growth Area for the City of Pasco result in the Compact High -Density Growth Target, Alternative #3; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan complies with the Franklin County County -Wide Planning Policies per Resolution 2019-312 Adopted by Franklin County; and WHEREAS, pending approval from the Franklin County Board of Commissioners, the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map will reflect an expansion of the Pasco Urban Growth Area. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. Amendments. The Pasco Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1, Volume 2 and the Future Land Use Map is now hereby amended as set forth as Exhibit `B" and is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Final Non -Project Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Plan identified as Exhibit "C" is hereby adopted. Section 3. That this resolution be forwarded to Franklin County to accompany a formal submittal and application for consideration of Comprehensive Plan certification. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this 5th day of October, 2020. a Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: t Debra Barham, CMC City Clerk Resolution - Comp Plan (CPA2020-02) - 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Attorney City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan 2018-2038 Exhibit #B Volume I Goals and Policies City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan 2018–2038 Prepared by Oneza & Associates Prepared with assistance from J-U-B Engineers Inc. White Bluffs Consulting City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Volume I, Goals and Policies Re-adopted by Ordinance No. ___________ City Council Mayor Saul Martinez (District 3) Mayor Pro Tem Blanche Barajas (District 1) Councilmember Ruben Alvarado (District 2) Councilmember Pete Serrano (District 4) Councilmember Daved Mline (District 5) Councilmember Craig Maloney (District 6) Councilmember Zahra Roach (At-Large) Planning Commission Position 1: Chair Tanya Bowers Position 2: Vice-Chair Joe Campos Position 3: Commissioner Paul Mendez Position 4: Commissioner Anne Jordan Position 5: Commissioner Abel Campos Position 6: Commissioner Isaac Myhrum Position 7: Vacant Position 8: Commissioner Pam Ransier Position 9: Commissioner Jerry Cochran City Staff Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Darcy Bourcier, Planner I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Comprehensive Plan Framework .............................................................................................. 2 Relationship to the Growth Management Act..................................................................... 2 Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies ................................................................. 3 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................ 3 The Pasco Vision for 2038 ............................................................................................................ 4 Comprehensive Plan Elements ................................................................................................... 4 Implementing the Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................. 5 Land Use Element ............................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Growth Management Mandate .................................................................................................. 7 Plan Concept ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Land Use Designations and Areas ............................................................................................ 9 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 12 Housing Element ............................................................................................................. 16 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Growth Management Mandates .............................................................................................. 17 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 17 Economic Development Element .............................................................................. 19 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Growth Management Mandate ................................................................................................ 19 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 20 Capital Facilities Element ............................................................................................. 22 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Growth Management Mandates .............................................................................................. 23 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 24 Utilities Element .............................................................................................................. 27 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Growth Management Mandate ................................................................................................ 27 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS II Transportation Element ............................................................................................... 29 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Growth Management Mandate ................................................................................................ 30 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 30 Implementation & Monitoring Element .................................................................. 32 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Growth Management Mandate ................................................................................................ 32 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 32 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 35 List of Tables Table LU-1. Existing Land Use Designations and Acreage ................................ 10 Table LU-2. Future Land Use Designations and Acreage .................................. 10 List of Figures Figure LU-1. Future Land Use Distribution in the City and Urban Growth Areas .................................................................................................................................... 12 INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 1 Goals e.g. Provide adequate and affordable housing Policies e.g. Allow small lot and mixed use housing Regulations and Programs e.g. Zoning Code -permit small lots, mixed use; Budget; Capital Improvement Plan Introduction The Pasco Comprehensive Plan (Plan) is a statement of goals and policies that outline the community’s vision for the future. The Plan is a basic reference document that provides guidance for the development and implementation of specific ordinances and regulations affecting the physical environment of the community. The Plan also anticipates population and employment growth, and how public facilities and services will be provided to accommodate that growth. The City originally adopted a Growth Management Act (GMA) Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to legislation provided in RCW 36.70A (Pasco 1995 1). This Plan is a revision and update of the 1995 plan and amendments thereto. The last major update occurred in 2008. 1 City of Pasco, 1995. Growth Management Act (GMA) Comprehensive Plan. In this chapter, you will find:  Comprehensive Plan Framework  Relationship to the Growth Management Act (GMA)  Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies  Pasco Vision for 2038  Overview of the Comprehensive Plan Elements  Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 2 Comprehensive Plan Framework This Comprehensive Plan encompasses all geographic and functional elements related to the community’s physical development. It is general in nature and long range in its scope. The Comprehensive Plan includes major planning components, visions, goals, policies, and analyses:  A vision is a collective value and target of a community, it is what a community wants to become.  Goals are individual values aimed at achieving the vision.  Policies define how we accomplish the goals. Regulations, codes and ordinances implement policies. The Plan is divided into two volumes:  Volume 1 - Contains an introduction including a description of the Comprehensive Plan, framework goals as mandated by state, a brief community profile, an outline of required elements, and other related information. This volume also includes goals and policies related to seven major elements that articulate the City’s vision for the future: Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Transportation, Economic Development, and Implementation and Monitoring. The Mapfolio (See Appendix A) includes maps related to these elements.  Volume 2 - Provides background information for each of the elements, including supporting data, maps, and inventories. Relationship to the Growth Management Act In addition to outlining the required elements of comprehensive plans, the GMA (RCW 36.70A.020) prescribes 14 statutory goals. For a community’s plan to be valid, it must be consistent with and support the State’s goals as well as other specific requirements of the GMA. Consistency, in the context of the GMA, means a plan must not conflict with the fourteen statutory goals, county wide policies, and plans of adjoining jurisdictions. The preparation of this Plan was guided by these goals. The fourteen statutory goals adopted by the State Legislature (paraphrased) are: 1. Guide urban growth to areas where urban services can be adequately provided 2. Reduce urban sprawl 3. Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems 4. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population, and promote a variety of residential densities and housing 5. Encourage economic development throughout the State INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 3 6. Assure private property is not taken for public use without just compensation 7. Encourage predictability and timeliness in the permitting process 8. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries including productive agriculture, fisheries, and mineral industries 9. Encourage retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities 10. Protect the environment and enhance the State’s quality of life 11. Encourage public participation in the planning process 12. Ensure there are adequate public facilities and services necessary to support development 13. Identify and preserve lands and sites of historic and archaeological significance 14. Manage the State’s shorelines wisely Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies Managing growth can be ineffective if it is carried out in a patchwork fashion. Therefore, the GMA provides a framework for regional coordination. Counties planning under the GMA should prepare Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) and establish urban growth areas (UGAs). Cities and the county are required to be consistent with the CWPP in their comprehensive planning. The Franklin County Board of Commissioners adopted the Franklin Countywide Planning Policies in 2019 (See Appendix B). This document establishes policies that the City’s Comprehensive Plan follows in addressing everything from transportation to the provision of municipal services, economic development, and fiscal considerations. Public Participation The City of Pasco updated its Public Participation Plan in 2017 (City of Pasco 20182). Cities and counties planning under the GMA must establish “…procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans” (RCW 36.70A.140). In 2017 and 2018, the City conducted multiple opportunities for public involvement in the form of public workshops and meetings. The City established a Comprehensive Plan webpage to disseminate information to, and gather input from, the public. The City reached out to stakeholders such as Pasco School District, Columbia Basin College, the Benton Franklin Council of Government (BFCG), and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The City also held Planning Commission and 2 City of Pasco, 2018. Public Participation Plan, City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan. INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 4 Council workshops. Planning Commission hearings were held in 2017 and 2018 with published notices. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was also prepared concurrently. The EIS addresses public input received during the scoping and comment period. The City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan on [INSERT DATE]. The Plan’s goals and policies directly reflect the input received from the public. The Pasco Vision for 2038 Located along the north shore of the Columbia River, Pasco is the major service center for the agricultural production in the Columbia Basin region of the State. Our City contains tree lined streets with well-maintained and identifiable neighborhoods interspersed with parks and schools. The City’s infrastructure reflects good planning and public stewardship, while providing for acceptable levels of services. Fire stations and police mini-stations are optimally located throughout the community to provide exceptional and proactive public safety. City government actively participates with the Port of Pasco and regional economic development agencies to expand employment opportunities as well as the tax base necessary to support needed community services. Our retail and commercial service centers are attractive and inviting areas clustered near intersections of major arterial streets. Pasco is the multi-modal hub of southeastern Washington with flourishing industrial development along key transportation nodes, including rail, air, barge, truck, and pipelines. All residents of the city are afforded access to the Columbia River. Pasco is oriented toward and connected with the River through parks, pathways, bikeways, boat launches, and docks. Comprehensive Plan Elements The City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan contains seven elements, whose goals and policies guide Pasco’s growth toward the vision of the future. Each element contains a brief introduction explaining the purpose for establishing the respective goals and policies: The Land Use Element is the Comprehensive Plan’s bellwether element. This element provides direction for land use decisions necessary to guide the location of housing, commercial and industrial development as well as all other land uses within the City and expansion of the UGA. The Housing Element promotes the need for diverse and affordable housing for current and future residents of the City. The element also promotes the maintenance and preservation of the existing housing stock. The Capital Facilities Element discusses the utility, urban, and recreational services provided by the City. This element contains policies related to utility development, public safety, and essential public facilities. -- INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 5 The Utilities Element addresses utilities not owned or operated by the City of Pasco. The emphasis of this element is coordination between all utility providers during the planning and construction process. The Transportation Element discusses all modes of transportation within Pasco. Along with providing policy guides, this element also addresses needs for current and future transportation improvements in the City. The Economic Development Element provides a framework for the promotion of city business recruitment efforts, expanding the tax base, and creating new employment opportunities for Pasco residents. The Implementation and Monitoring Element contains general and administrative goals related to the planning process and executing of the Comprehensive Plan. Implementing the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the goals and policies it identifies to guide local decision making related to urban development. The GMA encourages innovative implementation methods that are both regulatory and non-regulatory. Regulatory actions may include the adoption of a revised zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinance, while non-regulatory actions could include the adoption of a capital facilities plan. Implementation may also include monitoring, evaluation, and amending the plan as conditions change. The City develops this Plan based on the community input, in order to achieve a desired outcome for the City. However, market forces and many other factors can affect this outcome. Implementation is also contingent upon availability of funds. The City will work to reconcile issues, where possible, in order to stay on course. Some of the actions necessary to implement the Plan are discussed as follows: Regulatory Measures The GMA requires the City to enact land development regulations that are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. These regulations include zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, critical area regulations, shoreline regulations, and others. The zoning regulations and zoning map must be consistent with the land use map and the policies established in the Plan. The land use map and land use policies of the Plan establish the use, density, and intensity of future development. The zoning regulations ensure development occurs as identified in the Plan. The City is obligated by ESHB 1714 (adopted by the 1995 Legislature) to clarify the development and permitting process through the establishment of specific time frames and processes. These processes are provided in Title 4, Permit Process of the Pasco Municipal Code. Concurrency Management A concurrency management system is a regulatory process that establishes procedures to determine if public facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate a INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 6 proposed development. The process uses criteria adopted and implemented in the municipal code. Under the GMA, concurrency must be established for transportation facilities; however, jurisdictions may establish concurrency for any public facility or service. The City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development. Budget The City’s biennial budget document identifies priorities based on the goals and policies, and future growth indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. The funds allocated in the budget document are also tied with the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Six Year Capital Improvement Plan The CIP sets out the capital projects the City plans to undertake within the next six years to support implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The six-year schedule is updated annually, with the first year of the schedule acting as the capital budget for the current fiscal year. During the annual updating of the six-year schedule, cost estimates, and funding sources are updated and revised to reflect changed conditions or new information available to the City. The CIP and the twenty-year Capital Facility Plan should be revised to include additional projects that may be needed to maintain adopted levels of service. Administrative Actions The Comprehensive Plan includes policies that should be carried out through administrative actions. These actions include development review, development permitting, preparation of reports, making information available to the public, and review for concurrency. Development review practices must be continually monitored to ensure administrative function are consistent with and support the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Public Involvement As the Plan is tested by development, there will be a need to respond by amending the Plan. Additionally, as the community grows, the vision for the future may change and new needs may emerge. Continued public involvement and communication is necessary to keep the Plan current and in step with community goals for the future. LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 7 In this chapter, you will find:  Growth Management Mandate  Plan Concept  Land Use Designations and Areas  Land Use Goals and Policies Land Use Element Introduction The Land Use Element anticipates and directs growth and development in the Pasco UGA for the next 20 years. It is the policy basis for ensuring that adequate land is available for growth and that development will be orderly and efficient. The Land Use Element specifically considers the general distribution and location of land uses and the appropriate intensity and density of land uses given development trends; provides policy guidance for residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses; addresses pre-existing non-conforming uses; and establishes land division policies for creating new lots. It also provides the basis for coordination with Franklin County in establishing and expanding the UGA. Growth Management Mandate The Land Use Element is designed to comply with the following state GMA planning goals:  Encourage urban development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner  Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development • LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 8  Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made; the property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions  Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks  Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability  Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archeological significance  Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts  Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock  Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state’s natural resources, public services, and public facilities  Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries including productive timber, agricultural, and fishery industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands and discourage incompatible uses. The state goals, in turn, led to the CWPP in Appendix B that provides specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element. Plan Concept The largest city in Franklin County, Pasco is part of the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area, a region that includes parts of two counties—Benton and Franklin— as well as Kennewick, Richland, and West Richland, with a total population of 300,000. More than 80% of county residents live in Pasco, and as of April 1, 2019, population was estimated at 75,290 (Washington State Office of Financial Management). In terms of net percentage growth, Pasco is one of the fastest growing cities in the state of Washington. The current land area of the City is 37.42 square miles. The Plan concept is based on a vision of how the City should grow and develop while protecting its quality of life and equitably sharing the public and private costs and benefits of growth. The plan concept supports a distribution of land uses providing for residential, commercial, and industrial developments along with infrastructure, public facilities, parks, open space, and other community features - in order to maintain and protect public health, safety, and welfare, while enhancing the community’s character, amenities, and environmental quality. LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 9 Land Use Designations and Areas Pasco’s approach to managing growth is accomplished through the comprehensive plan land use designations that, in turn, provide the basis for zoning, capital facilities planning, and public investment. Land use designations indicate where new urban growth will be encouraged and where necessary infrastructure improvements will be required, over time, to support the new growth. The UGAs (see Map LU-1 in Appendix A) within and adjacent to the City provide for future land needs that can support growth with adequate urban-level public facilities concurrent with development. New development is encouraged to locate in UGAs where adequate public facilities and services can be provided in an efficient and economic manner. An adequate supply of land will ensure that immediate and future urban needs are met, as well as provide for an orderly and efficient transition from low intensity land use to urban land use over time. Land use policies are intended to protect critical areas; provide efficient and safe transportation networks; and maintain and improve the quality of air, water, and land resources; as well as preserve existing urban neighborhood character. Map LU-1 in the Appendix A depicts the generalized Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the City and the UGAs. The land use designations represent the adopted policies that support land demand through the year 2038. The following land use designations are used to allow for the necessary flexibility and specificity in applying land use regulations and development standards:  Low Density Residential  Medium Density Residential  Medium-High Density Residential  High Density Residential  Mixed Residential/Commercial  Mixed Use Interchange  Mixed Use Neighborhood  Mixed Use Regional  Office  Commercial  Industrial  Public and Quasi Public  Department of Natural Resources Reserve  Airport Reserve  Open Space LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 10 The zoning code (Pasco Municipal Code Title 25) includes more detailed information on the specific zoning districts that implement these land use designations. Tables LU-1 and LU-2 indicate the land areas for each of the land use designations. Figure 1 indicates the percentage of land under each land use category. In defining density, it is important to distinguish the difference between “gross” and “net”. Gross density means the total number of dwelling units divided by the total land area of the site or area, excluding nothing. Net density means the total number of dwelling units divided by the net area of the lot or site. The gross area excludes roads, public open spaces, community facilities, and critical areas. Table LU-1. Existing Land Use Designations and Acreage Land Use Designations City Limits (Acres) UGA(Acres) Total (Acres) Residential Lands Low Density 7,625 1676 9,301 Medium Density 1,253 425 1,678 High Density 189 -- 189 Subtotal 9,066 2,101 11,167 Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 564 17 582 Commercial 2,050 34 2,085 Subtotal 2,614 52 2,666 Industrial Lands Industrial 7,768 1,669 9,438 Subtotal 7,768 1,669 9,438 Public / Quasi-Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 838 88 925 Subtotal 838 88 925 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 950 61 1,012 Subtotal 950 61 1,012 Area Total 21,237 3,971 25,208 Notes: 1. The total contains 4,292 acres of Street Rights of Way 2. Source: City of Pasco GIS . Acreage figures are derived based on the best information and parcel data available in GIS. Accuracy may vary depending on source of information, changes in political boundaries or hydrological features, or the methodology used to map and calculate a particular land use. 3. These do not include the water area. Table LU-2. Future Land Use Designations and Acreage Land Use Designations City Limits UGA Total (Existing and Proposed) Residential Lands LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 11 Land Use Designations City Limits UGA Total (Existing and Proposed) Low Density 7,124 3,478 10,603 Medium Density 1,591 628 2,219 Medium-High Density 61 163 224 High Density 171 122 294 Subtotal 8,947 4,392 13,339 Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 422 12 435 Commercial 1,867 370 2,237 Mixed Use Interchange 26 -- 26 Mixed Use Neighborhood 21 57 77 Mixed Use Regional 148 -- 148 Office 104 -- 104 Subtotal 2,588 439 3,027 Industrial Lands Industrial 4,938 1,606 6,545 Subtotal 4,938 1,606 6,545 Public / Quasi-Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 851 82 933 Subtotal 851 82 933 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 1,251 70 1,321 Subtotal 1,251 70 1,321 Airport Reserve Lands Airport Reserve 1,709 382 2,091 Subtotal 1,709 382 2,091 DNR Reserve Lands DNR Reserve 764 469 1233 Subtotal 764 469 1233 Confederated Tribes - Colville Reservation Confederated Tribes - Colville Reservation 188 188 Area Total 21,2361 7,359 1, 2 28,677 3 Notes: 1. Includes 3,448 acres of proposed UGA 2. Includes rights of way 3. Does not include water area LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 12 Figure LU-1. Future Land Use Distribution in the City and Urban Growth Areas Goals and Policies LU-1. GOAL: TAKE DELIBERATE, CONSISTENT, AND CONTINUOUS ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY’S QUALITY OF LIFE LU-1-A Policy: Maintain and apply current design standards for major public investments, particularly streets. LU-1-B Policy: Enhance the physical appearance of development within the community through land use regulations, design guidelines, and performance and maintenance standards including landscaping, screening, building facades, color, signs, and parking lot design and appearance. LU-1-C Policy: Encourage conservation design with cluster commercial development and discourage strip commercial development. LU-1-D Policy: Land uses should be permitted subject to adopted standards designed to mitigate land use impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses, while preserving constitutionally protected forms of expression. Offi ce ,0 .3 6~ M i xed Use Regi on al , 0 .S2~ M i xed Use Neigh bor h ood , 0 .27 96 M i xed Use Inter ch ange , 0 .09 M ed i um4 High Den si ty, 0 .78 Gov't Public / Qu asi 4 Public 3 .2 S96 Industr i al , 22.82~ 0NR Re serve , 4.3096 Low De n si ty, 36.97 ;..s LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 13 LU-2. GOAL: PLAN FOR A VARIETY OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN THE UGA LU-2-A Policy: Maintain sufficient land designated to accommodate residential, commercial, industrial, educational, public facility, and open-space uses proximate to appropriate transportation and utility infrastructure. LU-2-B Policy: Facilitate planned growth within the City limits and UGA, and promote infill developments in the City limits through periodic review of growth patterns and market demand within each of the City’s land use designations. LU-2-C Policy: Ensure that adequate public services are provided in a reasonable time frame for new developments. LU-2-D Policy: Encourage the use of buffers or transition zones between non-compatible land uses. LU-2-E Policy: Discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to Pasco (Tri-Cities) Airport and other essential public facilities. LU-2-F Policy: Discourage developments dependent on septic system, and at a density below the minimum, to sustain an urban level of services. LU-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS AND ENSURE NEW NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SAFE AND ENJOYABLE PLACES TO LIVE LU-3-A Policy: Design major streets, schools, parks, and other public facilities that will encourage the individual identities of neighborhoods. LU-3-B Policy: Support existing and design future recreational, educational, and cultural facilities and services through the Capital Facilities Plan; dedication of land through the concurrency management process; and coordination with service providers. LU-3-C Policy: Ensure all developments include appropriate landscaping and screening, as required by adopted regulations and guidelines. LU-3-D Policy: Encourage the use of irrigation (non-potable) water for landscape maintenance, and consistent with state and federal laws. • LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 14 LU-4. GOAL: INCREASE COMMUNITY ACCESSIBILITY THROUGH PROPER LAND USE PLANNING LU-4-A Policy: Reduce the dependency of vehicle travel, and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods. LU-4-B Policy: Encourage infill and higher density uses within proximity to major travel corridors and public transportation service areas. LU-4-C Policy: Encourage the development of walkable communities by increasing mixed-use (commercial/residential) developments that provide households with neighborhood and commercial shopping opportunities. LU-4-D Policy: Designate areas for higher density residential developments where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources. LU-4-E Policy: Encourage the orderly development of land by emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network. LU-4-F Policy: Support mixed use, smart growth, infill, and compact developments with transit and pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy community. LU-5. GOAL: MAINTAIN A BROAD RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE A VARIETY OF LIFESTYLES AND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES LU-5-A Policy: Allow a variety of residential densities throughout the UGA LU-5-B Policy: Encourage higher residential densities within and adjacent to major travel corridors, Downtown (Central Business District), and Broadmoor. LU-6 GOAL: ENCOURAGE DISTINCTIVE QUALITY COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE CITY’S OVERALL DEVELOPMENT GOALS LU-6-A Policy: Encourage commercial and higher-density residential uses along major LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 15 corridors and leverage infrastructure availability. LU-6-B Policy: Promote efficient and functional neighborhood level and major commercial centers to meet community demand. LU-6-C Policy: Ensure attractive hubs for activity by maintaining and applying design standards and guidelines that will enhance the built environment of each community. LU-6-D Policy: Regularly review and update the City's industrial zoning regulations to allow design flexibility and creativity, address emerging issues, and foster compatibility of development with the character of surrounding areas. LU-6-E Policy: Support the Growth Management Act's goal to encourage growth, including industrial growth in urban areas LU-7 GOAL: SAFEGUARD AND PROTECT SHORELANDS AND CRITICAL LANDS WITHIN THE URBAN AREA LU-7-A Policy: Maintain regulatory processes to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitats, and other critical lands within the urban growth area. LU-7-B Policy: Conform to the adopted goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program as part of this Comprehensive Plan. LU7-C Policy: Ensure the implementation of the requirements of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) LU-8. GOAL: ENHANCE THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS, SITES AND NEIGHBORHOODS LU-8-A Policy: Allow adaptive re-uses in historic structures. LU-8-B Policy: Increase public awareness and partnerships to increase historic heritage tourism with the Franklin County Museum. LU-8-C Policy: Monitor and update the Historic Preservation Plan as guided by the Historic Preservation Committee. LU-8-D Policy: Preserve significant historic structures and cultural resources that are unique to the City, and consistent with state and federal laws HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 16 In this chapter, you will find:  Growth Management Mandates  Housing Goals and Policies Housing Element Introduction Housing is one of the most important needs in our lives and communities.  It provides shelter and a link to the neighborhood and the larger community.  It is the single largest purchase made by most households.  As an industry, housing is a major partner in the economic life of the community, both as a consumer of goods and services and a producer of dwelling units, jobs, and income.  As a major economic activity, housing depends on local government. While taxes on housing are an important source of local government revenue, services to housing and to the inhabitants of this housing comprise a major portion of local government expenditures. By 2038, the population within the Pasco is expected to be 121,828. This will be a 48,238 increase over the 2018 population estimate by the Office of Financial Management. Approximately 15,217 new housing units of will be added to the inventory in the next 20 years to accommodate this population growth. This comprehensive plan is a roadmap for Pasco as it works toward providing housing opportunities for present and future generations. Every community has low- and moderate-income households. Since a community benefits from its residents, it has a responsibility to ensure they have a desirable place to live. The Land Use Element establishes policies for providing a variety of residential densities and related housing HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 17 opportunities within the confines of the GMA. This Housing Element includes a description of issues, resources, goals, and policies that address Pasco’s housing programs and strategies. Housing Element in Volume 2 provides demographic information and analyses used to support the policy framework. Growth Management Mandates Addressing local housing needs involves a regional approach supported by all levels of government - federal, state, and local - and the private sector. Each jurisdiction has a responsibility for meeting its obligations in addressing affordable housing issues in the Tri-Cities. The greatest potential for promoting affordable housing is in the urban areas, given the intent of the GMA to direct population growth to these areas while protecting outlying open space and rural lands. The Franklin Countywide Planning Policies are the most appropriate tool for advancing a countywide or regional housing strategy supported by the County, cities and towns, and other public and private entities. The Housing Element is designed to comply with the following State GMA planning goal:  Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. Goals and Policies H-1. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF THE CITY’S POPULATION CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL MARKET H-1-A Policy: Allow for a full range of housing including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot line, planned unit developments etc. H-1-B Policy: Higher intensity housing should be located near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and employment areas. H-1-C Policy: Support the availability of special needs housing throughout the community. H-1-D Policy: Support or advance programs that encourage access to safe and affordable housing. H-2. GOAL: PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS H-2-A Policy: Use the Residential Rental Program as a method to ensure that all rental housing in the city comply with minimum housing code standards. HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 18 H-2-B Policy: Assist low-income households with needed housing improvements. H-2-C Policy: Support organizations and or programs involved in affordable housing development, repair and rehabilitation. H-3. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION THAT ENSURES LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND VALUE H-3-A Policy: Encourage innovative techniques in the design of residential neighborhoods and mixed- use areas to provide character and variety in the community. H-3-B Policy: Maintain development regulations and standards that control the scale and density of residential housing to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. H-3-C Policy: Utilize design and landscaping standards to ensure all residential development exhibits a consistent level of access, quality, and appearance. H-4. GOAL: SUPPORT EFFORTS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY H-4-A Policy: Collaborate with local, state and federal agencies, and private organizations to assist lower income residents rehabilitate and/or maintain their homes. H-4-B Policy: Work with public and private sector developers to ensure that lower income and affordable housing is available. H-4-C Policy: Increase housing supply and diversity through appropriate and flexible development standards. • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 19 In this chapter, you will find:  Growth Management Mandate  Economic Development Goals and Policies Economic Development Element Introduction The Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide and promote economic opportunities for all citizens of the City. The Economic Development Element combines multiple efforts put forth by local and regional agencies. The Element also acknowledges and supports the strategies and priorities placed by SOMOS Pasco3. Growth Management Mandate The Economic Development Element is designed to comply with the following state GMA planning goals:  Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new 3SOMOS PASCO is a long-range visioning and action plan for Pasco’s economy that aligned with economic opportunities and community-wide priorities. • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 20 businesses; recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities; and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. Goals and Policies ED-1. GOAL: MAINTAIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS AN IMPORTANT AND ONGOING CITY INITIATIVE ED-1-A Policy: Promote an environment which supports the development and expansion of business opportunities. ED-1-B Policy: Continue efforts to attract and recruit new employers to the community with promotional efforts in cooperation with other Tri-Cities partners. ED-1-C Policy: Support the promotion of Pasco’s urban area as a good business environment by enhancing the infrastructure of the community. ED-1-D Policy: promote tourism and recreational opportunities. ED-1-E Policy: Recognize that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning, is vital to economic development and attracting businesses. ED-1-F Policy: Support and encourage residential/commercial mixed-use developments that provide neighborhood shopping and services and promote walkable neighborhoods. ED-2. GOAL: ASSURE APPROPRIATE LOCATION AND DESIGN OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ED-2-A Policy: Maintain a strong working relationship with the Port of Pasco and regional Economic development agencies to further economic opportunities. ED-2-B Policy: Encourage development of a wide range of commercial and industrial uses strategically located near major transportation corridors or facilities and in close proximity to existing or proposed utility infrastructure while supporting local and regional needs. ED-2-C Policy: Continue to pursue the development of existing industrially zoned properties that may be serviced by existing or planned utilities. ED-2-D Policy: Ensure that lands with large-scale agricultural uses are converted to an appropriate scale of urban agriculture or other related uses to fit community needs. ED-2-E Policy: Periodically assess the adequacy of the supply of vacant and re-developable lands in the City limits and the UGA, especially commercial and industrially zoned land. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 21 ED-2-F Policy: Encourage the assembly and redevelopment of key underdeveloped parcels through incentives and public/private partnerships. ED-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO ENSURE THAT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOOD NEIGHBORS ED-3-A Policy: Enhance compatibility of commercial and industrial development with residential and mixed-use neighborhoods with appropriate landscaping, screening, building and design standards, ED-3-B Policy: Ensure outdoor illumination and signage of businesses have a positive impact and are compatible with neighborhood standards. ED-3-C Policy: Provide appropriate access through a combination of pathways, sidewalks, non-motorized travel lanes and parking. ED-3-D Policy: Require businesses and buildings in and adjacent to the Central Business District to conform to established development standards, ED-4. GOAL: POSITION THE COMMUNITY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROSPERITY ED-4-A Policy: Leverage the Tri-Cities Airport as an appealing gateway to attract visitors and new industry to the airport district and the greater Pasco region. ED-4-B Policy: Collaborate with public/private partners to create a masterplan vision of the waterfront, Broadmoor area, and other neighborhoods as necessary. ED-4-C Policy: Pursue the ongoing revitalization of Downtown Pasco including incentivizing development in the Central Business District, and following the Main Street approach 4 4 The Main Street Four-Point Approach® is a preservation-based economic development tool that enables communities to revitalize downtown and neighborhood business districts by leveraging local assets - from historic, cultural, and architectural resources to local enterprises and community pride. Four points include Organization, Promotion, Design and Economic Vitality. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 22 In this chapter, you will find:  Growth Management Mandates  Capital Facilities Goals and Policies Capital Facilities Element Introduction This Chapter, along with the six-year Capital Improvement Plan, constitutes the Capital Facilities Element. The Pasco Comprehensive Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Irrigation, and six-year Transportation Plans are a technical extension of the Capital Facilities, Utilities and Transportation Elements, and are designed to support the City's current and future population and economy. The goals and policies guide and implement the provision of adequate public facilities as required by the GMA. This Element and the Capital Improvement Plan contain level-of-service (LOS) standards for transportation, sewer, and water, and policies directing concurrency. Following the provisions for City capital facilities, this Element includes goals and policies for essential public facilities. Planning for major capital facilities enables Pasco to:  Demonstrate facility needs through adopted level of service standards  Anticipate capital improvement needs and plan for their costs  Integrate community capital facility wants and needs into the annual budget process  Monitor growth and manage development  Qualify for revenue sources such as federal and state grants and loans, real estate excise taxes, and impact fees. This level of planning also enables the City to receive a better rating on bond issues CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 23 The City of Pasco is responsible for capital facilities and service levels related to:  Public Works - Operation and maintenance, transportation, water, sewer, surface water management, and solid waste disposal facilities  Justice - Public safety and court facilities  General Government - Administrative facilities  Community - Parks, recreation and community services facilities Source Documents The source documents primarily used as functional comprehensive plans for infrastructure and the six-year CIPs are prepared routinely and updated annually as required for obtaining funding from the State. The individual CIPs define projects and proposed funding for those projects required, first to rehabilitate existing facilities, and second to provide LOS capacity to accommodate new growth. Generally, the proposed new capacity, replacement, and rehabilitation of capital facilities and financing for the next six years, reflect the general planning goals and policies, as well as land use infrastructure requirements, identified in Pasco’s longer-range planning documents. These documents include:  The Transportation Element and related regional and county transportation plans  The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and the Forestry Plan  Water, Sewer, Irrigation, and Stormwater Comprehensive Plans  Specific facility plans for infrastructure improvements and city-owned buildings Other source documents include, plans for schools and the irrigation district, the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) Regional Transportation Plan, the Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area Plan, and other service providers. Growth Management Mandates The Capital Facilities Element is designed to comply with the following State GMA planning goals:  Ensure that the public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards The state goals, in turn, led to the following CWPP that provide specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element (note that only those policies or portions pertaining to infrastructure are included here). CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 24 Goals and Policies CF-1. GOAL: USE THE SIX YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS AS THE SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 20-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CF-1-A Policy: Systematically guide capital improvements consistent with the vision and plan of the community. CF-1-B Policy: Encourage public participation in defining the need for, the proposed location of, and the design of public facilities such as parks, ball fields, pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and street and utility extensions and improvements. CF-2. GOAL: ENSURE CONCURRENCY OF UTILITIES, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ACTIONS WITHIN CAPITAL BUDGET CAPABILITIES CF-2-A Policy: Encourage growth in geographic areas where services and utilities can be extended in an orderly, progressive, and efficient manner. CB-2-B Policy: Deficiencies in existing public facilities should be addressed during the capital facilities budgeting process. CF-2-C Policy: Periodically review capital facilities needs and the associated fiscal impacts on the community in light of changing regional and local economic trends. The appropriate interval for such a review is ten years during the mandated GMA update cycle, except for the annual 6-Year Budget review. CF-2-D Policy: Reassess the Land Use Element whenever probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs to ensure that the Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements are consistent with each other. CF-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN ADEQUATE LANDS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES CF-3-A Policy: Assure land development proposals provide land and/or facilities or other mitigation measures to address impacts on traffic, parks, recreational facilities, schools, and pedestrian and bicycle trails. CF-4. GOAL: ACQUIRE ADEQUATE WATER RIGHTS FOR FUTURE NEEDS CF-4-A Policy: Ensure the acquisition of water rights commensurate with the City’s planned development and need for water in residential, commercial, industrial, and other urban uses. • CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 25 CF-4-B Policy: Ensure that new developments, utilizing the City water, transfer to the City any existing water rights associated with the properties being developed. In absence of any existing water rights, developments should pay water rights acquisition fees to the City. CF-5. GOAL: IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY, PROVIDE PARKS, GREENWAYS, TRAILS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE UGA. CF-5-A Policy: Implement the adopted parks and recreation plan as a part of this comprehensive plan CF-5-B Policy: Encourage use of existing natural features, open spaces, and appropriate excess right-of-way as an integral part of the community-wide park system CF-5-C Policy: Maintain a cooperative agreement with the Pasco school district regarding the development, use, and operation of neighborhood parks. CF-6. GOAL: FOSTER ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE UGA CF-6-A Policy: Work with the school district to coordinate facility plans with this comprehensive plan and encourage appropriate location and design of schools throughout the community. CF-6-B Policy: Work with Columbia Basin College to coordinate campus development plans including access and traffic circulation needs. CF-7. GOAL: MAINTAIN, WITHIN THE CITY, A LEVEL OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE THAT IS EFFICIENT AND COST-EFFECTIVE. ENCOURAGE THAT SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THE UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF THE UGA CF-7-A Policy: Strive to provide a sufficient number of fire stations in appropriate locations throughout the community. CF-7-B Policy: Maintain a cooperative policy with the county fire district. CF-8. GOAL: LOCATE ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TO OPTIMIZE ACCESS AND EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE ECONOMIC BENEFIT/BURDENS THROUGHOUT THE REGION AND COUNTY CF-8-A Policy: Review all reasonable alternatives for the location of essential public facilities prior to granting necessary permits. CF-8-B Policy: Ensure all potential environmental impacts are considered for each essential public facility including the cumulative impacts of multiple facilities. • CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 26 CF-8-C Policy: Ensure essential public facilities contribute to necessary concurrency requirements for transportation and utilities. CF-8-D Policy: Adopt mitigating measures during the special permit review process to address potential land use compatibility issues with surrounding uses. UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 27 In this chapter, you will find:  Growth Management Mandate  Utilities Goals and Policies Utilities Element Introduction The GMA requires the utility element to describe locations, capacities, and needs for utilities. The policies in this Element cover all public water, sanitary sewer, and storm water utilities, as well as private natural gas, telecommunications, electric, and solid waste utilities. The information relating to utility service providers contained in this Plan is a summary only. More detailed discussions of the topics covered in this chapter are found under separate cover in utility service provider capital functional plans. Growth Management Mandate The Utilities Element is designed to comply with the following State GMA planning goals:  Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. The state goals, in turn, led to the following CWPP that provide specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element (note that only those policies or portions pertaining to utilities and community facilities are included here). UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 28 Goals and Policies UT-1. GOAL: PROVIDE ADEQUATE UTILITY SERVICES TO THE UGA TO ASSURE THAT THE ANTICIPATED 20-YEAR GROWTH IS ACCOMMODATED UT-1-A Policy: Ensure that public water and sewer services are available concurrently with development in the urban growth area. UT-1-B Policy: Prioritize investments in public water and sewer system improvements to support planned development within the urban growth area. UT-1-C Policy: Coordinate utility providers’ functional plans and the City’s land use and utility comprehensive plans to ensure long term service availability. UT-1-D Policy: Leverage irrigation water in new developments to ease the use of potable water for maintenance of landscaping. UT-2. GOAL: ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE PLACEMENT OF UTILITY FACILITIES IS ADDRESSED IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS UT-2-A Policy: coordinate private utility providers’ plans for energy and communication utilities with city land use plans and development permit applications. UT-2-B Policy: locate and design utility substations consistent with adopted codes and standards to be compatible with the aesthetic standards of affected neighborhoods. UT-3. GOAL: ASSURE THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT UT-3-A Policy: Require adequate provision of storm water facilities with all new land development. UT-3-B Policy: Include adequate storm water management facilities to serve new or existing streets. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 29 In this chapter, you will find:  Growth Management Mandate  Transportation Goals and Policies Transportation Element Introduction The GMA has very specific requirements for comprehensive plan transportation elements. To meet these Transportation Element requirements, the City of Pasco maintains within the Volume 2 Transportation Element an inventory of existing facilities, land use assumptions, travel forecasts, LOS standards, current and future transportation needs, and a transportation financial plan, in addition to other GMA required information. In this chapter, the transportation goals and policies are presented. Together with the information in Volume 2, the goals and policies provide the basis for transportation infrastructure decisions pursuant to the GMA. Since transportation infrastructure and services are also provided by the state, regional government, and cities and towns, the Transportation Element is intended to complement those other systems and networks. Three aspects of the Transportation Element have a direct bearing on transportation project programming and funding through the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. These are: 1) transportation policies; 2) existing and future transportation needs (based on LOS); and 3) the Transportation Financial Plan. The transportation policies are used to give general direction for transportation improvement investments. Along with the near-term prioritized improvement projects, the LOS- based transportation needs are used to select potential future projects. The transportation financial plan is used to produce a financially feasible six-year plan. Thus, the Transportation Element provides a framework for use in transportation investment decisions. • TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 30 Growth Management Mandate The Transportation Element is designed to comply with the following State GMA planning goals:  Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with County and City Comprehensive Plans The state goals, in turn, led to the following CWPP that provide specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element (note that only those policies or portions pertaining to infrastructure are included here): Goals and Policies TR-1. GOAL: PROVIDE FOR AND MAINTAIN A SAFE, INTEGRATED AND EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT PROMOTES CONNECTIVITY TR-1-A Policy: Participate in the metropolitan and regional transportation planning efforts of the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. TR-1-B Policy: Require transportation and land use planning efforts and policy that meet the needs of the community and the objectives of this plan. TR-1-C Policy: Minimize traffic conflicts on the arterial street system by implementing access and corridor management best practices. TR-1-D Policy: Encourage multi-modal street design with traffic calming and safety in consideration of surrounding land uses. TR-1-E Policy: Provide increased neighborhood travel connections for public safety as well as providing for transportation disbursement. TR-1-F Policy: develop an interconnected network of streets, trails, and other public ways during the development process while preserving neighborhood identity. TR-1-G Policy: adopt and maintain a functional street classification system consistent with regional and state guidance. TR-1-H Policy: Maintain level-of-service “D” on all arterials and collectors and level-of- service “C” during the PM peak-hour. TR1-I Policy: Require developments to meet the standards of the Pasco Complete Street Ordinance. TR1-J Policy: Collaborate with appropriate agencies to conduct a review of the current street design standards. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 31 TR-2. GOAL: ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT, ALTERNATE, AND MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS TR-2-A Policy: Maintain the multi-model passenger terminal. TR-2-B Policy: Collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit in programming transit routes, transit stops, and supporting facilities that increase user accessibility during the development process. TR-2-C Policy: Encourage the use of public transportation including ridesharing, and Ben Franklin Transit’s Van Pool program. TR-2-D Policy: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes. TR-2-E Policy: Encourage park-and-ride lots for bicycles and/or automobiles. TR-2-F Policy: Support rail services for passengers, industries, and commerce within the area. TR-2-G Policy: Collaborate with transit agencies on the design of arterial streets to improve transit access. TR-3 GOAL: IMPROVE OPERATING EFFICIENCY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TR-3-A Policy: Evaluate, plan, and install traffic control devices and intersection designs to improve travel safety and efficiency. TR-3-B Policy: ensure adequate maintenance of the existing facilities. TR-4 GOAL: BEAUTIFY THE MAJOR STREETS OF THE CITY TR-4-A Policy: Incorporate streetscape design into all major arterial and collector streets. TR-4-B Policy: Encourage retrofit projects that include beautification on major arterial streets. TR-5 GOAL: MAINTAIN A FREIGHT ROUTE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS TR-5-A Policy: Promote the safe and efficient movement of freight through the city. TR-5-A Policy: Support the development of facilities that are critical components of the movement of freight. IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 32 Implementation & Monitoring Element Introduction This Plan Element is intended to establish the procedural framework for linking the goals and policies of all the elements with supporting and related actions and initiatives. This Plan is implemented through various development regulations; coordination with regional plans and programs; and regular assessment of the performance of the Plan in guiding development to deliver the vision. Growth Management Mandate The Implementation and Monitoring Element functions as a checklist or tool for the City to use as it assesses the effectiveness of the Plan to deliver the community vision. It is designed to comply with the state GMA goals and the CWPP:  Policies to Implement RCW 36.70A.020. The Comprehensive Plans of Franklin County and each of its cities therein shall be prepared and adopted with the objective to facilitate economic prosperity by accommodating growth consistent with the following:  Permits: Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. [RCW 36.70A.020 (7)]. Goals and Policies IM-1. GOAL: ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND CERTAINTY IN LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT .... , . ,. -<~~ -n .,. .. ',:,,-_ -• 1§1,lf u ~· -~ ~ .. rv.w$1'~ ~ ~,.~ J -'1-· ~ --~~ .~,. z . ) • -· ~ -·~~ ---~. ~ ----•s...,.,N . I• C 3·.;:;....,,, ·--. l, , , ..... _ ,,.,, ,,,, -· BUIL,;;;"'c PERN1'1 .... " 111 "·-=,,.,,,, .. , .. ,._.,. . ._ '·•-- • IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 33 IM-1-A Policy: Maintain codes, standards, and guidelines, which are clear, concise, and objective. IM-1-B Policy: Strive for consistency and certainty through a predictable schedule of assessment and amendments on an annual basis, rather than sporadically. IM-1-C Policy: Create and enforce a common set of development standards for both the incorporated and unincorporated lands of the UGA, in cooperation with Franklin County. IM-1-D Policy: Maintain a general land use map that clearly designates various land uses and densities consistent with the goals and policies of this plan. IM-1-E Policy: Establish development project permit approval procedures that are well defined and consistent with regulatory criteria and standards. IM-1-F Policy: Ensure appropriate time lines for action on applications. IM-2. GOAL: ADVANCE THE CITY’S INFORMATION AND DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY IM-2-A Policy: Utilize innovative planning level data and analysis to determine progress of the Comprehensive Plan through annual updates, metrics and tracking. IM-2-B Policy: Analyze development patterns of the UGA and identify revisions, amendments, and changes to the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan based on new development patterns during plan updates. IM-2-C Policy: Conduct an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan and any of its supporting documents to assess the adequacy and serviceability of the developable land supply for residential, commercial and industrial users. IM-2-D Policy: Ensure that all plans and studies shall be consistent with the goals, policies, and proposals of this comprehensive plan. IM-2-E Policy: Lead and collaborate on efforts for database, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and other data related programming and projects with local, regional, and state agencies. IM-3 GOAL: ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING EFFORTS OF THE CITY IM-3-A Policy: Ensure the appropriate notification of plans, projects, and studies are provided to all impacted residents of the city. IM-3-B Policy: Encourage and facilitate expanded public participation by designing user-friendly processes and documents. IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 34 IM-3-C Policy: Consider the interests of the entire community and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan prior to making land use and planning decisions. IM-4-D Policy: Use a range of public forums and media outreach to collect, obtain, and facilitate public engagement. IM-4-E Policy: Provide equitable access to all city programming, services, and events, including accommodations for disabilities and community members with limited English-speaking ability. IM-4-F Policy: Ensure that all public engagement is culturally relevant and provides residents with an opportunity to engage and provide feedback to the city. IM-4-G: Collaborate with the Inclusivity, Diversity and Equity Commission. IM-4 GOAL: WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH VARIOUS GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IM-4-A Policy: Coordinate with other governmental units in preparing development regulations. IM-4-B Policy: Work with BFCG’s Growth Management Committee to develop consistency among the various jurisdictions that are planning. IM-4-C Policy: Work with other state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation when developing regulations, which would impact those agencies. IM-4-D Policy: Work with the Office of Financial Management in siting essential public facilities of regional and statewide importance IM-4-E Policy: Participate with communities within the County in developing regulations that are consistent with each other and provide a smooth transition between rural areas and urban cities. IM-4-F Policy: In cooperation with Franklin County and other appropriate agencies, update the City/County interlocal agreements governing annexations and development in the City’s unincorporated UGA. These documents establish development rules for the orderly and compatible transition from rural to urban uses. APPENDICES CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 35 Appendices A. Mapfolio B. Countywide Planning Policies C. Land Capacity Analysis D. Environment Impact Statement E. Public Participation Plan F. Shoreline Master Program G. Comprehensive Water System Plan H. Comprehensive Sewer Plan 2014 I. Capital Improvement Plan 2019 - 2020 Volume II Supporting Analysis Comprehensive Plan 2018 to 2038 City of Pasco, Washington City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Volume II, Supporting Analysis Re-adopted by Ordinance No. ___ ________ City Council Mayor Saul Martinez (District 3) Mayor Pro Tem, Blanche Barajas (District 1) Councilmember Ruben Alvarado (District 2) Councilmember Pete Serrano (District 4) Councilmember Daved Mline (District 5) Councilmember Craig Maloney (District 6) Councilmember Zahra Roach (At-Large) Planning Commission Position 1: Chair Tanya Bowers Position 2: Vice-Chair Joe Campos Position 3: Commissioner Paul Mendez Position 4: Commissioner Anne Jordan Position 5: Commissioner Abel Campos Position 6: Commissioner Isaac Myhrum Position 7: Vacant Position 8: Commissioner Pam Ransier Position 9: Commissioner Jerry Cochran City Staff Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Darcy Bourcier, Planner I TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II I Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1  Pasco’s Setting ................................................................................................................................... 1  What's in a Name ............................................................................................................................. 2  Pasco Then and Now ...................................................................................................................... 3  Demography ....................................................................................................................................... 3  Economy ............................................................................................................................................... 4  Land Use Element ............................................................................................................... 5  Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5  Land Use Designations ................................................................................................................... 6  Land Use Challenges and Opportunities ................................................................................ 9  Land Use Compatibility and Planning Areas ..................................................................... 13  Growth Trends and Population Projection ........................................................................ 17  Urban Growth Area Planning ................................................................................................... 20  Housing Element ............................................................................................................. 24  Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 24  Existing Housing Units Inventory and Analysis ............................................................... 24  Projected Needs Analysis ............................................................................................................ 32  Tri‐Cities Home Consortium ...................................................................................................... 32  Available Resources ...................................................................................................................... 34  Housing Strategy ............................................................................................................................ 36  Summary of Strategy .................................................................................................................... 37  Economic Development Element .............................................................................. 39  Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 39  Economic Profile ............................................................................................................................. 40  Challenges and Opportunities .................................................................................................. 45  Economic Development Priorities .......................................................................................... 49  Capital Facilities Element ............................................................................................. 53  Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 53  Water System ................................................................................................................................... 57  Sanitary Sewers .............................................................................................................................. 63  Industrial Wastewater Treatment ......................................................................................... 67  TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II II Stormwater ....................................................................................................................................... 68  Irrigation System ............................................................................................................................ 69  Schools ................................................................................................................................................. 70  Essential Public Facilities ........................................................................................................... 71  Siting .................................................................................................................................................... 72  Funding Sources for Capital Facilities .................................................................................. 74  Public Services Element ................................................................................................ 84  Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 84  Existing Services and Facilities ................................................................................................ 84  Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 86  Projected Demand.......................................................................................................................... 87  Future Services ................................................................................................................................ 87  Adoption of Plans by Reference ............................................................................................... 88  Transportation Element ............................................................................................... 89  Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 89  County‐Wide Planning Policies ................................................................................................ 89  Regional Coordination and Referenced Plans .................................................................. 90  Complete Streets Policy ............................................................................................................... 90  Transportation Demand Management ................................................................................ 91  Transportation and Land Use .................................................................................................. 91  Transportation and the Environment .................................................................................. 92  Transportation Inventory .......................................................................................................... 93  Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 105  Transportation Concurrency ................................................................................................. 106  Deficiencies and Improvements ............................................................................................ 107  Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 120  Finance ............................................................................................................................................. 120  Future Street Classification System .................................................................................... 123  Non‐City Utilities Element .......................................................................................... 124  Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 124  Utility Providers ........................................................................................................................... 124  General Relationship ................................................................................................................. 125  Electricity ........................................................................................................................................ 125  TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II III Natural Gas .................................................................................................................................... 125  Telecommunications .................................................................................................................. 126  Solid Waste Collection ............................................................................................................... 127  Franklin County Irrigation District .................................................................................... 128  South Columbia Basin Irrigation District ........................................................................ 128  Parks and Open Space Element ................................................................................ 130  Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 130  Parks and Recreation Plan ..................................................................................................... 130  Level of Service Factor .............................................................................................................. 131  Parks and Sports Fields ............................................................................................................ 132  Park Standards and Needs ...................................................................................................... 135  Future Plans ................................................................................................................................... 136  Parks and Recreation Plan: Adopted by Reference ..................................................... 137  Preservation of Open Space .................................................................................................... 137  Resource Lands Element ............................................................................................ 139  Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 139  Resource Lands Defined ........................................................................................................... 139  Agricultural Lands ...................................................................................................................... 139  Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 139  Designation of Mineral Resource Lands ........................................................................... 140  Mineral Resource Protection ................................................................................................. 141  Extraction of Mineral Resources .......................................................................................... 141  Other Resource Lands ............................................................................................................... 142  Resource Lands Map .................................................................................................................. 142  Critical Areas/Shorelines Element ......................................................................... 143  Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 143  Critical Areas ................................................................................................................................. 144  Critical Areas Map ...................................................................................................................... 150  Introduction ‐ Shorelines ......................................................................................................... 150  Growth Management and Shorelines ................................................................................ 150  Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 152  Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 152  TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II IV Implementation ............................................................................................................. 153  Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 153  Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 153  Regulatory Measures ................................................................................................................. 153  Capital Improvements ............................................................................................................... 154  Administrative Actions ............................................................................................................. 154  Concurrency ................................................................................................................................... 155  Amendments .................................................................................................................................. 155  Specific Implementation Tools .............................................................................................. 156  List of Tables Table Int‐1: Population by Sex and Age Groups ...................................................... 3  Table Int‐2: Race and Ethnicity ..................................................................................... 4  Table LU‐1: Land Use Designations and Criteria .................................................... 7  Table LU‐2: Existing Land Use Designations and Acreage .................................. 8  Table LU‐3. OFM Population Projection for Franklin County ......................... 18  Table LU‐4. Population Projection for Franklin County and Pasco .............. 19  Table LU‐5. Employment Projection for Franklin County and Pasco ........... 19  Table LU‐6. Land’s Capacity of Future Residential Development .................. 20  Table LU‐7. Future Land Use Designations and Acreage .................................. 21  Table H‐1. Existing Housing Inventory .................................................................... 25  Table H‐2. County Point‐in‐Time Count .................................................................. 34  Table ED‐1. Benton and Franklin County Population and Economic Indicators ........................................................................................................................... 42  Table ED‐2. Top Tri‐Cities Area Major Employers .............................................. 42  Table ED‐3. Employment Projections ...................................................................... 45  Table ED‐4. Educational Attainment ‐ 2011 to 2015 ......................................... 47  Table CF‐1. Cost of Capital Improvements ............................................................. 56  Table CF‐2. Water Guideline LOS Standards ......................................................... 60  Table CF‐3. Water System Capital Improvement Projects ............................... 61  TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II V Table CF‐3a. 20‐year Water Planning Level Capital Cost Summary ............. 62  Table CF‐4: Wastewater Guideline LOS Standards ............................................. 64  Table CF‐5: Six‐Year Sewer System Capital Improvement Projects .............. 65  Table CF 5a: 20‐Year Sewer Planning Level Capital Cost Summary ............. 66  Table CF‐6: Process Water Reuse Facility Capital Improvement Projects . 67  Table CF‐7: Storm Capital Improvement Projects ............................................... 69  Table CF‐8. Irrigation System Capital Improvement Projects ........................ 70  Table CF‐9. Distinguishing Public Purpose Lands from Essential Public Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 72  Table T‐1. Sustainable Transportation Objectives ............................................. 93  Table T‐2. Functional Classification ......................................................................... 99  Table T‐3. Mileage and Street Classification ......................................................... 99  Table T‐4. State Route Mileage ................................................................................. 100  Table T‐5. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Comparison ..................... 102  Table T‐6. Average Daily Truck Traffic ................................................................. 103  Table T‐7. Level of Service (LOS) ............................................................................. 105  Table T‐8. BFCG LOS Standards ................................................................................ 106  Table T‐9. City of Pasco LOS Standards ................................................................. 106  Table T‐10. Short Range Transportation Improvements ............................... 108  Table T‐11. Long Range Transportation Improvements ................................ 112  Table PO‐1. Park and Recreation Inventory ....................................................... 134  Table PO‐2. Summary of Park Land and Facilities Needs ............................... 135  Table PO‐3. Planned Parks and Facilities List .................................................... 136  Table CA‐1. Wetland Functions ................................................................................ 144  Table IMP‐1. Implementation Tools ...................................................................... 156  TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II VI List of Figures Figure LU‐1: Population Growth in Pasco in the Last 10 Years ...................... 18  Figure LU‐2. Proposed UGA ......................................................................................... 22  Figure ED‐1: Historical Unemployment in the Tri‐Cities .................................. 41  Figure ED‐2: Historical Two‐County (Benton & Franklin) Employment .... 41  Figure ED‐3: Employment Distribution .................................................................. 44  Figure ED‐4: Median Household Income ................................................................ 44  Figure CF‐1‐ Construction of Columbia Water Supply Intake ......................... 59  Figure T‐1: Transportation and Land Use .............................................................. 92  Figure T‐2: Destinations of Tri‐Cities Airport ...................................................... 94  Figure T‐3: Pasco Airport Statistics ‐ Total Enplanements .............................. 94  Figure T‐4 ‐ Total Boarding & Alighting at Pasco Intermodal Train Station ............................................................................................................................................... 96  Figure T‐5: Journey to Work (Public Transportation) ...................................... 97  Figure T‐6: BFT System Map ....................................................................................... 97  Figure T‐7: BFT Park & Ride Facilities .................................................................... 98  Figure T‐8: Federal & State Facilities ..................................................................... 100  Figure T‐9: WSDOT FGTS Map .................................................................................. 101  Figure T‐10: Journey to Work (Bike/Walk) ........................................................ 103  Figure PS‐1: Existing Stations and PFD Response ............................................... 84  Figure PS‐2: Proposed Reconfiguration of Stations 2020 ‐ 2021 .................. 88  Figure PO‐1: Parks Service Area Analysis ............................................................ 131  INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 1 Introduction Volume II of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan (Plan) includes general information about Pasco. For various elements of the Comprehensive Plan, it includes current and forecast data, needs assessments or analyses, and conclusions, and as appropriate, references to other source materials. Goals and policies are available in Volume 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Implementation tools are identified at the end of this document. Pasco’s Setting The City of Pasco is located at the confluence of the Columbia, Yakima, and Snake Rivers. It is one of the three cities in the Tri-Cities metropolitan area consisting of Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland. Because of its location, Pasco is considered the gateway to the agriculturally rich Columbia Basin. The proximity of Grand Coulee Dam, the largest hydroelectric dam in the United States, has unlocked a wealth of agricultural possibilities for the Pasco area. Pasco is situated in Franklin County (Figure Int-1) which, because of large water diversion projects completed in the 1950s, has become a major agricultural product producer in the State. Potatoes, onions, corn, and other grains; and lentils, apples, grapes, and other crops, spring from lands formerly used for dry land farming and livestock grazing. Figure Int‐1: City of Pasco in the Region WEST RICHLAND BENTON COUNTY CJ Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary FRANKLIN COUNTY PASCO URBAN GROWTH AREA WALLA WALLA COUNTY KENNEWICK i,l'N TON COUNTY SMot eitl.~GIOH,c.toeye.amw,{;~C!lfSMtiu$:OsJI" MT'!':-:~ ..... • INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 2 Agriculture had an early start in Pasco by means of pumped water from the Columbia and Snake Rivers - perhaps as early as the 1890s. The first major irrigation project began operating around 1910. It was privately funded because Congress did not approve a proposal to bring water to Pasco from the Palouse River. This private effort was designed to serve the immediate Pasco area and required large pumps to lift water out of the Snake River for a projected 15,000 acres. The pump house was built out of concrete and is still readily visible from the south side of the Snake River. What's in a Name The name of the City is something of a curiosity because it has an apparent Spanish sound to it in a region geographically well beyond the past influence of Spanish Mexican control. Thanks to the July 31, 1914 issue of Pasco Express, examined by members of the Franklin County Historical Society, the following was learned about how Pasco got its name: "MAN WHO NAMED PASCO VISITS CITY V.C. Bogue, now an eminent engineer of New York City, renews acquaintances in Pasco on Monday. This was his first visit in nearly thirty years. Mr. Bogue an engineer for the Northern Pacific Railroad, located the route of the N.P. through Stampede Pass in the Cascade Mountains, and he also located and named Pasco. Just how he came to choose the name was news to this reporter and may be to others of our readers. Just prior to his engagement with the N.P., Mr. Bogue had successfully constructed a line of railway across the Andes Mountains in South America. The highest point on the railway was a mining town named Cerro de Pasco. It was distinguished as a windy, dusty place, and so on the first day he spent in our city, and meeting with a good old‐ fashioned dust storm, he was reminded of this place in the Andes and tagged the new town site “Pasco.” The name “Pasco” took on official status in May of 1881 when the rail switch named Pasco was cut-in for the Cascade branch of the Northern Pacific Railroad. The name stuck to the community that existed primarily because of the major rail line that passed through it. f'LHOP 'fH& ToWtl -qr'- PA~C!Ol INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 3 Pasco Then and Now The original town site of Pasco was created in April of 1886 with the recording of the Pasco Town Plat. The original town site contained 8 blocks equally divided by the Pacific Northern Rail yards. From that modest beginning, Pasco has grown to encompass more than 33 square miles of land. The original town site that was home to a handful of settlers has now multiplied to over 75,290 residents. The community of Pasco required three elections before it could be incorporated. These were: May 24, 1890 with 37 for and 18 against; May 4, 1891 with an unsuccessful vote; and August 29, 1891 with 55 for and 20 against. The success of this August 1891 vote seems to strengthen the old adage of "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again," and Pasco officially became an incorporated town. Demography Pasco has experienced rapid growth in the last few decades, growing from 32,066 residents in 2000 to 73,590 residents in 2018 (OFM 20181), and 75,290 residents in the year of 2019 (OFM 20192). The growth can be attributed to many factors including increasing job opportunities, housing affordability, and the overall growth of the Tri- Cities region. About 34% of the total population in Pasco is under 18 years old, as shown in Table Int-1. This leads to the City’s increasing demand for school and related facilities. Table Int‐1: Population by Sex and Age Groups Sex and Age Population % of Total Female 34,296 48.60 Male 36,311 51.40 Under 18 years 23,891 33.80 18 years and over 46,716 66.20 20 to 64 years 39,059 55.40 65 years and over 5,566 7.88 Notes: American Community Survey 2017 data; total population in this 2017 estimate is 70,607 Pasco has the highest concentration of Hispanic population (55%) among all other cities in the Tri-Cities region (Table Int-2). Whites alone make up the second predominant ethnicity in the City. This population diversity has greatly influenced the City’s culture - it celebrates several ethnic festivals throughout the year and attracts ethnically diverse businesses. The City created an Inclusivity Commission in 2018 - later named the Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Commission - with a mission focused 1 OFM (State Office of Financial Management), 2018; April 1, 2018 population of cities, towns, and counties 2 OFM 2019; April 1, 2019 population of cities, towns, and counties INTRODUCTION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 4 on embracing “diversity and promoting equality among our workforce, residents, businesses and visitors…” (Pasco 2018)3 Table Int‐2: Race and Ethnicity Race Population % of Total Hispanic or Latino 38,893 55.1 Non-Hispanic or Latino 31,714 44.9 White alone 27,274 Black or African American alone 1,285 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 212 Asian alone 1,666 Notes: American Community Survey 2017 data; total population in this 2017 estimate is 70,607 Economy Much of Pasco’s (and Franklin County's) economic future will continue to be tied to transportation and agriculture. As the agricultural industry in and around Franklin County matures, additional support facilities, which process and handle plants, will continue to be needed. Pasco's role as a regional service provider is also likely to expand in the future. Pasco is home to the Tri-Cities Regional Airport, Columbia Basin College, the grain terminal, the Burlington Northern classification yard, and the Port of Pasco (Port) shipping facilities. As the region grows, those employment facilities will grow to meet the demand. Correspondingly, the economic base of Pasco will expand. The development of the Trade, Recreation, and Agricultural Center at the Road 68 Interchange continues to bring regional and statewide events to the City. Dust Devils Stadium is home to the Tri-Cities Dust Devils minor league baseball team. The soccer, softball and baseball fields complete this complex, which is used to attract regional and statewide sporting events. While Pasco is less dependent on the programs of the Hanford Reservation than the other cities in the area, these programs nevertheless have a significant impact on Pasco's economy. Historically, employment in the Hanford area peaked in 1994 with approximately 19,000 employees. The Hanford related workforce today is approximately 9,000 (Wojtanik 20194). An additional 4,600 are employed at the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 3 City of Pasco, 2018. Resolution # 3820 4 Wojtanik, Robin. “DOE looks to way to replace outgoing workers”. Tri-Cities Area Journal of Business; May 2019. LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 5 Land Use Element RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Introduction The Land Use Element is one of the key components of the Comprehensive Plan. This Element identifies the general distribution of land use designations in the City of Pasco. The land use map shown in Appendix A identifies the general distribution of the various land uses including residential, commercial, industrial, public, open space, and reserve areas. The land use map is implemented through the application of Pasco’s Zoning Code. The description and allocation of uses in Table LU-1 identifies the zoning districts that correspond to the land uses designation. The Land Use Element also establishes goals and policies that guide local decision-making related to urban development within the City’s Urban Growth Area (UGA). The UGA is a designated boundary for cities and counties where growth is intended to be concentrated as a means of controlling sprawl. Goals and policies are available in Volume 1 of the Plan. Land use policies are intended to protect critical areas, provide efficient and safe transportation networks, maintain and improve the quality of air, water, and land resources, and preserve existing urban neighborhood character. New development is encouraged to locate in UGAs where adequate public facilities and services can be provided in an efficient and economical manner. An adequate supply of land will ensure that immediate and future urban needs are met, as well as provide for an orderly and efficient transition from low intensity land use to urban land use over time. Land use management is the major implementation tool for community development, achieved primarily through the use of zoning and subdivision regulations. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires each jurisdiction to ensure that adequate land and • LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 6 facilities are available to accommodate the projected population and anticipated employment growth. For cities, this responsibility includes land capable of being developed at urban densities and intensities. Further, the City and County must cooperate in designating adequate unincorporated lands as the UGA available for future expansion of the incorporated area through annexation. The Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies are the framework for interlocal coordination of urban growth and development. There are three significant types of processes used by local governments to enact or carry out regulations that implement the comprehensive plan goals and policies: legislative, quasi-judicial, and ministerial actions. It is Pasco’s intent to provide procedural stability and consistency for processing development applications by having appropriate land use actions approved administratively, rather than by the legislative or quasi-judicial processes. The Pasco Zoning Code and development standards need to be as clear and as objective in content as possible. The regulations for land development should be framed with appropriate policy direction to support ministerial decisions for permit approval with minimal delay. Land Use Designations Land use designations specify various uses within the City. The UGA (Appendix A) within and adjacent to the City provide for future land needs that can support growth with adequate urban-level public facilities concurrent with development. The future land use map illustrates the generalized Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the City and the UGA. The land use designations represent the adopted policies that support land demand through 2038. The following land use designations are used to allow for the necessary flexibility and specificity in applying land use regulations and development standards:  Open Space / Parks  Low Density Residential  Medium Density Residential  Medium-High Density Residential  High Density Residential  Mixed Residential/Commercial  Mixed Use Interchange  Mixed Use Neighborhood  Mixed Use Regional LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 7  Office  Commercial  Industrial  Public and Quasi Public  Department of Natural Resources Reserve  Airport Reserve Table LU‐1: Land Use Designations and Criteria Classification Purpose and Description Zoning * Open Space/ Parks Land where development will be severely restricted: park lands, trails and critical areas All Zoning Districts. (Development of parks and recreation facilities requires special permit review) Low Density Residential Single family residential development at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre R-S-20; R-S-12; R-S-1; R-1; R-1-A; R-1-A2 Medium Density Residential Single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre. R-2 through R-4; RP High Density Residential Multiple unit apartments or condominiums at a density 21 units per acre or more R-4 Mixed Residential/ Commercial Allow a combination of mixed-use residential and commercial in the same development. Single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses, apartments and condominiums at a density of 5 to 29 dwelling units per acre. Neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service and office uses R-1 through R-4; C-1 and O; Waterfront Commercial Neighborhood, community and regional shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service and office uses O; BP; C-1; C-2; C-3; CR Industrial Manufacturing, food processing, storage and wholesale distribution of equipment and products, hazardous material storage, and transportation related facilities I-1; I-2; I-3 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 8 Classification Purpose and Description Zoning * Public and Quasi-Public Schools, civic centers, fire stations and other public uses By Special Permit in all districts (except I-3 which has various restrictions) Airport Reserve Land occupied by the Tri-Cities Airport I-1 DNR Reserve Transition lands owned and presently managed by DNR for natural resource production. Characteristics include, but are not limited to, proximity to urban- type development, road and utility infrastructure, and market demand. I-1 Medium-High Density Residential Broadmoor Only; single-family dwelling units, townhouses, condominiums and multi-family; 8-15 dwelling units per acre MHDR Mixed Use Interchange Broadmoor Only; along I-182 corridor; commuter services, technology and resource business parks, office and retail uses MU-I Mixed Use Neighborhood Broadmoor only; townhouses, multi- family developments, neighborhood grocers/markets and drug stores, vertically integrated buildings, live- work spaces and other neighborhood scale offices and uses MU-N Mixed Use Regional Broadmoor only; general retail operations and shops, grocery stores, residential above commercial/office, high-density residential, dining, entertainment uses MU-R Office Broadmoor only; professional office and personal services, resource centers O-1 Table LU-1 indicates the land areas for each of the land use designations. Table LU-2 indicates the land use distribution within the City and existing UGA. More detailed information about specific zoning designations and the development standards used to implement land use applications can be found in Title 25 (Zoning) of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC). Table LU‐2: Existing Land Use Designations and Acreage Land Use Designations City Limits (Acres)UGA(Acres) Total (Acres) Residential Lands Low Density 7,625 1676 9,301 Medium Density 1,253 425 1,678 High Density 189 -- 189 Subtotal 9,066 2,101 11,167 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 9 Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 564 17 582 Commercial 2,050 34 2,085 Subtotal 2,614 52 2,666 Industrial Lands Industrial 7,768 1,669 9,438 Subtotal 7,768 1,669 9,438 Public / Quasi‐Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 838 88 925 Subtotal 838 88 925 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 950 61 1,012 Subtotal 950 61 1,012 Airport Reserve Lands Area Total 21,237 3,971 25,208 Notes: 1. The total contains approximately 4000 acres of Street Rights of Way. 2. Source: City of Pasco GIS. Acreage figures are derived based on the best information and parcel data available in GIS. Accuracy may vary depending on source of information, changes in political boundaries or hydrological features, or the methodology used to map and calculate a particular land use. 3. Does not include water area Land Use Challenges and Opportunities The City of Pasco and the UGA will continue to be faced with demands for change. Between 2000 and 2016, 38,494 new residents made Pasco their home. This population growth, which represented a 120% increase since 2000, has brought with it challenges and opportunities. The challenges have been the greatest along the I-182 Corridor, particularly as it relates to transportation needs. The following is a brief discussion on some of the land use issues. Central Business District The Central Business District was established to promote a centralized location of businesses and services in and around Pasco’s downtown core. As with many other downtowns across the country, the neighborhood experienced a decline in business growth and an increase in vacancy from mid-1970 to mid-1990. The rapid growth of Pasco towards the west, along with regional growth of the Tri-Cities, decentralized many core downtown businesses districts. The City of Pasco has emphasized business growth and retention in its downtown with the creation of the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA). The DPDA (a certified Washington Main Street Program) is able to leverage several resources including the Main Street Tax Credit Program that provides an incentive for contributions to the downtown. LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 10 Photo source: Tri‐City Herald The Pasco City Council has identified downtown revitalization as one of the primary Council Goals, and recent infrastructure improvements and planned projects have attracted new business and excitement. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen, a partnership between the City of Pasco and the DPDA, is a thriving incubator for entrepreneurs in the food industry. In 2015, the Washington Legislature passed the Connecting Washington funding package, which provided a $16 billion transportation investment across the State. Pasco received $15 million to assist with the construction of the Lewis Street Overpass. Lewis Street is a major access way for Pasco’s residents, as it connects communities from the east to Downtown and City Hall, and to services to the west. In coordination with this effort, City staff has been working with the community to develop a revitalization program centered on the Pasco Farmers Market and Peanuts Park. This four-block area will undergo a transformation that includes improvements to the market area, an emphasis on pedestrian-oriented streetscape, and enhancements to nearby infrastructure. This project is expected to break ground in late 2020. Residential Neighborhoods in the Central Core Many of the City of Pasco’s neighborhoods were established well before the rapid growth of the 2000s. These neighborhoods, primarily located south of HWY 12 and east of US 395, are near schools, various retail businesses, and parks. The homes in these neighborhoods also provide additional options for renters and homeowners because of the availability of frequent public transportation services and proximity to downtown. LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 11 A few neighborhoods, dating prior to the 1940s, are showing signs of aging, and in some cases, substandard repair and maintenance. Pasco's code enforcement program has seen noteworthy success in reversing continued physical decline. In 2004, the City prepared a neighborhood redevelopment strategies program to address the concerns of growing neighborhood decline. Similar programs for additional neighborhoods surrounding the downtown and in East Pasco began in 2007. The redevelopment strategies are implemented through the provision of Community Development Block Grant Programs (CDBG). Non‐Conforming Residential Neighborhoods There are residential areas that border incompatible land uses or are intermixed with commercial or industrial uses. Typically, these neighborhoods are zoned for commercial or industrial uses but contain significant numbers of residential dwellings. The dwellings are considered non-conforming and the neighborhoods are slated to transition to their intended commercial and industrial uses. Pasco includes areas where transitions from residential to commercial land use were anticipated but did not occur. Because transitions from the original residential use to the intended use takes many years, these areas are prone to code enforcement difficulties and homeowners have challenges in obtaining conventional home loans. The primary non-conforming residential area is located south of A Street between the BNSF rail lines that serve the Port. Originally developed with single-family homes, the neighborhood has been transitioning to industrial use. Homes in the area have been replaced with trucking firms, construction yards, auto repair facilities, and an agricultural chemical production facility. It is anticipated this area will continue to transition to commercial and industrial use during the 20-year planning horizon. Availability of Industrial Lands Ensuring that the supply of industrial lands can meet the projected needs and demand for its use is a key factor for sustainable growth in Pasco. There are just under LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 12 6,000 acres of designated industrial lands within the current Pasco City Limits and the UGA. This total includes all right of ways, infrastructure and utilities, when removing those, a total of about 4,800 acres remains. A Land Capacity Analysis was conducted that identified industrial land development by parcel types. Parcels were categorized based on existing ownership, improvement values and building footprints. The analysis concluded that there are 3,524 acres of industrial land that were available for private development. Over 1,200 acres of existing land are tax-exempt, meaning they are owned by state or local agencies including the Franklin County Irrigation District, BNSF, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Port of Pasco. A challenge for the City is the availability of these lands for industrial development. The Port owns and operates over 660 acres of industrial parcels that can eventually develop for industrial users. However, various owners including the BNSF Railway Company (273 acres); Bonneville Power Administration (53 acres); Franklin County Irrigation District (46 acres); USACE (27 acres); and the Franklin County PUD (15 acres), which will likely not see industrial development, thus leaving over 400 acres of industrial land unavailable. The industrial lands south of Highway 12 towards the eastern edge of the Pasco City Limits along the Columbia River include over 800 acres of mostly undeveloped large parcels. This site also includes the Heritage Industrial Park, which represents about 50% of that total areas industrial land. Currently, Highway 12 is accessible via the ‘A’ Street and Sacajawea Park Road intersection, both of which are at-grade intersections, and Heritage Boulevard, which directs truck traffic to the raised Highway 12 interchange. Limited vehicle capacity and safety challenges at these intersections have limited the prospects of this site. As Pasco and the Tri-Cities region continues to grow, its economic base will need to as well. Future planning must address the availability of industrial land. Unincorporated Urban Growth Area The unincorporated UGA encompasses land outside of the City limits but within the UGA. This land is under the jurisdiction of Franklin County. In Pasco, the majority of this land is between the Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) Canal and the Columbia River. Historically identified as the Riverview area, these neighborhoods have developed into rural and low-density subdivisions that lack adequate infrastructure, including an organized transportation network. The Riverview area contains hobby farms and small pastures intermingled with pockets of residential development on large lots. Because this area was developed in the County at very low densities, the neighborhoods are often served with inadequate roads and utilities. In 2013, the City annexed 608 acres of Riverview and another 688 acres was annexed in 2015. This area is surrounded by the City lands and residents in the County benefit from municipal services (parks, traffic signal maintenance, emergency medical service on demand, etc.). LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 13 The existing development patterns in the Riverview and unincorporated UGA present a challenge for future planning efforts. The delineation of odd shaped lots - many without access to the public right-of-way, along with the construction of homes and structures in locations that block access for future roads and streets connections, result in the need for creative zoning codes and tools to further develop this area. Annexation of Unincorporated Lands Annexation of unincorporated properties can only occur if said properties are located within the Pasco UGA. Properties outside the UGA are not eligible for annexation. As Pasco is responsible for planning for all lands within the UGA, it is anticipated that most of these unincorporated lands will be annexed to the City during the planning period. Through annexation, the City can manage development more efficiently, locate utilities properly, ensure better alignment of streets, and provide higher levels of service to residents within the UGA. Being able to manage the development of lands within the UGA is an important part of implementing the Comprehensive Plan, and part of that implementation is achieved through the annexation of unincorporated lands. The Built Environment The built environment is a term used to describe the human-made surroundings that provide a setting for activities. The visual appearance of our community plays an important role to the residents and businesses in Pasco. The built environment also assists with potential economic development opportunities, as businesses look to locate in the City. Results from past community surveys, and the recommendations of citizen advisory committees, attest to this fact. Routine code enforcement, development of tree lined arterials and collectors, gateway improvement projects, enhanced commercial landscaping standards, the I-182 Overlay District, and the Commercial Corridors Design Standards are all an outcome of community concern for a visually appealing urban environment. The implementing regulations for this Plan will continue to have specific design and performance standards to ensure development will make an aesthetically pleasing contribution to the community. Land Use Compatibility and Planning Areas Pasco’s land use distribution is intended to place compatible land uses next to each other. Due to the geographic pattern of the City along the Columbia River - running east and west - Pasco’s land is also distributed east to west, with various land use designations. Much of the City’s industrial land uses are located on the east side with the airport area abutting it. Residential neighborhoods are mostly located west of US 395. Commercial clusters are primarily located in the central core and along the I-182 corridor. Compatibility of various land uses is based on the intensity of land uses. Generally speaking, industrial is the most intense land use due to the impacts of its operations (noise, light, dust, etc.), the need of supporting facilities, and the overall impact on the LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 14 land. Natural areas are considered the least intense as there are no developments or improvements on such areas. Therefore, a low density residential next to a heavy industrial land use would be considered incompatible because of the potential impacts industrial use may have on the residences. Appropriately designed buffers, landscaping, and transition areas should be considered between incompatible land uses. Mixed uses are encouraged in certain areas in Pasco. Such uses are generally mutually supportive of each other. Locating residences, offices, neighborhood shops, cafes, etc. in the same building or same site promotes walkability and reduces the vehicle miles traveled. Tri-Cities Airport is a major land use within the City consisting of more than 2200 acres of land north of I-182. The City’s land use pattern aims to maintain compatible land uses surrounding the airport. The objective of having compatible land use around the airport is to ensure that aircraft noise and associated airport operations do not pose safety concerns on the surrounding areas. Land uses such as residential, schools, and churches and generally considered incompatible with airports. Among residential land uses, higher density residential land uses are considered less compatible than low density residential. Industrial and commercial uses are considered compatible uses. Land use on the east side of the airport is industrial along Hwy 395. The south side of the airport includes a mix of open space, commercial and institutional use (Columbia Basin College). Open space and low density residential uses exist on the west side of the airport. Areas north of the airport are mostly within Franklin County with agricultural uses. Land Use and Transportation The relationship between land use and transportation is a key to Pasco’s future growth. Land use policies must be coordinated with transportation investments and programs. The balance of these two elements must be strategic to ensure that future residents and businesses benefit from well-connected neighborhoods that allow residents to travel via various modes - walking, bicycling, or public transit, rather than solely relying on private automobiles. Planning Areas Historically, Pasco has utilized four planning areas for development: Industrial Lands, Central Core, I-182 Corridor, and Riverview. The planning areas identified, while appropriate in the past, will need revisions to incorporate modern growth patterns to accommodate the City’s forecasted growth. The following section includes a brief description of the planning areas, as they exist today and alternatives for the future. Residential Commercial Industrial LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 15 Industrial Lands Industrial lands make up over 23% (i.e., 6,544 acres) of all lands within City limits and UGA, and are largely located in the northeastern and eastern portions of the UGA. These lands are home to thousands of jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, and food processing. The Port also operates its marine terminal on the Columbia River, along with the operations for the Tri-Cities Airport (PSC). The City coordinates potential development and industrial recruitment with the Port, TRIDEC (Tri-City Development Council) and other stakeholders. DNR Lands DNR owns approximately 1200 acres within the City limits and UGA. DNR owned lands are managed by various state legislations (RCW 79.11 State Land Sales, RCW 79.13 Land Leases, RCW 79.17 Land Transfers, RCW 79.19 Land Bank). The 1988 Transition Lands Policy Plan (internal DNR working document) sets forth goals and policies recognizing the importance of balancing present use with future growth. The 1998 Asset Stewardship Plan is another internal working document for DNR lands. Transition lands owned and presently managed by DNR for natural resource production, but have characteristics indicating an opportunity for more efficient management or obtaining a higher economic return by the conversion of the land to another use. Characteristics include, but are not limited to, proximity to urban-type development, road and utility infrastructure, and market demand. Urban lands are a subset of transition lands under DNR ownership that have been further designated as “urban” by local land use plans by the authorization for commercial, industrial or residential uses by local government; or where capital improvements and services exist or are scheduled to be available. Central Core The Central Core planning area contains much of the City that was established prior to the growth rush in the 1990s. This area, south of I-182 and east of Highway 395, is home to many public services and amenities from the municipal pool and Pasco High School, to Pasco City Hall and the Franklin County Courthouse. Downtown Pasco is also within the boundary of this planning area and recent activities have led to increased attention and investment (both public and private) to revitalize the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. I‐182 Corridor The I-182 Corridor has been home to some of the most rapid growth in the region. While there are some areas of high-density multi-family housing, the majority of the corridor is designated for single-family home construction with various retail and business. Because over 52,000 vehicles per day travel on Road 68, improvements have been identified to accommodate the projected needs of the local transportation system in the future. LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 16 Riverview The Riverview planning area encompasses much of the land west of Highway 395 and south of Interstate I-182. When the original GMA plan was adopted in 1995, much of the Riverview area was an unincorporated urban area within Franklin County. Since that time, over 3,396 acres has been incorporated into the City. Planning in the Riverview area is complex because of its rural and low-density development patterns. The combination of hobby farms, poor subdivision practices with disconnected accesses, and the difficulty in providing sewer service to Riverview, creates practical difficulties for encouraging higher density developments in the Riverview area - especially in the County islands, although they are completely within the UGA. Future Planning Areas While the City will continue to reference the existing planning areas described, there is a need to update them as the City continues to grow. Pasco will be home to over 120,000 residents within the next 20 years. In order to accommodate the additional needs of the Pasco community, the City will need to implement creative growth strategies within its land use and zoning codes. The areas and strategies identified below provide a brief description of where the City is headed next. Broadmoor The Broadmoor area encompasses over 1,600 acres of land in northwest Pasco. Efforts have been underway to maximize the development potential for this land that benefits the community and the region. This will occur through specific design and development standards that will lead towards offering a mix of housing, retail, commercial, and open space uses that incorporate walkable and transit friendly design. Shoreline and Waterfront Pasco has over 15 miles of shoreline along the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In 2015, Pasco adopted its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that provides specific regulations on what is permitted within these areas. The City will continue to enforce the required development standards in the future, as it preserves and protects the natural environment, habitat, and public access to our shorelines. The Port owns and operates land adjacent to the waterfront. The City and the Port will continue to coordinate potential opportunities that benefit the community, including the development of a mix of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Tri‐Cities Airport (PSC) The PSC is owned operated by the Port. It is the largest airport in southeastern Washington and served over 400,000 passengers in 2018. Recent efforts have been underway to develop the property surrounding the airport, with amenities and services to benefit users of the airport. The Tri-Cities Business Airport Center includes LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 17 86 acres available for commercial businesses. This Airport Center will be home to various new businesses and a regional hotel by the end of 2019. Infill and Redevelopment One of the biggest opportunities for Pasco is through the implementation of infill and redevelopment strategies. These strategies will allow either hard-to-develop parcels of land or existing structures to be updated or developed through changes in the zoning code. The areas most suited for this are along major travel corridors and in and around the downtown. The existing infrastructure and the availability of public transportation can enhance the surrounding neighborhoods adding to the vibrancy of the City. The economic benefits are plentiful and help to meet the needs of the City as many look to have a more walkable and urban environment in which to live and work. Growth Trends and Population Projection Historic Population Growth The official U.S. 1990 Census population for the City of Pasco was just 20,337, a figure that escalated considerably during the following years. Growth between 1990 and 2000 was reported at 11,729 - a 58% increase, but the most significant transformation occurred after the turn of the century. From 2000 to 2010, 27,715 new residents flocked to Pasco - a marked increase of 86%. Overall, Pasco’s population nearly tripled between 1990 and 2010 from 20,337 to 59,781, based on annual estimates produced by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). An additional 10,779 residents were recorded thereafter from 2010 to 2016. It must be noted that a portion of the growth mentioned above can be contributed to annexations of unincorporated land. The average annual increase for the period of 2000 to 2016 was 4.7%. During the same period, Kennewick and Richland had average annual population increases of 1.5% and 2% respectively. The 2018 population estimate by OFM for Pasco is approximately 73,590 (see Figure LU-1). The 2019 OFM population estimate for Pasco is 75,290. LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 18 Figure LU‐1: Population Growth in Pasco 2009 to 2018 Population Forecast The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan projected high, medium, and low ranges of population targets for the City of Pasco based on OFM GMA projections provided in December 2017 and received by the City of Pasco on January 18, 2018. The City uses 2018 as the base year for 20-year population projection. The 2018 OFM projections for Franklin County are contained in Table LU-3. Table LU‐3. OFM Population Projection for Franklin County Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2038 Low 70,114 76,486 82,466 89,970 94,306 Medium 79,770 91,025 101,954 114,470 121,828 High 93,109 112,931 132,493 153,705 166,052 Notes: 1. Franklin County Population Projections (OFM 2018) Over the years, the population of Pasco has represented 80% or more of the County population, and as a result, the County has always assigned 80% of the OFM County population projections to Pasco for Comprehensive Planning purposes. Historically the 80% assignment has been based on the OFM mid-range projection. Within the planning horizon, the City of Pasco will need to anticipate a growth scenario where the County population reaches about 152,285. With 80% of that population assigned to Pasco, the City’s population is expected to reach about 121,828 by 2038. This is an increase of 48,238 over the current City population (see Table LU-3 and Table LU-4). 57,579 59,781 61,000 62,670 65,600 67,770 68,240 70,560 71,680 73,590 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 19 Table LU‐4. Population Projection for Franklin County and Pasco Year Franklin County Population Pasco Population1 2018 93541 73,590 2028 121,792 97,434 2038 152,285 121,828 10-year increase 28,251 23,844 20-year increase 58,744 48,238 Additional residential units needed in Pasco in 10 years -- 7,522 2 Additional residential units needed in Pasco in 20 years -- 15,217 2 Notes: 1. OFM Medium Series. Historically, Pasco’s share has been 80% of the County population. 2. Based on OFM - household size: 3.17 Employment Forecast Similar to the population growth, Pasco’s employment is also estimated to grow at a percentage of Franklin County’s employment growth. Pasco has historically made up about 75.5% of total jobs in Franklin County (ESDWA, pers. commun. between the City and ESD 20195). Based on this, Pasco will expect to increase 15,425 additional jobs in 2018 (Table LU-5). Table LU‐5. Employment Projection for Franklin County and Pasco Year Franklin County Employment Pasco Employment 2018 34,927 26,370 2038 55,358 41,795 20-year increase 20,431 15,425 Notes: Washington Employment and Security Department Future Land Capacity In order to identify land necessary to meet the future demand, a land capacity analysis was performed. The analysis used the City’s existing land use density and land inventory. The first part of this analysis is based on the capacity of existing vacant and under- utilized residential land to add additional units. This doesn’t reflect the property owners’ intention of development; neither does it require the property owners to develop their properties. In this methodology, all vacant and under-utilized residential lands were identified. In order to estimate the amount of buildable land, 20% of the land was excluded for market factor, 5% was excluded for environmentally sensitive lands, and 20% of the 5 ESDWA Staff (Employment Security Department, Washington State), 2019. Personal communication between the City of Pasco and ESD staff in April 2019 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 20 buildable land area was allocated for infrastructure. The remaining acreage was identified to be buildable, and units were projected according to the City’s existing land use densities (Table LU-6). As shown in Table LU-4, 48,238 persons will be added to the City during the next 20-year planning period. This will require 15,217 residential units, considering Pasco’s household size of 3.17 persons per unit based on OFM (48,238/3.17). Table LU‐6. Land’s Capacity of Future Residential Development Developable Land Acres Capacity for additional residential units Additional population needed to be accommodated Within City limits 428.20 1490 4,723 Within existing UGA 199.70 1091 3459 Within Broadmoor 70001 22,190 Current capacity including Broadmoor. 9,581 30,372 Notes: 1. Capacity anticipated in the Broadmoor area Based on the land capacity analysis (Appendix C) and Table LU-6, at full buildout, about 30,372 persons can be added in the existing City limits and the UGA. This leaves the City with a gap in its existing land inventory to accommodate an additional 17,866 (48,238 additional persons added, see Table LU-4 — 30,372 current population capacity, see Table LU-6 = 17,866) persons in a full buildout scenario. Urban Growth Area Planning The UGA will include the City and may include territory outside of the City if that territory is characterized by urban growth or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth (Revised code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.110). Based on the countywide policies and monitoring of growth trends, as well as the jurisdictions’ capacities to provide urban-level services and facilities, changes to the UGA are ultimately adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Pasco’s UGA is illustrated in Figure LU-2 - Proposed UGA. In order to meet the gap of future land deficit, as discussed in the previous section, the City proposes to expand its UGA to the north. The City proposes to add approximately 3,548 acres of Low, Medium and High Density Residential, Commercial, Airport, and Industrial land. Approximately 2,400 acres of this land is residential, a portion of which will be used for parks and public lands as development occurs. There are 685 acres of land north of the existing City Limits—between Railroad Avenue and Highway 395— that is zoned for industrial use by Franklin County and that has been included in the UGA expansion. The addition of this land into the UGA would allow the property to be served with adequate facilities and utilities that would enhance its industrial LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 21 development potential. Another 40-acre parcel to the northeast is included in the expansion as industrial land use. This expansion will benefit the area with existing City utilities and easy access to transportation. Although the City currently has adequate land to meet the current commercial need, it is anticipated that additional commercial land will be needed in areas where the additional population will live in order to promote a planned walkable and sustainable community. Table LU-7 indicates the proposed and existing UGA expansion areas and land use categories. Table LU‐7. Future Land Use Designations and Acreage Land Use Designations City Limits UGA Total (Existing and Proposed) Residential Lands Low Density 7,124 3,478 10,603 Medium Density 1,591 628 2,219 Medium-High Density 61 163 224 High Density 171 122 294 Subtotal 8,947 4,392 13,339 Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 422 12 435 Commercial 1,867 370 2,237 Mixed Use Interchange 26 -- 26 Mixed Use Neighborhood 21 57 77 Mixed Use Regional 148 -- 148 Office 104 -- 104 Subtotal 2,588 439 3,027 Industrial Lands Industrial 4,938 1,606 6,545 Subtotal 4,938 1,606 6,545 Public / Quasi‐Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 851 82 933 Subtotal 851 82 933 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 1,251 70 1,321 Subtotal 1,251 70 1,321 Airport Reserve Lands Airport Reserve 1,709 382 2,091 LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 22 Subtotal 1,709 382 2,091 DNR Reserve Lands DNR Reserve 764 469 1233 Subtotal 764 469 1233 Confederated Tribes ‐ Colville Reservation Confederated Tribes - Colville Reservation 188 188 Area Total 21,236 7,359 1,2 28,677 3 Notes: 1. Includes 3,448 acres of proposed UGA 2. Includes rights of way 3. Does not include water area Figure LU‐2. Proposed UGA Appendix C (Land Capacity Analysis) for UGA expansion of this Comprehensive Plan provides a detailed analysis of the urban growth boundary (UGB) needs for Pasco over the next 20 years. The UGA expansion area includes approximately 3,448 acres of land to the north and northeast edges of the City. This includes an area north of Pasco City limits to Clark Road and Dent Road between Broadmoor Boulevard (Rd 100), and (generally) the Clark addition to the east. West of Broadmoor Boulevard, the boundary will extend to the north, near Fanning Road. East of the BNSF main line, the UGA boundary will include part of an industrial LAMIRD (limited areas of more intense rural development) between highway 395 and the BNSF rail lines. • LAND USE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 23 Future Land Use The future land use map (Map LU-1) resulted from the public planning process and illustrates the community’s vision for the planning period. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan to identify impacts and mitigations (Appendix D). HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 24 Housing Element RCW 36.70A.070 (2) Introduction This chapter focuses on the existing housing supply and needs along with projected housing demand for the future. Housing is a mandatory element of the GMA, and its purpose is to ensure the vitality and character of established neighborhoods per RCW 36.70A.070 (2). According to the GMA planning goals, the Comprehensive Plan should encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. This Element analyzes existing housing and projected housing demand in Pasco. Although various market factors have an impact on the private industry to provide affordable housing, many local government actions, including land use policies, development standards, and infrastructure and finance, can influence the local housing market. The strategies identified here should be monitored and adjusted as needed. This will ensure that the goals and policies within this chapter are adapting to the needs of the community and thus maintaining the quality of life for residents of Pasco. Existing Housing Units Inventory and Analysis Inventory As of April 2017, there were 21,653 housing units in Pasco. That is an increase of 22% from 2010, and over 110% since 2000. Housing units by type are indicated in Table H- 1 and Figure H-1. The data results are from the 2000 Decennial Census and the 2010 and 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 25 Table H‐1. Existing Housing Inventory Building Type 2000* 2010** 2017*** 1, detached 5,557 11,761 15,411 1, attached 258 442 501 2 488 308 406 3 or 4 850 839 1,157 5 to 9 495 750 801 10 to 19 356 936 717 20 or more 953 1,174 883 Mobile home 1,344 1,429 1,707 Boat, RV, van, etc. 33 38 70 TOTAL 10,334 17,677 21,653 Notes: 1. Data source: 2017 Census ACS Figure H‐1. Housing Inventory Growth 2000 ‐ 2017 Note: Building Types from Table H‐1 aggregated to simplify growth trend The data from the housing unit type inventory show the dramatic differences in existing supply and growth type. Table H-1 breaks down the type of each unit totals from 2000 through 2017 while Figure H-1 illustrates the percent of each unit type of the total growth amount. According to Table H-1, the greatest total unit increase from 2010 through 2017 was that of single-family dwelling units (SFDUs), which increased by 3,709 (30%). SFDUs are followed by multifamily at 18%, and manufactured mobile homes at just under 8%. SFDUs have not only remained a dominant factor, but they have increased the percentage of their construction as a total. In 2000, SFDU represented 56% of dwelling 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% SFDU MF Mobile Home 2000 2010 2017 -- ■ ■ ■ HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 26 units, which increased to 69% in 2010. Of the 3,976 housing units constructed since 2010, more than 73% were single-family. Manufactured housing has seen the smallest increase overall (32 units), most likely due to two factors limiting its growth. First, existing mobile home parks are at full capacity - any new units are typically replacements for aging ones - resulting in no net increase for park-based mobile homes. Second, contractors have found that stick-build homes pencil out at nearly the same cost as manufactured homes with more consumer appeal and without perceived concerns about construction quality. Residential Ownership Home ownership and rentals data helps to understand more about how the community members are living. It provides information that can determine if enough housing is available. When compared to household income, it can help the City understand whether housing is affordable for the residents. Figure H-2 shows the changes from 2010 through 2017 on home ownership and rentals for the City. Figure H‐2. Owner Occupied vs Renter Occupied At the 2010 Census, 64.3% of the units (10,456) were owner-occupied and 35.7% renter-occupied (5,809). Total vacant housing units have decreased by almost 50% from 2010 to 2017. American Community Survey estimates in 2017 indicated that 3.6% of total housing units were vacant compared to 8% in 2010. This trend is reflected in both the State of Washington and the United States. However, the 2017 ACS data indicates a higher home ownership rate at 70.2% (29.8% renter-occupied). The median home value of all owner-occupied units was $176,800 based on the 2017 ACS data. However, based on the City’s permit data, the average construction value of newly permitted single-family homes was $246,000 in 2014, and $257,000 in 2015. 64.3 35.7 70.2 29.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 2010 2017■ ■ HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 27 The median home price based on market listing in 2018 is even higher at $305,400 (Zillow 20186). Age of Units Understanding when housing units were constructed is helpful in determining the trends that have led up to our current inventory and helps with the identification of future needs. Figure H-3 displays (by decade) the number of housing units built in Pasco. Since the year 2000, Pasco has grown exponentially. For example, leading up to the year 2000, there were estimated 12,100 housing units built. Using data from the 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Census, out of all the total housing units in Pasco, almost 45% have been built after 2000. Almost 40% of all housing units in Pasco were built before 1980. For the area south of I-182 and west of the BNSF mainline, most housing is pre-1980 stock. The majority of housing north of I-182 was constructed after 1995, and the balance of the City is a mix. Figure H‐3. Housing Units – Year Built Note: 2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Table DP04 Figure H-4 shows the locations of housing units built by decade. 6 Zillow (Zillow Group, Inc.), 2018. Pasco Home Prices and Values. Data through January 31, 2020. Available at: https://www.zillow.com/pasco-wa/home-values/ 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 ■ 1939 or earlier • 1940to 1949 Year Structure Built I I I ■ I I 1950to 1960to 1970to 1980to 1990to 2000to 2010+ 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 ■ 2017 HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 28 Figure H‐4. Locations of Housing Units Built – by Decade Affordability The United States Department of Urban and Housing Development (HUD) defines housing affordability by measuring the allocation of household income on housing related expenses. This moving target is relative not only to income but also to geographic location. According to HUD, families who pay more than 30% of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. Figure H-5 shows the change in gross median rent for Pasco from 2010 to 2017. The median rent jumped from $688 in 2010 to $851 in 2017— an increase of 23.6%. The median home value for occupied housing units in Pasco was $176,800 in 2017. That is a 23.5% increase, which is almost $34,000 more than the median value in 2010. Figure H-6 shows median home value of occupied units per year. 4 . , Residential Units B y Decade -Parcels<1950 Parcels 1950 -1959 Parcels 1960-1969 Parcels1970 -1979 Parcels1980-1989 -Parcels1990 -1999 -Parcels 2000 -2009 -Parcels>2010 =:\i~~~ir~ · -· :•,.t~ Source Esr1 Dg1talGk>be GeoEyE> Eanhstar Gec!!l aph1cs, CNES AJrbu DS USOA. USGS AAroGR ID IGN and the GIS User Communflv • HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 29 Figure H‐5. Median Rent Note: American Community Survey 2010 – 2017 Figure H‐6 – Median Home Value (Occupied Units) Note: American Community Survey 2010 – 2017 As mentioned, the affordability of housing is based on various moving factors including location, income, and the supply. Another measure to identify is households that are cost burdened. Cost-burdened households have historically been defined as households where families pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Severely 688 698 712 749 782 820 831 851 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 143,100 146,800 151,700 156,800 159,900 163,300 166,400 176,800 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 30 cost-burdened is defined as households paying more than 50% of one’s income on housing. Figures H-7 displays the percentage of households (renters) in Pasco compared with the state of Washington experiencing cost-burdened and severe cost-burdened scenarios. This data is from the ACS 5-year Estimates from 2010 to 2016. By identifying households experiencing some level of cost-burdens, the City can determine the possible constraints for affordable housing and select methods for increasing supply. Figure H‐7 – Cost‐Burdened Households (Renters) Figure H-7 identifies those paying 30% and 50% or more of their household income on housing for renters. In 2010, just under 16% of renters were cost-burdened, while almost 8% were severely cost-burdened. In 2012, Pasco had a higher percentage of cost-burdened (17.5%) and severely cost-burdened (9.4%) renter households. The latest estimates from 2016 show that Pasco has experienced a slight reduction in both levels of cost-burdened renter households with the statewide results showing a slight increase. The same measures for owner-occupied households (Figure H-8), shows a decrease in owner households paying more than 30% of their income on housing, and a slightly smaller decrease for those paying more than 50%. In Pasco, there was a decrease of 4%, and statewide, a decrease of almost 5% for households paying more than 30%. 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 PSC ‐ Cost‐Burdened PSC ‐Severe Cost‐Burdened WA ‐ Cost‐Burdened WA ‐ Severe Cost‐Burdened : : : I I I I HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 31 Figure H‐8. Cost‐Burdened Households (Owners) Comparing the results of cost-burdened households, it can be identified that there has been more of a relief on owner-occupied households while renters are paying more of their income on housing. Overall, as shown in Figure H-9, there has been a decrease in Pasco and statewide on the total amount of households identified as cost-burdened. Figure H‐9. Cost‐Burdened Households (All) 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00%20.00%25.00% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 PSC ‐ Cost‐Burdened PSC ‐ Severe Cost‐Burdened WA ‐ Cost‐Burdened WA ‐ Severe Cost‐Burdened 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 2010 2016 PSC ‐ Cost Burdened WA ‐ Cost‐Burdened+ + ■ + + ■ HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 32 Projected Needs Analysis As discussed in the Land Use Element, Pasco’s population is expected to grow from 73,590 in 2018 to 121,828 by 2038, adding 48,238 persons in the City and UGA by 2038. Using the current OFM household size of 3.17, about 15,217 new housing units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. Assuming household sizes remain similar, that would mean over 760 housing units would need to be built each year for the next 20 years. The City anticipates a 2028 population of around 97,434, or 23,844 new Pasco residents and 7,522 additional units over the next 10 years. Based on past trends, the City expects to see 2,447 new multi-family units built by 2038. The single-family stock will need to increase by 12,776 units during the same period. Housing units which may be rented or purchased by households earning at or below local median income will also be required. This will include a combination of SFDUs condominiums and townhomes in the lower price range, along with affordable rental units. Of the three components of population change—birth, death, and migration— migration is the wildcard. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is still a major employer in the region, although it has experienced slower growth. The plateauing job growth at Hanford has been offset by additional job creation in the sciences and health sectors that are recipients of federal spending. Changes in spending can shift the population by thousands in a year. As such, local residential contractors rarely build units on speculation, choosing instead to build a single model home and writing up a contract before construction begins. Pasco has also worked to establish a more stable agricultural economic base by attracting major food processors in the area, promoting value-added production in existing ones, and diversifying its recruitment efforts for new employers. Tri‐Cities Home Consortium The Tri-Cities Home Consortium is a collaborative program developed with the cities of Kennewick and Richland. Each city receives an annual entitlement of CDBG funds for housing and community development activities within their jurisdiction. The program began in 1995 and its objectives include expanding economic activities, creating a sustainable living environment, and providing safe and affordable housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awards annual entitlement grants after the City has submitted an acceptable and HUD-approved Consolidated Plan. The 5-year Plan is supplemented each program year with an annual action plan to allocate funds. The City then submits a Consolidated Annual Plan Evaluation Report (CAPER) to detail its accomplishments. Pasco’s CAPER was prepared in 2017 and updated in 2018. HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 33 In 2014, Pasco adopted the 2015 to 2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan, developed in cooperation with the cities of Kennewick and Richland. This 5-year Plan is required by HUD in order for a jurisdiction to be eligible for Community Development Block Grants and HOME grants. The plan serves as a planning document for the City, is an application for funds from HUD, sets local priorities, and prescribes a strategy for meeting local needs with HUD programs. An updated Plan will be adopted in 2020. The CDBG and HOME funds help provide decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for moderate-, low-, and very low- income families. HOME focuses on increasing affordable housing opportunities for moderate-, low-, and very low- income families with eligible activities such as Down Payment Assistance, infill housing, and Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) new construction. Assisted Housing Inventory The Housing Authority of Pasco and Franklin County owns and operates 280 rental units of various sizes, for qualified low-income families. In addition, they manage 8 complexes of public housing including 165 units designated for the elderly and disabled and 115 units of public multi-family housing. A listing of facilities operated by the Housing Authority can be found in the Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan. The Housing Authority of Pasco and Franklin County uses only federal preference guidelines and has not established local preferences when determining occupant eligibility. The Housing Authority can assist approximately 320 families with HUD’s Section 8 Rental Assistance program. Families qualify for this program if they are low- income earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income [AMI] for the area. Generally, demand for assisted housing far exceeds availability. Waiting lists are opened annually and in many cases, wait times can extend to several years. Public housing stock is generally in good overall condition. Improvements are made regularly using Housing Authority funds and a variety of HUD Public Housing Grant Programs for modernization, safety and security measures, rehabilitation, and other operating issues. Units range from scattered site single-family homes to multi-family apartment complexes. The Housing Authority of Pasco and Franklin County actively markets their assistance programs to private landlords and property management firms. The Housing Authority serves all of Franklin County in addition to the City of Pasco. Inventory of Facilities and Services for the Homeless The Benton Franklin Community Action Committee, Salvation Army, and Domestic Violence Services all provide hotel/motel vouchers to persons with short term or emergency needs. Also 231 year-round shelter beds, 301 transitional housing beds, and 45 supportive housing beds for disabled homeless are available through various providers in the Tri-Cities area. Additionally, the Benton-Franklin Department of Human Services serves as the lead agency for the disbursement of homeless assistance funds collected by Benton-Franklin County through recording fees. HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 34 Homeless Families Information on the needs of homeless families in Pasco (other than special needs population) comes mainly from the number of requests for assistance received by the Continuum of Care Housing Network. The Homeless Housing and Assistance Act of 2005 established a statewide framework to reduce homelessness in developing housing and assistance programs to meet community needs. The act also requires that each county in the state of Washington conducts an annual point-in-time (PIT) count of sheltered and unsheltered persons. The most recent results of the PIT count are presented in Table H-2. Table H‐2. County Point‐in‐Time Count Year 2006 2010 2015 2018 Benton - Franklin County 751 433 272 163 Note: 2006, 2010, 2015, 2018 Point-in-Time Count (Washington State Department of Commerce) The Pasco Housing Authority typically has approximately ten homeless families on the Section 8 waiting list. In addition to the Pasco Housing Authority, temporary shelter is provided by the Salvation Army Shelter and Tri-Cities Union Gospel Mission, both located in Pasco. The vast majority of the homeless served are transitional. These people are passing through the area or waiting for permanent housing through other programs. Although these shelters are constantly full, the program directors state that there is always room for those in need. Needs Assessment Homeless and at-risk populations in Pasco have access to a variety of agencies located throughout the bi-county area that provide specialized facilities and other services. While reliable statistical data is not available for the homeless and special needs populations, the 2015 to 2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan reveals gaps in homeless facilities and services within the larger Tri-Cities community. The Consolidated Plan includes an expanded needs assessment for special needs populations and discusses available resources and strategies to address those needs. Available Resources The Benton-Franklin Department of Human Services publishes a Community Resource Guide that provides information on local resources, to assist in meeting housing needs. Although resources can fluctuate from year to year, the following is a list of programs and organizations available during preparation of this Plan. Programs Benton‐Franklin Department of Human Services Housing Resource Center (HRC) – A first stop for those experiencing homelessness or are residing in emergency HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 35 shelters; provides screenings to determine eligibility for various housing programs in the community. Community Action Connections – Provides day shelter relief for families and many other services. Elijah Family Homes – Provides transitional housing and support services programs for families in substance use recovery. Habitat for Humanity – Housing organization that works in partnership with low- income residents to build and own decent affordable housing. Housing Authority of the City of Pasco and Franklin County – Provides housing and housing assistance to more than 600 families, and housing subsidies for 280 units owned by the authority. Sea Mar’s La Posada – Affordable housing for migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds – May be used for a variety of community development needs which benefit persons at 80% or less of median income. Washington State Housing Finance Commission – Provided to establish below-market, long-term fixed mortgage rates for first-time homebuyers. Section 8 – Provides funds for rent subsidy for renter households who pay more than 30% of their income for housing and who earn less than 50% of median income. Section 811 - Provides funds for construction of handicap accessible dwelling units. Franklin County Public Utility District (PUD) – Operates an energy efficiency upgrade program including weatherization and various rebate programs. These programs can be used to assist the city’s rehabilitation program project for those homes that are electrically heated. Benton‐Franklin Community Action Committee (CAC) – Funding varies from year to year. 95% of the funds will benefit owners and renters of single-family homes. Most of the funds will be used for air infiltration sealing and insulation. Most roof repair and electrical upgrading is available with limited migrant seasonal farm worker funds. Organizations Franklin County Senior Information and Assistance – Provides information and referral on housing unit accessibility, health or personal care needs, and other housing factors for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Benton‐Franklin Housing Continuum of Care – Promotes affordable housing programs, identifies needs, conducts information and education campaigns, and develops community partnership. Greater Columbia Accountable Community of Health – RoundTable composed of multiple health sectors around the state with a common interest in improving health and health equity. HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 36 Salvation Army – Transitional living facility, rent and eviction notice assistance, and short-term shelter. Saint Vincent de Paul Society – Provides utility cut-off and eviction assistance. Tri‐Cities Union Gospel Mission – Shelter for homeless men, women, and families with children. Benton‐Franklin Community Action Committee Homeless Prevention Program – Shelter for very low-income homeless families with special needs. HOPE Home – Housing for homeless pregnant and parenting teens. Housing Strategy With escalating construction costs, the ability of the community to provide affordable, safe housing for future residents becomes a concern. To address the need for affordable housing, the City will continue to evaluate and take the following steps: Management of Land Use Allow manufactured housing on platted lots  Allow a variety of smaller lot sizes for detached housing in the City  Increase the locations of multi-family housing development in the City,  particularly near the centers of activity (commercial, retail, and employment center) accessible by transit Provide density bonuses/increases for specific added amenities  Allow planned density/unit developments and subdivisions with varying lots  sizes to provide additional flexibility for residential development Allow accessory dwelling units (“granny flats”) in single family homes  Allow residential units above the ground floor of commercial retail and office  buildings outright, with certain conditions Increase height limits on higher density residential zoning districts  Utilize innovative methods for infill (i.e., shared street frontages)  Consider municipal code amendments (Subdivision Regulations, Zoning, and  Streets) to allow for parcels of land to be developed more efficiently (i.e., parking requirements, street layout) Property Maintenance Community Housing Improvement Program  Rental Inspection Program  HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 37 Leverage Plan The City of Pasco coordinates and combines resources with the Franklin County PUD and Benton-Franklin CAC to leverage funds on a per job basis. This enables the City and cooperating agencies to rehabilitate more single-family residences than would be possible as individual agencies. Homeless Priority The Housing Authority of the City of Pasco and Franklin County has set aside 12 family units to serve “suddenly” homeless families. The Salvation Army acts as lead agency for need determination. Once an evaluation is done, these families are referred to the Pasco Housing Authority, which provides housing for a maximum of two weeks. The Housing Authority estimates they serve between 40 to 50 families in this manner, on a yearly basis. Single homeless people are referred to the Union Gospel Mission or Salvation Army for temporary shelter. Service Delivery and Management The City of Pasco’s Community Development Block Grant Program is administered by the Community Development Department. The weatherization programs of the Franklin County PUD and Benton Franklin CAC will continue to administer their respective weatherization and conservation programs. The Housing Authority of the City of Pasco and Franklin County administers the Section 8 and other rental assistance activities. Summary of Strategy The City of Pasco recognizes the need to maintain, and increase the supply of, affordable housing through the rehabilitation of existing housing units and the construction of new units. This includes promoting home ownership opportunities. Through partnerships with other agencies, the City supports the idea of providing rental assistance to alleviate the oftentimes severe rental cost burden, experienced by lower income families and individuals. The Tri-Cities Home Consortium has identified three priorities: Affordable Housing Choice, Community and Economic Development, and Services and Homeless Intervention/Prevention. Priority 1 – Affordable Housing Choice Affordable housing is a priority need in the Tri-Cities, particularly for lower-income households who may be at-risk of homelessness, living in unsafe or overcrowded conditions, or struggling to make ends meet. The majority of renter and owner households with incomes at or below 30% AMI were burdened by housing costs— most frequently costs in excess of 50% of household income. There is a growing population of seniors, in the cities, who will be looking for housing that can accommodate their changing needs (e.g., lower cost housing. Stakeholders, and others HOUSING ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 38 interviewed for this Consolidated Plan, identified lack of affordable housing as a significant barrier to self-sufficiency for several populations. Priority 2 – Community and Economic Development There is a substantial need for continued revitalization of older neighborhoods and downtown spaces in each of the cities, including the removal of architectural barriers. Public parks continue to see increased use and demand, and therefore require maintenance and upkeep support. Priority 3 – Services and Homelessness Intervention/Prevention There is a need to increase the supply of affordable housing units by developing owner and renter-occupied housing, including acquisition and rehabilitation. Financial assistance to local housing development organizations should be provided to increase the supply of affordable housing. Funds will sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing stock, such as rehabilitation of housing, eligible code enforcement tasks, energy efficiency/weatherization improvements, removal of spot blight conditions, and ADA improvements. In addition to acknowledging priority needs, the Tri-Cities Home Consortium has also identified the following goals: Increase and preserve affordable housing choices  Continued community, neighborhood, and economic development  Homeless intervention and public services  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 39 Economic Development Element RCW 36.70A.070 Introduction The Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide and promote economic opportunities for all citizens of the City. The nature of commerce and business stretches city limits and because of that, the City maintains relationships with many other local and regional agencies and organizations to ensure coordination leads to ample prospects. A strong economy can and should provide opportunities for all members of the community by offering access to jobs and business creation. This establishes a healthy base that can provide revenues for schools, police and fire protection, community facilities, and services. Pasco’s location along the Columbia and Snake Rivers has always allowed it to become an important factor for logistics and transportation. The arrival of the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1884 established Pasco as a major junction between rail lines serving Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, and Portland. The Columbia Basin Project reached Pasco in 1948. This project, in turn, spurred agricultural growth for the entire region thanks to the irrigation of nearby rivers. World War II had a significant impact that is still felt in our region because of the development of the Naval Air Station Pasco flight training facility (later the Tri-Cities Airport), the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and the Manhattan Project. While primary operations and research are conducted nearby in Benton County, Pasco’s rail infrastructure provided much needed logistical help along with plentiful land to house some of Hanford’s earliest workers. These events (rail, irrigation, air, and nuclear energy) have created the economic environment that Pasco, and the region enjoys today. Pasco’s economy still has roots in • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 40 transportation and agriculture, and the following sections describe how that plays a role in carrying the City of Pasco into the future. Economic Profile Pasco and the Tri-Cities region enjoy a stable and rapidly evolving economic environment. As the region has grown, its economy has diversified, and today, Pasco’s economy includes various public and private sector employment opportunities. The region and its location—at the confluence of the Columbia, Snake and Yakima Rivers— has been a tremendous benefit historically, and its proximity to other major populations and economic centers of the Pacific Northwest has provided unique opportunities for future economic growth. Much of Pasco’s (and Franklin County's) economy is tied to transportation and agriculture. The agricultural economy of Pasco is mostly mass production—domestic and global trade—with connections to international conglomerates. As this industry in and around Franklin County matures, additional support facilities, which process and handle production plants, will continue to be needed. This has also led to more opportunities for year around employment, meaning that families are less likely to migrate during the winter months, and instead, settle in the area permanently. Pasco’s economy is also tied to the economy of the Tri-Cities metro area. Therefore, rising employment at the Department of Energy Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Energy Northwest, and the Office of River Protection, will enhance the growth of Pasco’s population. This growth will not only attract new residents to Pasco, it will also provide opportunities for young population to remain in Pasco, rather than leave the area in search of technical and professional job opportunities. The expansion of Pasco’s economy led to increasing industrial diversity, and although the 2008 economic downturn had an impact, food manufacturing, agriculture, and private and public educational and healthcare services provided stability. In recent years, the greater Pasco area has emerged as a dynamic engine for economic vitality in the Tri-Cities metropolitan area. With strong job and population growth, Pasco is becoming an increasingly significant part of a regional economy that consistently ranks amongst the highest in the Northwest. Unemployment rates have decreased significantly at the metropolitan, statewide and national levels (Figure ED-1). From a high of 8.6% in December of 2010 to 6.7% ending 2017. The Tri-Cities metropolitan area still has a higher unemployment rate than the state rate of 4.6%. Compared to other metropolitan areas in our region, Spokane (5.9%), Walla Walla (4.5%), Wenatchee (5.9%) and Yakima (8.2%) ending in year 2017. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 41 Figure ED‐1. Historical Unemployment in the Tri‐Cities Note: Bureau of Labor Statistics Figure ED-2 indicates the historic employment in Benton and Franklin Counties. Figure ED‐2. Historical Two‐County (Benton & Franklin) Employment The Tri-Cities region has realized strong population growth over the last 20 years, averaging an annual growth rate of 2.4%. Since 2010, Pasco has added almost 14,000 new residents. With that came an increase in the percentage of the civilian labor force that is now higher than the regional percentage. As seen in in Table ED-1, about two- thirds (66%) of Pasco residents are in the labor force. 8.6 8 6.7 9.7 5.6 4.6 9.3 5 4.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2010 2015 2017 Tri‐Cities Washington State National 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 1995 2000 2005 2010 2017 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 42 Table ED‐1. Benton and Franklin County Population and Economic Indicators County Population1 Civilian Labor Force2 (% of total population 16 years and over) 2010 2018 2010 2016 Benton 175,177 197,420 67.1 62.9 Franklin 75,500 92,540 63.8 65.6 Pasco 59,781 73,590 66.0 68.4 Notes: 1. Washington State Office of Financial Management 2. U.S. Census Bureau   A 2016 report from TRIDEC noted that out of the region’s top 30 largest employers—a combined total of over 36,000 employees—Pasco accounted for ten (Table ED-2). Table ED‐2. Top Tri‐Cities Area Major Employers Company Industry Location* Employee s Batelle/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Research and Development Richland 4365 Kadlec Regional Medical Center Health Services Richland ** 3304 Bechtel National Engineering and Construction Richland 2898 ConAgra Foods Food Processing Pasco** 2727 Kennewick School District Education Kennewick 2130 Washington River Protection Solutions Environmental Remediation Services Richland 2077 Pasco School District Education Pasco 2015 Mission Support Alliance, LLC Support Services, Hanford/DOE Site Richland 1928 Richland School District Education Richland 1500 CH2M Hill Environmental Remediation Services Richland 1400 Tyson Foods Food Processing Pasco 1300 Trios Health Health Services Kennewick 1261 Energy Northwest Utilities Richland 1089 Broetje Orchards Food Processing Prescott, Prosser 920 Lourdes Health Network Health Services Pasco 804 Coyote Ridge Correctional Facility Connell 800 Washington Closure Hanford Environmental Remediation Services Richland 724 AREVA Manufacturing Richland 632 Columbia Basin College Education Pasco 511 Columbia Crest Winery Food Processing Paterson 500 Department of Energy (DOE) U.S. Government Richland 440 Bybee Foods Food Processing Richland 400 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 43 Company Industry Location* Employee s Pasco Processing Food Processing Pasco 400 Boise Cascade Manufacturing Wallula 380 Washington State University Tri-Cities Education Richland 375 Douglas Fruit Food Processing Pasco 300 Tri-Cities Airport Transportation Pasco 300 Reser’s Fine Foods Food Processing Pasco 219 Lampson International Manufacturing Kennewick/Pasc o 160 Lockheed Martin IT/Research and Development Services Richland 150 NOTES: TRIDEC (December 2016) website *Location is per employer’s website **Includes multiple Tri-City area locations, primary facility is noted Total covered employment was 33,966 in 2017, an increase of 0.7% (249 jobs) since 2016. The five-year average growth rate in Franklin County for covered employment was 2.1%. A 2015 report from the Washington State Employment Securities Department noted that the greater Pasco area accounted for 94% of all covered jobs in Franklin County and 27% in the Benton-Franklin County region. Figure ED-3 displays the distribution of employment by job sectors for Pasco, the Benton-Franklin County region, and the State of Washington. From the chart, the following employment characteristics can be identified: The largest employment sector in the Greater Pasco area is government and  education at nearly 5,000 jobs (16% of the total), followed by agriculture, manufacturing (including food processing), and retail. Compared with the state and the two-county (Benton-Franklin) region, Pasco’s  relatively dominant sectors are agriculture, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation, and warehousing. Taken together, these account for 36% of Greater Pasco employment, as compared with 23% of the two counties combined and 20% of all jobs statewide. In contrast, Pasco has only 12% of its employment in underrepresented  sectors including information, finance/insurance, professional/technical, and health/social assistance, as compared with 23% of the two-county and 26% of the state’s job base. The shares of jobs in all other sectors of the economy are at 52% to 55% of the  job base across all three geographies. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 44 Figure ED‐3. Employment Distribution Notes: *Professional, Technical, Management Figure ED‐4. Median Household Income  Note: Source: American Community Survey 5yr Estimates (2010, 2015, 2017)   0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Pasco Benton‐Franklin County Washington State $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 Pasco Benton & Franklin County Washington Household Median Income (Dollars) 2010 2015 2017 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 45 Figure ED-4 median household income in Pasco, Benton and Franklin Counties and Washington State. The median household income in 2017 for Pasco was $59,969. This represents a 34% increase in median income per household from the year 2000. Due to a larger employer base, the median income at the bi-county (Benton-Franklin) rose to $61,638 in 2017. Statewide, the household median income is $66,174. While bi- county and statewide income levels are higher than Pasco, Pasco’s median income has increased at a much faster rate (34%) versus 12.5% (Benton-Franklin) and 15.6% (statewide). Corresponding data in Figure ED-3 determines that the disparity may exist because of a high share of Pasco workers employed in the relatively low-wage agricultural sector. Employment Forecast By 2038, Pasco will be home to over 121,828 people, and if our labor force participation rate continues its upward trend, there will be a demand for employment (Table ED-3). Pasco is expected to represent a large share of jobs in Franklin County in the future, as it does today (approximately 76%). Pasco’s expected employment forecast would increase by over 15,000 by 2038 for about 41,795 jobs. The expansion of the UGA Boundary to include additional land for industrial and commercial land uses will support the expected employment needs of our community. Table ED‐3. Employment Projections Year Franklin County Employment Pasco Employment 2018 34,927 26,370 2038 55,358 41,795 20-year increase 20,431 15,425 Notes: Washington Employment and Security Department Challenges and Opportunities A diverse community and rapid growth provide Pasco with many opportunities for economic expansion in the future. Notable strengths in Pasco’s economy include a strong agriculture and food processing presence, a well-established transportation and logistics hub, a growing manufacturing sector, abundant water supply, and robust infrastructure to support economic growth. This portion of the Economic Development Element will focus on unique strengths, challenges, and opportunities for Pasco. Additionally, an emphasis will be placed on community participation, as will be described by the SOMOS PASCO effort. SOMOS PASCO was a long-range visioning and action plan for Pasco’s economy that aligned with economic opportunities and community-wide priorities. The SOMOS PASCO study is referenced because of its direct relationship to economic development locally and its public-facing and inclusive participation process. The action plan was a coordinated effort between The Port of Pasco, Franklin • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 46 County, and City of Pasco, with additional funding from the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. In this study, promising sectors for Pasco’s future economy are discussed as follows: Ag‐Industrial Direct-to-table food manufacturing  Advanced manufacturing (e.g., specialty metals)  Multi-modal transportation/logistics and distribution services  Construction and design  Consumer Services Planned retail centers and specialty districts  Latino/Anglo culinary culture catering to locals and visitors  Business and Government Services Professional / technical services to ag-industrial  Creative services from the arts to marketing  Customized workforce training  Pasco has continued to attract a young, energetic and diverse workforce. The median age is just 29—a decade younger than the statewide average. Most of Pasco’s labor force and household incomes are climbing closer to regional and statewide levels, making it an attractive place to relocate families and businesses. A 2017 survey of Pasco area businesses and institutions (1,000 to 2,000) indicated that 60% have plans to expand locally in the future. There was a strong support for public amenities including public markets, cultural facilities, and an accessible network of paths for walking and biking. The optimism shown by local businesses and employers adds to what Pasco is already home to. The Tri-Cities Regional Airport (PSC) is located adjacent to the growing campus at Columbia Basin College. The continued development of the Trade Recreational and Agriculture Center (The HAPO Center), the Tri-City Youth Soccer Complex, and the minor league baseball stadium (GESA Stadium) continue to provide year-round access for recreational activities that attract local, regional, and state visitors. While less reliant on the programs of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the efforts taking place by the Department of Energy still have a significant impact on the local economy, specifically on housing construction. While regional growth has occurred at the perimeters of each city, a number of private and public interests have brought attention to the reality that a region of our size (almost 300,000) can support multiple regional centers for commerce, retail, and businesses. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 47 The above-mentioned factors have helped create an evolving environment that is adapting to the needs of the community. However, there are still some challenges—the greatest being education. Table ED-4 provides a comparison of educational attainment between Pasco, our local neighbors, and statewide. Of those above the age of 25, almost 28% do not have a high school diploma and only 16% have received a bachelor’s degree. There have been significant strides made in public education (K-12) via the Pasco School District, which has helped to increase educational achievement. However, with educational attainment so closely related to long-term employment prospects and income, this will need to be addressed before becoming a barrier for future economic vitality. Table ED‐4. Educational Attainment ‐ 2011 to 2015 City/County/ State Population 25 Years and Over High School Diploma/GED Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Graduate Degree Richland 34,712 95% 56% 45% 19% Kennewick 47,478 86% 33% 22% 7% Pasco 37,479 72% 25% 16% 5% Benton County 118,423 89% 40% 29% 11% Franklin County 49,013 74% 25% 16% 5% Statewide 4,721,438 90% 43% 33% 12% Notes: Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015 5-year, Table B15003. Education was identified in the SOMOS PASCO effort, and strategic planning is now underway to encourage the community commitment to public education. This includes the Pasco School District’s pivot towards STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) related curriculum and partnerships with our local higher education providers at Columbia Basin College and Washington State University, Tri-Cities. Beyond education, there was community-wide agreement on the following priorities: Building the future economy on a foundation of agriculture/food processing  and current strengths Diversifying the economy into new sectors  Community projects that support Pasco’s quality of life  Capitalizing on Pasco’s unique multi-cultural population and heritage  Local and Regional Partnerships Continued coordination and partnerships with local, regional, and statewide agencies and organizations will only increase economic opportunities for our residents. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 48 The Port of Pasco plays a major role in the economic development of our city. The Port focuses on a mix of transportation—water, rail and air—and property/infrastructure to facilitate job creation. The City and the Port have spent many years developing utilities and streets to serve lands for industrial developments and employments. The Port owns and manages the PSC that serves the entire region. The Port owns the 86-acre PSC Business Center, near the airport, that accommodates commercial businesses. The Osprey Pointe area is a mixed-used development located on the Columbia River adjacent to the Port’s Big Pasco Industrial Center. The 110-acre waterfront property offers views of the Columbia River, with easy access to the entire Mid-Columbia region. It encourages private sector investments in commercial, office, and residential buildings in East Pasco. The Port owns many other industrial and commercial areas that promote business and employment. The Benton‐Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) serves as our federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization and Economic Development District for the Tri-Cities region. BFCG prepares a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) every five years. The Strategic Vision of the CEDS is provided below: Encourage healthy growth of a resilient and diverse economy by providing  family wage jobs through new business attraction and retention and development of the infrastructure necessary to encourage and achieve this Nurture a thriving environment for entrepreneurial business creation through  greater collaboration, innovation, and access to capital Support and protect the current industry clusters and their related natural and  financial resources Expand educational and training opportunities and community amenities to  attract, uplift, and retain families and youth The Tri‐City Development Council (TRIDEC) was established in 1963 and today is charged with promoting and advancing the economic strength and diversity in Benton and Franklin counties. TRIDEC is involved with many recruitment efforts that have helped develop Pasco’s industrial base. Pasco also has established relationships with the Tri‐Cities Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Pasco Chamber of Commerce. Both organizations promote business efforts for their respective service areas; however, Pasco fits firmly within their missions. The Tri‐Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce also plays an important role for the community. Their mission statement of “Connecting, empowering and celebrating the Latino community to the Tri-Cities and beyond” provides an inclusive environment for all residents of Pasco to be involved in. They host monthly networking events and annual events that bring diverse stakeholders and community members to the table to discuss ongoing efforts in the region. The City of Pasco and the Downtown Pasco Development Authority are also partners in the promotion of our Central Business District and the revitalization efforts of Downtown Pasco. Together, there is a focus on a four-block core area centered on ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 49 4th Avenue and Lewis Street, in the heart of our downtown, to kick-start the revitalization effort and set the standard for all future downtown improvements. Improvements in the downtown area include the construction of a new Farmers Market Pavilion and redesign for the Peanuts Park Plaza. Both of these locations are home to numerous community-wide events each year. The weekly farmers market attracts hundreds to annual events that bring in thousands of visitors from across the region to Downtown Pasco. Economic Development Priorities Values and Economic Vision Core values identified in the SOMOS PASCO study include: Livable  Family Friendly  Multi-Cultural  Welcoming  Affordable  Safe  Connected  Attractive  The Economic Vision in the SOMOS PASCO study focuses on the following: Envision As one of the fastest growing communities, the possibilities are limitless. The community imagines a distinctive and highly- livable community, and we are creating that place. Invest Placing strategic, timely investments—in innovation, private enterprise, job creation, education, public infrastructure, and services—will ensure our continued economic vitality. Achieve The benchmark for Pasco’s success will be economic and educational progress for every enterprise and every family in our multi-cultural community. Strategies Major economic strategies identified in the SOMOS PASCO study are as follows: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 50 Investing in Education Education, at all levels, is the foundation for our economic future—the key to building the future workforce to capitalize on new opportunities. Pasco is on the right track and is already showing signs of improved educational attainment. Ongoing reinvestment in educational programs and facilities (voter supported) will be essential. (In general, the public education system in Pasco consists of Pasco School District, Columbia Basin College, and WSU Tri-Cities.) Educational programs include: The “K through Career” pipeline  Career opportunity awareness  On-the-job training  Mentorships  Scholarships  Building on Our Strengths Pasco has a competitive advantage in several economic sectors and niches. These will continue to be supported as mainstays of the future economy: Food processing  Transportation, warehousing, distribution, and logistics  Advanced manufacturing  Port of Pasco (Airport, Marine Terminal, and Industrial Development)  Timeline investments in infrastructure expansion and upgrades  Affordability  Business development  Looking Ahead to the Next Chapter Diversifying Pasco’s economy beyond food and other leading employers is imperative. Several opportunities have been identified: Local professional, technical, and creative employment  Homegrown local service, and retail businesses  Business development training  Tech industry  Priority Projects There is broad-based support for undertaking a handful of worthy community priority projects: Riverfront development  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 51 Year-round public market  Walking and biking (multi-modal) trail system  Aquatics center  Downtown Pasco revitalization  Multi‐Cultural Community With a strong Hispanic cultural heritage and tradition and a majority population – Pasco plans to embrace and capitalize on this unique asset: Downtown character and signage  Cultural Center and events  Trade missions and sister city relationship with Mexico  Conversational Spanish language classes for English speakers  How is Pasco Doing? Pasco’s and the region’s progress will be monitored annually and measured against statewide benchmarks adopted for key strategy areas. This includes analyzing data on demographics and employment, income and education, housing, and event programming projects. Economic Development Planning Considerations Retaining existing business and attracting new and innovative businesses will diversify the local economy and create a solid and resilient base for the City. The growth of retail industries could be enhanced by opportunities for people to live and work close by. Pasco has a relatively young population with an entrepreneurial spirit. This can be seen in the number of small, family-owned businesses that have taken root in east and central Pasco over the past decade. Pasco’s young population and ethnic diversity are attractive assets to new investors. Development of Agricultural Industries To ensure the stability of the economy, the City should leverage existing assets but adapt them to a changing economy. Mass production requires heavy infrastructure to maintain the agricultural industry, and to protect public health. For these reasons, the City will continue to invest and partner with this industry to improve our infrastructure, including the Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) and transportation infrastructure. The PWRF is a critical piece of infrastructure that allows the City to manage the capacity of its wastewater treatment plant for residential and commercial growth. Pasco’s efforts will focus on increasing agricultural industries and infrastructure opportunities provided by various agencies, including the Port. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 52 Infrastructure Development Anticipating future growth, it is important for the City to plan ahead in terms of roads and infrastructure—to remove congestion from key intersections and promote easy transport of people and goods. The City has an ambitious Capital Improvement Plan that correlates to current and future needs related to growth and sustainability. Trained Labor Force Additional training and education opportunities are needed to capture future growth of trade and technology industries. The biggest challenge to this effort is not a lack of people, but rather the bandwidth of our trade and technology training programs. Continued investment in the community college and Washington State University Tri- Cities is needed for our community to be responsive to workforce needs. Promote Tourism Pasco provides several contributions to the regional tourism economy. Sports tourism is big business, and the number of tournaments held in Pasco has a direct correlation to the number of new hotels that have been built and are being planned. In order to capture more spending from this base, the City is embarking on a revitalization of Downtown Pasco— promoting our agricultural heritage at the Pasco Farmers Market, and the culinary and cultural flavor of the Mexican immigrant community, which is featured prominently in downtown through various restaurants and boutique retailers. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen, also located in downtown, has become a regional culinary incubator, spawning restaurants and food trucks throughout the Tri- Cities. The City and Port are also exploring the development of a Public Market to highlight the bounty, talent, and diversity of our community, much as Pike Place Market does for Seattle. There are also additional types of investments that can create a destination for tourist activities, such as wine tourism and outdoor and agritourism. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 53 Capital Facilities Element RCW 36.70A.070 Introduction Land use decisions, such as annexation or commercial versus residential zoning, have direct impacts upon the City’s financial capabilities and liabilities in the immediate and distant future. Because of this relationship, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070[3]) requires that local governments include capital budgeting as an active planning function. The GMA requires that capital facilities planning support the land use decisions. If there is insufficient funding to meet the infrastructure demands of growth, then the land use element should be adjusted to protect the integrity of the financial capabilities of the respective local government. Capital facilities planning is a tool that identifies the facilities planning, prioritization, and financial decisions necessary to maintain and improve the physical attributes of the City. Capital improvement projects are based upon the needs of the community and are consistent with and promote the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Element documents all capital projects needed to accommodate projected growth. It also identifies the financing of the City-provided facilities, and the sources and levels of financial commitment and revenues necessary to meet the concurrency requirements of the GMA. Concurrency means that needed capital facilities must be installed and available for use at the time of development, or within a reasonable time period following completion of the development. Pasco uses many revenue sources to fund the capital improvement projects identified in the plan, including sales tax, business and occupation tax, utility rates, state revenues, bonds, and grants. The City also collects park and school impact fees to mitigate park and school impacts. Impact fees are collected according to the standards set in the PMC. • CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 54 According to the GMA, the Capital Facilities Element should contain the following features: An inventory of existing capital facilities  A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities  Proposed locations and sizes of expanded or new capital facilities  A 6-year plan to finance such capital facilities  A requirement to reassess the Land Use Element if funding falls short of  meeting capital facilities’ needs, and to ensure consistency between the Land Use Element and the Capital Facilities Element and associated Finance Plan Capital Facilities Types The City of Pasco has a wide range of facilities which operate, maintain, and plan for capital improvements. These include the following: Transportation system including pedestrian and bicycle facilities  Potable water system (treatment, monitoring [testing], storage, and  distribution) Sanitary sewer system (collection system, treatment system, monitoring, and  testing) Storm drainage (collection and disposal) systems  Parks and open space system  Public Safety and Emergency response facilities (Fire, Paramedic, Police)  Public building construction and remodeling (libraries, city offices, community  centers, maintenance buildings, etc.) Transportation, and parks and open space are discussed respectively under Transportation Element and Parks and Open Space Element in this Comprehensive Plan. Public safety and emergency response facilities are discussed under Public Services sub-element in this Comprehensive Plan. The following special service districts and utility companies represent an additional range of capital facilities: Schools  Public utility districts  Irrigation districts  Capital Budgeting Project Consideration Factors Many factors are considered in the planning process with the intent to implement the community’s vision. As discussed in the Land Use Element, the City is expected to add an additional 48,000 new residents by the year 2038. Maintaining services for existing CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 55 neighborhoods and planning for future growth are both crucial in the capital facilities planning. In the capital facilities planning, consideration is given to maintaining compliance with the GMA to provide adequate facilities for growth. This also considers upgrades and replacements of aging facilities. In addition, eligibility for grants was also considered in the planning process. Why Plan For Capital Facilities As discussed, a Capital Facilities Element is mandated by the GMA. It identifies the capital facilities’ needs, locations, and financing mechanisms in order to address the City’s current and future growth and meet concurrency requirements of the GMA. The intent of the capital facilities planning is to plan ahead in order to effectively manage capital investments. It allows jurisdictions to use their limited funding wisely to maximize the outcome. The planning process helps jurisdictions prioritize projects, coordinate related projects, and apply for grant opportunities. Many grant and loan programs require local governments to have a Capital Facilities Plan, or Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to be eligible for funding This Capital Facilities Element is developed to be consistent with countywide planning policies and integrated with all other plan elements to ensure consistency throughout the Comprehensive Plan. Capital Improvement Plan Pasco’s 6-year CIP supports the City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan. The CIP and amendments thereto are made as part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference. The referenced CIP is presented in three sections: Section I - Introduction: Purpose, benefits, and methodology of the CIP.  Section II - Fiscal Policies: Statements of requirements and guidelines that are  used to finance the CIP. Section III - Capital Improvements: List of proposed capital projects, including  project costs, revenues, and timing, as well as future operating costs. The accumulated total cost of capital improvements for 2020–2025 is mentioned in Table CF-1. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 56 Table CF‐1. Cost of Capital Improvements Project Category Cost General $11,695,000 Fire & Ambulance $25,947,000 Parks & Recreation $27,948,000 Process Water Resource Facility (PWRF) $36,053,000 Sewer $56,766,000 Transportation $48,283,000 Water $39,911,000 Irrigation $1,980,000 Stormwater $1,029,000 Total $249,612,000 During the annual budgeting cycle, the budgeted amounts per type of facility are changed to reflect the completion of some projects and the addition of others. Funding sources identified in the CIP are intended to assist in prioritizing projects for the next 6 years. A large amount of unsecured funding is expected and changes to cost estimates or revenue sources are normal. The amounts shown are planned funding sources, and costs generally precede detailed design work. The schedule of each project may also change as assumptions like scope, the local and national economy, or even the weather change. The CIP utilizes the following four main categories of funding sources: Internal fund reserves: These funds are available via annual ongoing revenue  received from anticipated sources. These include excise and property tax revenues, impact fees, utility rates, utility expansion fees charged to new customers and charges for existing and new customers. The City preserves some of the fund balance as necessary and possible to account for large investments on the horizon or for emergency purposes. Grants: Larger City capital projects receive a significant portion of funding via  grants and loans made by federal and state agencies. Almost all federal funds are “passed through” a state agency filter. Some of the major agencies involved in funding grants and loans are Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Water Resources Program, and the Department of Ecology. Parks and Transportation projects are the largest benefactors of such grants and loans at the City of Pasco. Debt: Represents a commitment to repay borrowed funds over an extended  period of time. While the City has a relatively large legal debt capacity, the main constraint is the ability to repay the debt. Local partnerships: The City also relies on partnership with other local agencies  like Port or Pasco, Pasco School District, City of Kennewick, City of Richland, and individual donations etc. to fund projects. Additionally, the City uses Local Improvement District’s (LID) as a way to share the cost of infrastructure CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 57 improvements to fund a project that provides a specific benefit to proximal property owners. Transportation Capital Improvements The City’s transportation improvements are discussed under the Transportation Element of this Comprehensive Plan and also identified in the City’s 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). It maintains the regional plans for all modes of transportation and allocates federal transportation funds for local improvements. That program is updated yearly and is incorporated in this plan by reference. Water System Existing Conditions The majority of the population within the incorporated limits of the City of Pasco is served by the City’s Water Utility. The City builds capacity into the water system for effective fire suppression in structures, which is an important safety measure. Pasco currently has a very efficient storage and distribution system. The City water system includes two water treatment plants, reservoirs, pump stations and pipelines that serve the City limits and portions of the Urban Growth Area. The City updated its Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP) in 2019, which has been reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Health (WDOH). The planning periods outlined in the CWSP are 2022, 2027, and 2036. The CWSP identifies the existing system, expected City growth and projected demands for each planning horizon, as well as, the performance criteria that dictate whether new infrastructure is required. The City’s water system is supplied from surface water withdrawals from the McNary Pool of the Columbia River and includes two surface water treatment plants and three water reservoirs. The following is a list of key system water facilities. Butterfield Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 26.8 million gallons per day  West Pasco Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day  (modular/expandable; the build out capacity is 18 million gallons per day when all six treatment trains are installed) Riverview Heights reservoir: 10 million gallons  Rd 68 reservoir: 2.5 million gallons  Broadmoor Boulevard reservoir: 1 million gallons  The CWSP indicates that the City currently holds surface water rights for 13,269.25 acre-feet of annual withdrawal and 20,149 gallons per minute (gpm) (29 mgd) of instantaneous withdrawal. As defined in the CWSP, the City is currently in compliance CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 58 with water right quantities by borrowing the surplus from the Quad Cities water right, at a current consumption of 14,424 acre-feet by volume and 18,456 gpm instantaneous. The City also holds individual groundwater rights sourced by various wells for separate irrigation purposes. The river water requires treatment before being piped to customers. Butterfield is a conventional filtration plant and West Pasco is an ultrafiltration membrane plant. The current capacity of each water treatment plant is 26.8 mgd and 6 mgd respectively. It should be noted that while current capacity of the West Pasco WTP is 6 mgd, it is designed for expansion up to 18 mgd. In addition, the City’s water system inventory consists of approximately 330 miles of pipe ranging from 2-inch to 36-inch in diameter, 6 booster stations, and 20 pressure reducing valve (PRV) stations. Service is presently provided to customers at a minimum elevation of 340 feet to a maximum elevation of 525 feet. The City water distribution system has been arranged into three (3) service/pressure zones. Generally, these zones may be described as: Pressure Zone 1: South of I-182 and west of the railroad yard  Pressure Zone 2: East of the railroad yard, the southern portion of the airport  and a strip south of I-182 between Service Zone 1 and Service Zone 3 Pressure Zone 3: Generally, north of I-182 and encompassing most of the  northern part of the city The City has been implementing the CWSP with facility improvements that have been made in recent years. These projects include the Columbia Water Supply Intake that increased the water supply capacity and reliability. Other major projects included the completion of the Water Treatment Plant and the Harris Road Sewer Trunk Line Extension; this extension (over 5,500 feet) will serve the rapidly developing Broadmoor area in NW Pasco. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 59 Figure CF‐1‐ Construction of Columbia Water Supply Intake Photo source: MurraySmith That Plan and amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference. The Plan describes basic components of the system, such as sources, storages and distribution of water to serve its various pressure zones. In 2019, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation, which evaluated the impact of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land use changes. As a result, in order to accommodate future growth, the City will need to make additional improvements to the West Pasco WTP, Zone 3 Reservoir, and acquire additional water rights to meet the 2038 demands. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 60 Pasco City Leaders break ground on the Columbia East Pump Station in 2018 (Photo source: Tri‐Cities Area Journal of Business) Level of Service The City intends to maintain the current level of services by preserving and acquiring water rights and improving the system. Elements are aimed at maintaining these guideline LOS standards: Table CF‐2. Water Guideline LOS Standards Element LOS Standard Demand per ERUa ADD MDD PHD 424 gallons per day 890 gallons per day 1,119 gallons per day MDDb/ADDc Factor 2.1 PHDd/MDD Factor 2.64 Service Pressure 30 – 80 psi Notes: a. ERU = equivalent residential unit b. MDD = maximum daily demand c. ADD = average daily demand d. PHD = peak hour demand Source: City of Pasco Comprehensive Water System Plan, Revised January 2019 i - - I - - -, - ' --- I --- --- ' -- ~ -- -I~ -I -_! • CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 61 Future Needs The CWSP identified several projects to address future needs within water system over the next 20 years. Within this plan, the City reviewed each project, developed a cost estimate and time frame for construction. In addition, the 2019 Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation identified four new projects that may be needed over the next 20 years, three of which could be needed within the 6-year planning horizon. The 2020-2025 6-year CIP for the City lists several water projects which are planned through the year 2024 as well as a financial plan that allows the water utility to remain financially viable. The 2020 CIP identifies the following priority projects listed in Table CF-3. In addition, CF-3 includes the three additional projects identified in the Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation. Table CF‐3. Water System Capital Improvement Projects Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) Annual System Improvements - Development 2020-2025 Utility Rate $1,200,000 Butterfield WTP- Chlorine Safety 2020 2017 Revenue Bonds $275,000 Emergency Power Improvements 2020-2023 Utility Rate $2,200,000 Transmission Main - West Pasco WTP to Zone 3 2020-2021 Utility Rate $3,000,000 Water Main Extension - Road 103 (Maple Dr to Willow Wy) 2022 Utility Rate $113,000 Water Main Replacement - Alley East of WeHe Ave 2020 Utility Rate $140,000 Water Line Replacement - Maple Drive, AC Main (Rd 100 to Rd 103) 2020 Utility Rate $250,000 Water Main Replacement – South 18th Ave (Court St to WA Ave) 2021 Utility Rate $79,000 Water Main Replacement - Star Lane (Rd 100 to Rd 97) 2021 Utility Rate $236,000 Water Projects Allocated from Transportation 2020-2021 Utility Rate $247,000 West Pasco WTP Improvements 2020-2022 Utility Rate $4,620,000 Reservoir Storage Tank - Zone 3 2020-2023 Unsecured Revenue Bond Utility Rate Utility Expansion Fees $11,700,000 Automated Meter Reading 2020-2025 Unsecured Revenue Bond $5,750,000 Reservoir Storage Tank - Zone 2 2024-2025 Unsecured Revenue Bond $7,500,000 Water Main Extension – Alton Street (Wehe Ave to the alley west of Owen St) 2022 Unsecured Revenue Bond $327,000 Water Main Extension - 2024 Unsecured $305,000 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 62 Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) Riverhaven Street (Road 36 to Road 40)Revenue Bond Water Line Replacement – Richardson Road (Road 92 to Road 96) 2022 Unsecured Revenue Bond $460,000 Water Line Replacement — Road 60 (Court St to West Pearl) 2023 Unsecured Revenue Bond $930,000 Water Line Replacement — Road 76 (Wernett Road to Court Street) 2023 Unsecured Revenue Bond $826,000 Zone 3 Tank Transmission Main* - Utility Rate $776,000 Water Main Extension - WTP to Zone 3* - Utility Rate $5,206,000 Backbone Transmission Main* - Utility Rate $18,355,000 Total $64,495,000 Notes: Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan * Proposed projects identified in the 2019 expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation which accounts for the UGA expansion and updated Land Use Plan. The City’s Annual Water Upsize-Development Program is anticipated to assist with these projects to pay for potential upsizing of water lines related to developer installed lines. **Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available or possible in the future as identified in the CIP. The 20-year planning horizon includes additional projects to serve future growth within the UGA that are not already covered in the 6-year planning horizon. The CWSP indicated a majority of these projects, but with the modifications to the UGA, the transmission mains have been upsized in areas and additional backbone piping was included. Additionally, the size of the second storage tank has increased from 3.5 MG to 4.0 MG and been moved from Zone 3, as specified in the CWSP, to Zone 2. The West Pasco WTP improvements will also be included in the 20-year planning horizon that will increase the plant’s capacity from 12 mgd to 18 mgd. Table 3a summarizes planning level capital costs for the water infrastructure to serve the UGA beyond the 6- year planning horizon but within the 20-year period. The anticipated planning level cost for the infrastructure to serve the UGA is $51.8 million which accounts for a cost increase of $10.7 million due to the upsize of pipe diameter, extension of waterlines, upsize of reservoir, and inclusion of additional projects when compared to the CWSP. The City is planning to utilize their Annual Water Upsize-Development Program to pay for a portion of these projects through coordination with planned development as well as developer contributions. Table CF‐3a. 20‐year Water Planning Level Capital Cost Summary Description Pipe Size (inch) Pipe Length (feet) Total Planned Cost West Pasco WTP – Supply Capacity Increase 12 to 18 mgd2 - - $1,470,000 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 63 Description Pipe Size (inch) Pipe Length (feet) Total Planned Cost Zone 2 Storage Tank3 - - $9,291,000 New Backbone Transmission Main 12 28,600 $9,526,000 16 35,100 $15,053,000 24 1,300 $775,000 CWSP Backbone Transmission Main1 12 5,400 $1,792,000 16 32,600 $13,969,000 Total Cost $51,876,000 Notes: CWSP costs were escalated using ENR CCI values. Costs taken from the CWSP and were not modified, no delta associated with this project. The project includes a high service pump station and additional filter backwash. Project T-002 in the CWSP was indicated for Zone 3, but this analysis indicates it is better located in Zone 2. Sanitary Sewers Existing Conditions In addition to water service, urban development with its associated concentration of people requires sanitary sewers to safeguard the public health. Sanitary sewer service is provided by the City of Pasco. The City’s collection system is a conventional collection system that mainly relies on gravity sewers to convey wastewater flow to two lift stations that discharge to the treatment facility. Additional pump stations and force mains are used to supplement the gravity system. The City’s Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP), 2014, identifies the existing system, expected City growth and projected build out flows, and performance criteria that dictate whether new sewer infrastructure is required. In 2017 and 2019, the City re- evaluated the capacity and loading requirements of the Northwest Service Area as a result of potential development demands and growth projects changes as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan update and Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion. A strategy to provide sewer service to the proposed UGA and other growth areas within the city (Broadmoor Area) was evaluated and alternatives were identified. The CSP and subsequent analyses identify the total capacity, utilized capacity, and remaining capacity of both the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the sanitary sewer collection system. The CSP and amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference. The following is a summary of the WWTP capacity and the sanitary sewer collection system, based upon this planning document. The City operates a wastewater collection and treatment system to manage the domestic wastewater needs of the community. The City originally built a primary treatment facility in 1954 which has been upgraded over the years to increase design CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 64 capacity and accommodate growth of the City’s service area. This system operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit issued by Ecology. Currently, the system is served by one activated sludge wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) which oxidizes, nitrifies and disinfects wastewater flow prior to discharging to the Lake Wallula reach of the Columbia River. The City updated the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan (WWFP) in 2019. This update evaluated the WWTP through a 20-year horizon. This WWFP takes into consideration the projected growth identified in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan update and will provide a CIP to accommodate the projected demands associated with the expected increase in population for the City and its expanded UGA. The City’s existing WWTP has a capacity of 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of sewer flow and currently experiences average flows of 6 million gallons per day (MDG). The City has a goal of extending municipal sewer to un-served portions of the city and recover the cost over time as adjacent properties choose to connect to sewer. This is being done through the local improvement district (LID) process. This process enables the City to provide sewer service to areas that are lacking while at the same time upgrading the substandard county roads that have been annexed. The City’s wastewater collection system contains over 240 miles of sewer pipeline ranging from 8-inch to 36-inch in diameter, 4,430 manholes, and 10 lift stations. The gravity pipelines convey wastewater from the residential and commercial areas and route it to interceptors and large sewer trunks. Due to the varied topography in the City, several localized and regional lift stations are required to convey sewage to the WWTP. The City’s two primary lift stations (Maitland and 9th & Washington) are located just outside the WWTP and convey sewage directly to the WWTP. Level of Service Improvements recommended in the Comprehensive Plan are aimed at maintaining the following guideline LOS standards. Table CF‐4: Wastewater Guideline LOS Standards Element LOS Standard Residential Unit Flows 80 GPCDb Commercial Unit Flows 80 GPCDb Industrial Unit Flows 1,500 GPADc Manning pipe roughness coefficient 0.025 Min velocity 2 feet/second Notes: Based on 3.43 people per dwelling unit GPCD = gallons per capita per day GPAD = gallons per acre per day Source: City of Pasco Comprehensive Sewer Plan, May 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 65 Future Needs The CSP includes a CIP which identifies future projects needed to accommodate growth and to improve existing and future deficiencies. The City reviewed and prioritized the improvements based on the system needs, anticipated system growth and available funding. Many of the capital projects are triggered by anticipated future flow condition therefore the timing is based on the year in which the flows are projected. In addition, as a result of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land use changes, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation in 2019. The purpose of this analysis is to identify what additional improvements are needed to accommodate the future growth. As a result, the Evaluation identified seven new projects that may be needed over the next 20 years, three of which could be needed within the 6-year planning horizon. The City’s 2020-2025 CIP identifies the near-term 6-year projects. Table CF-5 shows the summary of the near-term priority projects identified in the CIP. In addition, Table CF-5 includes the three additional projects identified in the Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation. Table CF‐5: Six‐Year Sewer System Capital Improvement Projects Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) 9th & Washington Lift Station 2020 2017 Revenue Bond $496,000 Annual System Improvements - Development 2020-2025 Utility Rate $1,200,000 Pearl Street Lift Station 2020 2017 Revenue Bond $673,000 Road 36 Lift Station Upgrades 2020 2017 Revenue Bond $501,000 Maitland Lift Station - Purchase/Install 4th Pump 2020 2017 Revenue Bond $42,000 Northwest Area Lift Station 2020 Unsecured Revenue Bond Utility Expansion Fees $3,500,000 Sewer Projects Allocated from Transportation 2020 Utility Rate $10,000 Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvements - Phase 1 2020-2022 Unsecured Revenue Bond Utility Expansion Fees 2017 Revenue Bond $25,805,000 Northwest Area Trunkline - Sandifur Parkway Extension to Desiree Street 2020 LID Unsecured Revenue Bond $4,598,000 Public Works Operation Center - - $ - CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 66 Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) Road 52 and Pearl Street Lift Station - Riverview 2020-2021 Unsecured Revenue Bond $2,084,000 Road 84 and Roberts Drive Lift Station - Riverview 2022-2023 Unsecured Revenue Bond $2,500,000 Southeast Industrial Trunkline - - $ - Trunkline Deficiency - Court Street - - $ - Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvements - Phase 2 2023-2025 Unsecured Local Grant/Loan Unsecured Revenue Bond $15,367,000 Regional/Broadmoor Area Lift Station - LID $3,500,000 Gravity Sewer Main – Extension of Harris Rd Sewer* - LID $9,169,000 Gravity Sewer Main- Regional Lift Station Basin* - Utility Rate $18,620,000 Kohler RD Lift Station* - LID $528,000 TOTAL $88,593,000 Notes: Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan *Proposed projects identified in the 2019 expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation which accounts for the UGA expansion and updated Land Use Plan. The city is planning to complete these projects through local improvement district (LID) or via the City’s Annual Sewer Upsize-Development Program which is anticipated to assist to pay for potential upsizing of sewer lines related to developer installed lines. **Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available or possible in the future as identified in the CIP. The 20-year planning horizon includes all projects anticipated to serve the Urban Growth Area that are not in the 6-year planning horizon, as identified in Table 5. The CSP included some of these projects, but with modifications as a result of the Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation conducted in 2019. These modifications included the upsizing of sewer trunk lines and additional backbone piping within the UGA to serve new development. Table 5a summarizes planning level capital costs for the sewer infrastructure within the UGA to be completed after the 6-year planning horizon but within the 20-year period. The total cost for these projects in the 20-year horizon is nearly $132.5 million. The City is planning to utilize their Annual Sewer Upsize-Development Program to pay for a portion of these projects through coordination with planned development as well as developer contributions. Table CF 5a: 20‐Year Sewer Planning Level Capital Cost Summary Description Pipe Size (inch) Pipe Length (feet) Total Planned Cost New Gravity Sewer Main 12 27,000 $15,855,000 15 8,100 $6,232,000 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 67 Description Pipe Size (inch) Pipe Length (feet) Total Planned Cost 18 13,600 $7,912,000 21 300 $165,000 30 3,400 $3,209,000 36 21,800 $15,585,000 42 21,300 $23,173,000 Lift Station – (WWTP)2 - - $7,450,000 Lift Station – (Northeast)2 - - $6,898,000 WWFP Facility Capital Improvement Projects - - $34,537,000 CSP Gravity Sewer Main1, 3 21 5,341 $2,884,000 30 9,171 $6,302,000 Lift Station – Northwest Area1 - - $2,213,000 Total Cost $132,415,000 Notes: Cost taken from CSP and were escalated using ENR CCI values. Cost assumes to include the force main. These are listed separately due to the changes to basins and corridors. A direct correlation wasn’t feasible. Industrial Wastewater Treatment The City also owns, maintains and operates a separate industrial wastewater treatment plant (PWRF – Process Water Reuse Facility) that collects, stores and then applies food processor wastewater to farm circles north of the City as irrigation. The PWRF is an industrial facility that receives the discharge of process water from six food processors in the region. The PWRF is a public/private partnership. The PWRF and associated farm circle properties are located in an area of irrigated agriculture production fields on approximately 1,800 acres north of Pasco and east of Highway 395 in Franklin County. The City of Pasco has owned and operated the PWRF since 1995. Future Needs The City’s CSP identified several projects related to the improvements needed to the PWRF which address deficiencies within the system over the next 20 years. The following table lists priority projects from the 2020 CIP. Table CF‐6: Process Water Reuse Facility Capital Improvement Projects Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) Columbia East Lift Station & Force Main 2020 Unsecured Revenue Bond Federal EDA Grant WA State Capital Budget Franklin Co. 09 Grant $8,309,000 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 68 Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) PWRF Irrigation Pump Station (IPS) Improvements 2020 Unsecured Revenue Bond HAEFIC Loan $5,100,000 PWRF Primary Treatment Improvement 2020-2021 State PWB Loan Unsecured Revenue Bond $22,644,000 Total $36,053,000 Notes: Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan **Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available or possible in the future as identified in the CIP. Stormwater Storm water is handled in Pasco by the storm sewer system, on-site collection and dissipation systems or grassy swales along roadways. A stormwater conveyance pipe system is used in the older parts of the City to accept storm run-off from adjacent land developments as well as streets. In recent years the City has been requiring development to mitigate the effects of storm water runoff at projects. This eliminates the need for an extensive stormwater conveyance pipe system. Street drainage in newer areas is also accomplished in a similar fashion by the use of catch basins and infiltration facilities or grassy swales along the side of the street or by detention/infiltration ponds. The arid and often windy climate which evaporates moisture quickly enables these methods to function effectively and avoids affecting the waters of the Columbia River. The City of Pasco will continue to require onsite storm water retention methods through the planning period and beyond. The City prepared a separate Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan in 2016. That Plan and amendments thereto, are made a part of this Compr ehensive Plan by reference. The storm water system includes over 50 miles of stormwater pipeline, 2,768 Catch Basins, 835 manholes and over 13 miles of exfiltration storm drain. Future Needs The City strives to maintain the level of service of the storm water system by addressing existing and potential issues. Improvements are identified with the following solutions: Stormwater infrastructure rehabilitation; and  Water quality protection.  A list of capital projects has been identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. Most of the site-specific problems identified in the plan are localized flooding issues caused by inadequate system capacity, failing and or reduced performance of aging system components, or poor design and construction of stormwater facilities. The following is a list of the projects identified in the 2020 CIP which need to be addressed in the next six years. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 69 Table CF‐7: Storm Capital Improvement Projects Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources* Total Cost ($) 1st Avenue Pipe Rehab 2022 Utility Rate $249,000 Annual Stormwater Improvements - Development 2020-2025 Utility Rate $300,000 North Industrial Way Infiltration Retrofit Project 2020 Utility Rate $150,000 Stormwater Projects Allocated from Transportation 2020-2022 Utility Rate $585,000 Sylvester Pipe Relining 2022 Utility Rate $330,000 TOTAL $1,614,000 Notes: Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan *Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available or possible in the future as identified in the CIP. Irrigation System The City owns and operates a non-potable water utility that provides irrigation water to residential customers and a limited number of commercial customers in the northwest part of the City. The irrigation system serves residential, commercial and public facility users. Providing a system for irrigation water separate from the drinking water utility allows the City’s customers to avoid using treated drinking water to irrigate. The City’s existing irrigation system is supplied by water from 11 groundwater wells and water pumped from the Columbia River and distributed via 135 miles of PVC, ductile iron, and steel distribution pipes ranging from 3 to 24 inches in diameter. The City acquired the first portions of the system in 2002 from a private irrigation utility. The system has grown considerably since that time. The City uses the irrigation system annually from April 1st to October 31st. The 2013 Irrigation System Master Plan (ISMP) recommended capital improvements to ensure the continued delivery of economical irrigation water to City’s residents. The irrigation system has six pressure zones which are separated by pressure- reducing stations. The 2013 ISMP identified that total irrigation area was approximately 1,492 acres located in the northwest part of the City. Future development and improvements of the irrigation system are primarily limited to development within the existing service area. Expansion of the system beyond the existing service area is based on the available irrigation water rights, which would allow for the additional place of use. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 70 Future Needs The City’s Water System Plan also identified several projects related to the irrigation system. The purpose of these projects is to address deficiencies within the system over the next 20 years. The following table lists priority projects from the 2020 CIP. Table CF‐8. Irrigation System Capital Improvement Projects Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($) Annual System Improvements - Development 2020-2025 Utility Rate $300,000 Chapel Hill Boulevard to Interstate 182 — Irrigation Main 2020 Utility Rate $100,000 Columbia River Intake Capacity Upgrades 2020 Utility Rate $170,000 Irrigation Project Allocated from Transportation 2020 Utility Rate $9,000 Well Capacity Upgrades 2021-2023 Utility Rate $1,410,000 TOTAL $1,989,000 Notes: Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan **Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available or possible in the future as identified in the CIP. Schools General education in Pasco is provided by the Pasco School District. The School District’s latest Capital Facilities Plan was updated in 2016 and identified educational facilities needs in the Pasco School District over a 6-year planning horizon. The plan compared the district’s current facilities to present and future educational needs. Alternates to satisfy projected educational needs are identified in the plan and recommendations are presented to ensure facilities are available to meet the needs of student enrollments. As of 2019, the School District reportedly served 17,891 students, an increase of 14% since 2011. Based on the 2016 School Plan, there are fifteen (15) elementary schools providing a capacity to serve 7,735 students in permanent capacity. As of October 1, 2015, there were 9,940 elementary students enrolled. There are 129 portable classrooms at the elementary schools. Since 2014, the District has added 33 new portable classrooms as temporary capacity. There are three (3) middle schools providing a capacity to serve approximately 2,814 students, and two traditional high schools with a capacity to serve 3,931 students. The School District is adding and upgrading the following schools: Three Rivers Elementary; expected to be completed in 2019  Columbia River Elementary; expected to be completed in 2020  Replace Stevens Middle School; expected to be completed in 2021  Reynolds Middle School, expected to be completed in 2020  CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 71 The need for school sites, buildings, and supporting facilities will continue to grow as population expands. The School facilities plans are to be updated in 2020 and the City will continue to work with the school district during the development review process to ensure that the impacts of development on the school district are minimized. The City’s future land use plan recognizes the need of additional approximately 160 acres of land to meet the school district’s need. The District funds capital projects through bonds, state match or State Construction Assistance Program (SCAP), and school impact fees, SEPA mitigation fees. Essential Public Facilities Introduction Essential public facilities (EPF) are capital facilities typically difficult to site because of potential adverse impacts related to size, bulk, hazardous characteristics, noise, or public health and safety. EPF’s include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in- patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities(SCTF). WAC 365-196-550 provides a list of EPF’s and suggests a potential siting. The GMA precludes local comprehensive plans or development regulations from prohibiting the siting of essential public facilities. [RCW 36.70A.200 (5)] The distinction between lands identified for public purposes, as shown on the land use map contained in Appendix A, and EPF’s can create confusion. Table CF-8 illustrates the distinction. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 72 Table CF‐9. Distinguishing Public Purpose Lands from Essential Public Facilities Public Purpose Lands Essential Public Facilities FOCUS: Lands needed to accommodate public facilities. Lands needed to provide the full range of services to the public provided by government, substantially funded by government, contracted for by government, or provided by private entities to public service obligations. Examples:  Utility corridors  Transportation corridors  Sewage treatment facilities  Storm water management facilities  Recreation facilities  Schools  Other public uses FOCUS: Facilities needed to provide public services and functions that are typically difficult to site. Those public facilities that are usually unwanted by neighborhoods have unusual site requirements or other features that complicate the siting process. Examples:  Airports  Large-scale transportation facilities  State educational facilities  Correctional facilities  Solid waste handling facilities & landfills  Inpatient facilities (substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes) Existing Facilities A few of the EPF’s located in Pasco include the PSC, the Basin Disposal solid waste transfer station, the Franklin County jail, the Benton-Franklin Detox Center, Lourdes Medical Center, Columbia Basin College and the Chevron Tank Farms. Transportation facilities within the City include Interstate Highway I-182, US 395, US 12, and the BNSF Classification yard. The Columbia-Snake River System is also identified as an EPF as it provides an important inter modal commercial transportation network for the state extending to the Pacific Ocean. Siting The siting process should be consistent with the Franklin CWPP. Policy IV of the CWPP indicates that the County and Cities, along with public participation, shall develop a cooperative regional process to site EPF of regional and statewide importance. The objective of the process shall be to ensure that such facilities are located so as to protect environmental quality, optimize access and usefulness to all jurisdictions, and equitably distribute economic benefits/burdens throughout the region or county. No local comprehensive plan or development regulations will preclude the siting of essential public facilities, but standards may be generated to ensure that reasonable compatibility with other land uses can be achieved. Siting Criteria The City establishes the siting criteria with the understanding that some EPF’s may not pose any siting difficulties beyond those associated with commercial or public developments. The Planning Director will determine if the facility is an Essential CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 73 Public Facility. If the facility does not present siting difficulties, it will be relegated to the normal siting process applicable to a facility of its type, as identified in the PMC. Pasco reviews the siting of EPF’s with a process established in PMC 25.200, Special Permits. EPF’s are listed as unclassified uses in the City’s development regulations. As such these uses are generally not restricted by zoning districts, but due to their nature require extraordinary review through the special permit review process prior to locating within the City. Unclassified uses are listed in PMC 25.200.20 and include the facilities discussed above. If the facility does present siting difficulties, it should be subjected to the siting process as follows: Option 1 1. Determining the Essential Public Facilities. Determine whether the facility is identified as an EPF in the City, County or State list of such facilities and is consistent with the definition under the Growth Management Act. Also, determine that it provides services to the public and there are difficulties in siting the facility in terms of limited availability of sites, location needing proximity to another public facility, and anticipated adverse environmental impact. 2. Review and permit. Review should determine the applicability of the facility, whether such facility already exists, and the service level is adequate. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan should also be reviewed. The City will participate in an inter-agency review if the facility is of a statewide, countywide or regional nature. Alternative sites for appropriate location and regional fair share should also be considered during the interagency review. Finally, impacts should be identified along with appropriate mitigations measures. The review process can be a case-by-case approach where additional review processes may be required due to the unique nature of the facility. Public should be engaged according to the statutory requirements, and if the facility is anticipated to have an impact on the community. Permitting should begin according to the City’s development regulations after determination and review of such facilities. Conditions can be added during the permitting process to address adverse impacts. Option 2 The following additional review shall be combined with the permitting process. However, some review shall be required prior to the permitting process, such as finding the appropriate location for the facility. Applicability. Review shall determine the need of the facility in the light of  established level of service. It shall review whether such facility already exists, and the service level is adequate or can be accommodated in an existing facility. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 74 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Facilities shall be consistent with  the Comprehensive Plan land use map and policies. Facilities, if provided through a special district plan, the special districts plan must also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Multi‐jurisdictional approach and CWPP. The facility needs to be consistent  with the County-Wide Planning Policies. Interagency review shall be required if the facility is of a statewide, countywide or regional nature. Location. Review of alternative sites for appropriate location and regional fair  share considerations. Facilities shall be allowed in the zoning districts according to the Essential  Public Facilities table. Review and compare between several alternative sites within the City if it is a  City provided Essential Public Facility. Consider several alternative sites in other jurisdictions as well if the facility is a  state or county Essential Public Facility providing services of regional nature. Impact and mitigation. Identify the potential impacts of the proposed facility.  Impacts shall be identified in the most comprehensive manner to include social, environmental and economic impacts. Measures shall be taken to mitigate the adverse impacts such as noise, odor, pollution, traffic, aesthetics and health and safety concerns. Cost‐benefit analysis. The facility’s financial impact on the City shall be  analyzed. If analysis shows that it would cause a disproportionate financial burden for the community, an agreement shall be required among jurisdictions to mitigate the adverse financial burden when the facility offers regional services. Case‐by‐case approach. Director of the Community Planning or person of a  similar responsibility may add additional review process if required due to the unique nature of the facility. Conditions shall be added in each case to mitigate the adverse impacts and to make the facility compatible with the affected area. All the issues that make the specific facility difficult to site shall be appropriately addressed and mitigated. Public involvement. The public shall be notified according to the statutory  requirements. Public meetings shall be conducted by the applicant before the public hearing to address public concerns. Funding Sources for Capital Facilities Funding sources are of several types and are designed either for one specific application or may be used for a variety of projects. As an example, sources of grant money for transportation facility construction are dedicated to that single general purpose. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 75 The City of Pasco uses several different financing sources to pay for capital projects. Typically, large capital projects are financed through long-term bonded debt and grants and loans. Capital improvements will be funded by a variety of funding sources which range from the City of Pasco, late comer agreements and grants and loans. Funding sources for all planned capital projects are indented in Tables CF-5 through CF-8. State statutes set out the powers local governments have for funding capital and other projects. There are four generic types of local government project funding: taxes, fees, grants, and dedicated funds from State revenues. The following is a description of funding sources. Taxes Property Tax Property tax levies are most frequently used means of supporting operational and maintenance expenses due to the recurring nature of both. It is also used to meet general obligation bond debt service costs. Under State law local governments are prohibited from increasing the property tax levy more than the lesser of 1% or the implicit price deflator as of July of the previous year. Retail Sales and Use Tax There is levied a total of 8.6% on all retail sales, except for off-premise food and drugs. The allocation of the 8.6% is as follows: • State - 6.5% • County - 1.5% • City - 0.60% The City does not need to designate how their portion of the sales taxes will be spent. Real Estate Excise Tax The state authorizes a tax of 1.28% on the sale of all real estate. RCW 82.46 authorizes cities, planning under the GMA, to assess an additional tax on real estate sales of .25%. These funds must be spent on capital projects listed in the capital facilities plan. A second .25% may also be levied to help defray the costs of development and rehabilitation. The City levies both .25% taxes for use in funding capital projects. Lodging Excise Taxes RCW 67.28 authorizes a 2% tax on all charges for lodging furnished for a continuous period of less than one month. This tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% State sales tax assessed on the lodging charges for the promotion of tourism, acquisition and or operation of tourism related facilities (i.e. specific stadium, convention, performance or CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 76 visual arts facilities). An additional 2% tax can be levied for a total rate of 4%. The additional 2% levy does not reduce the sales tax rate. Leasehold Excise Tax RCW 82.29A authorizes a 12.84% tax on the permanent occupancy of publicly-owned premises for private use for 30 days or more. The tax is a substitute for regular property taxes to compensate for services provided. The tax is sent to the Department of Revenue which keeps 6.84%, with 2% of the remaining 6% going to the County and 4% going to the City. The purpose for which the money will be used does not need to be specified. Commercial Parking Tax The Transportation Improvement Act authorizes a tax on commercial parking based on either gross proceeds, the number of parking stalls or on the number of users. Revenues must be spent for general transportation purposes, including highways, public transportation, high capacity transportation, transportation planning, etc. Currently, the City of Pasco does not impose a Commercial Parking Tax. Business and Occupation Tax RCW 35.1 1 authorizes cities to collect this tax on the gross or net income of businesses, not to exceed a rate of .2%. Revenue thus received may be used for capital facilities acquisition, construction, maintenance and operations. Voter approval is required to initiate the tax or increase the tax rate to be applied Gambling Tax RCW 9.46 provides for a tax on gambling revenues. Currently the City collects 5% of the gross revenue less the amount paid for prizes for bingo and raffles, 10% of gross receipts for punch boards and pull-tabs, and 10% of gross receipts on all card games. Funding is primarily used for gambling enforcement. Admission Tax All cities may levy an admission tax in an amount no greater than five percent of the admission charge, as is authorized by RCW 35.21.280. This tax can be levied on admission charges (including season tickets) to places such as theaters, dance halls, circuses, clubs that have cover charges, observation towers, stadiums, and any other activity where an admission charge is made to enter the facility. The statute provides exceptions for admission to elementary or secondary school activities and any public facility of a city or county public facility district for which the district has levied an admission tax under RCW 35.57.100 or 36.100.210. A city may, however, impose its own tax on admission to activities at a public facility district, in addition to the tax the district levies, if the revenue is used for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or enhancement of that public facility or to develop, support, operate, or enhance programs in that public facility.139 The admission tax must be collected, administered, and audited by the city. Some cities CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 77 exempt certain events sponsored by nonprofits from the tax. This is not a requirement, however. At this time the City’s admission tax is 2.5 percent which applies to all for profit admission fees within the City. Local Option Sales Tax Local government may collect a tax on retail sales of up to 1.1%, of which .1% can be used only for criminal justice purposes. Imposition of this tax requires voter approval. Utility Tax RCW 35.21 authorizes cities to place a tax on the gross receipts of electricity, gas, garbage, telephone, cable TV, water, sanitary sewer and storm water management providers. The current rate is 8.5%. Emergency Medical Services The State authorizes $.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation property tax levy which may be enacted by fire and hospital districts, cities, towns, and counties. Fire Districts The State authorizes a levy limit of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for fire and emergency medical response service. Park and Recreation Services Area RCW 36.68.400 authorizes park and recreation service areas as junior taxing districts for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance or operation of any park, senior citizen activity center, zoo, aquarium and recreational facility. The maximum levy limit is $.15 per $1000 assessed valuation. The Park and Recreation Service District can generate revenue from either the regular or excess property tax levies and through general obligation bonds, subject to voter approval. Flood Control Special Purpose District RCW 86.15.160 authorizes flood control special purpose districts with independent taxing authority (up to a $.50 property tax levy limit without voter approval), to finance flood control capital facilities. In addition, the district can, with voter approval, use an excess levy to pay for general obligation debt. This is unneeded in the Pasco UGA. Storm Drainage Payment In Lieu of Assessment Revenues from this fund may be used for the construction, maintenance and/or repair of storm drainage facilities, acquisition of property, or related debt service. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 78 Utility Revenue Bonds and Property Tax Excess Levy See above for a general discussion of general obligation bonds. The amount of local government debt for utility bands is restricted by law to 25% of the taxable value of property. Local government utilities tend to use bonds backed by utility user fees rather than general obligation bonds. Fees Park User Fees and Program Fees The City charges fees for using park facilities, or for participating in recreational programs. Park Impact Fees RCW 82.02.050-080 and 090 authorizes local governments to enact impact fees to fund parks and recreational facilities necessary to serve new development. These fees are usually collected at the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for park and recreation costs that are paid by other sources of revenue. Additional credit can also be given to developers that contribute land, improvements or other assets. These impact fees are in addition to any mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA, local improvement districts, etc. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet current deficiencies, and cannot be used for operating expenses. Sewer Districts/Users Fees This is a special purpose district that must be established by the voters of the affected area. Once established with an operating levy it may assess properties in the district for operating and other expenses within approved limits and perform all the duties and responsibilities related to the construction, maintenance, and operation of sewage collection and treatment. The State authorizes cities, counties and special purpose districts to collect fees from wastewater generators. Fees may be based upon the amount of potable water consumed or may be flat rate fees. The revenue may be used for capital facilities or operating and maintenance costs. Water User Fees State authorized rate charged to each residential and commercial customer, based on the volume of water used. Revenue may be used for capital facilities, operations and maintenance. Road Impact Fees ESHB 2929 authorizes impact fees to pay for roads required to serve new development. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet current deficiencies and cannot be used for operating expenses. Road CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 79 impact fees must also be directly related to the impacts created by the development and must be utilized within 5 years or returned. Local Option Vehicle License Fee RCW 82.80 authorizes a county-wide local option fee up to $15 maximum annually per vehicle registered in the county, subject to a January 1, 2000 "sunset". Revenues are distributed back to the county and cities within the county levying the tax on a weighted per-capita basis (1.5 for population in unincorporated areas and 1.0 in incorporated areas). Revenues must be spent for general transportation purposes. Street Utility Charge RCW 35.95.040 authorizes cities to charge for city street utilities in order to maintain, operate, and preserve city streets. Facilities which may be included in a street utility include street lighting, traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking facilities, and drainage facilities. Households and businesses may be charged a fee up to 50% of actual costs of construction, maintenance, and operations while cities provide the remaining 50%. The fee charged to businesses is based on the number of employees and may not exceed $2 per full-time employee per month Owners or occupants of residential property are charged a fee per household which may not exceed $2 per month. System Development Fees The State authorizes a fee to connect to a sanitary sewer system based upon the capital cost of serving the new connection. User Fees and Program Fees Fees or charges for using City owned property, facilities or programs, such as swimming lessons. Fire Protection and Emergency Services Impact Fees ESHB 2929 authorizes impact fees to pay for fire protection and emergency service facilities required due to new development. These fees are usually collected at the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. Fire and emergency services fees are usually based on a flat rate for dwelling units by type and per square foot for non-residential uses. Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for fire and Emergency Services costs that are paid by other sources of revenue. Additional credit can also be given to developers that contribute land, improvements or other assets. These impact fees are in addition to any mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA, local improvement districts, etc. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet current deficiencies, and cannot be used for operating expenses. Fire and emergency services impact fees must also be directly related to the impacts created by the development and must be utilized within 5 years or returned. Currently, City of Pasco does not impose fire protection and emergency services impact fees. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 80 Storm Drain Utility Fee The State authorizes cities and counties to charge a fee to support storm drain capital improvements. The fee is usually a flat rate per month per residential equivalency. Residential equivalencies are based on an average amount of impervious surface. Commercial property is commonly assessed a rate based on a fixed number of residential equivalencies. School Impact Fees School impact fees are used for capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet current deficiencies and cannot be used for operating expenses. Bonds General Obligation Bonds There are two types of general obligation bonds. Those approved by the voters and those limited in amount that may be approved by the elected body of the county, city or special district, called council manic bonds. Voter-approved bonds increase the property tax rate so that for a given assessed value on a property, the owner will pay a higher percentage in taxes. This increase in taxes collected across the properties of the affected districts is exclusively dedicated to paying off the debt and interest of the money borrowed under the authority of the approved banding measure. As assessed property values increase, the bonds may be paid off in a shorter timeframe than originally projected. Approval for general obligation bonds requires 60% of the number of voters provided the voter turnout is at least 40% of the turnout at the last previous general election. Council manic bonds are different than voter-approved bonds because they do not have associated with them the authority to raise taxes. Council manic bonds must be paid off from the operating budget created with general tax revenues. Lease-Purchase arrangements also fall in this general type of financing public facilities. The amount of local government debt allowable in the form of general obligation bonds is limited to 7.5% of the taxable value of property in the jurisdiction. This is divided so that a jurisdiction cannot use all of its bonding capacity for one type of improvement. The total general obligation bonding capability is divided as follows: 2.5% general purpose use, 2.5% for utility bonds, and 2.5% open space and park facilities. If the jurisdiction has an approved General Purpose Bond with unused capacity, as much as 1.5% of the 2.5% may be used as council manic bonds. Special Assessment District Bonds Special assessment districts, such as Local Improvement Districts (LID), Road Improvement Districts (RID) and Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULID), may be formed by the city to finance capital facilities required by other entities (property owners, developers, etc.). These capital facilities are funded through the issuance of CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 81 special assessment bonds, paid for by the entities benefited. Use of special assessment bonds is restricted to the purpose for which the special assessment district is created. Grants and Loans Community Development Block Grant Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development makes financial assistance available through this program to local general purpose governments. This money must be must be used for eligible activities such as public facilities projects, economic development, housing, etc. which benefit low and moderate income households. Community Economic Revitalization Board The State Department of Commerce provides low interest loans and occasional grants to finance public sewer, water, access roads, bridges, and other facilities in support of a specific private sector development project which will trade goods and services outside of the State. One of the objectives is to create one job per each $3000 of loan or grant money made available. Public Works Trust Fund Grant The State Department of Commerce provides low interest loans for capital facilities, planning, emergency planning and construction of bridges, roads, domestic water, sanitary sewer, and storm water. Applicant jurisdictions must have a capital facilities plan in place and must be levying the original .25% real estate excise tax. Construction and emergency planning projects must be for construction or reconstruction of existing capital facilities only. Capital Improvement Planning projects are limited to streets and utilities. Special Purpose Districts RCW 67.38.130 authorizes cultural arts, stadium/convention special purpose districts with independent taxing authority to finance capital facilities. The special district requires a majority voter approval for formation and has an annual funding limit of $25 per $1000 of assessed valuation; these districts may be formed across the borders of other governmental units. State Parks and Recreation Commission Grants State Parks and Recreation Commission grants are available for the acquisition of land and capital improvement projects for parks and recreation purposes. Funds come from both State and Federal sources and are granted on a 50% State and 50% Local basis. Department of Health Grants & Loans State grants & loans for technical assistance and updating existing water systems, are available for ensuring effective management, and achieving maximum conservation of CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 82 safe drinking water. Matching requirements for grant vary depending on the program and loan rates for loan programs. Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant The State Department of Ecology issues grants and loans for the design, acquisition, construction and improvement of water pollution control facilities and related activities to meet State and Federal requirements and to protect water quality. Future funding cannot be reliably forecast. Department of Ecology Grants The State Department of Ecology grants to local governments for a variety of programs related to solid waste, including Remedial Action Grants to assist with local hazardous waste sites, Moderate Risk/Hazardous Waste Implementation Grants to manage local hazardous waste, and Food and Yard Waste Composing Grants. Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) program In the 2009 Legislative Session Senate Bill 2SSB 5045 Chapter 270 was adopted creating the Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) program. The program helps local governments finance public improvement projects that encourage private development within a revitalization area. The LRF program authorizes cities and counties to create “revitalization areas” and allows certain increases in local sales and use tax revenues and local property tax revenues generated from within the revitalization area, additional funds from other local public sources, and a state contribution to be used for payment of bonds issued for financing local public improvements within the revitalization area. The state contribution is provided through a new local sales and use tax that is credited against the state sales and use tax (sometimes referred to as the “LRF tax”). This tax does not increase the combined sales and use tax rates paid by consumers. The Department of Revenue administers the LRF program. The state provides money to the local government sponsoring the LRF area through a local sales and use tax under RCW 82.14.510 (commonly referred to as the “LRF tax”). This local sales and use tax is credited against the state sales and use tax, so it does not increase the sales and use tax rate for the consumer. Instead, the LRF tax shifts revenue from the state general fund to the sponsoring local government. The maximum amount allowed statewide for state contributions to LRF is $4.75 million per state fiscal year. Of this amount, $2.25 million is allocated for the seven demonstration projects, and $2.5 million is allocated for the other projects approved on a first-come basis. The maximum amount of state contribution for each demonstration project is specified in the bill and ranges from $200,000 to $500,000 per project. The maximum state contribution for each project approved on a first-come basis is $500,000. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 83 National Highway System Grants The Washington State Department of Transportation awards grants for construction and improvement of the National Highway System. In order to be eligible projects must be a component of the National Highway System and be on the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. Funds are available on an 86.5% Federal to a 13.5% local match, dependent upon if the proposed project's ranking is sufficiently high enough on the Regional TIF list. Surface Transportation Program Grants This provides grants for road construction, transit capital projects, bridge projects, transportation planning, and research and development. To be eligible, a project must have a high enough ranking on the Regional TIP list. Funds are available on an 86.5% Federal to a 13.5% local match. Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program Grants The Washington State Department of Transportation provides grants on a statewide priority for structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. Funding is on an 80% Federal to 20% local match. Federal Aid Emergency Relief Grants This funding source is limited to restoration of roads and bridges on the federal aid system which are damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic failures. Funding is available at an 83.13% Federal to a 16.87% local match. Urban Arterial Trust Account Grants The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board manages funding for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion. Project funding is an 80% Federal and a 20% local match. Transportation Improvement Account Grants The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board manages funding for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion caused by economic development growth. Eligible projects should be multi-agency, multi-modal, congestion and economic development related which are partially funded locally. Funding is an 80% Federal to a 20% local match. State Revolving Fund Loans The State Department of Ecology administers low interest loans and loan guarantees for water pollution control projects. Applicants must demonstrate water quality need, have a facilities plan for water quality treatment, show ability to repay a loan through a dedicated source of funding, and conform to other State and Federal requirements. PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 84 Public Services Element Introduction The City of Pasco provides emergency response service in three significant areas: Emergency Medical, Fire, and Law Enforcement. Existing Services and Facilities Fire Pasco Fire Department (PFD) provides fire suppression, advanced life support, emergency medical services, ambulance transport services, technical rescue services, and hazardous materials services (through a regional partnership) to its service area community. The PFD, through a contract with the Port, also provides Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting services to the Pasco airport. As indicated in Figure PS-1, the City has four fully staffed fire stations—Stations 81, 82, 83, and 84. Station 81 is located on Oregon Avenue; Station 82 is located at the Tri- Cities Airport; Station 83 is located on Road 68, north of Argent Road; and Station 84 is located at the intersection of Road 48 and West Octave Street. These stations are staffed by full-time emergency medical personnel and firefighters. Figure PS‐1. Existing Stations and Pasco Fire Department Response Note: Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan, 2016 :. PFD 2014-2015 Incidents and 6 Minute Travel Time Model ' ··••t.rAo • 2014-2015 Incidents Travel T ime- Staffed Stations ~ 6 Minutes Travel -1 Pasco Fire Department Study Area PFD Fire Station • Staffed • Unstaffed 0 City of Pasco ,(,! Pasco UGB County Boundary llfl" • PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 85 The City also maintains a training facility, administrative offices, and the Franklin County Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) at the northeast corner of Maitland Avenue and Ainsworth Avenue. The City cooperates with the Franklin County Fire Protection District No. 3, which is a combination career/volunteer-supported fire protection service. The District has one fire station in the Riverview area providing service to the unincorporated islands within west Pasco. The Fire District also maintains a fire station near the corner of Clark Road and Road 36. This Station can respond to emergencies inside the UGA. The UGA is served by a total of six fire stations—four within the city limits and two in the County. However, the Tri-Cities community as a whole relies heavily on an extensive Automatic Aid agreement. The agreement defines the “full effective response” for residential fires as 16 to 18 firefighters and commercial fire responses as 24 to 26 firefighters. In most cases, none of the agencies can supply that force with their own on-duty staff. The PFD experienced 74.7 emergency responses per 1,000 population in its service area in 2015, which is eight more responses per 1,000 population served (or 544 total responses more per year) than the regional median. Police Law enforcement services for the City are provided by the City Police Department. Unincorporated areas of the UGA are served by the County Sheriff. The City and County law enforcement agencies cooperate readily when the need arises. Pasco currently has 1.03 patrol officers per 1,000 people. The Pasco Police Department provides service to the community through two divisions. The Field Operations Division responds to citizen complaints, handles traffic enforcement, accident investigations, and reporting, and is primarily responsible for maintaining public order. The Support Operations Division includes the investigative services detectives, the street crimes unit, Task Force detectives, Area and School Resource Officers, and the Records Division. The primary function of Support Operations consists of investigating serious criminal offenses, internal affairs investigations, record management, and department wide training. The City is divided into four patrol districts with a mini-station located in each district. Police mini-stations are located in Chiawana Park, Kurtzman Park, the Central Business District, and Alderwood Square. The new police department community services building completed construction in early 2017 and is located on Sylvester Street, directly east of Pasco City Hall. PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 86 Level of Service Fire The adopted standards for emergency incidents, as identified in the Emergency Services Master Plan and by Council Resolution are: Turnout Time: 2:00 minutes or less 90% of the time (From the time dispatched  to apparatus en route) o Which the fire department meets 67% of the time Travel Time: 6:00 minutes or less 90% of the time (From the time apparatus is  en route to the arrival of the first apparatus on scene) o Which the fire department meets 62% of the time. Travel Time: 6:00 minutes or less 90% of the time (For the arrival of an  advanced life support apparatus) o Which the fire department meets 74% of the time. Travel Time: 12:00 minutes or less 90% of the time (For the arrival of the full  first alarm assignment at a fire suppression event) o Which the fire department meets 50% of the time There are two areas that impact the travel time in an incident response. Both are related to travel distance. One is the distance for the first due station to travel and the other is coverage by a second due station when the first due is on a previous call. The determining factor in adding additional fire stations will be the ability of the fire department to meet council-established travel times. Developing areas outside the 6-minute travel time will impact the ability to provide service throughout the City. Additional staffing at existing stations, or a need for an additional station is determined when multiple simultaneous events occur within any particular station’s service area. Travel time is also a determining factor in this regard. Police The current service standard is approximately one patrol district and mini-station for every 18,000 residents. Police services are delivered to the community by direct contact with officers who are permanently assigned to each patrol district. They are further supported by the assignment of Area Resource Officers who connect and build a collaborative partnership with the community and assist in problem-solving. Specialty services are also delivered in the following areas: Area Resource Officer  School Resource Officer  Detectives  PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 87 Street Crimes Unit  Taskforce Officers  Traffic Enforcement  Homeless Liaison Officers  Projected Demand Fire The Emergency Services Master Plan examines low, moderate, and high-risk land areas in order to provide services. Much of the east Pasco industrial- and Port-owned lands are considered high risk as opposed to low-risk residential development areas. Commercial and office uses in the City Center areas, and along Road 68, are considered moderate risk areas. Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan 2016 projects service demand through 2040. According to this plan, PFD service demand grew by over 20% in the last five years. Based on projected population growth, PFD can expect to see service demand continue to increase. Fires, of all types, demonstrate the lowest rate of increase. This reflects a national trend and can be attributed to improvements in building codes and fire prevention over the last several decades. The Emergency Medical System is expected to continue to be the predominant factor affecting service demand. Other incidents (including hazmat, alarm sounding, and service calls) not involving actual fires are predicted to increase in part due to the use of automatic alarm systems, which decrease the number of actual fires but increase service demand. Police As the population increases, additional patrol districts and mini-stations will be established to maintain quality service level. Future Services As development occurs within the City and portions of the UGA are annexed, the need for Police and Fire services will also need to be expanded. The increased service demands and costs will be offset by added revenues associated with development. Development into the far northwest portions of the UGA will also bring with it a need for additional fire stations and Police mini-stations along with new police patrol districts and mini-stations. The 2016 Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan proposes a reconfiguration of stations and an extended service area as shown in Figure PS-2. This will be completed by the end of 2021. Property for an additional station has been purchased at 3624 Road 100. Additional station locations need to be determined in the northwest area of the City and in the industrial area off of the Kartchner interchange. PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 88 Figure PS‐2. Proposed Reconfiguration of Stations ‐ 2020 to 2021 Note: Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan, 2016 Adoption of Plans by Reference The Police Services Strategic Plan and amendments, the Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan, and Pasco Fire Department Strategic Plan 2017 thereto are hereby adopted and made a part of Comprehensive Plan by reference. . i Proposed 4 Staffed Station Deployment (81 ,82,Relocated 83 , Relocated 84) ~ c, ..... , .. A•• • Staffed Station Travel Time -Proposed Staffed Station ~ 6 Minutes Travel Pasco Fire Department Study Area PFD Fi re Station • Staffed • Unstaffed 0 City of Pasco ,(,! Pasco UGB County Boundary Miles TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 89 Transportation Element RCW 36.70A.070 (6) Introduction The purpose of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure the transportation system within the UGA is preserved and enhanced to meet the needs of our community. The Transportation Element must consider all modes of transportation—from walking to aviation. The Washington State Growth Management Act requires the Transportation Element to consider existing inventories of services and facilities, LOS, system deficiencies, regional coordination, land use patterns, and goals and policies, among other items. An efficient and well-maintained transportation network is vital to the social and economic well-being of any community. Reliable access on our roadways, sidewalks and pathways ensures community members and visitors are able to travel to the places they need. The Transportation Element considers our rapidly growing city, changing demographics, and quality of life for our community members. It recognizes the need to look into the conditions of the future and not limit the flexibility of our travel in the years to come by what is decided today. County‐Wide Planning Policies Franklin County adopted its County-Wide Planning Policies in October 2019, and encourages efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with the comprehensive plans of Franklin County, the Cities of Pasco, Mesa, Connell and Kahlotus, the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. The County-Wide Planning Policies related to transportation are contained in Appendix B. • TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 90 Regional Coordination and Referenced Plans The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Transportation Management Area (TMA) for the Tri-Cities metropolitan area. BFCG is recognized under Washington State Law (RCW 47.80.020) as the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) for Benton and Franklin counties. BFCG members include cities, towns, counties, ports, public transportation (Ben Franklin Transit), and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). BFCG is responsible for the development of a long-range Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan (Transition 2040) that sets transportation policies and goals, which address regionally significant transportation opportunities and deficiencies with recommendations for all of Benton and Franklin counties. The City of Pasco coordinates transportation issues and planning on a regional basis through the BFCG. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be consistent with the goals and policies identified in Transition2040 below: Safety and Security  Preservation  Mobility and Accessibility  Freight and Economic Vitality  Community and Environmental Sustainability  Ben Franklin Transit (BFT) is the regional public transportation service provider. Each year, BFT adopts Transit Development Plan as required by the Washington State Legislature and the Federal Transit Administration. The plan identifies projects and programming consistent with regional policies. Elected officials and staff for the City of Pasco serve on the policy and technical advisory boards of both BFCG and BFT. Local coordination also takes place between the City of Pasco and Franklin County to ensure local transportation plans and projects are consistent and compatible. Complete Streets Policy Complete Streets is a term used to describe a street that is designed to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages. While broad in nature, a complete street is unique and responds to community context. Different neighborhoods require different solutions ranging from the wider sidewalks in Downtown Pasco, and bike lanes connecting residential and commercial corridors, to comfortable and accessible transit stops. Complete Streets benefit Pasco by creating a livable community for all users for all trips. They improve equity, safety, and public health, and can help reduce transportation costs and congestion. The City of Pasco adopted a Complete Streets TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 91 Policy (PMC 12.15) in 2018. It is intended to increase the overall safety of the community and support the desirability of Pasco as a place to live and conduct business. The City will evaluate Level of Traffic Stress indicators for pedestrians and bicyclists as determined by the Regional Active Transportation Plan. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) focuses on understanding how people make their transportation decisions and helping identify existing infrastructure that is in place for transit, walking, biking, telecommuting, and ridesharing. At a basic level, TDM is a program of information, encouragement, and incentives that can be provided, at the local or regional level, to help people utilize and understand all of their transportation options. The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments completed the 2019 Congestion Management Process that has identified TDM strategies that can include the following: Flexible work hours  Pedestrian and bicycle network improvements  Ride sharing programs  Congestion pricing  Telecommuting programs  Transit Oriented Development  Parking Management  The strategies identified above are an example of what can be helpful; however, the context of their applicability will be an important factor in applying any one or combination of them. Transportation and Land Use Transportation and land use decisions influence each other directly by affecting the amount of land used for transportation facilities such as roads and parking lots, and indirectly by affecting accessibility and development costs in different locations. Figure T-1 provides an explanation of how decisions in the planning process impact travel behavior and potential costs. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 92 Figure T‐1. Transportation and Land Use As mentioned in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, understanding the relationship between transportation and land use is key to Pasco’s future success and sustainability. Land use policies and development patterns play a critical role in shaping our community and travel behaviors. For example, the compact neighborhoods of Central Pasco offer residents more of an opportunity to walk or use public transportation due to the closer proximity of services and destinations. Neighborhoods where essential services are spread out typically result in a reliance on driving. The complexity of these relationships further emphasizes the need for continued coordination and mutually supportive policies. As Pasco grows, the transportation system will face increased demand. In some areas of the City, there are limited opportunities to expand vehicle right-of-way without significant disruption and cost. Strategic investments will need to be made to serve a rapidly growing population that supports economic development while maintaining the quality of life of our residents. Transportation and the Environment Transportation has a significant impact on the environment. Motor vehicles consume non-renewable energy resources and in the process discharge waste products to the atmosphere. Street rights-of-way consume 25% of the developed land within the City. Congestion and traffic cause noise pollution and paved surfaces increase storm water run-off. The consumption of non-renewable resources with motor vehicles is an issue that requires national attention. Locally, programs to encourage van pooling, ride sharing, transit use, and non-motorized transportation can help reduce consumption of motor fuels that pollute the air. Table T-1 indicates examples of sustainable transportation goals. Planning Decisions *development standards *zoning *infrastructure investment Urban Form *density *connectivity *design Travel Behavior *automobile *public transit *walking *cycling Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts *congestion *safety *pollution • TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 93 Table T‐1. Sustainable Transportation Objectives Objectives Definition Economic Efficient Mobility Fast and affordable transport of people and goods Operational Efficiency Maximize efficiency of providing facilities and services Social Safety and Health Increased travel safety and public health Affordability Ability of households to afford basic transportation Social Equity Supportive of objectives including fair distribution of impacts (benefits and costs) Environmental Pollution Reductions Reduced air, noise, and water pollution Conservation Efficient use of scarce resources Preservation Preservation of farmlands, parks, and natural habitats In 2016, the Washington State Department of Ecology collaborated with local agencies, including the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, to conduct the Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study. The study measured precursors of ozone and is currently evaluating implementation of ozone reduction measures. In Transition2040, the region’s long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan, community and environmental sustainability was an identified goal aimed at making and enforcing transportation decisions that protect the environment and promote sustainable development. Transportation Inventory The Comprehensive Plan is required to identify an inventory of transportation facilities and services available within the city. Pasco’s transportation system is diverse in a variety of ways, due to its location along the Columbia River and being home to the only regional airport and passenger rail station. The following section will highlight the various modes of transportation and travel. Air Travel The PSC is owned and operated by the Port and is the largest in the Southeastern Washington and Northeastern Oregon regions. With connections to eight major hubs, it helps serve a vibrant and growing region with easy and reliable air travel. In the past five years, the number of enplanements at the airport has increased by nearly 100,000, which represents both the continued vibrancy of the region and the growing flight service available at the airport (Figure T-2). • TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 94 Figure T‐2. Destinations of Tri‐Cities Airport (PSC) The PSC is served by the following airlines: Delta, Alaska Air, United, and Allegiant, with flights to Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Phoenix-Mesa. Aircraft services include major and minor repair, navigational radio repair and sales, flight training, aircraft rental, aircraft charter, aircraft storage, and aircraft sales. Figure T-3 indicates total enplanements of PSC. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operates the Air Traffic Control Tower and the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) that provide airspace management and radar coverage to Pasco as well as several area airports. Figure T‐3. Pasco Airport Statistics ‐ Total Enplanements 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Total Enplanements 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 95 In 2014, the Port approved a $42 million renovation and expansion plan that doubled the size of the airport terminal. Construction was completed in January of 2017 and included a new west concourse along with new car rental and baggage claim areas. The recent improvements and services offered by the airport have resulted in a steady increase of passenger travel. In 2019, an additional 86,000 passengers traveled through the PSC, increasing the total to 870,890. The Port is currently developing a new Master Plan for the PSC. Marine Travel The Port owns and operates the Big Pasco Industrial Center and Container Terminal. Combined, they consist of over two miles of waterfront on the north side of the Columbia River, upstream from the mouth of Snake River. Connections for trucking and rail can be made at the terminal. A Port-owned rail spur connecting to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe serves the dock and yard area. Before 2005, the Port had the largest bulk cargo tonnage movement of any terminal on the upper river system and provided docking, loading and unloading for grain and petroleum barges. In 2004 the Port had moved 4,231 containers (101,126 tons) of cargo through its terminal. In 2008, however, many of the international shipping lines discontinued service at the Port of Portland, which subsequently shifted the bulk of the containers to rail and truck Nearby on the Snake River lies a barge terminal operated by Tidewater Barge Lines. The barge line ships grain down-river and petroleum products upriver. Rail Pasco Rail Yard Pasco has been a train switch and makeup center for over a century. BNSF Railway has several miles of mainline and a complex system of sidetrack within Pasco. BNSF also maintains a computerized classification yard in Pasco. Trains are moved into the yard and broken up and blocked for movement east, west, north, and south. The BNSF mainline from Vancouver to Spokane via Pasco sees 45 to 55 freight movements a day, accounting for more than 100 million gross ton miles per year. Loaded grain cars are also held or stored in Pasco prior to movement down river to Portland. BNSF also operates from the Tri-Cities to Auburn via Yakima, Ellensburg, and Stampede Pass. Passenger Rail Daily Amtrak passenger service is available in Pasco at the Pasco Intermodal Train Station. The station is on Amtrak’s Empire Builder line, servicing Portland to the west and Spokane to the east. From 2011 to 2018, the station averaged 23,572 passengers per year. Figure T-4 indicates the total boarding and alighting by year. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 96 Figure T‐4. Total Boarding and Alighting at Pasco Intermodal Train Station Recently, the Washington State Legislature commissioned a feasibility analysis of an east-west intercity passenger rail system over Stampede Pass, serving cities in the South Puget Sound and along the Yakima Valley, including connections to the Tri-Cities and Spokane. Public Transportation Pasco is served by the Ben Franklin Transit (BFT), which operates 17 fixed routes through the Tri-Cities metropolitan area. In addition to the fixed-route system, BFT provides a Dial-A-Ride service for community members. Taxi-contracted services were lost in late 2018; however, BFT restored night service on its bus routes to continue to serve passengers. Vanpool service has been a successful program for BFT, and in 2016, the program ranked fourth largest in the state. In 2017, BFT provided over two million unlinked passenger rides on its fixed route service, with another 646,200 trips on the BFT vanpool program. BFT operates nine routes in the City of Pasco that serve a variety of communities and neighborhoods including Columbia Basin College, Pasco and Chiawana High Schools, Downtown Pasco, Tierra Vida, and the Road 68 and Sandifur corridors. Figure T-5 and Figure T-6 provide journey to work statistics for Pasco and an illustrative map of where BFT fixed route services. Another popular service offered by BFT is their park and ride facilities, located on 22nd and Sylvester, and near the HAPO Center off Road 68. These locations and their capacities are identified Figure T-7. Data from the American Community Survey indicates that there has been a decrease in public transportation use in the City of Pasco. In 2009, 2.2% of all trips were made on public transportation, and in 2017 that decreased to less than 1%. 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 Total Passengers 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 97 Figure T‐5. Journey to Work (Public Transportation) Figure T‐6. BFT System Map 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 PCT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 25 •••••• 41 --- 42 --- 47 --- 48 --- ■ KEY 65 ~ ··-67 WN,/',, 110 - 120 - 121 - ■ ■ 126 -,so - 160 --- 170 225 - TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 98 Figure T‐7. BFT Park and Ride Facilities The 2019 Transit Development Plan for Ben Franklin Transit includes an emphasis on urban design to support transit facilities and technology. This includes equipping busses with Wi-Fi, and advocating for better land use and transportation integration to foster transit usage in the community. Further out, BFT has plans to develop new transit centers to serve Downtown Pasco and the planned growth in NW Pasco, specifically in the Broadmoor area. Streets, Roadways and Highways The City of Pasco currently manages and maintains approximately 322.88 centerline miles of public streets which does not include alleyways, private streets, or the State and Federal system. The citywide transportation system includes 56 controlled (signalized) intersections. City streets are federally required to be classified according to how they function within the overall transportation network. Table T-2 indicates functional classification description. BFT Service Area Park & Ride Capacity N Park & Rid♦S Capeity e 2s .110 • 111 -156 • 156 ·220 -W •lSS -2115,340 0 1 2 4 6 6 Miles A Lege nd --i:.«o~ c::JPubkTr,~IBene!ilN'N • TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 99 Table T‐2. Functional Classification Classification Description Principal Arterials Intercommunity and intra-metro area streets that are primarily used for traffic movement. Their general characteristics include moderate to high speeds that are generally 35 mph to 55 mph, high traffic generators, and no on-street parking Minor Arterials Intercommunity and intra-metro area streets that provide primarily for traffic movement and secondarily for land access. Their general characteristics include moderate speeds (30 mph and above) and moderate to high traffic volumes (5,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day), some restriction on traffic movements, controlled driveway spacing, and on-street parking is generally prohibited Collectors Streets with primary function to collect and distribute traffic between the local street system and the arterial street system. Collectors also provide for land access and inter-neighborhood traffic movement. Their general characteristics include low speeds (25 mph and above), low to moderate traffic volumes (500 to 20,000 vehicles per day), limited regulation of access control, and limited on-street parking Local Access Streets that primarily serve direct land access with the secondary function of traffic movement. Their general characteristics include low speeds (25 mph), low traffic volumes (less than 1,500 vehicles per day), few access controls, and parking is generally permitted Table T-3 below identifies the percentage of the transportation network within the City and their corresponding classification. Table T‐3. Mileage and Street Classification Street Classification Total Miles Pasco Federal Guidelines Interstate 18.92 4.92% 1-3% Other Freeways & Expressways 17.99 4.68% 0-2% Other Principle Arterials 16.82 4.37% 4-5% Minor Arterials 30.42 7.91% 7-14% Collectors 45.97 11.95% 7-15% Local Access 254.46 66.17% 63-75% TOTAL 384.58 100% State and Federal Transportation Facilities Pasco is connected to the region and the northwest by various state and federal transportation routes. These include Interstate I-182, US Highway 395, US Highway 12, and State Route 397 (Figure T-8). TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 100 Figure T‐8. Federal and State Facilities Table T-4 provides information on state route mileage in the City of Pasco. Table T‐4. State Route Mileage Route Beginning Mile Post Beginning Ending Mile Post Ending Route Miles I-182 6.04 Benton Co. Line at Columbia Point 15.19 East of Jct. SR 395/ SR 397 at Pasco 9.15 US 395 18.93 Benton Co. Line at Pasco/Kenn Bridge 25.53 Leave Pasco 6.60 US 12 291.67 End I-182 at Pasco 293.21 Leave Pasco 1.54 SR 397 6.26 Benton Co. Line at Pasco/Kenn Bridge 10.25 Jct. I-182/U.S. 395 at Pasco 3.99 Total Route Miles 21.28 Legend --Federal & State Facilities I I City Limit s -Pasco U rban Growth Boundary D Proposed -Urban Growth A rea --~----------..L-"'!" ___ ... • TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 101 Freight and Goods Transportation The movement of freights and goods plays an important role in the transportation system of the City and the regional economy. There are over 60 trucking firms licensed in Pasco, and while they are primarily located along industrial corridors, they have a significant impact on the overall transportation system. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has developed a classification system for the statewide Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS). This is a classification system for roadways, railways and waterways based on freight tonnage (Figure T-9). Figure T‐9. WSDOT FGTS Map In addition to the Freight and Goods Transportation System, the City of Pasco also establishes truck routes in the Municipal Code (PMC 10.80.040). Truck traffic and vehicles with a gross weight of 14,000 pounds or more are restricted to the streets identified in the transportation maps in Appendix A. Traffic Volumes The number of people traveling on our roadways is important in understanding how our community is using the transportation system. Tracking the volumes and the modes in which people are traveling can help with the maintenance of system in future years and identify which corridors are operating at capacity. Volumes for city and state transportation facilities are found in Table T-5. Legend FG T S -Classification --T-1 --T-2 --T-3 T-4 --T-5 ( I City Limits 1-.-~ __ J -Pasco Urban Growth Boundary c:J Proposed -Urban Growth Area TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 102 Table T‐5. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Comparison Historical Average Daily Traffic Volume Comparisons Roadway Location 2006 2010 2016 2018 %Change North‐South Roadways Road 68 Argent Rd to I-182 10,883 13,840 17,209 18,498 70% Burden Blvd to Sandifur Pkwy 18,976 22,886 18,215 18,837 -1% Sandifur Pkwy to North City Limits 8,177 9,883 10,444 11,142 36% Broadmoor Blvd Welsh Dr to St. Thomas Dr 6,418 7,576 9,994 9,986 56% St. Thomas Dr to I-182 12,789 16,208 21,765 22,163 73% I-182 to Sandifur Pkwy 10,472 10,255 21,596 22,434 114% East‐West Roadways Sandifur Pkwy Road 68 to Valdez Rd -- 8,009 12,106 13,609 70% Valdez Rd to Outlet Mall -- 9,135 11,507 13,449 47% Outlet Mall to Broadmoor Blvd 6,724 9,931 12,208 14,211 111% Burden Blvd Road 44 to Road 60 6,457 9,353 7,657 7,614 18% Road 60 to Robert Wayne Dr 7,770 11,455 15,233 17,044 119% Road 68 Pl to Road 68 11,432 12,847 21,558 23,267 104% Argent Rd 20th Ave to Road 44 -- 9,311 13,165 13,720 47% Road 52 to Road 68 3,548 4,969 6,211 6,316 78% Road 68 to Road 84 4,404 7,442 8,379 8,857 101% Notes: Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Regional Traffic Count Program --: not applicable The most traveled roadway in Pasco is Burden Boulevard, just east of Road 68, with a total mid-week average of over 23,000 vehicles. Broadmoor Boulevard, just north of Interstate I-182, experiences the second highest amount (22,434). WSDOT publishes truck traffic volumes on the state highway system (estimated, not actual counts) in their Annual Traffic Reports. The data includes truck percentages of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Table T-6 shows estimated truck volumes, at TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 103 selected sites in Pasco, on the state highway system between 2010 and 2016. The data shows substantial increases in estimated truck volumes in the primary corridors. Table T‐6. Average Daily Truck Traffic Average Daily Highway Truck Traffic ‐ 2010 to 2016 State Route Location 2010 Trucks 2012 Trucks 2014 Trucks 2016 Trucks 182 At Columbia River Bridge 3,342 3,356 3,568 3,867 395 After ramp SR 240 4,567 4,571 4,825 5,125 S/O Vineyard Dr. 3,151 3,190 3,375 3,656 Active Transportation (Non‐Motorized) Active transportation is an umbrella term that refers to any non-motorized transportation mode, for example, walking, biking, skateboarding, or using a wheelchair. Understanding the locations where community members travel when not in a vehicle is important in ensuring that the mobility needs of residents are met. The following section provides information on city bikeways, pathways, and sidewalk networks. Similar to the decrease in public transportation ridership, data from the American Community Survey shows that there has been a slight decrease in non-motorized mode travel to work. In 2017, 0.7% of all trips to work were made by foot or bicycle, compared to 2.1% in 2009 (Figure T-10). Figure T‐10. Journey to Work (Bike/Walk) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 PCT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 104 Sidewalks Walking may be the most important mode of transportation within the community. All other modes of travel begin and end with people walking. A well-connected community also includes safe access to sidewalks from our residential neighborhoods and along our major travel corridors. Sidewalks are required in all residential neighborhoods within city limits. In areas with higher movements of people, sidewalks are required to provide adequate widths. For example, Downtown Pasco has wider sidewalks, allowing residents and customers to walk and enjoy a safer pathway as they shop downtown. In total, the City of Pasco maintains over 360 miles of sidewalks. In 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4454, requiring adequate street improvements, including sidewalks in all residential zoning districts. Trails There are over 35 miles of walking trails in the Pasco area including both separated asphalt paths and City sidewalks. They consist of a 6.4 mile Sacajawea Heritage Trail, a one-mile trail around the Road 68 softball complex, a 6.2-mile trail along the north side of I-182, a .80-mile trail along the south side of Burden Boulevard, and a 2.2-mile trail at the cross-country course off Road 36. The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan also includes a proposed trail along the FCID irrigation canal right-of-way. This right-of-way is located midway between the Columbia River and the north City limits and extends east to west for over five miles. When the canal is fully enclosed in a pipe, the 50- to 100-foot-wide right-of-way has ample room for pedestrian paths, bike paths, jogging paths, and equestrian trails. The canal right-of-way would allow development of pathways, with few conflicts with motorized facilities. The first two miles of the canal, from Road 111 and Court Street to Road 88, is enclosed. Sacajawea Trail The City of Pasco participated with the Cities of Kennewick and Richland, Benton and Franklin Counties, the Ports of Benton, Kennewick, and Pasco, as well as the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, to develop the Sacagawea Heritage Trail Master Plan. The purpose or vision of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail Plan is to implement and maintain a multi-purpose recreation and transportation trail that engages trail users; interprets cultural, historic, and natural elements; and enhances the Columbia River and its shoreline within the community. This trail is approximately 14 miles long. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 105 Level of Service Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative measures established for various types of roadways using factors such as speed, freedom to maneuver, interruptions in the traffic flow, and convenience. LOS ranges from A to F and are defined by the Transportation Research Board. Table T-7 identifies the LOS and their definitions. Table T‐7. Level of Service (LOS) Category Definition LOS A Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and higher speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal LOS B Represents reasonably unimpeded traffic flow operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tensions LOS C In the range of stable flow but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the driver. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level ~4 59!nF~F :fi~ .. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 106 Category Definition LOS D Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level LOS E Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to “give way” to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns LOS F Describes forced flow operation at very low speeds and long delays. Volumes exceed theoretical capacity. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, and then be required to stop in a cyclic fashion. Operations within a queue are characterized by stop and go waves and are extremely unstable The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments is required by the Washington Growth Management Act to identify LOS standards. In Transition2040, BFCG adopted uniform urban and rural standards for the two-county region (Table T-8). Table T‐8. BFCG LOS Standards Population Level of Service > 5,000 LOS D < 5,000 LOC C The City of Pasco has adopted LOS standards for various streets as indicated in Table 9 below: Table T‐9. City of Pasco LOS Standards Functional Classification Level of Service Local Streets LOS C Arterials and Collectors LOS D Transportation Concurrency The Washington State GMA (RCW 36.70A.070) requires cities to “adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standard adopted in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, unless transportation TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 107 improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development.” The GMA further specifies that “concurrent with the development” means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. To address the concurrency requirements, the City adopted Ordinance No. 3821, establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development. These procedures are located in PMC 12.36. Deficiencies and Improvements The City meets its transportation concurrency requirements by identifying deficiencies based on the LOS standards established in Table T-9 and addressing deficiencies through short and long-term improvements. The City plans to provide adequate transportation facilities within its growth areas as growth occurs according to the GMA. The Pasco Capital Improvement Program is updated annually to meet the needs of growth. For the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, five primary sources are used to evaluate the transportation system and identify deficiencies and short-range and long- range improvements to address deficiencies: Evaluation of 2018 traffic volumes and historic trends  2020–2025 Transportation Improvement Program  2015–2020 Capital Improvement Program  Broadmoor Area Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Analysis  Evaluation of the BFCG Regional Traffic Model  The following maps have been produced to help in this evaluation and are included in Appendix A. Mapfolio: Existing Functionally Classified Transportation Network  Existing Intersection Control  Existing Number of Lanes  Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes  Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio  Existing Intersection Control Evaluation  Future 2038 Street Functionally Classification System  Future 2038 PM Peak Period Traffic Volumes  Future 2038 Volume to Capacity Ratio  TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 108 Future 2038 Intersection Control Evaluation  Transportation Improvements  Short‐Term Improvements Traffic volumes collected by the Benton Franklin Council of Governments in 2018 were reviewed and evaluated at a planning level for both roadway segments and intersection LOS to identify potential areas of concern that may not meet City standards. These volumes represent the vast majority of functionally classified roadway segments and intersections of functionally classified roads. In cases where 2018 volumes were unavailable, 2016 volumes, or volumes representing 2015 existing conditions from the Regional Travel Demand Model were used. Capacities from the regional model were also used for each roadway. The resulting roadway network volume to capacity ratios are included in Appendix A. Intersection approach volumes were also examined and evaluated for two conditions: 1) whether stop control is adequate when comparing major street and minor street traffic volumes, comparing to a Highway Capacity Manual (Intersection Control Type and Peak-Hour Volumes); and 2) for signalized intersections, entering volumes are compared with entering capacity with an intersection adjustment factor to account for the fact that two roadways must share the pavement within the intersection. The City of Pasco annually prepares and updates a Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that is designed to maintain the transportation network and address known deficiencies and issues. Studies for various issues are often identified in the TIP in order to determine appropriate solutions for known concerns. The results of the analysis described above are compared with the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and it was found that each deficiency was addressed by a project in the TIP (Table T-10). In 2018, the Pasco City Council approved the budget considerations for the development of the city’s first Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP). The TSMP will be an extensive technical and policy-oriented document that will evaluate the existing transportation system and identify the most important improvements that will service the community in the future. The TSMP is a more refined evaluation than what is prepared for the Comprehensive Plan. Table T‐10. Short Range Transportation Improvements Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Lewis Street Overpass Construct a new railroad overpass between 2nd Ave and Oregon Ave to replace the existing deteriorating underpass Connecting Washington, Arterial Street Fund, Street Overlay Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, REET, Water Utility, Stormwater Utility, TIB, Fed STBG $32,016,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 109 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Lewis Street Corridor Improvements Tie Lewis Street Overpass into other downtown improvements for safety and Pedestrian/Bicycle accessibility CDBG Grant, REET, Stormwater Utility $1,625,000 Road 68/Burden Blvd Intersection Improvements Channelization improvements to reduce queueing on westbound approach and access to I-182 Arterial Street Fund, Fed STBG $260,000 Wrigley Drive Extension Extend from Clemente Lane to Convention Drive Fed STBG, Arterial Street Fund, Water Utility Fund, Irrigation Utility Fund, Sewer Utility Fund $310,000 Road 68 Widening South of I-182 Widen from Argent Road to I-182 to 5 lanes and sidewalks Fed STBG, Arterial Street Fund $307,628 Argent Road Improvements - Phase 1 Widen from 20th Ave to Varney/Saraceno to 5 lanes, with intersection improvements Private, Arterial Street Fund $2,015,000 Argent Road Improvements - Phase 2 Widen from Varney/Saraceno to Road 36 to 5 lanes, with intersection improvements Private, Arterial Street Fund $3,715,000 Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Phase 1 12-foot-wide Pedestrian/ Bicycle pathway from Road 100 to Road 90 REET, Safe Routes to School $120,000 Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Phase 2 12-foot-wide Pedestrian/ Bicycle pathway from Road 90 to Road 84 REET, Safe Routes to School $71,000 Burns Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway Phase 3 12-foot-wide Pedestrian/ Bicycle pathway from Road 84 to Road 68 REET, Safe Routes to School $102,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Road 100 Interchange Pedestrian/Bicycle facilities on Road 100 from St Thomas Dr to Harris Road I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Arterial Street Fund, State grant $2,320,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Road 68 Interchange Pedestrian/Bicycle facility on Road 68 from Chapel Hill Blvd to Burden Blvd I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State grant $1,100,000 Sacajawea Heritage Trail Lower the levee and install pathways for pedestrians REET, state grant $4,731,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 110 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Levee from Road 52 to Road 72 Sandifur Pkwy Widening Widen from Road 60 to Road 52 Street Overlay Fund, Arterial Street Fund $425,000 Court Street/ Road 68 Intersection Improvements Improve safety, intersection control, and capacity Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $860,000 Study Road 44/Argent Road intersection Study Road 44/Argent Road intersection I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State grant $65,000 Traffic Analysis for I-182/US 395 Interchange Traffic Analysis for I-182/ US 395 Interchange I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State grant $265,000 Traffic Analysis for US 12/Tank Farm Road Traffic Analysis for US 12/Tank Farm Road I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State grant $250,000 FCID Canal Pedestrian/ Bicycle Pathway Study FCID Canal Pedestrian/ Bicycle/Pathway Study REET, state grant $870,000 Sandifur Pkwy Extension Phase 1 From Road 100 west ~2,800 feet and modify current Harris Road connection Developer, Arterial Street Fund $1,650,000 James Street Improvements Improve safety and pedestrian features and consolidate accesses LID $483,000 Total $53,560,628 Future Functionally Classified Network Growth in the City of Pasco is anticipated in several undeveloped areas, including existing county islands south of I-182, as well as areas within the existing UGA north of I-182, and areas in the proposed UGA Expansion further to the north. The City of Pasco has planned a roadway network to serve these developing areas and many of the improvements are anticipated to be paid for by private development. The future functionally classified street system of roadways anticipated to serve the City of Pasco is shown in Appendix A and is the network towards which the City is working to provide in order to serve development. It includes the following mileages of the various types of roads: Interstate (18.92 miles)  Other freeway/expressway (17.99 miles)  Principal Arterials (33.3 miles)  TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 111 Minor Arterials (31.29 miles)  Collectors (38.23 miles)  Local (residential) streets (234.8 miles, existing, future is yet to be determined)  Roadway System Deficiencies The GMA requires that communities forecast anticipated growth in traffic volumes for at least a 10-year horizon period, based on the adopted land use plan, to provide information on the needs of future growth. To assist with identifying future conditions, the BFCG develops and maintains the regional travel demand model. The model is a strategic planning tool that includes population and employment forecasts, identifies transportation projects, and models future conditions across the region. The outcome is a regional model that is adopted by the BFCG Board, of which the City of Pasco is a member. The City of Pasco submitted to BFCG updated population and employment forecasts, by Transportation Analysis Zones, that reflect the expanded UGA and land uses associated with the Comprehensive Plan. An updated traffic volume forecast, using the regional travel demand model, was prepared but was not represented in the current Regional Transportation Plan: Transition2040. This effort ensures that the Land Use Element and the Transportation Element are consistent for the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan. The results of this refined regional model provide insights and better understanding as to how the transportation network will function with the increase in population and employment. The regional model forecasts a two-hour peak traffic volume. A similar analysis to that of existing conditions was performed using the traffic volume forecasts to evaluate both roadway segments and intersections to determine where capacity needs are anticipated, based on the land uses built into the regional model. In addition to the network that will be needed to serve future undeveloped areas of the City in the expanded UGA, there are potential roadway capacity enhancements that will be needed to serve forecasted travel volumes on Road 68, Road 100, Broadmoor Boulevard, Court Street, Road 44, and Road 36. There are also approximately 50 intersections that are identified for capacity improvements. These range from construction of exclusive turn lanes, traffic signals or roundabouts, or reconstruction of an existing traffic signal to include additional lanes through an intersection. The Future 2038 Volume to Capacity Ratio Map (Appendix A) identifies that several roadway corridors will experience increased travel congestion. The most notable are the I-182 interchanges at Road 100/Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68. The US 395/I-182 interchange will also experience added levels of congestion. The City of Pasco has been involved with discussions with WSDOT to evaluate the I-182 interchanges to identify appropriate solutions. These solutions will likely need to address congestion at each of the ramp terminals as well as capacity over I-182 itself. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 112 The detection of forecasted congestion after discussion with WSDOT and other regional stakeholders (BFCG) significantly influenced the land use assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan. Revised land uses now include higher housing densities and additional employment and commercial uses, the result of which has reduced the per capita demand on these two interchanges and I-182 over the Columbia, and similarly US 395 over the Columbia River. The City of Pasco is committed to additional demand management activities, discussed elsewhere in this Comprehensive Plan, to preserve and protect the investments in these major facilities. The Comprehensive Plan will require improvement projects for both the short-range as well as the long-range horizons to address LOS deficiencies and to serve the growing population. Additional improvements will also be needed as part of the Plan’s proactive strategy to encourage economic development. Projects also may be needed to address safety or maintenance needs. Table T-11 shows the preliminary recommended improvements to address LOS deficiencies, as well as projects anticipated to be constructed to provide the future functionally classified network (Appendix A). Potential funding sources are listed in Table T-11 as well, although being a long-range forecast, these funding sources are not yet fixed or secured. Long‐Term Improvements This section will discuss the future transportation network to serve the anticipated growth within the City. As mentioned on page 106, Pasco’s upcoming Transportation System Master Plan will included additional data and analysis addressing intersection movements and travel forecasts that may identify additional projects and insight of the recommendations of this planning level analysis such that some may alter the projects listed in Table T-11 (below). Table T‐11. Long Range Transportation Improvements Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Sylvester St Overpass Pedestrian/Bicycle facility on Sylvester St from 32nd Ave to 28th Ave I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State grant $1,500,000 Road 100 widening Widen from Court St to Chapel Hill Blvd Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $4,125,000 Crescent Rd Construct a new Road in the Crescent Road Right-of-Way to connect Road 108 and Chapel Hill Blvd Developer, Arterial Street Fund $400,000 Sandifur Pkwy Extension - Phase 2 From 2,800 feet west of Road 100 to Dent Rd Developer, Arterial Street $1,650,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 113 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Fund Road 76 Overpass Extend Road 76 from Chapel Hill Blvd to Burden Blvd over I-182 I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Arterial Street Fund, Connecting Washington successor program $30,000,000 Broadmoor Blvd Widening 5-lane cross section; two NB lanes; two SB lanes, two-way left-turn lane from the I-182 WB Ramps to approximately halfway between Burns Rd and Dent Rd and signalize intersection at Broadmoor Blvd Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $3,654,000 Future East-West Connection (Deseret Drive Alignment) Located mid-way between Dent Rd/Broadmoor Blvd and Burns Rd/Dent Rd Developer $2,755,000 Sandifur Pkwy Extension 5-lane minor arterial extending west from 5600 ft west of Broadmoor Blvd Developer $3,538,000 Broadmoor Blvd/ Dent Rd Traffic Signal Install traffic signal and widen each approach for dedicated left turn lanes Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $350,000 Broadmoor Blvd/ Burns Rd Traffic Signal Install traffic signal and widen each approach for dedicated left turn lanes and dedicated EB right turn lane Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $350,000 Sandifur Parkway/ Broadmoor Blvd intersection improvements Add dual NB left turn lanes; dual SB left turn lanes; dual EB right turn lanes Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $700,000 Broadmoor Blvd/new east-west connector traffic signal New signal serving approximately mid-way between Dent Rd and Burns Rd at new east-west connector I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $350,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 114 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Broadmoor Blvd Widening Capacity improvements from Deseret Drive to UGA Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $2,535,000 Burns Rd Capacity improvements; Broadmoor to Road 44 N Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer, Fed STBG grant $13,804,000 Future Connection: Deseret Dr Capacity improvements; Broadmoor to Road 44 N Developer $8,137,000 Capacity Improvements; Clark/Dent Capacity Improvements and widening; Dent Rd to Road 52 Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $8,019,000 Road 52 Capacity improvements; Burns Rd north to UGA Developer $1,391,000 Road 60 Capacity improvements; Burns Rd north to UGA Developer $2,781,000 Convention Drive Capacity improvements; Burns Rd north to UGA Developer $2,781,000 Road 68 Capacity Improvements/widening; Sandifur Parkway to Clark Rd I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer $5,736,000 Road 84 Capacity Improvements/widening; Burns Rd to UGA Developer $3,734,000 Road 90 Capacity Improvements/widening; Burns Rd to UGA Developer $3,966,000 Future Connection; Approx 2,600 ft west of Broadmoor Blvd Harris Rd to Dent Rd Developer $5,408,000 Dent Rd New road Harris Rd to Burns Rd, Capacity Improvements; Burns Rd to UGA Developer $5,046,000 Hillsboro Rd Extension New road from east of King Ave to UGA Developer $2,730,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 115 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Wernett Rd Extension New road from Rd 76 to Road 84 Arterial Street Fund, Water Utility Fund, Sewer Utility Fund $1,365,000 Road 100/Argent Rd Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund $250,000 Lewis St/Heritage Ave Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street Fund $220,000 Sandifur Pkwy: Convention to Rd 68 Widen to 5 lanes Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund $335,000 Burden Blvd/Road 60 Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund $30,000 Road 44/Burden Blvd Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund $190,000 Heritage Ave/A St Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street Fund $220,000 Madison Ave/ Burden Blvd Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street Fund $190,000 Road 44/Argent Rd Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $250,000 Harris Rd Realignment Broadmoor to Sandifur Pkwy Developer, Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund $267,250 Dent Rd/Road 68, Columbia River Rd/ Taylor Flats Rd/ Clark Rd Intersection Improvements Re-design/construct intersection for all 5-legs Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, Developer, State $1,000,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 116 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Sandifur Pkwy/ Road 76 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $350,000 Burns Rd/Road 68 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $350,000 Sanidfur Pkwy/ Road 68 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $700,000 Chapel Hill Blvd/ Road 68 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $700,000 Argent Rd/Road 68 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $700,000 Wernett Rd/Road 68 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $350,000 Court St/Road 60 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $350,000 Argent Rd/Road 52 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $350,000 Court St/Road 52 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $350,000 Sylvester St/Road 28 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $700,000 20th Ave/A St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $300,000 10th Ave/Sylvester St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $50,000 10th Ave/A St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $700,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 117 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) 10th Ave/ Ainsworth St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $700,000 4th Ave/Ainsworth St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $350,000 Cedar Ave/Lewis St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street Fund, State $350,000 Road 68 Court St to Argent Rd Capacity Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $1,158,000 Court St Rd 84 to Road 68 Capacity Improvements Arterial Street Fund, Street Overlay Fund, Water Utility Fund, Sewer Utility Fund $2,841,000 Road 44 Argent Rd to Madison Ave Capacity Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $852,000 Road 36 Argent Rd to Desert Plateau Drive Capacity Improvements Arterial Street Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, State $1,748,000 I-182/Road 68 Interchange Improvements Interchange Reconstruction, improve on and off-capacity for EB and WB traffic, widen bridge structure. Connecting Washington successor program, Arterial Street Fund, Street Overlay Fund, I-182 Corridor Impact Fund, REET, TIB, Fed STBG $40,000,000 I-182/Broadmoor Blvd Interchange Improvements Interchange Reconstruction, improve on and off-capacity for EB and WB traffic, widen bridge structure. Connecting Washington successor program, Arterial Street Fund, Street Overlay Fund, I-182 Corridor $40,000,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 118 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Impact Fund, REET, TIB, Fed STBG Court St/Rd 36 Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $700,000 20th Ave/I-182 eastbound ramps Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $700,000 20th Ave/I-182 westbound ramps Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $700,000 20th Ave/Argent Rd Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $700,000 4th Ave/I-182 Westbound ramps Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $700,000 4th Ave/3rd Ave Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $700,000 Court Street/Harris Road Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Court Street/Crescent Road Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Court Street/Road 100 Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Court Street/Rd 84 Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Burns Rd/Convention Drive Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Sandifur/Convention Drive Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Sandifur/Road 60 Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Wernett Rd/ Road 52 Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Sylvester Street/ Road 36 Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street $350,000 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 119 Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($) Fund Lewis Street/ 14th Ave Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Lewis Street/1st Ave Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Broadway Street/ Oregon Ave Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Ainsworth Street/ Oregon Ave Signalized intersection / capacity improvements Developer, Arterial Street Fund $350,000 Total $222,452,250 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities In 2016, the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments adopted the Regional Active Transportation Plan. The plan addresses existing conditions for non-motorized travel in the region and identifies projects, plans, and policies for implementation Specific issues for Pasco ranged from maintenance of existing facilities and locations, as well as barriers such as gaps in the network and freeway barriers. While the Lewis Street Overpass project will replace a dilapidated bridge and roadway, the new crossing will include additional space for bicycles and pedestrian users that will significantly improvement access between East Pasco and Downtown. The Short-Range Transportation Improvements (Table T-10) includes improvements on Argent Road that will provide safety enhancements adjacent to the PSC and Columbia Basin College. A new pedestrian and bicycle pathway is identified on Burns Road, on the northern edge of the current Pasco City Limits. A variety of other considerations are also included in the Short- and Long-Range Transportation Improvements tables to ensure there is adequate opportunity for all users of the transportation system to travel where they need to. Air and Rail Service As identified earlier in the chapter, the PSC has experienced positive growth in ridership levels and that trend will only increase as Pasco and the region grows. Recently, the airport announced new daily flights to Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois, further pointing towards the success of airport operations and passenger demands. The Pasco Airport Master Plan calls for a runway extension to the northwest in order to accommodate faster larger aircraft. This runway extension will cause the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to be extended further to the northwest. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 120 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in recent years has taken significant interest in development within Runway Protection Zones, and the City of Pasco has worked cooperatively with the Port to update the Airport Overlay Zone to protect the airport and create appropriate land uses surrounding the airport. Demand for freight and passenger rail facilities could increase, depending on the type of new commercial and industrial development the Plan’s economic strategy attracts. The City of Pasco serves as a significant hub of rail activity. As needs expand, there appears to be ample space in which the rail yard can expand to serve the needs. Recommendations Improvement Projects The Comprehensive Plan will require improvement projects for both planning periods to address level of service deficiencies. Additional improvements will be needed as part of the Plan’s proactive strategy to encourage economic development. Projects also may be needed to address safety or maintenance needs. Some projects will be the City’s responsibility; WSDOT facilities will be the responsibility of WSDOT, and in many cases, developers will be required to construct improvements associated with proposed subdivisions or other developments. Finance The City of Pasco receives funding for transportation projects from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to the following: Impact fees  City General Fund  Arterial and Urban Street Funds  Capital Improvement Fund  Transportation Improvement Board  Highway Safety Program  Federal Surface Transportation Program  Pasco’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is updated each year and helps the City to be flexible by reassessing projects, timelines, and phasing due to changing conditions and needs within the community. Seven guiding areas of concern in the CIP are reviewed when selecting projects to be included: Public Safety  Public Health  Legal Requirement  Related Projects  TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 121 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan  Net Impact on Future Operating Budgets  Other  Comprehensive Plans are required to identify strategies addressing funding shortfalls for transportation projects per RCW 36.70A.020 (6)(C). The Capital Facilities Element contains Policy CF-2-D which states the city will reassess the Land Use Element whenever probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs to ensure that the Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements are consistent with each other. That policy includes any transportation related funding shortfalls. Ongoing transportation planning work will include a review and update of current revenue sources to reflect federal, state, and regional decisions regarding these revenue sources. The city has identified the following options for dealing with funding shortfalls including:  Seek additional revenue resources for transportation improvements identified in this plan  Adjust level of service standards to reduce the cost or need of facilities  Identify transportation demand management strategies to reduce the need for new facilities Funding sources for all planned transportation projects are identified in Tables T-10 and T-11. A detailed list of various funding sources is available in Capital Facilities Element, under subsection Funding Sources. Additional transportation specific funding sources are described below. Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grants State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grants are available for roadway and sidewalk projects caused by economic development or growth, development activities, and partially funded locally. Grants are funded 80% State/20% Local. • Urban Arterial Program (UAP) - best suited for roadway projects that improve safety and mobility. • Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) – Best suited for sidewalk projects that improve safety and connectivity. • Arterial Preservation Program (APP) – provides funding for overlay of federally classified arterial streets in cities with a assessed valuation less than $2 billion. Transportation Partnership Program (TPP) Transportation Improvement Board grants are available for projects to relieve and prevent traffic congestion. Preference is given to projects that are structurally deficient, congested by traffic, and has geometric deficiencies or accident incidents. Grants are funded 80% State 20% Local. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 122 Surface Transportation Program WSDOT State Aid Division block grant revenue is available for road construction and maintenance, transit capital projects, bridge projects, transportation planning, research and development, participation in wetland mitigation and wetland banking. Funds are distributed generally at 80% federal/20% local based on the highest ranking projects from Regional Transportation Improvement Program list. Federal Bridge Replacement Program Grants (80% Federal/20% Local) issued by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) State Aid Division, are available for replacement of structurally deficient of functionally obsolete bridges. The bridge must be on the Washington State Inventory of Bridges. National Highway System Grants WSDOT State Aid Division revenue is available for construction and improvement of the National Highway System. The project must be on the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) list and must be a component of the National Highway System (NHS), including all highways classified as principal arterials. These funds are available on an 86.5% Federal/13.5% Local match, based on the highest ranking projects from the Regional TIP list. Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax RCW 82.36 authorizes this tax which is administered by the State Department of Licensing and paid by gasoline distributors. Cities and counties receive 11.53% and 22.78%, respectively, of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts. Revenues must be spent for highway purposes including the construction, maintenance, and operation of city streets, county roads, and State highways. Local Option Fuel Tax RCW 82.80 authorizes this countywide local option tax equivalent to 10% of the statewide motor vehicle fuel tax and a special fuel tax of 2.3 cents per gallon. Revenues are distributed back to the county and its cities on a weighted per capita basis (1.5 for population in unincorporated areas and 1.0 for population in incorporated areas). Revenues must be spent for highway purposes (construction, maintenance, operation). Transportation Benefit District RCW 35.21 225 authorizes cities to create transportation districts with independent taxing authority for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding any city street, county road, or state highway improvement within the district. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 123 Future Street Classification System The Future 2038 Street Functional Classification System Map (Appendix A) displays the major street plans for the UGA, and shall be considered during new development to ensure compatibility. NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 124 Non‐City Utilities Element RCW 36.70A.070 Introduction Consideration of utility needs is a mandated requirement of the GMA. In general terms, the City is required to address the location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing utilities within the planning area defined by the UGA. This element only discusses non-City-owned utilities. City-owned and operated utilities are covered in the Capital Facilities Element chapter. The responsibility for planning for private utilities rests with the utility providers. Unlike City utilities that are provided mainly to City residents, non-City operated utilities are not limited to city limit lines for service areas. Consequently, service boundaries for each utility provider will vary in size. Some utilities are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). The WUTC is a three-member board which regulates rates, services, and practices of privately-owned utilities and transportation companies, including electric, telecommunications, natural gas, water, and solid waste collection companies. State law regulates the rates, charges, services, facilities, and practices of these utilities. Any changes in policy regarding these aspects of utility provision within Pasco require WUTC approval. Utility Providers Non-City-owned utilities include those utilities—whether owned privately or publicly—that provide services. Non-City owned utilities serving Pasco are as follows: Franklin County PUD  Big Bend Electrical Cooperative  Cascade Natural Gas  Charter  CenturyLink  Various wireless telephone providers  Basin Disposal Incorporated (BDI)  Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1  South Columbia Basin Irrigation District  NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 125 General Relationship The general relationship between the City and these utilities is one of cooperation in a continuing effort to address the needs of residents with minimum disruption of service. This is largely accomplished in the day-to-day maintenance and construction needs of the City and each utility provider. Notification, by one party to the others, of intended changes in facilities which may affect other parties, is the key activity that promotes the best service for residents. Electricity The primary supplier of electrical power to Pasco and the surrounding UGA is the Franklin County Public Utility District (Franklin PUD) with offices located at 1411 West Clark Street. The Big Bend Electrical Cooperative, with an office in Mesa, also provides service to a small portion of northwestern Pasco and the UGA in the vicinity of Broadmoor Boulevard. The Franklin PUD purchases power from the regional power grid (Bonneville Power Administration) and distributes the power through substations and distribution lines to end users. The Franklin PUD and Big Bend Electrical Cooperative operate electrical transmission and distribution systems and facilities—within public right-of-way—as well as easements, all in accordance with state law. Electrical power needs in the Pasco UGA are generally served by 10 miles of 115kV transmission lines, 7 substations, and 45 electric feeder lines. Each feeder supplies the needs of a number of defined geographic areas within the community, often referred to as sub regions. The feeders are the basic planning component within the two electrical supply systems. Each feeder supplies the needs of approximately 850 houses. Electrical consumption (load) is directly related to both local and regional land use development. As local and regional development increases, the demand for electrical power will also increase. With the future growth and anticipated addition of new housing units within the planning horizon, Franklin PUD and Big Bend Electric, together, will need to add about 11 new feeders and one substation over the next 20 years. For more detailed information on power planning needs, refer to Franklin PUD Strategic Plan 2018-2023. Natural Gas Cascade Natural Gas corporation provides gas service to the Pasco UGA. Cascade obtains its gas from the Williams interstate line through two reduction and gate stations within the Pasco UGA. The original gate station is located at the northwest corner of Court Street and Road 76. To serve the needs of an expanding community, a second gate station was constructed in 1995 east of the Soccer complex and south of Burden Boulevard. From these two stations, natural gas is conveyed through the Pasco UGA in a distribution system of smaller lines and regulators. Cascade supplies natural NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 126 gas to 4,600 residential and 1,022 commercial customers in Pasco. Some of the less densely developed areas of West Pasco do not have gas service. Natural gas consumption is directly related to both local and regional land use development. As local and regional development increases, the demand for natural gas also increases. Based on current trends and projected population growth, Cascade Natural Gas projects that the system can be expanded to meet community growth needs. Future extensions of the natural gas distribution system will occur on an as- needed basis as development warrants. Telecommunications Telecommunications include conventional telephone, cellular phone, and cable television. Interstate and international telecommunication activities are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent Federal Government agency. Conventional Telephone Telephone service to Pasco is provided by Qwest Communications International, Inc. (Qwest). Qwest facilities within the Pasco UGA include a switching station, trunk lines, and distribution lines. The switching station is located in a building at the corner of 5th Avenue and West Lewis Street. Four main feeder cable routes extend out from the switching station. Connected to these main feeder routes are branch feeder lines. The branch feeders connect with thousands of local loops that provide dial tone to every subscriber. These facilities may be aerial, or buried, and copper, or fiber optic. Local loops can be used for voice or data transmission. While Qwest is involved with its own planning efforts, much of the system necessary to accommodate future growth will be constructed on an as-needed basis. Cellular Telephone Cellular telephone service is provided by broadcasting and receiving radio signals to and from cellular facilities and cellular phone handsets. Cellular telephone service is licensed by the FCC for operation in Metropolitan Services Areas (MSAs) and Rural service Areas (RSAs). The FCC grants several licenses within each service area. Current licensed cellular service providers for the Pasco area include Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, T-Mobile, Qwest, and Nextel. A number of cellular base stations and antennas are located within the Pasco UGA. These base stations connect cellular phones to the regional network. Cellular antennas must be placed at a height that allows them to broadcast throughout their local area. In Pasco, the antennas are located on the Housing Authority high rise apartment, on the city water tanks, on the Sacajawea Apartments building, on school, college and County property, and on freestanding communication towers. Expansion of cellular facilities is demand driven. Raising the density of transmission and reception equipment to accommodate additional subscribers follows, rather than NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 127 proceeds, increase in local system load. Cellular companies therefore maintain a short response time and a tight planning horizon. Cable Television Cable television service is provided in Pasco by Charter Communications, with a central office in Kennewick. Charter Communications currently has a franchise to service Pasco residents. Most residential neighborhoods within the City are currently served by Charter. The provisions of the franchise agreement between the City and Charter requires that the Charter make service available upon request to any residential property within the current or future boundaries of the City. Under the current terms of the franchise, the Charter would be required to provide service to accommodate the project growth within the Pasco UGA. Internet Providers There are over a dozen internet service providers in the Pasco area. These internet companies provide a variety of data networking options for business and personal use. These services include standard dial up service, DSL, broadband, business voice services, web hosting, secure data centers, inter-office networks, and high capacity data transport. Community internet access is available free of charge at the Pasco Library and for students at local schools. Solid Waste Collection Solid waste collection services are provided in Pasco through a franchise agreement with Basin Disposal Inc. (BDI). BDI provides automated curbside services to all residential properties. Refuse is collected in the community and taken to the Transfer station on Dietrich Road. The transfer station tip-floor has a capacity of about 1,200 tons per day. BDI delivers approximately 646 tons per day of waste to the transfer station each day. Any waste that is economically recyclable is diverted at this point, and the remainder is placed in specially constructed trailers and transported to the regional landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. Garbage service in the City is mandatory and is required for all businesses and residential structures. The residential service is often referred to as total service in that homeowners may set additional bags, boxes, or bundles beside their standard garbage can on collection day for pick-up at no additional charge. Garbage pick-up occurs weekly for all residential customers and may occur more than once a week for commercial customers. BDI also provides two coupons a year to residential customers that can be used for free dumping at the transfer station. BDI, through Basin Recycling, provides recycling services in the community. Newspaper, mixed paper, aluminum, tin, and cardboard are all recycled at Basin recycling. BDI maintains 10 neighborhood recycling centers in convenient locations around the community where residents can recycle glass, newspaper, mixed paper, cardboard, tin cans, and aluminum. There are over 300 cardboard-only drop-box NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 128 recycling containers that BDI regularly services for cardboard recycling. In addition, BDI also maintains a paper recycling service that provides weekly wastepaper pick-up at major employment centers such as the City Hall and other City related facilities, and Columbia Basin college. Through their franchise agreement, BDI must provide solid waste collection service to all households and businesses in Pasco. As the community grows, BDI’s service must expand concurrently to accommodate the growth. It is anticipated that BDI will continue to expand solid waste collection and disposal services on an as needed basis. Franklin County Irrigation District The Franklin County Irrigation District No.1 (FCID) provides irrigation water to almost 7 square miles of land within the Pasco UGA. Most of the properties within the FCID are located west of Highway 395 and south of the FCID canal. Some properties located between Highway 395 and 22nd Avenue also receive irrigation water from the FCID. The FCID is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of the State of Washington. It is governed by an elected board and managed by an administrative staff. The FCID succeeded the Pasco Reclamation Company that was incorporated in 1909 to bring water from the Snake River west to irrigate more than 10,000 acres of land around Pasco. The original mission of the FCID was to provide irrigation water to farm fields mainly west of Pasco. That is no longer the case. With the expansion of urban growth, and the conversion of farmlands into housing developments in West Pasco, the mission of the district has changed to that of an urban service provider, bringing irrigation water to more and more residential properties. The FCID main pumping station is located on the Columbia River near the intersection of Court Street and Road 111. The pumping station, with a 450-horsepower pump and a 200-horsepower pump, lifts water from the river to a 60-inch main line that carries the water to an irrigation canal located near Road 88. The canal runs east from Road 88 to a tail water pond on Road 36. Through a series of trunk lines, water is drawn from the canal and distributed throughout West Pasco. The FCID maintains 36 miles of pipeline and 3.35 miles of canal. Long-range plans of the FCID call for the remaining portions of the canal to be replaced by a pressure pipe. New subdivisions within the FCID service area must install the irrigation lines necessary to connect to the existing system. The FCID has ample water rights to serve future development through and beyond the 20-year planning horizon. All system expansions will occur concurrent with development. South Columbia Basin Irrigation District South Columbia Irrigation District provides irrigation water to 230,000 acres of land mainly in Franklin County. Some lands within the Burbank area of Walla Walla County are also served by the District. The South Columbia Irrigation District offices are located on Hillsboro Street in Pasco; however, the District service area is mainly outside the City limits to the north and NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 129 northwest of the northern City limits. The District was established to provide irrigation water to farmland. These lands produce, grain, fruit, vegetables, melons, and oilseeds. The District cannot serve residential development with irrigation water unless the water goes through a conversion process, enabling it to be used for domestic and industrial purposes. The Archer Estates subdivision in the northwest portion of the Pasco UGA is now served by South Columbia Basin Irrigation water. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 130 Parks and Open Space Element RCW 36.70a. 070(8) Introduction The planning goals of the GMA encourage communities to retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. The purpose of this Element is to fulfill these goals and meet the mandate for required Comprehensive Plan Elements. This Element, in concert with the City of Pasco 2016 Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan (Parks Plan), guides the future of park acquisition, development, and management to meet the service needs of the City. Parks and Recreation Plan In this discussion, "open space'' is used as generic term for all types of parks, game fields, and trails, and certain vacant lands. The Parks Plan was updated in 2016 and includes an inventory, needs analysis, park goals and policies, and supporting background information. There is a marked difference in the availability of park lands provided in the City from those areas within the unincorporated portion of the UGA—there are no neighborhood or community parks within the unincorporated portion of the UGA. Table PO-1 indicates existing parks and recreational facilities within the City. • PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 131 Level of Service Factor The supply of open space lands within the Pasco UGA has expanded with the population growth. Seven new parks have been added to the park system since 2000. The City of Pasco also assumed the management and maintenance of Chiawana Park, after the County did not renew its lease with USACE in 2003. Future park needs, or LOS factors, have been set in the adopted park ratios of the Park Plan. Table PO-2 identifies future park standards and needs through the 20-year planning period. The City is in the process of updating its Parks Plan to modify the levels of service standards for parks. This Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the current standards for parkland can cause a much higher need of parkland and can cause a larger boundary for the UGA area. In order to optimize the parkland needed in an urban setting within the UGA, the City considers a LOS in terms of distance from the park instead of acres per population standards. A park buffer analysis was performed using GIS as shown in Figure PO- 1, with quarter mile and half mile buffers from existing, planned, and future parks. Figure PO‐1. Parks Service Area Analysis Legend Parks UGA_Bufler_HalfMi ,-- Parks UGA _ Buffe r_ OtrMi -Par1<s P arks_QtrMiBuffer Parks_ HalfMileBuffer City Limits ~ Pasco Urban G rowth Boondary c:J Proposed Urban Grcw.1.h Area Boundary • PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 132 Parks and Sports Fields The City of Pasco has a strong neighborhood park system providing park areas within walking distance of most neighborhoods. Neighborhood parks are only one of seven types of park facilities included within the Parks Plan. Parks facilities existing and planned include neighborhood parks, community parks, large urban parks, regional parks, linear parks, trails, and special use facilities. Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks include playgrounds and parks designed primarily for non-supervised, and non-organized recreation activities. Neighborhood parks are generally small (3 to 7acres) and serve a radius of approximately one-half mile. Total Neighborhood Park Acreage: 105.00 Community Parks Community parks are typically designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are encouraged. Community parks can also provide indoor facilities to meet a wider range of recreation needs. Community parks can double as a neighborhood park, although they serve a much larger area. The service area of a community park is about a one-mile radius. Total Community Park Acreage: 70.77 Large Urban Parks Large urban parks, like Chiawana Park, are designed to serve the entire community. They are similar to a community park, but much larger. They provide a wide variety of specialized facilities such as large picnic areas, water related activities, indoor recreation facilities, and sports fields. They require more support facilities such as parking, restrooms, and play areas. Large urban parks usually exceed 50 acres in size. Total Large Urban Park Acreage: 127.00 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 133 Regional Parks Regional parks are large recreational areas that serve the entire city or region. These parks can be very large and often include one specific use or feature. Sacajawea State Park is the only regional park in Pasco. Columbia Park in Kennewick, Howard Amon Park in Richland, and Hood Park in Walla Walla County are examples of other regional parks in the Tri-City region. These parks offer riverfront and boating facilities as well as passive recreation opportunities and are within a short travel time for Pasco residents. Total Regional Park Acreage: 284.00 Linear Parks Linear Parks are land areas that generally follow a drainage corridor, ravine or some other elongated feature such as a power line or railroad right-of-way. This type of park often contains various levels of a trail system, and sometimes includes greenbelts. Total Linear Park Acreage: 25.00 Special Use Areas Special use areas include miscellaneous sites that do not fit into any other category of park designation. These areas include specialized single purpose fields, sports complexes, and land occupied by major recreation structures. Total Special Use Areas Acreage: 277.68 Trails Pathways and trails are designed to provide walking, bicycling, and other non- motorized means of linking various parts of the community. The trail system includes unpaved foot trails used for walking, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding, while paved trails are used for biking, walking, and hiking. The system can consist of both off-street and on-street trail segments. Many of the current off-street segments already exist along the waterfront and Interstate 182. Total Trails Length (Miles): 19.60 Table PO-1 indicates the inventory of park and recreation facilities in Pasco. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 134 Table PO‐1. Park and Recreation Inventory Parks Acres Special Use Areas Cable Bridge Park 1.0 City Hall Activity Center 0.5 Dust Devil Stadium/Soccer Complex/Softball Complex 99.0 Library Park 1.0 Martin Luther King Community Center 0.5 Peanuts Park 0.5 Riverview Park 17.0 Road 36 Soccer Fields 10.0 Schlagel Park 3.0 Sun Willows Golf Course 135.18 Volunteer Park 7.0 7.0 Wade Park Boat Launch 3.0 Total 298.68 Neighborhood Parks Capital Park 5.0 Casa Del Sol Park 5.0 Centennial Park 2.0 Chapel Hill Park 5.0 Desert Dunes Park 5.0 Heritage Park 5.0 Highland Park 10.0 Island Park 5.0 Kurtzman Park 7.0 Liberty Park 5.0 Lincoln Park 5.0 Lucas Park 2.0 Mariposa Park 5.0 McGee Park 10.0 Mercier Park 3.0 Richardson Park 5.0 Sunny Meadows 5.0 Sylvester Park 3.0 3.0 Tierra Vida Park 5.0 Vintage Park 8.0 Total 105 Community Parks Memorial Park 13.0 13.0 County Soccer Park 5.0 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 135 Parks Acres Cross Country Course Park 52.77 Total 70.77 Linear Parks Wade Park 25.0 Total 25.0 Large Urban Parks Chiawana Park 127.0 Total 127.0 Regional Parks Sacajawea Park (State) 284.0 Total 284.0 Trails Miles FCID-proposed Trail 6.4 Sacajawea Heritage Trail 7.0 I-182 Trail 6.2 Total 19.6 Miles Park Standards and Needs Table PO‐2. Summary of Park Land and Facilities Needs Park/Facility Type* Adopted Standard 2018 Inventory 2018 Demand 2018 Need 2038 Demand 2038 Need Neighborhood Parks 2.00 ac/1,000 pop 110 acres 147 37 244 134 Community Park 2.10 ac/1,000 pop 70 acres 155 85 256 186 Large Urban Parks 2.99 ac/1,000 pop 127 acres 220 93 364 237 Regional Parks 8.93 ac/1,000 pop 284 acres 657 373 1,088 804 Linear Parks 1.56 ac/1,000 pop 25 acres 115 90 190 165 Special Use Areas 5.80 ac/1,000 pop 298 acres 427 129 707 490 Total Parks 23.38 ac/1,000 pop 914 acres 1,721 807 2,848 2,016 Youth Baseball 1 field/2,900 10 fields 25 15 42 32 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 136 Fields pop Adult Softball Fields 1 field/3,000 pop 9 fields 24 15 41 32 Soccer Fields 1 field/2,000 pop 30 fields 36 6 61 31 Tennis Courts 1 court/1,500 pop 29 courts 48 19 81 52 Trails 0.50 miles/1,000 pop 19 miles 36 17 61 42 Notes: *This table is based on the 2018 OFM population estimate of 73,590 and the OFM projection of 121,828 for 2038. Future Plans The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan is scheduled to be updated in 2021 to address current and future parks and recreational needs. The adopted standards (LOS) do not take into consideration the benefit school playgrounds provide in fulfilling park and open space needs. Depending on where various types of parks are located there could be an overlap in use that is also not reflected in the standards. A community park could also fulfill neighborhood park needs for residential subdivision adjacent to community parks. Likewise, a large urban park may double as a community park, limiting the need for acquiring additional park lands. When the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan is updated in 2021, additional refinement of the standards should be considered. For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan update it will be assumed there will be overlapping use of various parks to satisfy the LOS. Also, the park buffer analysis, as discussed under the LOS, considers about 113 acres of additional park land (Table PO-3). Approximately 75 acres of this additional land are already planned in the City limits, and approximately 37 to 40 acres of land will be needed in the UGA area. This doesn’t include the need for additional recreational facilities. Table PO‐3. Planned Parks and Facilities List Park/Facility Description Acres Proposed in the City/UGA A Street Sports Complex 39 City RD 48 Fire Station/Park 19 City Chapel Hill Boulevard 4City RD 84 Pasco/Pasco School District 3City Burns Road 10 UGA Multiple parks 37 UGA PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 137 Airport Reserve and Other Park Lands To protect the public investment and future use of the PSC, the Port has acquired over 400 acres outside the operating boundaries of the airport. The bulk of these protection lands are located north of I-182, west of the airport, and north of Burden Boulevard. Because these properties were purchased to prohibit or severely restrict development, they are ideal areas for designated open space. Two hundred and twenty acres of the northern reserve area has never been farmed or developed. These lands are in a native state, except for minor portions that have been damaged by off-road motorized vehicle activities. These lands are located in Section 2 and Section 11 of Township 9 North, Range 29 East. The land located in Section 14, between Road 44 and Road 36, is developed with the Golf Land driving range and golf course—a 10-acre soccer park maintained by the City—and a 14-acre research and training farm operated by Columbia Basin College. The balance of the land (53 acres) is in a natural state, with the Big Cross cross-country track occupying 2.2 acres. This land is now under lease with the City. The City has installed a disc golf course in the middle of the trails. The cross-country track is used by the Pasco School District for track meets and is maintained by the City. The general public also uses the track as a walking and jogging trail. All of the airport reserve property south of I-182 is being used as a grape vineyard. The Port purchased the described lands to preclude development that is not compatible with airport operations. The land use chapter identifies these lands as severely restricted for development and as such suggests they be designated as open space areas. As Airport needs change and future plans are developed, not all of the airport reserve lands may be needed to protect airport operations. The City has also owned 28 acres on A Street. This land is slated for additional multi-use sports fields once financing is identified. Parks and Recreation Plan: Adopted by Reference The 2016 City of Pasco Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan, and any amendments or updates thereto, is hereby adopted and appended to this Comprehensive Plan and should be referred to for detailed actions related to the planning and development of parks, recreation facilities, and sports fields within the Pasco UGA. The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan is also scheduled to be updated in 2021 to address current and future parks and recreational demands. Preservation of Open Space The preservation of open space is a key component of protecting our environmental quality, disaster mitigation, local goods production, and compact communities. The adopted Park Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan states that the availability of natural areas and open space enhances the community’s connection to the outdoors and offers a variety of recreational opportunities. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 138 Many of the goals and policies identified in the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital Facilities Elements of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the preservation of our natural environment and open space. RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 139 Resource Lands Element RCW .70A.170 Introduction The maintenance and enhancement of natural resource-based industries is a goal of the GMA. As a result, the GMA requires cities planning under the Act to adopt regulations to assure the conservation of natural resource lands, including mineral resource lands. This element of the Comprehensive Plan describes and designates mineral resource lands within the UGA. Resource Lands Defined Resource lands are those agricultural, forest, and mineral lands which have long-term commercial significance. It is the intent of the Growth Management legislation that these resource lands be protected and preserved for future generations. This chapter provides the framework from which future regulations will be developed and maintained to preserve resource lands. Agricultural Lands Agricultural production occurs within the City and its UGA as a non-conforming permitted use. Wheat, alfalfa, potatoes, corn, and onions are the primary crops produced within the UGA. Due to the proximity of urban development, the location of major utility lines, the location of I-182 and other major roadways, the agricultural lands within the City and UGA do not have long term commercial significance. The UGA was established for the purpose of facilitating and accommodating urban growth. Lands outside of the growth area are to be protected for rural activities such as long-term agricultural production. By establishing the UGA, agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance are being protected. Mineral Resources The GMA requires each county and each city in the State to designate, where appropriate, “mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long term significance for the extraction of minerals.” (see RCW 36.70A.170). The Washington Administrative Code defines mineral resources as lands primarily devoted to the extraction of minerals or that have known potential long-term commercial significance for mineral extraction (WAC 36.190.030[14]). RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 140 The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Handbook Mining Regulations in Washington (DNR 20007) states that the definition of surface mining in RCW 78.44 specifically excludes the on-site processing of minerals, such as concrete batch plants, asphalt batch plants, rock crushing, and chemical processing. The Handbook explains that local jurisdictions can regulate these activities. The City of Pasco is relying on direction of the GMA and the Department of Natural Resources has defined mineral resource lands for the purposes of comprehensive planning as those lands devoted to the extraction of minerals. Designation of Mineral Resource Lands The Mineral Resources Map found in the Franklin County Growth Management Comprehensive Plan (Franklin County 20088) indicates there are 21 mineral resource sites within Franklin County. The mineral resource lands were identified through a review of local conditions, DNR surface mining data (DNR Permits), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapping and Soil Conservation Service soils data. Of the 21 sites identified in the Franklin County map, three are located within the City of Pasco. The Pasco Shops site, located near the southwest corner of Argent Road and Stearman Avenue, is in fact a stockpile site for the County Road Department and not a mineral extraction location. The other two sites are located on the western edge of the community near Harris Road in Section 12, Township 9 North Range 28 East; and Section 7, Township 9 North Range 29 East. The sites (land owned by different owners) are part of the Central Pre-Mix pit that is used for mineral extraction. These are the only known mineral resource lands of commercial significance within the UGA. These lands contain one of the best gravel deposits in Franklin County. Gravel has been mined at this location since the early 1950s. Prior to that time, it has been reported that gold mining occurred in the area. 7 DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources – Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources), 2000. Mining Regulations in Washington. September 2000. 8 Franklin County, WA, 2008. Franklin County Growth Management Comprehensive Plan. February 27, 2008. • RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 141 Presently, American Rock Products is mining the lands and producing various types of crushed rock. American Rock Products also produces ready mix concrete utilizing gravel the company mines. The current permit expires in 2025. The city is not aware of American Rock’s plan of not extending its mineral permit. After operation, this area can be reclaimed which may take more that the timeframe of this Plan. While the lands described above have been designated for mineral extraction, such use designation is considered an overlay use only. Upon completion of the mineral extraction, the intended and ultimate use of the land is as shown on the land use map discussed in the Land Use Chapter and as shown in land use map (Appendix A). Mineral Resource Protection Mineral resource lands, once designated, are to be protected for the extraction of minerals RCW 36.70A.060 (1)(a). In addition to controlling the density and uses around the designated mineral resource lands, the City will protect mineral resources through implementation of the notification requirements of RCW 36.70A.060(1)(b). All plats, short plats, binding site plans, and developed plans approved or issued for development activities within 500 feet of designated mineral resource lands will contain the following notice: “This (plat/short plat/etc.) is near a designated mineral resource area on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development for certain periods of limited duration. An application might be made for mining-related activities, including mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting transporting, and recycling of minerals.” Extraction of Mineral Resources Due to their industrial nature, gravel pits, mining, and quarries are not permitted uses in any zoning district. They are considered unclassified uses that are deemed to require special review, on a case by case basis, to consider their impacts on adjacent uses and upon surrounding infrastructure. The granting of a conditional use permit/special permit for mineral extraction does not guaranty or include using mineral resource lands for the operation of an asphalt batch plant or concrete pre-mix batch plant. Asphalt batch plants, hot mix asphalt batch plants, or concrete pre-mix batch plants are industrial uses permitted only within I-3 Heavy Industrial Districts or upon approval of a conditional permit in the I-2 District. Under limited circumstances, such uses may be considered for a conditional permit/special permit in association with the extraction of minerals on designated mineral resource lands only. Special permit applications for the location of asphalt batch plants, hot mix asphalt batch plants, or concrete pre-mix batch plants, in association with the extraction of minerals on designated mineral resource lands, may not be approved due to the location of the resource lands within the UGA. In reviewing an application, the City will consider the RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 142 impacts of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, air borne toxins, and the issues listed in PMC 25.86.060. Other Resource Lands Other than the mineral lands discussed above, there are no known resource lands within the Pasco UGA. Resource Lands Map The map identifying Mineral Resources Lands in the Pasco UGA can be found in Appendix A: Map CA-1 of the Comprehensive Plan, 2018–2038. CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 143 Critical Areas/Shorelines Element RCW 36.70A.170 (Critical Areas) RCW 36.70A (Shorelines) Introduction Critical areas are defined by the GMA (RCW 36.70A.030 [5]) as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, frequently flooded areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and geological hazard areas. In an ecological or natural sense, these lands provide beneficial values and functions by restoring ground water levels (as in an aquifer recharge), serve as flood protection zones (wetlands), and provide critical food production areas for sustaining fish and wildlife (habitat). Geologically hazardous areas are deemed critical in the sense that they present hazards to life and property. These areas include lands that are susceptible to erosion, landslides, earthquakes, and other geological hazards. The City, under the provisions of the GMA, is required to identify critical areas and adopt regulations for the protection of these areas. The City uses the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas and give special consideration to conservation or protection measures. Maps of designated critical areas are shown in Appendix A. • CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 144 Critical Areas Wetlands Wetlands are defined in the GMA (RCW 36.70A.030 [21]) as areas that are saturated with surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands perform key ecological functions for water quality, hydrology, and habitat as described in Table CA-1. Table CA‐1. Wetland Functions Key Functions Wetland Functions Water Quality  Reduces siltation and erosion  Provides water filtration  Moderates water temperature Hydrology  Stores water to reduce flooding and contributes to base flows Habitat  Provides aquatic and woody vegetated habitat for fish and wildlife Development of the Columbia Basin Project has directly and indirectly caused the formation of many of the wetlands within the County through water management actions and associated facilities. The GMA specifically excludes artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and farm ponds. Many wetlands are considered unintentional wetlands, resulting from localized conditions such as seepage from irrigation ditches. These types of wetlands are considered jurisdictional wetlands regulated by state wetland law. Improving water management practices (e.g., implementation of water conservation practices)—which is happening through projects and practices implemented in Franklin County and even in some areas of the City—affects the size and number of wetlands and associated habitats. However, if the irrigation practices are changed (e.g., implementation of water conservation practices), and the wetland dries up and no longer performs wetland functions, then no mitigation is required (Ecology 20109). In Franklin County, wetlands can be found along the margins, side channels and islands of the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Wetlands mapping and characterization of functions and values were prepared as part of the City’s SMP update (Anchor QEA 9 Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2010. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2010. Focus on Irrigation-Influenced Wetlands. Ecology Publication Number: 10-06-015. July 2010. CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 145 201510). Wetlands primarily exist along the Columbia River shoreline, but some interior wetlands also are present, established either directly or indirectly from irrigation water. Of the 48 acres of wetlands mapped within the City, approximately 29 acres are within shoreline jurisdiction. The shoreline maps identify wetlands within the Pasco UGA in areas along the river shore, particularly in Sacajawea State Park and in the lowlands on the Columbia River bend. There are some locations between these two areas that are also highlighted as possible wetlands. These maps were produced with the use of imagery which, according to the map instructions, has an inherent margin of error. The instructions caution that an on-the-ground inspection is needed to verify the imagery for accuracy. Much of the Pasco shoreline has been altered due to the construction of the levees that line the shoreline with large basalt riprap. Levee service roads, drainage facilities, and pumping facilities are located directly behind the levees. The areas between the levees, without riprap, have been altered by the removal and replacement of soils with a clay barrier, designed to keep the river from seeping into the community. However, even with these alterations, some riparian and floodplain wetland areas still exist along the Columbia and Snake rivers and continue to support a variety of plant and animal species. Black cottonwood is the dominant plant species in lowland riparian areas and plays a key role in the integrity of riparian systems (USBR 200811). Other species include a variety of willow species, red-osier dogwood, aspen, water birch, serviceberry, as well as invasive species such as Russian Olive. Reptile and amphibian species found in these habitats include western painted turtle, spotted frog, gopher and garter snakes, and others. Small mammals include beaver, river otter, muskrat, mink, porcupines, raccoons, skunks, and bats. Common avian species include Wilson’s phalarope, belted kingfisher, peregrine falcon, and woodpeckers. Species of waterfowl that utilize the wetland and riparian habitats within the affected area include mallard, American wigeon, pelicans, and others (USFWS 2008, 201212). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Two types of habitat conservation areas exist within the City—aquatic and upland (riparian and shrub-steppe habitat). 10 Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA), 2015. City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program. June 2015, Revised October 2015. 11 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 2008. Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study Final Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement. December 19, 2008 12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008, 2012. The Final Hanford Reach National Monument Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. September 24, 2008. CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 146 Aquatic Habitat The aquatic habitat within the City and UGA consists of the Columbia and Snake rivers. The quality of the aquatic habitat within these systems is controlled by a number of key ecosystem features that combine to provide important ecological functions (or ecosystem services) and support an interconnected array of species, including numerous salmonids species listed as threatened under the ESA. Aquatic habitat features that support healthy salmonids stocks likely also support other aquatic-dependent and aquatic-associated birds and terrestrial species. Some ecosystem features applicable to aquatic habitat, within the shoreline management jurisdiction of the City, include water quality (including presence of contaminants as well as water temperature); water depth; instream cover (such as presence of large rocks and woody debris); substrate size; aquatic and riparian vegetation; and floodplain extent and health. While there are no known spawning beds in the UGA, upper Columbia and Middle Columbia Steelhead, Upper Columbia Spring-Run Chinook, Sockeye, and Bull Trout/Dolly Varden spawning occur in the rivers. The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists the Bull Trout as a threatened species. The National Marine Fisheries Service lists the Snake River Sockeye, Spring/Summer Chinook, and Fall Chinook as threatened species. The Steelhead is also listed as a threatened species. The river system through the UGA is listed as a critical habitat for the listed anadromous fish species (BergerABAM 200813). The listed fish species migrate by Pasco as juveniles from April to July, and as adults from April to October. Waterfowl also pass through Pasco during their annual migration. Shrub‐steppe Habitat Shrub-steppe upland habitat is the largest native land cover type in Franklin County and is also found within the City as small remnant patches. In some areas, shrub- steppe communities abut or nearly abut shoreline areas, and there are small remnants of shrub-steppe habitat interspersed among the irrigated agricultural fields that displaced the original habitat. The primary remaining shrub-steppe plant association type in the City area is big sagebrush-bunch wheatgrass. Riparian Areas Riparian areas are located along the shorelines of the City, with varying levels of structural diversity and productivity in terms of organic material, with reductions in diversity and productivity due to levees and upland developed areas. Habitat characteristics of healthy riparian areas include a connected corridor for fish and wildlife travel, vegetation types adapted to wetter soils, occasional flooding, and natural disturbance regimes. Riparian areas also offer important functions for species 13 BergerABAM, 2008. Port of Pasco Industrial Center Shoreline Master Plan SEPA. 2008. CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 147 that inhabit the shrub- steppe, as well as species more limited in range to the riparian zone. For shrub-steppe species, they provide a critical water source and often a more productive environment for forage, escape, thermal cover, and nesting sites. For many species, they provide critical winter habitat. Habitat Modifications Similar to wetland habitat, 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. 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. 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 PSC (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. 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 resources (Resource Lands Chapter). The riparian environment in the Pasco UGA has been significantly altered over the years such that its values and functions have been seriously diminished. The Sacajawea State Park and the low-lying areas west of Shoreline Road and north of Harris Road are the exceptions. The State Park and the Columbia Bend area are both adjacent aquatic systems (Columbia and Snake Rivers) that contain elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. The western portion of Chiawana Park may also provide some beneficial functions and values for riparian habitat. Aquifer Recharge Areas Pasco obtains most of its water from the Columbia River, as opposed to ground water aquifers. Water is pumped upstream from the Cable Bridge and treated at the filter plant located on West “A” Street. A secondary diversion point for pumping water from the river is located at the far western edge of the City, south of Harris Road. This pumping facility is currently used for irrigation water. The City also operates a number of wells that provide untreated water for irrigation purposes. The irrigation water from these wells comes from aquifer sources. The Franklin Conservation District has identified four primary aquifer recharge areas in Franklin County: 1) the irrigated portions of the county; 2) the Scooteney-Eagle Lakes area; 3) areas behind the Snake River dams; and 4) the Washtucna Coulee. The only areas of Pasco that may be considered for aquifer recharge, per the Conservation CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 148 District, are the few remaining irrigated farm fields. These fields do not have long-term commercial significance for farming and are not unique geologic features that naturally support aquifer recharge. Without the irrigation and farming activity, these lands would not be considered significant recharge lands. All significant aquifer recharge areas within Franklin County are located outside the Pasco UGA. Frequently Flooded Areas The last damaging floods to occur in Pasco were in the late 1940s, early 1950s. Since the construction of the Columbia and Snake River dams and levee system, Pasco has not experienced a major flood. According to the Franklin County Growth Management Comprehensive Plan (Franklin County 2008; page 35), 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 north of the Pasco UGA. The southern end of the Esquatzel Coulee disappears into the farm circles around the north end of the PSC. Approximate flooded hazard areas for the Pasco UGA are identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA. These maps classify floods by category. Most of the UGA is located in flood zone “C”—areas designated as minimal flood hazard. Certain areas of the UGA, such as the Juvenile pond (the Corp of Engineers Drainage pond south of “A” Street), are located in flood zone “A”—areas designated as special flood hazard. Special flood hazard areas are also located in Sacajawea State Park and along the shoreline in the Columbia Bend area. There are some areas behind the levees that are incorrectly identified on the Flood Rate Maps as zone “A”. The City is in the process of requesting a map revision to correct the inaccurate designation. Due to the limited number of areas of potential flooding, the Critical Areas Map, in the Comprehensive Plan (Appendix A), does not reflect those areas. Please refer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps for that information. Geological Hazardous Areas A geological hazard is a natural geologic structure or event that places life and property in danger. The GMA defines geologically hazardous areas as “areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns” [RCW 36.70A.030(9)]. Each year in the United States, geologic or natural hazards cause hundreds of deaths, and cost billions of dollars in property damage and disruption of commerce. These hazards include earthquakes, landslides, mud flows, rockslides, volcanic eruptions, liquefaction, land subsidence (sinkholes), and expansive soils. There are a number of canyons, coulees, unique rock formations, and cliffs within Franklin County, none of which are in the Pasco UGA. It is within these geological features that most of the County’s hazards related to erosion, landslides, and rockslides can occur. There are no cliffs, canyons, or coulees within the Pasco UGA. CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 149 Slopes of 15% or more can be found to the west of Dent Road in the northwest portion of the UGA, and to the west of the PSC in Sections 11 and 14 in Pasco. The three principal natural factors that influence landslide related hazards are topography, geology, and precipitation. As noted, the Pasco UGA is devoid of cliffs, canyons, coulees, and other geological features that pose threats to life and property— from rockslides or various types of landslides. There are, however, slopes in excess of 15% in Sections 11 and 14 west of the airport and along the west side of the north/south portion of Dent Road. The third natural factor to influence landslides is precipitation. Slope saturation by water is the leading cause of landslides. Pasco receives from 5 to 7 inches of precipitation a year, an insignificant amount to cause any concern about slope saturation. A majority of the earthquakes in Washington occur around Puget Sound. Eastern Washington experiences low seismic activity except for the western edge of the Columbia Basin and the Washington-Oregon border areas. The most recent earthquake of note to occur near Pasco was located northwest of Othello and occurred on December 20, 1973. This was 4.4 magnitude earthquake. Liquefaction susceptibility is influenced by the process that created various soil deposits. Saturated alluvial soils or Aeolian soils are most susceptible to liquefaction. According to mapping prepared by the DNR, there are two areas within the Pasco UGA that may be susceptible to liquefaction. These areas include the low-lying lands in the Columbia Bend area and a band of land stretching southeasterly along the Columbia River, from Road 52 to the Snake River. The Critical Areas Map (appendix A) is a generalized location of lands that may be susceptible to possible liquefaction. This map can only be considered a general guide and should not be used as a substitute for on- site investigation. Past on-site studies (Shannon and Wilson 200814) have shown the composition of the soils within the mapped liquefaction area are not all prone to liquefaction. In addition, the Port formally requested an amendment to the Plan to remove the critical areas designation from their Osprey Pointe development area—based on a 2009 on-site geotechnical investigation from Landau Associates—concluding the area is not at widespread risk for liquefaction. This area has been removed from the liquefaction zone as shown in Appendix A, Map CA-1. In summary, the risk of a geological event is minimal. For such an event to occur, the ground would have to be saturated to coincide with the timing of an earthquake. Present development standards are in place to address this issue. 14 Shannon and Wilson, 2008. Technical Memo on Geotechnical Conditions in certain areas of the City, on file with the City of Pasco. July 2008 CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 150 Critical Areas Map The Critical Areas Map located (Appendix A) identifies general locations of probable critical areas. Additional onsite investigation may be required at the time of development to determine the full extent of these critical areas. Introduction ‐ Shorelines Shoreline Management Act (SMA) The State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was established in 1971 and approved by a voter referendum in 1972. The goal of the SMA was “to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines.” Shorelines include all marine waters, streams with flow of more than 20 cubic feet per second, lakes 20 acres and larger and shorelands that extend 200 feet upland from the water’s edge. In developing Shoreline Master Programs, local jurisdictions are required to give preference to uses along shorelines in the following order (RCW 90.58.020): 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline 3. Results in long term over short term benefit 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline 7. Provide any other elements as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary Growth Management and Shorelines The goals and policies of the City’s SMP are considered an element of this Comprehensive Plan—according to RCW 36.70A.480—along with the shorelines regulations. There are eight land use and water elements within the Shoreline Master Program. The implementation goals for each element are as follows: 1. Economic Development: Economic development is to be encouraged along the shoreline with minimal disruption to the environment while CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 151 enhancing the quality of life. The Port of Pasco Master Plan for redevelopment of the Port supports this element. 2. Public Access and Recreation: While preserving ecological systems, diverse, convenient, and adequate recreational opportunities are encouraged for all residents. The City and Franklin County recently completed construction on new a new boat launch, dock, and parking facilities at Road 54 to enhance access to the river. The Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan, approved by Pasco city Council in December of 2010 (Resolution 3292), and the Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan, approved by council in July of 2012 (Resolution 3413), also address issues of river access in support of this element. 3. Circulation: This element deals with the location and extent of major streets and transportation routes through the community. The goal is to assure efficient movement of people, goods, and services with minimum disruptions to the shoreline environment. The City and the Port have collectively added trails along the shoreline to complete the Sacajawea Heritage Trail on the Pasco side of the Columbia River. The Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and the Pasco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted by council in October 2011 (Resolution 3347), support this element. 4. Shoreline Use and Modification: The Shoreline Use and Modification Element considers the pattern and distribution of land uses on the shorelines and uses associated with the rivers. The goal is to encourage the best possible land and water use allocations without diminishing the quality of the natural and human environment. The Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan also supports this element. 5. Conservation: This element deals with the preservation of the natural shoreline resources. The goal is to conserve and enhance the renewable resources of the region, to conserve fragile, scenic areas, and to restore damaged ecosystems where feasible. 6. Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources: The History and Cultural Element deals with the natural restoration of areas blighted by abandoned and dilapidated structures. Part of the goal is to provide protection to objects, sites, and structures that are significant to history, architecture, archaeology, or culture. 7. Flood Hazard Management: The Flood Hazard Management Element is designated to protect public safety within river floodways and floodplains, and to protect natural systems. This is done by preserving the flood storage function of floodplains, and the purpose is to diminish potential hazards that may be caused by inappropriate development in areas where severe and costly flooding is anticipated to occur. It is acknowledged that water CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 152 levels in Columbia and Snake rivers next to the City are generally stable as part of the USACE McNary Pool project 8. Private Property Rights: The Private Property Rights element recognizes and protects private property rights in shoreline uses and developments consistent with the public interest. Goals and Policies Goals and Policies are contained in Chapter Two of Volume I, Comprehensive Plan 2018-2038, and in the City’s adopted Shoreline Master Program. Shoreline goals and policies are incorporated by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Implementation Pasco’s shoreline consists of approximately 515 acres of land on the Columbia and Snake rivers shoreline. A SMP was developed and adopted by the Pasco City Council and approved by the Department of Ecology in 2016. This Comprehensive Plan incorporates the SMP by reference. The SMP aims to utilize Pasco’s shoreline for various water-oriented uses and facilities while protecting the ecological functions and cultural and historic values of the shoreline. The SMP designates seven shoreline environments as follows: 1. Aquatic 2. Natural 3. Urban Conservancy 4. Recreation 5. Shoreline Residential 6. Public Flood Protection 7. High Intensity The SMP includes shoreline use and modification regulations, along with critical areas regulations specific to shoreline areas, to guide development, maintain no net loss of ecological functions, and provide for continued public access. IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 153 Goals Policies Regulations and  Programs Implementation RCW 36.70A.180 Introduction The Introduction contained in Volume I of this Comprehensive Plan contains information on the various means the City of Pasco employs to implement the Plan. This Plan will not only be implemented through the goals and policy statements contained herein, but also through the use of regulatory measures, concurrency management, annual capital budgeting, and administrative actions. Goals and Policies The Goals and Policies of the Plan are found in Volume I and are used to guide the decision-making processes related to land use and the physical development within the Pasco UGA. Goals and policies have been adopted for land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and implementation and monitoring. Regulatory Measures Regulatory measures used to implement the Plan include all regulations (development or otherwise) dealing with the use and development of land within the City. Code RCW 36.70A.030 (7) defines development regulations as “the controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical area ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 154 ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto.” The following Pasco Municipal Codes are the regulatory measures used to implement the Plan: PMC Title 4, Permit Process  PMC Title 5, Business Licenses and Regulations  PMC Chapter 9.60, Public Nuisances  PMC Title 12, Streets and Sidewalks  PMC Title 13, Water and Sewers  PMC Title 14, Public Works  PMC Title 16, Building and Construction  PMC Title 17, Sign Code  PMC Title 19, Residential Parks (Mobile Home Parks)  PMC Title 20, Historic Preservation, and the Shoreline Master Program.  PMC Title 21, Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations  PMC Title 23, Environmental Impact (including Critical Area regulations)  PMC Title 24, Flood Plain  PMC Title 25, Zoning  Capital Improvements The City’s annual capital project process is used to identify major projects necessary to address urban development needs within the city. Capital improvement projects include water, sewer, parks, streets, and similar facilities that support urban levels of service. It is through the CIP that the City is able to maintain the adopted levels of service. Development activity can support the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan. Administrative Actions Administrative actions include development review, development permitting, preparation of reports, making information available to the public, and review of projects for concurrency. The principle Administrative Actions or documents used to implement the Plan are as follows: Administrative Order No. 76 (Building Permit/Development Review Process); Power of Attorney for Covenant on Utility Services (Outside Annexation Agreements); City of Pasco Standard Specification (street and utility standards); and plat and utility plan review processes as used by the City Planning and Engineering Departments. IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 155 Growth Monitoring The City monitors the growth within the City limits and UGA in order to review how development occurs, especially in the unincorporated UGA. The City and County intends to on a growth monitoring program in order to have a clear picture of where growth is occurring and whether the assumed densities are achieved. Concurrency Concurrency is discussed in the Transportation Element of Volume II. Under the GMA, concurrency must be established for transportation facilities; however, jurisdictions may establish concurrency for any public facility or service. The City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development. The City will monitor the cumulative impacts of new development by taking periodic traffic counts on selected streets. The City may also undertake periodic studies to assess the overall circulation system and or utility system within the City for compliance with the adopted level of service standards. Amendments Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are legislative actions requiring City Council approval. With a few exceptions, amendments cannot be considered more often than once per year. Major Plan updates occur by legislative action on a seven-year cycle as prescribed by RCW 36.70A.130 (4) (d). For Pasco and the other cities within Franklin County, this seven-year cycle began on December 1, 2007, with the next major update to be completed by December 1, 2014. However, due to general economic decline experienced throughout the Tri-Cities during the late 2000s recession, the City of Pasco was granted an extension with the agreement that an update to the Comprehensive Plan would occur by 2018 at the latest. Amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or map are generally not to be considered more often than once per year, although there are exceptions to this rule. Amendments can be requested by the City or by private individuals (PMC 25.215.020). Multiple applications for amendments will be considered in a single legislative review process, in order to evaluate the potential cumulative effect of the requests. Applications for amendments are accepted from January to August. Planning Commission review begins no later than October, with City Council action occurring by the end of the calendar year. Annual amendments will address proposed changes to the goals, policies, and text of the Comprehensive Plan, changes to supporting data and implementation, changes to the land use and other maps, and changes to the inventories. Every ten years the annual amendment review may be combined with the required review of the UGB pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 (3). IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 156 Amendments may be considered and approved outside the standard annual process whenever an emergency exists or when necessary to resolve an appeal filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board or the court (RCW 36.70A.130). Specific Implementation Tools Table IMP-1 describes various tools to implement the Elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Table IMP‐1. Implementation Tools Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents Land Use Annexations  PMC 25.220 Annexation Procedure  RCW 35A.14 Annexation by Code Cities Zoning  PMC 25 Zoning Regulations  PMC 4 Permit Process  PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)  PMC 28 Critical Areas Ordinance  PMC 29 Shoreline Regulations Subdivisions  PMC 21 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations  City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications  PMC 4 Permit Process  PMC 19 Mobile Homes  PMC 3.4 Impact Fees  PMC 3.45 School Impact Fees  PMC 3.501 Park Impact Fees  PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)  PMC 28 Critical Areas Ordinance  PMC 29 Shoreline Regulations Streets  PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks  PMC 12.36 Concurrency  PMC 3.40 Impact Fees (Traffic)  Resolution 1372 Right-of-Way Dedication  City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications  Capital Improvement Plan  Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual Water and Sewer  PMC 13 Water and Sewers  City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications  Capital Improvement Plan IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 157 Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents Building  PMC 16 Building and Construction Regulations  PMC 4 Permit Process  PMC 17 Sign Code  PMC 19 Residential Parks  WAC 51-11C State Energy Code  PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA) Businesses  PMC 5 Business Licenses and Regulations Peace and Safety  PMC 9.56 Dust Control  PMC 9.60 Nuisances  PMC 9.62 Noise Regulations Other Area Master Plans  Comprehensive Water Plan  Comprehensive Sewer Plan  Comprehensive Stormwater Plan  Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Forestry Plan  Broadmoor Area Master Plan  Boat Basin and Marine Terminal Plan  Tri- Cities Rivershore Master Plan  Pasco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Historic Preservation  PMC Title 20 Historic Preservation, and the Shoreline Master Program  PMC 20.25 Review and Monitoring of Properties for Special Property Tax Valuation Housing Land Use  PMC 25 Zoning Regulations  PMC 21 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations  Broadmoor Area Master Plan  PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)  PMC 28 Critical Areas Ordinance Construction  PMC 16 Building and Construction Regulations  PMC 4 Permit Process  PMC 19 Mobile Homes  WAC 51-11C State Energy Code Fair Housing  Tri-Cities Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing  Benton-Franklin Counties Continuum of Care for the Homeless 2015-2019  Consolidated Community Development & Affordable Housing Plan  PMC 9.68 Discrimination in Housing IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 158 Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents Peace and Safety  PMC 9.56 Dust Control  PMC 9.60 Nuisances  PMC 9.62 Noise Regulations Utilities  PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks  PMC 12.36 Concurrency  City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications  Capital Improvement Plan  Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual  PMC 13 Water and Sewers Capital Facilities Phasing and Priorities  Through the annual CIP process the City Council prioritizes capital projects  PMC 21 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations Facility Construction  PMC 16 Building and Construction Regulations  PMC 4 Permit Process  PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks  Resolution 1372 Right-of-Way Dedication  PMC 12.36 Concurrency  PMC 26 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations  City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications  PMC 3.132 Impact Fees (Traffic)  PMC 3.133 School Impact Fees  PMC 3.133-1 Park Impact Fees  PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)  Comprehensive Water Plan  Comprehensive Sewer Plan  Comprehensive Stormwater Plan  Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Forestry Plan  Resolution 1373 Park Planning in Riverview Area  Resolution 1149 Water Utility Extension Beyond the City Limits  Resolution 3590 Sewer Utility Extension Beyond the City Limits  Capital Improvement Plan Other Area Master Plans  Comprehensive Water Plan  Comprehensive Sewer Plan  Comprehensive Stormwater Plan IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 159 Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents  Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Forestry Plan  Boat Basin and Marine Terminal Plan  Tri- Cities Rivershore Master Plan  Pasco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Non‐City Utilities Utility Review & Siting  PMC 16 Building and Construction Regulations  PMC 4 Permit Process  PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks  PMC 6.04 Garbage Regulations  Resolution 1372 Right-of-Way Dedication  PMC 12.36 Concurrency  PMC 26 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations (Plats)  City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications  Franchise Agreements between the City and Utility providers Transportation Airport  Port of Pasco Tri-Cities Airport Master Plan  PMC 25.190 Airport Overlay District  Airport Reserve designation on the Land Use Map Streets  PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks  PMC 12.36 Concurrency  PMC 3.132 Impact Fees (Traffic)  Resolution 1372 Right-of-Way Dedication  City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications Finance  Capital Improvement Plan  PMC 12.36 Concurrency  PMC 3.132 Impact Fees (Traffic)  Transportation Improvement Plan Other Area Master Plans  2017 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Metropolitan / Regional Transportation Plan  Comprehensive Stormwater Plan Parks and Open Space Parks services and maintenance  Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Forestry Plan  Resolution 1373 Park Planning in Riverview Area  PMC 3.133-1 Park Impact Fees  Capital Improvement Plan  PMC 21 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 160 Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents Public Services Service Provisions  Capital Improvement Plan  Pasco Annual Operating Budget  The Emergency Services Master Plan 2016, Pasco Fire Department  Police Services Strategic Plan Resource Lands Protection of Resource Lands  Resource Lands Map (Designating Resource Lands)  PMC 25 Zoning Regulations  PMC 21 Subdivision Regulations  PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)  RCW 36.70A.170 (Resource Lands Designation)  RCW 36.70A.060(1)(b) Plat and Short Plat Requirements Critical Areas & Shorelines Protection, use and maintenance  PMC 28 Critical Areas Ordinance  Pasco Shoreline Master Program  PMC 29 Shoreline Regulations  PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)  RCW Economic Development Resources  Capital Improvement Plan  Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Project (BFCG)  Historically Underutilized Business Zones (SBA)  Opportunity Zones Other Area Master Plans  Comprehensive Water Plan  Comprehensive Sewer Plan  Comprehensive Stormwater Plan  Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Forestry Plan  Boat Basin and Marine Terminal Plan  TRIDEC Plan of Work  Tri- Cities Rivershore Master Plan  Pasco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan  Transportation System Master Plan Appendix A: MAP FOLIO Comprehensive Plan Update List of Maps: LU-1: Future Land Use Map CF-1: Water Infrastructure CF-2: Sanitary & Sewer Infrastructure CF-3: Parks, Schools & Open Space CF-4: Municipal Facilities CF-5: Airport & Port Facilities T-1: Existing Street Functional Classification System T-2: Existing Intersection Control T-3: Existing Number of Lanes T-4: Existing All Day Traffic Counts T-5: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes T-6: Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio T-7: Existing Intersection Control Evaluation T-8: Future 2038 Street Functional Classification System T-9: Future 2038 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes T-10: Future 2038 Volume to Capacity Ratio T-11: Future 2038 Intersection Control Evaluation T-12: Transportation Improvements CA-1: Critical Areas & Resource Lands A I-182 COURT ARGENT 4THU S 1 2 BURNS US 395ROAD 68 DENT B20THRAILROAD SYLVESTER SANDIFUR ELMWERNETT 14THBURDEN 1STCLARK OREGON24THCAPITOLPEARL C O M M E R C I A L 10TH6TH19THROAD 52WEHE22ND28THROAD 84CRA N EROAD 48ROAD 56DOC KBROADMOORROAD 60HENRY CEDARROAD 64ELLAROAD 36PASC O KA HL OT US IR I S C LEWISROAD 96AINS W O R T H BONNEVILLEEASY OWENAL D E R S O N ROAD 40ROAD 72ROAD 76INDUSTR IALGLADE NORTH9THKOHLERSINAI ROAD 88FOSTER WELLS HARRISUS 395 TO I 182DIETRICHCONVENTIONROAD 100WRIGLEY PIMLICO 18TH17THROAD 34LAREDO BUTTESTEARMANMADISONSANTA FEROAD 90HILLTOP SACAJAWEA PARKDRADIE ARTESIA CHAPEL HILL YUMAOLIVER ROAD 111RICHV IEW FENWAY MIA 13THBYERSKINGSHORELINE7THJAN IVY ROBERT WAYNEUTAH5THRAINIERSHOSHONEVALDEZ PARKVIEW MEADO W V I E W DESERT PLATEAU ROAD 80FLORESPARK RIVER MAIN RICHARDSON JAMESPORTOHU D S O N O A K VENTUREWESTMINSTERWEL S H RUBY SEVILLE BELL KAU TRAIL MAPLERICKY OVERTON 16THROAD 6225THHERITAGEWASH I N G T O NMAITLANDSUPERI O ROCHOCO ROAD 30B U R L I N G T O N MOLINE HIGHLAND NIXON OPALARTHURTAYLOR FLATSROAD 54REAGANCOOKROAD 57LE W I S T O U S 1 2 JAYMARYHILL 12THRIVERHAVEN ESTRE L L A21STUS 12 TO US 395 ALTON MUSTANG AGATE BAKER TAMARISK 15THLATAHIRVING 23RDROAD 18DESERET ROAD 67JEFFERSONKENT ROAD 44GRAYBILBAO MATIASUNSE TSANDY RIDGE3RDADAMS SUN WILLOWS AUSTIN MARIEORIOLECLEMENTEPELICAN ROA D 6 8 T O I 1 8 2 MARGARETROAD 92GARL A N D LA SALLE TANK FARMBALFLOUR 8THI 182 TO 4THVARNEYRIO GRANDE26TH43RDADELIA BAYBERRY MATHE WS OCTAV E 2NDBAYVIEWAVIONLIVINGSTON FRONTLEOLA ANACONDADIAMONDNAUVOOTIPPET MANZANITAFR O N T I E R T E R M I N A L JERSEY A T O U S 1 2ROAD 94YAKIMA OLIVIAWHETSTONE ROAD 20VALLEY VIEW ROAD 70KENDALL65THHARRIS 18THROAD 44NIXON C I-182 MAPLE RUBY 22NDPARK B10TH18THBURNS ROAD 3612THUS 395NIXON NIXON 3RDJAN 13THB ARGENT JAY MARIE MARIE US 395ROAD 76U S 1 228THDRADIE 3RDOWENLIVINGSTON 8THMARIE 5THIRVING DRADIE . Future Land Use MapLU-1 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395§¨¦182 Legend Land Use Classifications Airport Reserve Commercial Confederated Tribes - Colville DNR Reserve High Density Residential Industrial Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Mixed Residential & Commercial Mixed Use Interchange Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Regional Office Open Space Parks Public Quasi-Public Broadmoor Planning Area City Limits Proposed - Urban Growth Area §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 ~ ~ ~ 1111 1111 ..... , __ ., 'i"'--■--i ____ J CJ City 0f ~ Pasco %, %, !< "J "J ") ") ")") !( . Water InfrastructureCF-1 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395 §¨¦182 §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 Proposed New Projects 12" 16" 18" 24" !(Proposed Road 68 Lift Station %,Proposed Tank Location Expanded Pressure Zones Zone-1 Zone-1A Zone-2 Zone-2A Zone-2B Zone-2C Zone-3 Current Water Mains Up to 8" 8" - 12" 12" - 36" ")Lift Station "J Storage Tank !<Water Treatment Plant City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary City 0f ~ Pasco ·-···-···---.. = ----.-----■-■ : I l--···-= C] ") ") ")") ") . Sanitary & Sewer InfrastructureCF-2 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395 §¨¦182 §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 Proposed ")Proposed Lift Stations Potential Alternative Alignment Proposed Sewer Pipes Proposed Lift Station Pump Sewer Force Main Existing Sewer Main 2" = 16" 16" - 36" City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary r-···-···-. : i '···-···-·. D I I I I • I I ! ,J I :r --------------1 __ J ! I I I I I I I I I I J·-···-···-i,---.. I City 0f ~ Pasco . Parks, Schools & Open SpaceCF-3 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395 §¨¦182 §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 Facility Type Parks Future Park & Open Space Community Park Neighborhood Park Large Urban Park Regional Park Linear Park Special Use Park Trails Schools College / University Future Public Private Public City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area BoundaryNote: Estimated 47 Acres of future Parks/Open Space to be available in the Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area: Park/Open Space Area build as area develops 1111 1111 1111 1111 t::::::7 L3 1111 1111 1111 L. ___ _j □ ! ! i ':.--···---·-···-···---■--■■-■ City 0f ~ Pasco K IH IH ")9 ")8 ")7 ")6 ")5 ")4 ")3 ")2 ")1 ")14 ")13 ")12 ")11 ")10 . Municipal FacilitiesCF-4 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395 §¨¦182 §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 Facility Type 1 - Road 68 Water Tower 2 - West Pasco Water Treatment Plant 3 - Pasco Municipal Court 4 - Memorial Pool 5 - Pasco Softball Complex 6 - Public Works Reuse Facility 7 - CityView Cemetery 8 - Martin Luther King Center 9 - Public Work Waste Water Treatment Plant 10 - Public Works Butterfield Water Plant 11 - Senior Center 12 - Public Works Riverview Water Tank 13 - Pasco Farmers Market 14 - Water Treatment - WPWTP Intake &-Fire Station IH Library K Hospital Pasco Sanitary Landfill City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary City 0f ~ Pasco r•■■-■■■-I : i l--·-···--' D . Airport & Port FacilitiesCF-5 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395 §¨¦182 §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 PSC (Tri-Cities) Airport Port of Pasco Facilities City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary -~ r-···-···-. : i l--·-···-." D City 0f ~ Pasco C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Pearl St WeheArgent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v e 182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd Street Classification (Existing) Interstate (18.92 miles) Other Freeway & Expressway (17.99 miles) Other Principal Arterial (16.82 miles) Minor Arterial (30.42 miles) Collector (45.97 miles) Ramps Pasco City Boundary Current UGA Existing Street Functional Classification System Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020 T-1 ,,1',&~ Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington CJ CJ Kennewick èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí !"$ èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí !"$!"$ èéëìí èéëìí !"$!"$!"$!"$ !"$!"$ !"$ C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN 4ThAveRoad684Th AveN 1St Ave4th AveClark St Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St Oregon Ave10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Pearl St WeheArgent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd Industrial WaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia l A v e 182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rd AveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroad AveHeritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd Existing Intersection Control Street Classification (Existing) Interstate (18.92 miles) Other Freeway & Expressway (17.99 miles) Other Principal Arterial (16.82 miles) Minor Arterial (30.42 miles) Collector (45.97 miles) Ramps Intersection Control èéëìí Signalized Intersection Roundabout !"$All Way Stop Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020 T-2 ,,1',&~ Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Pearl St WeheArgent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v e 182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd Existing Number of Lanes Number of Lanes 6 5 4 3 2 1 Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020 T-3 ,,1',&~ Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Pearl St WeheArgent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v e 182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd Existing All Day Traffic Counts All Day Traffic Counts Less than 1,000 1,000 to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 10,000 to 20,000 20,000 to 30,000 30,000 to 40,000 More than 40,000 No Count Data Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020 T-4 -,,1',&~ Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington ----- •••• - Kennewick C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd E Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d Broadway St A St Burden Blvd Burns Rd Pearl St WeheArgent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v e 182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd 146/278452/673 385/55646/814803/304808 / 6771181 / 932881 / 1111 166/153104/1022348/1831385/34431/59 18 / 77 141/ 1 8 8 60 / 58 19/40674 / 574 1055 / 717282/ 4 9 8 707/56932/63 1030 / 682 341 / 556 311 / 430 106/99354 / 601 202/294 1043 / 869183 / 319 257 / 433211 / 106118 / 11371 / 59501 / 428 261 / 445283 / 25763/51472/ 5 8 2 112 / 138 147 / 170 34/81397 /1669 792 / 536 1403/93712 / 15522 / 656169/ 187 305/ 5 4 9140 / 19321/29256 / 195 445/186 95 / 162 128 / 50131 / 98135/93 56 / 77173 / 197150/49 275 / 362438/791455/414103 / 1793 7 0 / 6 0 1 18 / 81 531 / 631319 / 409 3213/317210 / 10 327 / 400 197 / 176 587 / 644 169 / 105 223/223237/278 458 / 585339 / 406342 / 40843 / 41243 / 144 57 / 1937 / 44398 / 367 38 / 2839 / 41192 / 149 268/251505 / 363 107 / 718 / 13 509 / 566294 / 221395 / 28925 / 26 274 / 262 702 / 796434/ 5 5 0 245 / 248406/286428/5068/9145 / 124276/383340 / 266475 / 353402/ 414 8 7 6 / 9 2 8 58 / 5 66 / 32 2228 / 2353309 / 5241698 / 1831 221/291213/225196 / 1214 6 2 / 4 2 1 114 / 97233 / 16833/73 5 2 / 4 2 1 721/1143430 / 253488 / 216223 / 167 3604/294 9 3 6 1 / 5 9 4 396 / 311 825/87 8 3349 / 1 9 9 6 92/346 269 7 / 2 4 9 2 227/23558/4338 / 63 3 9 2 / 4 7 45 / 33272 / 357 81 / 96 190 / 14410 / 13 50 / 48 358 / 604 300/3834438/ 3 6 7 3 2472/26 4 1 384 1 / 3 5 3 9 18/15114 / 22915 / 1272 / 77 9 / 687/153 335 0 / 3 3 6 8 334 9 / 3 3 6 8 2 7 2 / 2 6 0155/328Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PM Peak Traffic Volume Less than 200 201 to 500 501 to 1000 1001 to 1500 More than 1500 No Count Data Note: Volume labels show eastbound or northbound volumes first and westbound or southbound volumes second as follows: EB / WB or NB / SB Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020 T-5 c· ,,1',&~ 1tyof 11111 11• Pasco Wash· ington ----Kennewick - C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Road 60Pearl St WeheRoad 52Argent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd 0.230.350.480 0.13 00.410.510.410.50.340.6200.170.210.131.240.07 0.7 0.36 0.1 0.24 0.48 0.280.08 0.19 0.12 0.050.61 0.50.790.2 90.8 1 0.42 0.2 0.52 0.01 0.20.210.480.30.080.260.230.690.54 0.34 0.36 0.04 0.38 0.830.93 0.13 0.55 0.630.29 0.870.84 0.20.260.150.090.330.080.150.080.07 0.240.210.09 0.21 0.18 0.040.21 0.86 0.810.540.72 1.040.020.270.80.23 0.460.190.370.010.16 0.261.020.56 0.36 0.1 0.290.280.8 0.160.160.08 0.101.10.19 0.02 1.720.4500. 1 40.260.140.130.190.220. 2 0. 20.60. 1 5 0.1 00.260.51 0.950. 4 6 1.01 0.71 0.69 0. 3 1 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.290.51 0 0.21 0 0.090.23 0.270.510.050.3 0.070.070.06 0.36 0.050.24 0.24 0.630.46 0.130.02 0.350.24 0.21 0.370.180.03000.34 0.23 0.610.211.070.050.010.050.320.040.430.590.630.520.27 0.010.630.52 0. 3 1 0.07 0.080.08 0. 1 6 0.690.330.54 0.120.250.020.6 3 0.770.020. 1 5 0.070.290.040.05 0.480.71 0.42 0.540.610.28 0.71 0.43 0.29 0.53 0.43 0.53 0.080.070.08 0. 1 60.040.22 0.12 0.240.87 0.32 0.40.480.87 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.34 0.020.1 0.290.020.1 0.010.14 0.66 0.66 0. 3 40.41Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio Volume to Capacity Ratio Less than 0.70 0.70 to <0.80 0.80 to <0.90 0.90 to <1.00 More than or equal to 1.00 No Count Data Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020 T-6 ,,1',&~ Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington ----Kennewick - C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClark St Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Road 60Pearl St WeheRoad 52Argent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí Intersection Control Evaluation Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service Two-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service èéëìí Signalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service Existing Intersection Control Evaluation Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020 T-7 ,,1',&~ Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington 0 • @ Kennewick C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Pearl St WeheArgent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v e 182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd Street Classification (Future) Interstate (18.92 miles) Other Freeway & Expressway (17.99 miles) Other Principal Arterial (33.3 miles) Minor Arterial (29.47 miles) Minor Arterial, Future (3.94 miles) Collector (35.67 miles) Collector, Future (13.90 miles) Ramps Future 2038 Street Functional Classification System Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020 T-8 I I I I --------+----~-- I I I City of ii1 1P .Pasco Washington Kennewick C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd E Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d Broadway St A St Burden Blvd Burns Rd Pearl St WeheArgent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v e 182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd 1031 / 6761879/2435 927/3 1 9 305 / 417 924/ 4 7 4 20 / 37 41/411 9 7 6 / 2 1 8 7652 / 797423/5901059/2 1 2 5 1781 / 1143 159/303 196/931466 / 2471 720 / 1191 399 / 248307 / 113266 / 509 905 / 9042292 / 2019647/175853/ 1 5 1 2 36/ 59 379 / 752 1729 / 2015 437/61 2973 / 4830 3066 /36471710 / 9651148 / 1108 1104/ 1 1 7 9 146/ 5 2 0 225/ 222 2188/ 1 6 3 0241 / 31520/285709/11681098 / 1292 1474/18572312/1870615/512 1033 / 1520 1683/15991185 / 771 1205 / 714571 / 370305/339211 / 13763/198 403/44 8 189 / 536895 / 666100/61191/22351233 / 9286 8 2 / 1 1 8 6 51 / 215 3345 / 3280829 / 1114 7116/61041027 / 8401132 / 1351 122 / 200 1017 / 18861158 / 3589 109 / 111 777 / 824 1120/1271603/8081546 / 11882174 / 1261948 / 1634892 / 2651450 / 1885 894 / 733 919 / 723835 / 5871009 / 1168 497 / 70865 / 353746 / 719 1430 / 1932 978 / 1177569 / 870 32 / 183156 / 97 104 / 197 2596 / 3637 1830 / 18621728 / 2558 751 / 5271393/127664 / 79 900 / 1419 1647 / 1451464/ 1 4 6 1 563 / 4321213 / 2138 1827/11544367/371775/461036 / 750291/345773 / 422625 / 6571294 / 8242790/23241176 / 304 244 / 279 4738 / 5132504 / 9931017/7621433/1230635 / 3151 0 9 1 / 1 0 0 6 283 / 631528 / 776431/55692/1036 8 3 4 / 1 0 0 6 6926/536118 8 0 / 1 3 4 5 1365 / 1304 1481 / 9162142 / 3121 1599 / 9618437 / 5836 6 8 4 / 1 1 2 5 1134 / 1314 1787 / 20827225 / 4 6 5 0 97/121 604 1 / 5 5 1 8 1441/1274861/1552 816 / 1455 9 0 8 / 1 0 4 8596 / 1391414 / 25701353 / 1136938 / 1475 148 / 1001 209 / 950 1277 / 1091 547 / 9121284/152311071/ 8 3 6 8 3946 / 58511603/2045 844 3 / 7 8 0 6 974/1266 152/59494 / 33017 / 36936 / 1356 457 / 1409206/247 722 5 / 7 5 9 0 9 0 0 / 3 9 21419/1187Future 2038 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Note: Volume labels show eastbound or northbound volumes first and westbound or southbound volumes second as follows: EB / WB or NB / SB PM Peak Traffic Volume (2 hour) Less than 400 401 to 1000 1001 to 2000 2001 to 3000 More than 3000 No Count Data Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020 T-9 City of ii1 1P .Pasco Washington ----Kennewick - C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Road 60Pearl St WeheRoad 52Argent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd 0.28 0.01 0.12 0.640.670.260.80.130.490.11 0.621.041.01 1.52 0.350.74 0.26 0.58 0.62 0.780.02 0.05 0.57 0.5 0.030.52 0.910.470.99 0. 3 6 0.49 0.420.50.390.26 0.370.09 1.250.56 0.570.790.47 0.09 0. 1 70.950.24 0.120.56 0.4 0.57 0.740.54 0.291.120.57 0.230.250.190.240.480.66 0.32 0.210.60.40.03 0.33 0.32 0.47 0.53 0.270.19 0.69 0.93 0.991.070.52 1.05 0.33 0.230.56 1.020.14 0.91 0.18 0.560.490.540.37 1. 0 7 0.4 0.370.391.450.38 0.37 0.35 0.52 0.350.3 0.54 0.750.360.080.120.75 0.28 0.0201.840.340.560.060.160.370.560. 1 9 0. 20.470. 1 8 0.13 0.70.7 0.960.63 1.17 0.63 0.75 0.43 0.550.640.42 0.13 0.43 0 0.82 0.07 0.52 0.260.340.971.360.370.560.86 0.56 0.090.570.520.53 0.310.540.47 0.88 0.740.40.110.1 0.12 0.76 0.580.34 0.53 0.470.320.05 0.89 0.3 0.97 0.30.911.190.170.050.170.140.460.480.410.811.740.550.12 0.030.680.58 1.09 0. 3 6 0.74 0.240.17 0. 1 7 0.64 0.750.310.86 0.210.010.7 4 0.730. 1 8 0.20.490.210. 0 50.651.441. 1 8 0.36 0.930.65 10. 1 9 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.71 0.59 0.08 0.59 0.240. 9 7 0.91 0.370.58 0.850.92 0.63 0.59 1.09 0.34 0.410.951.09 0.86 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.10.310.020.880.11 0.74 0. 5 60.89Future 2038 Volume to Capacity Ratio Volume to Capacity Ratio Less than 0.70 0.70 to <0.80 0.80 to <0.90 0.90 to <1.00 More than or equal to 1.00 No Count Data Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020 T-10 I I City 0J __ ,P Pasco Washington ----Kennewick - èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN 4ThAveRoad684Th AveN 1St Ave4th AveCourt St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St Oregon Ave10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Burden Blvd Burns Rd Road 60Pearl St Road 52Argent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd Industrial WaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia l A v eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rd AveAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroad AveHeritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd Future 2038 Intersection Control Evaluation Intersection Control Evaluation Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed Proposed Future Intersection Improvements Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service Roundabout, Improvements Likely Needed èéëìí Signalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service èéëìí Signalized Intersection, Over Capacity Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020 T-11 I I I --------+----~-- I I I ---- I I City 0f ii11 111 Pasco Washington I I I I I 0 • I I I I I I I I I I I I Kennewick C OL UMBI A RI VER Lewis Foster Wells Rd Pasco K a hl ot u s R dN4ThAveRoad68 4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt Court St Sylvester St Harris Rd 28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd Kartchner St OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc e nt R d 20Th AveBroadway St A St Colombia Burden Blvd Burns Rd Road 60Pearl St WeheRoad 52Argent Rd Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy Comm e r c ia lA v eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182 182 ./12 ./395 ./395 Le w i s S t24th Court St.Road 36Arg e n t R d 3rdAveMaitlandAin s w o r t h S tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd Transportation Improvements Short Range Intersection Improvements Short Range Roadway Segment Improvements Short Range New Roadway Long Range Intersection Improvements Long Range Roadway Segment Improvements Long Range New Roadway Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020 T-12 I I I - - -+=-=-+ ..;:a;c ... :a,;a;, I I . City of __ ,p Pasco Washington I I I , • - ••• : ' : ' I ' I I I t • - ••• • • --------- • -•• • • •• • • • Kennewick . Critical Areas & Resource LandsCA-1 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395§¨¦182 §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 Liquefaction Susceptibility Resource Lands (Mineral) Steep Slope Wetlands / Riparian City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary r-···-···-. : i l--·-···-." D :-··•--■■ i ! City 0f ~ Pasco . ShorelinesCA-2 0 21 Miles Columbia River BENTON COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Richland Kennewick WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River £¤12£¤395 £¤395 §¨¦182 §¨¦182 £¤12 £¤395 City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary City 0f ~ Pasco r-···-···-. : i l--·-···-." D FRANKLIN COUNTY COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES The following County-Wide Planning Policies were developed and adopted by Franklin County in coordination with Franklin County Cities to establish a framework to ensure that county and city comprehensive plans are consistent with one another as required by the Growth Management Act. Resolution 2019-312 (October 22, 2019). I. Policies to Implement RCW 36.70A.020 1. The Comprehensive Plans of Franklin County and each of its cities therein shall be prepared and adopted with the objective to facilitate economic prosperity by accommodating growth consistent with the following: A. Urban Growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in a cost efficient manner. B. Reduce Sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. C. Transportation: Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with the comprehensive plans of Franklin County, the Cities of Pasco, Mesa, Connell and Kahlotus, the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. D. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the Franklin County population and promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. E. Economic Development: Encourage economic development consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans. Promote economic opportunity for all residents of the county, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth. F. Property Rights: Private property rights shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. G. Permits: Applications for permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability, and through a process which provides for integrated and consolidated review. H. Natural Resource Industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource based industries including: productive agriculture (cultivation and grazing), fisheries and mineral industries. Encourage the improvement of productive agricultural lands and discourage incompatible uses. I. Open Space and Recreation: Encourage the retention of Retain useful open space and enhance development of recreational opportunities, conserve critical fish and wildlife habitat, increase public access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. J. Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the region’s high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water for all uses, including potable domestic requirements. K. Citizen Participation and Coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. L. Public Facilities and Services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. M. Historic Preservation: Identify and encourage the preservation of land sites and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. II. Policies to Implement RCW 36.70A.110 relating to the establishment of Urban Growth Areas 1. Each city within Franklin County is included within a designated urban growth area (UGA). 2. Designated UGAs should include an amount of undeveloped area to adequately accommodate forecasted growth and development for the next 20 years. The size of the UGA should reflect the Comprehensive Plans of each municipality which identifies the amount of land needed to accommodate community and essential public facilities, housing, commercial and industrial activities, and enough land to prevent inflation of land costs due to market fluctuations and limited land supplies. Further, the size of UGAs should consider the provision of open space, locations for parks and recreation, and protection of Critical Areas as well as natural barriers to development. 3. Designated urban growth areas should include those portions of the county already characterized by urban growth and having existing public infrastructure, public facilities and service capacities to serve existing and future growth. 4. Designated urban growth areas should include those areas that are within the recognized utility service areas of each city. 5. The size of urban growth areas will vary due to regional settings and should be adequate to promote-viable economic development strategies, promote choices in housing accommodations and ensure adequate lands are available for associated open spaces and public purposes. 6. Population projections used for designating urban growth areas will be based upon information provided by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Use of the “mid” series as provided by OFM is preferred, but the Counties and Cities may determine to use different estimates ("high" or low") based on coordination and mutual agreement. A period of twenty years is the typical planning period. 7. The County shall, in consultation with the cities, propose a population allocation for the purposes of updating Comprehensive Plan documents, based upon the most recent ratio of population distribution as provided by the published OFM intercensal population estimates. The combined population figures for each municipality and the County must total the State's population forecast for Franklin County. The allocation shall be reconsidered during the periodic review required by RCW 36.70A.130. The County, in consultation with the Cities, may review growth projections and allocations between update cycles when circumstances have changed, (for example, actual growth rates or permitting varies from the predicted patterns, or when OFM provides a new set of projections for GMA planning). 8. Municipalities should limit the extension of water and sewer service to area within each jurisdiction’s urban growth area. 9. Final development approval will continue to reside with the County for areas outside of City limits. 10. Applications for amendments or changes to the UGA may only be submitted by the County or a municipality within the County in even-numbered years prior to the deadline established for the year's docketing process (with intervals coinciding with the required periodic update of the comprehensive plan). When a city or the county proposes to alter a UGA, it is the responsibility of the proponent to provide confirmation (through studies, reports, and adopted plans) that all of the requirements above have been met, as well as provide a land capacity analysis (guided by WAC 365-196-325) , and SEPA documentation. 11. Within Urban Growth Areas, urban uses shall be concentrated in and adjacent to existing urban services, or where they are shown on a Capital Improvement Plan to be available within six years. 12. The extension of a UGA into an area of Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance (or any Resource lands) is not allowed. Lands with no existing commercial agriculture use or production should be considered for UGA expansion prior to the addition of lands with existing commercial agriculture. However, the availability of water rights may also factor into the selection of lands to be included into UGAs, and the availability of water rights shall be factored in for consideration of approval. 13. When requesting UGA expansions, Cities shall demonstrate the ability for in-fill development to occur in existing low-density areas within the City's UGA to avoid leap-frog development patterns. 14. All policies within each jurisdiction's and Franklin County’s Comprehensive Plans shall be modified to be consistent with adopted Countywide Policies. III. Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and the provision of urban services to such development [RCW 36.70A.210 (3)b] 15. Joint county/city standards shall be established for development within each individual urban growth boundary, but beyond corporate limits of cities. It is in the public interest that joint standards be developed to preclude the creation of development patterns without municipal utilities and substandard infrastructure and property division that would burden the public with unnecessary costs to correct or compromise the ability of the UGA to accommodate the municipality’s 20-year population forecast. These standards should include: A. Street locations, both major and secondary; B. Street right-of-way widths; C. Street improvement widths; D. Street improvement standards; E. Lots and blocks including special lot reservation system when public sewer concurrency cannot be provided; F. Curbs and gutters; G. Sidewalks for secondary streets; H. Road construction standards; I. Cul-de-sac, location and dimensions; J. Storm drainage facilities, quantity, quality and discharge locations; K. Street lights, conduit, fixtures, locations; L. Sewer, septic regulations, private sewer, dry sewer facilities; M. Water, pipe sizes, locations, fire flows, uniform codes; N. All building requirements; O. Subdivision and platting requirements including density, parks and open space; P. Collection and use of development impact fees as appropriate; Q. Mobile home and manufactured home regulations as appropriate; R. Zoning standards; 16. The availability of the full range of urban governmental services will be subject to the annexation policies of the adjacent municipality. The timing of utility extensions into the urban growth area should be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and capital facilities plan of the adjacent municipality. IV. Policies for siting public facilities of a county-wide or state-wide nature, including transportation facilities of a statewide significance as defined in RCW 47.06.140 [RCW 36.70A.210(3)c] 17. When an appropriate issue arises, the county and cities within, along with participation from the public, shall cooperate in a process to site essential public facilities of regional and statewide importance. The objective of the process shall be to ensure that such facilities are located so as to protect environmental quality, optimize access and usefulness to all jurisdictions, and equitably distribute economic benefits/burdens throughout the region or county. 18. No local comprehensive plan or development regulations will preclude the siting of essential public facilities, but standards may be generated to ensure that reasonable compatibility with other land uses can be achieved. V. Policies for county-wide transportation facilities and strategies [RCW 36.70A.210(3)d] 19. Maintain active county-city participation in the Benton Franklin Council of Governments in order to facilitate city, county, and state coordination in planning regional transportation facilities and infrastructure improvements to serve essential public facilities including Port District facilities and properties. 20. Comprehensive plans shall include, where applicable, the master plans of identified major transportation facilities such as airports, railroads, major freight terminals, and public transit and policies to ensure that they are reasonably accommodated and compatible with future surrounding land uses, in order to ensure the protection of regional transportation assets. VI. Policies that consider the need for affordable housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution [RCW 36.70A.210(3)e] 21. The housing element of each comprehensive plan shall: A. Address the manner and the extent that demand from all segments of the housing market will be met. B. Assess the ability to provide sufficient land, infrastructure and services to each housing segment including but not limited to, government assisted housing for low income families, manufactured housing, multi-family housing, migrant agricultural worker housing, and group homes. All segments of the housing market must be accommodated in appropriate numbers. 22. Individual plans should encourage regeneration of existing housing inventories. 23. To the extent possible each plan should promote the construction of affordable housing, particularly for low and moderate income segments of the population. 24. Consideration should be given to the provision of diversity in housing types to accommodate elderly, physically challenged, mentally impaired, and the special needs of the population, i.e. congregate care facilities. 25. Comprehensive plans shall consider the effects of public improvement development costs on housing, including impact fees. Allowance for exemption from impact fees for projects, which enhance housing for low and moderate income householders, should be considered. 26. Each community is encouraged to provide its fair share of housing affordable to low and moderate income households by promoting a balanced mix of diverse housing types. 27. Consideration should be given to implementing innovative regulatory strategies, which provide incentives for developers to provide housing affordable to low and moderate income households in order to avoid socioeconomic segregation. VII. Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas [RCW 36.70A.210(3)f] 28. City and county planning efforts will be coordinated within urban growth areas. 29. The county and each city shall jointly develop and implement development, land division and building standards, and coordinate permit procedures for the review and permitting of new subdivisions within Urban Growth Areas. VIII. Policies for county-wide economic development and employment [RCW 36.70A.210(3)g] 30. The comprehensive plan of the county and each city shall promote employment and economic opportunity for all citizens. 31. The County and all municipalities will participate in creating a County-wide economic strategy. 32. The provision of utilities and other supporting urban governmental services to commercial and industrial areas should be coordinated and assigned a high priority by utility purveyors and service providers. IX. Policies for the analysis of fiscal impacts [RCW 36.70A.210(3)h] 33. Construction design and placement standards for roads, intersections and streets(with provisions for storm water conveyance), sewer, water and lighting infrastructure, should be determined based upon an analysis which identifies the most appropriate public expenditure over extended periods of time. Utilities should be incorporated into such analysis. 34. If communities consider the imposition of impact fees said fees should be established on the basis of identifiable development impacts. 35. Capital Improvement Plans and Land Use Plans shall include fiscal analyses which identify the most cost effective uses of regional and local public services. 36. Support the development of public schools in areas where utilities are present or can be extended, is financially supportable at urban densities, where the extension of public infrastructure will protect health and safety, and the school locations are consistent with the analysis recommended by WAC 365-196-425(3)(b). 1 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Land Capacity Analysis City of Pasco, Washington Introduction The purpose of the land capacity analysis (LCA) is to identify the City of Pasco’s availability of land to accommodate the projected population for the next 20 years. The study analyzes existing vacant and under-utilized parcels within the existing City limits and Urban Growth Area, and identifies number of persons it can accommodate during the planning timeframe. The difference between the projected population and the existing land capacity will identify whether the City has adequate land, or will need additional land to meet the future growth needs. This study finds that additional land is required for the City to accommodate the 20-year population growth. The study was conducted using the Franklin County Parcel GIS data (dated October 2018) and planning assumptions (existing zoning requirements, standards) that covers a time period coinciding with the 2038 Comprehensive Plan and population projections provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. The results of the Land Capacity Analysis may vary over the duration of the twenty-year time period due to external influences including: fluctuating market factors and regional economy, land owner choice and infrastructure availability. The LCA provides a broad understanding for the City to plan and prepare for future growth. This document will address the following: • Methodology • Projected Growth • Residential Land Capacity • Land Needed Methodology To estimate capacities, the LCA involved the following processes: 1. Identify developable land within existing Pasco City Limits and existing Pasco Urban Growth Area (UGA) for residential land use designations: a. Identify vacant land b. Identify under-utilized land c. Address right of way (20%), market (20%) and environmental factors (5%) to identify the net developable land 2. Calculate housing units on developable land within the City limits and existing UGA a. Developable land area is multiplied the maximum density in each zoning and land use category 3. Identify existing land capacity to accommodate future population 2 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) a. Multiply housing units with OFM household sizes 4. Identify difference between the projected (OFM) population estimates and the existing land capacity to determine the City’s adequacy or insufficiency of land supply within the existing UGA boundary Data Gaps: The LCA does not take into consideration potential prohibiting and/or limiting factors of growth that can include the lack of infrastructure, utilities and access in areas of the City. Projected Growth The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) produces a state population forecast for each county. Each forecast identifies a low, medium and high projection for each county. County population estimates are then assigned to the cities within the counties based on local processes. The 2018 OFM population estimate for Pasco is approximately 73,590. Historic trends have indicated that the population of Pasco has represented 80 percent or more of the total Franklin County population. As a result, the County has always assigned 80 percent of the OFM County population projections to Pasco for Comprehensive Planning purposes. Historically the 80 percent assignment has been based on the OFM mid-range projection. Within the planning horizon the City of Pasco will need to anticipate a growth scenario where the County population reaches an estimated 152,285 in the year 2038. With 80 percent of that population assigned to Pasco the City’s population is expected to reach about 121,828 by 2038. This represents an increase of 48,238 over the current City population. Table 1 below provides the City’s population projection for the next 20 years. Table 1: Population Estimates Franklin County and the City of Pasco Franklin County Pasco1 2018 93,541 73,590 2028 121,792 97,434 2038 152,285 121,828 10 year increase 30,493 23,844 20 year increase 58,744 48,238 Residential units needed in Pasco in 10 years 7,522 Residential units needed in Pasco in 20 years 15,217 1OFM Medium Series. Historically, Pasco’s share has been 80 percent of the County population. 2Based on OFM - household size: 3.17 3 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Residential Land Capacity The following section describes the steps taken to identify residential land capacity. Step 1: Identify vacant and underutilized land within City limits The LCA is based on Franklin County GIS parcel data from October 2018. Parcels were aggregated into two categories: within City limits and within the UGA. Tax exempt parcels were excluded from the analysis. Excluding tax exempt parcels eliminated land that was not available for residential development due to its ownership. These parcels were selected using ownership field included within the attribute table of the parcel GIS. In total, 665 parcels with an estimated sum of 6,500 acres were excluded. The following table identifies parcel excluded: Table 2: Exempt Parcels Owner Parcels Area (Acres) City of Pasco 122 619 Port of Pasco 75 2,934 Pasco School District (Education) 52 463 BNSF Railway 40 290 Franklin County Housing Authority 36 38 USA / Army Corps of Engineers / Bonneville Power Administration 32 411 Franklin County Irrigation District 17 73 Franklin County – Other 47 121 Lourdes Hospital 14 3 State of Washington (WSDOT, Others) 16 93 Columbia Basin College 3 138 State of Washington (Department of Natural Resources) 19 1,052 All Others 192 260 Underutilized parcels were identified by comparing the Land Market Value and Improvement Value attributes from the parcel GIS. The following steps were followed to identify parcel types: Step 1A) Select parcels where Land Market Value is greater than or equal to the Improvement Value Step 1B) Select from remaining parcels, select parcels where the Improvement Value was equal to zero. These parcels were identified as vacant. Step 1C) Underutilized parcel data was collected by selecting parcels where the Land Market Value was greater than and/or equal to the Improvement Value, where the Improvement Value was greater than zero. 4 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) The result of Step 1C were used to create two sets of data; underutilized parcels at 2x the zoning minimum and 3x the zoning minimum. Table 3: Vacant and under-utilized1 land in the City Zone Description Vacant Land (Acres) Underutilized Acres (2x-3x Zoning Minimum)1 Underutilized Acres (3x + Zoning Minimum)1 R-1 Low Density 283.02 0.31 5.39 R-1-A Low Density Alternate 14.45 - - R-1-A2 Low Density Alternate 0.58 - - R-1/PUD Low Density Planned Unit Development - - - R-2 Medium Density 17.31 0.19 - R-3 Medium Density 12.19 0.20 10.68 R-4 High Density 0.82 - - R-S-1 Suburban 16.92 - - R-S- 1/PUD Suburban Planned Unit Development 27.19 - - RP Residential Park 0.67 - - RS-12 Suburban 43.20 - 50.36 RS-20 Suburban 173.06 8.86 84.54 RT Residential Transition 6.90 - - Total 596.30 9.56 150.96 Total Acres 596.30 160.52 1Includes lots twice or higher than minimum lot size required in the zoning Step 2: Identify vacant and underutilized land within the existing Urban Growth Area This step was used to identify vacant and underutilized lands within the existing Pasco Urban Growth Area. The results did not take into consideration potential limiting factors for redevelopment such as land not available in the near future. Therefore, not all of the identified vacant land may be available for development. An additional challenge within the UGA is the vacant land in west Pasco. This area, south of Interstate I-182 and west of Highway 395 consists of remnant parcels created with poor subdivision practices (not at urban densities). The transportation system is limited with housing placed in the path of logical connections, the creation of long and narrow lots and parcels delineated with odd shapes leaving difficulties for future subdivisions to occur. The result has created challenges for future home construction, providing services (sewer) and limiting transportation access for fire and emergency responders. 5 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Table 4: Vacant and underutilized land in the existing UGA1 Land Use Vacant land Underutilized Residential - High Density Residential - Low Density 255.29 74.33 Residential - Mixed 13.45 20.02 Residential / Commercial - Mixed Total 268.74 94.35 Step 3: Identify developable land To identify the developable land, the LCA subtracts 45% from all land. The 45% reduction includes the need for transportation right of ways (20%), market factor (20%) and environmental constraints (5%). The transportation (roads) right of way (ROW) reduction of 20% is based on identifying future ROW of needs of the anticipated growth. Recent residential development has varied below 20% while central Pasco has higher ROW totals (up to 28%). This LCA uses the 20% ROW to incorporate a balanced approach for future development considerate of a more refined transportation (grid) pattern. The Washington State Department of Commerce defines “market factor” as the “…final deduction from the net developable area to account for lands assumed not to be available for development during the planning period.” RCW 36.70A.110 (2) states that cities and counties have discretion by considering local circumstances to determine the appropriate market factor. Table 5 and Figure 1 indicate developable residential lands within the City limits and UGA. Table 5: Developable land in the existing UGA1 Acres (A) 20% ROW (B) 20% Market Factor (C) 5% Environment (D) Developable Acres {A – (B+C+D)} Vacant land in the City limits 596.30 119.26 119.26 29.82 327.97 Underutilized land in the City limits1 160.52 32.10 32.10 8.03 88.29 Vacant land in existing UGA1 268.74 53.75 53.75 13.44 147.81 Under-utilized land in existing UGA 94.35 18.87 18.87 4.72 51.89 1Doesn’t include Broadmoor area 6 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Figure 1: Vacant and Under-utilized Residential Parcels -Vacant Parcels ~ Broadmoor Planning Area □Citylimits D Urban Growth Area (Current) D Proposed Urban Growth Area Land Capacity Analysis Vacant & Underutilized Parcels FRANKLIN COUNTY ·, . I a_:-.. · •'& .... ...,, .:,· -. ;I .,-. .... ~ .~ .. Cl : .. 'I·.:--. .. . . .. -; i "i.• mce ~WARRANTY Of ACCUAACY ~lb;:.a~~°.\~:~ ---... Thf'CttyofPACOUsnot_,._ .. ~~:::'~~':.;:: ~~twWIIDrffllliorlstlO'Mlonhinap . Rlucrllglllll:NlllmlldD ... loeall"lofa'IY...., .. .,__ Sudl _ _..,_,ll'llllfllDl:niltllld__,,at ,..,-....................... a,~ "--~ ll_,.,,..,._wollon1'1111 N ..._ 11N' 1w ....... ,.1or..,,cn1 JIIO"'d--d~."""1~fflaP ..• ,,\..-'•~ .. Department of Community & Economic Development w+• • 7 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Step 4: Identify current residential capacity This step identifies the developable land by each zoning district to determine the residential units that may be available in the future. Residential units are multiplied by the average household size (3.17) per OFM estimates. The amount of units referenced for the Broadmoor area is in line with the proposed mid-range development projects in the Broadmoor planning efforts. Table 6: Number of Buildable Units in the Vacant and Under-utilized Parcels Zone Description Density (DU/Acre) City limits UGA Vacant Underutilized Vacant Underutilized R-1 Low Density 4 566 11 562 162 R-1-A Low Density Alternate 4 29 R-1-A2 Low Density Alternate 4 1 R- 1/PUD Low Density Planned Unit Development 4 R-2 Medium Density 15 142 148 219 R-3 Medium Density 18 120 85 R-4 High Density 29 12 R-S-1 Suburban 4 34 R-S- 1/PUD Suburban Planned Unit Development 4 54 RP Residential Park 20 7 RS-12 Suburban 3 65 80 RS-20 Suburban 2 173 100 RT Residential Transition 3 10 Total 1214 276 710 381 Total Units 1,490 1,091 1 Density used in calculating the units is a range, that includes maximum density, and in some cases the median of the range of density 8 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Table 7: Residential capacity Type Acres Residential Unit Capacity Population to be Accommodated Developable land in the City limits 428.20 1,490 4,723 Developable land in existing UGA 199.70 1,091 3,459 Broadmoor1 7,0001 22,190 Current Capacity (Includes Broadmoor Area) 30,372 1Broadmoor Planning Area (In Progress) Table 8: Gap in future land supply 20yr Population Projection (Growth) Current Capacity (City Limits & Urban Growth Area) Population Gap 48,238 30,372 17,866 (48,238 - 30,372) Land Needed Step 5: Identify Land Use Needs This section identifies other land categories needed to serve the additional 17,866 residents. The City had an adequate supply of land necessary to meet current commercial needs, however additional commercial land will be needed to support new residential neighborhoods in an effort to increase and promote efficiently planned walkable and sustainable communities. Industrial Lands Lands for industrial development were identified within the current Urban Growth Area. This included selecting all parcels within current industrial land use designations, and aggregating them into three different categories: • Developed: o Parcels with existing structures; above $10,000 in Improvement Value The City of Pasco will need to accommodate an additional 17,866 residents outside of the existing Urban Growth Area boundary and City limits. 9 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) • Underutilized: o Parcels with building footprints covering less than 5% of total area • Vacant o Parcels with less than $10,000 in Improvement Value Publically owned parcels were and tax-exempt within industrial land use areas were also identified for the following analysis. In total, there are just under 6,000 acres of designated land use lands within the Urban Growth Area. It is important to note that this total includes all rights of ways, infrastructure and facilities. Of that total, almost 4,800 parcel acres remain. The analysis then moved on to selecting publically owned and tax-exempt parcels. Using Franklin County parcel and assessor data, a total of 1,262 acres were identified. The City of Pasco, the Franklin County Irrigation District, BNSF, the Port of Pasco and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are some of the largest landowners in this category. After removal of tax-exempt parcels, a total of 3,524 acres remained. Using the definitions from above, parcels that met the criteria for developed, underutilized and/or vacant were selected. Table 9 (below) provides a summary of the results. Table 9: Industrial Lands Analysis Parcel Type Area (Acres) Developed 907.79 Underutilized 412.81 Vacant 2,203.73 TOTAL 3,524.33 Recent large land purchases include over 181 acres from the Colville Indian Tribe along the Highway 395 corridor that may reduce total industrial development capacity. Additionally, the Port of Pasco owns 661 acres of land within the industrial land use. Industrial Land Challenges An estimated 4,800 acres of land are designated within the Pasco City Limits and the Urban Growth Area. The Heritage Industrial Park encompasses 810 acres located in the southeastern portion of the city. While the site consistent of predominantly large parcels best suited and historically planned for industrial development, access to the state transportation system is limited. Currently, Highway 12 is only accessible via the ‘A’ Street and Sacajawea Park Road intersection, both of which are at-grade. Limited vehicle capacity and safety challenges at these intersections have limited the prospects of this site. Pasco’s rapid growth has also led to increased residential housing developments constructed in older neighborhoods east of Oregon Avenue, including adjacent to the 10 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Heritage Industrial site. Impacts of traditional industrial developments on residential neighborhoods are an added concern for the marketability of the area, thus leading to a vacant and challenging industrial site. Future Industrial Lands There are 685 acres north of the existing City Limits, between Railroad Avenue and US HWY 395 that is zoned for industrial use by Franklin County and within a County Industrial LAMIRD. The addition of this land into the Urban Growth Area would allow the property to be served with adequate facilities and utilities that would promote its development potential. The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan designates the area (Figure 2) as Rural Industrial. Discussions with the Franklin County Planning Department indicate that this area is intended for industrial development. Figure 2: Future Industrial Lands A smaller, 40-acre parcel of land is also included within the expansion. This area east of US HWY 395 is located adjacent to existing city utilities (water and sewer) and includes access via Capital Avenue and E Foster Wells Road. Currently zoned for AP-20 (Agricultural Production) by Franklin County, the land is surrounded to the south and west by industrial uses. A benefit of the locations identified for industrial expansion include access to rail and existing transportation facilities. Regional travel forecasts show that US HWY 395 (north of HWY 12) will experience less than a 70% volume to capacity ratio, this includes additional population and employment growth within the expanded Urban Growth Area. This may alleviate the traffic on current roadways facing higher than average congestion levels, such as Interstate 182. The Census provides employment data that is reported via the Local Employment Dynamics partnership. Using this data, we find that that employment within the industrial land use in Pasco increased by 40% from 2010 – 2017. Of the reported jobs within industrial lands, 68% are categorized as construction, manufacturing, transportation/warehousing or agriculture. Pasco has historically had a higher percentage of industrial employment within these sectors compared to the regional employment type. Recent employment data (2016) identified that these sectors make up 40%, more than ten percent higher than the entire Benton-Franklin County region. 11 City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018) Future Lands Summary Table 10 below summarizes the land needed to accommodate the estimated population growth for the City of Pasco, a total of 3,573 acres. The per capita ratio is calculated by dividing the land use area by the population. The per capita ratio goal provides a guide for future land development to take place in more compact forms. The land needed columns is the estimated amount of land necessary per each land use category of the Comprehensive Plan. These totals are estimates, and subject to external market and economic factors. Table 10: Land Needed for Additional People Land Use Per Capita Ratio (with street ROW) Per Capita Ratio (Goal) Land Needed (Acres) Residential 0.123 0.110 1,965 Commercial 0.028 0.025 447 Public Lands 0.012 0.012 204 Open Space / Park Lands 0.013 0.013 232 Industrial1 725 Total 3,573 1Includes an existing industrial land use in the county. This is added to the City’s UGA in order to serve the area with municipal utilities. ______________________________________________________________________________ END OF LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS Appendix E: Supplemental Public Parcipation Plan Comprehensive Plan Update Introduction In 2018, the Pasco Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2018-001 establishing the public participation process to be used for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update. Per RCW 36.70A.130 (2)(a), the law requires the City to establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation plan or program that establishes procedures and schedule for the Comprehensive Plan Update process. This supplemental Public Participation Plan is an extension of Resolution 2018-001. Work Program for Comprehensive Plan Update The following tasks were identified for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update process: October 2018: Environmental Impact Statement – Scoping Notice The City of Pasco, during the update of the Comprehensive Plan issued a Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice in October 2018. The notice proposed three alternatives of the Urban Growth Area (boundary) based on forecasted growth assumptions. The three proposed alternatives: • Alternative #1: No Action • Alternative #2: Traditional Growth Target • Alternative #3: Compact Growth Target The results of the analysis are included within the Comprehensive Plan’s Environmental Impact Statement. The City of Pasco served as the lead agency and received over thirty comments from the public, local, regional and state agencies. Updated Schedule Date Item October 2018 EIS Scoping Notice Issued January 2019 – May 2020 Environmental Impact Statement and Analysis June 2019 – December 2019 Comprehensive Plan Elements review with Planning Commission (Workshop) January 2020 – April 2020 Draft any changes needed to Plan Elements April 2020 – July 2020 Planning Commission Workshops and Public Hearings July 2020 – August 2020 Final Council Actions/Ordinances Adopting Update How to Provide Comments Comments are welcome throughout the update process. Written comments may be submitted by mail or email to the following: Pasco Planning Department PO BOX 293 Pasco, Washington 99301 gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov Notification and Dissemination of Information Appropriate notification of all public hearings will be published in the Tri-City Herald. Additional news and press releases announcing hearing times, dates and location may be provided to local media per City of Pasco’s communication requirements. Notices and meeting agendas to be published on the City website. Appendix E – Public Participation RCW 36.70A.110 (1) Mandatory GMA Provision PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan 1. INTRODUCTION In 2018 Pasco will update its Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to ensure consistency with the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). Periodic review and update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations is necessary to reflect current law, local needs, new data, correct errors, and or clarify intent. The update is required to be completed by June 30, 2018. This document provides the procedural framework for involving residents within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary and the public in general in efforts to update the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations as mandated by the State Growth Management Act (GMA) in RCW 36.70A.130 (4). This public participation plan is intended to: •Establish a clear public involvement process that provides information to the public on the Comprehensive Plan update process; •Include broad public participation from interested agencies, organizations, groups and individuals; •Establish public meetings for the purpose of sharing information on the Comprehensive Plan update process and receiving comments, ideas, and public suggestions related thereto; •Establish a process, if needed, for public involvement for individuals or groups that may have scheduling conflicts with established public meeting times; •Schedule public meetings in west, central and east Pasco to achieve convenient opportunities for public involvement in the update process, and: •Ensure public documents and information are available 2 1.10 What is the Comprehensive Plan? Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan is an expression of community goals and desires formalized in a document adopted by the City Council. The Comprehensive Plan contains various goals and policies along with supporting information necessary to guide decision making related to the general health, welfare, safety and quality of life of current and future Pasco residents. The fundamental purpose of the Plan is to manage urban growth and land use within the Urban Growth Boundary. 1.20 What are development regulations? Development Regulations include zoning and subdivision regulations, master shorelines regulations, critical lands regulations and any other set of regulations designed to protect the general health, safety and welfare of the community while regulating land use. Development regulations are used to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. SCOPE OF REVIEW The following vision statement that was included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan will continued to be used to guide the 2018 update process. The vision statement is highlighted below. Pasco Vision for 2038 Located along the north shore of the Columbia River, Pasco is the major service center for the ever expanding agricultural industrial region of the Columbia Basin. Our City contains tree lined streets with well-maintained and identifiable neighborhoods interspersed with neighborhood parks and schools. The City’s infrastructure reflects good planning and public stewardship by being well maintained and providing acceptable levels of services. Fire stations and police mini-stations are optimally located throughout the community to provide exceptional and proactive public safety. City government activity participates with the Port of Pasco and regional economic development agencies to expand employment opportunities as well as the tax base necessary to support needed community services. Our retail and commercial service centers are attractive and inviting areas clustered near intersections of major arterial streets. Pasco is the multi-modal hub of southeastern Washington with flourishing industrial development along key transportation nodes including rail, air, barge, truck and pipelines. All residents of the city are afforded access to the Columbia River. Pasco is oriented toward and connected with the River through parks, pathways, bikeways, boats launches and docks. 3 The following Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, Background Information and Development Regulations will be reviewed under the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update: 1. General and Administrative Goals 2. Land Use Element 3. Housing Element 4. Capital Facilities Element and Program 5. Utilities & Community Facilities Element 6. Transportation Element and Program 7. Open Space 8. Public Services 9. Critical Areas/Shorelines 10. OFM Population Projections 11. Urban Growth Boundary 12. Development regulations such as zoning and subdivision 13. Other items as may be required to meet the intent of the Growth Management Act 3. WORK PROGRAM FOR THE 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE The Comprehensive Plan Compliance Review and Update Program will result in: 1. An update of the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the GMA; and, 2. Revised development regulations as needed for compliance with GMA and to improve their consistency with the Plan. 4. UPDATE SCHEDULE The Compliance Review Update schedule will consist of phases generally following the outline below: PHASE Date Completed I. Review GMA Regulations Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to identify inconsistencies Jan-March 2018 II. Review background and supporting information contained in the Comprehensive Plan Jan- March 2018 III. Review goals and policies of the various Plan Elements. Jan - March 2018 IV. Draft any needed changes to the Plan Elements April - May 2018 V. Draft any needed changes to the Development Regulations April - May 2018 4 V. Review Land Use Map April 2018 VI. Planning Commission Workshops & Public Hearings Dec 2017-May 2018 V. Final legislative action: City Council Ordinance adopting updates and revisions as needed June 2018 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) requires local governments to establish a public participation program for the review and update of comprehensive plans and development regulations. In establishing a public participation program the City of Pasco must ensure the following: 1) That notice of the update process is broadly and effectively disseminated (RCW 36.70A.035). 2) That the notice identifies the procedures and schedules by which updates will be considered. 3) That the program provides for early and continuous public participation (RCW 36.70A.140). The goal of this public participation plan is to provide the public with timely information and opportunities to review and comment on proposed updates and revisions to the plan and regulations before they are made. To that end the City of Pasco will encourage contact and involvement from and with the following groups: • The general public • Property owners • The City Council and Planning Commission • Franklin County Commission and Planning Commission • Local, state and federal agencies with interest in Pasco • Business organization and other non-governmental groups • Tribes • Utility and transportation providers • Media The City of Pasco will communicate with the public throughout the duration of the Comprehensive Plan update process to ensure the broad groups listed above are provided information and have opportunities to participate in the update process. Communications may include the following: 5 Press Releases: The City’s Communications Manager will issue periodic press releases throughout the update process to inform the public of mile stones in the update process. Mailings and Public Notices: Notices of meetings and hearings and or other events will be posted on the City’s Website, posted on City’s main Bulletin Board at the City Hall and published in the Tri-City Herald. Notices will also be mailed to each dwelling unit and business within the City’s water service area with the monthly utility bills. Efforts will be made to provide notices in English and Spanish. Website Postings: All notices of meetings and hearings and agendas’ will be posted on the City’s Website (www.pasco-wa.gov). All maps, documents, reports and update information will be available on the Website. Information on the Website will be updated as information becomes available. Comment Forms: Comment forms will be available at the City Hall and on the Website. Written Comments: The City will accept written comments throughout the duration of the update process. Comments may be submitted by letter, in person or by email. Email addresses for comments sent electronically can be found under Section 9 below. 6. HOW CAN CITIZENS GET INVOLVED? Opportunities for public involvement will be provided throughout the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation update process. Residents are encouraged to actively participate in the project by attending public meetings, workshops, and hearings of the Planning Commission and City Council, visiting the City’s website (www.pasco-wa.gov) or by contacting planning staff. The City will use a variety of methods to inform the public about public meetings, availability of planning documents and reports, and important milestones related to the Update process including, but not limited to the following: 6.1 City Council Meetings: The Pasco City Council meets in regular session on the first and third Mondays of each month. Council workshops are held on the second and fourth Mondays. All meetings are held at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers at 525 North Third Ave. in Pasco 6.2 Planning Commission Meetings: The Planning Commission is the responsible citizen board that advises the City Council on 6 Comprehensive Plan and land use issues. Accordingly, the Planning Commission will be the primary source of public involvement in guiding the 2018 Review and Update Program. The Planning Commission meets the third Thursday of every month at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers at 525 North Third Avenue in Pasco. 6.3 Public Meetings: In addition to the City Council and Planning Commission's meetings and hearings, the Planning Staff will conduct public meetings around the community to receive public comment on Comprehensive Plan issues. These public meetings will be scheduled for the following locations: • West Pasco Mid-Columbia Library (Wrigley & Rd 76) • Kurtzman Park Community Mini-Station (333 S Wehe Ave) • City Hall (525 N 3rd Ave.) 6.4 Public Hearings: All public hearings scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council will be held in the City Council Chambers following public notification. All such meetings will be broadcast live on Public Access channel 191 through Charter Cable. Public notice of all hearings will be published in the Tri-City Herald and on the City’s Web page. The notice shall give the date, time, location and purpose of the hearing. 6.5 Additional Public Involvement Methods: In addition to the procedures described above, the City of Pasco may utilize one or more of the following to increase public involvement in the update process: • Additional meetings: The City may elect to hold additional meetings as needed to provide information and or to receive comments from the public. • Information Bulletins: The City may prepare short informational bulletins (fact sheets) to disseminate information to the public. • Access to Planning Staff: City staff will be available to provide information and answer questions throughout the update process. Planning Staff can be reach at City Hall. Contact information is provided under Section 9 below. 7. WRITTEN COMMENTS Written comments are welcome throughout the update process. Written comments may be submitted by mail, fax or email to: Pasco Planning Department, P.O. Box 293, Pasco, WA 99301, Fax: (509) 545-3499, Email: mcdonaldd@pasco-wa.gov or adamsj@ pasco-wa.gov 7 8. NOTIFICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION Proper notification of all meetings and hearings will be published in the Tri-City Herald. Additionally news releases announcing public meeting and hearing times, dates and locations will be provided to the local media including, but not limited to: Tri-City Herald, local television and radio stations, and those who request to be notified. Notices will also be posted on the City’s Website and on the main bulletin Board at the City Hall. Meeting agendas will be available on the City’s Website at www.pasco-wa.gov 9. WHO CAN I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION ? For more information, please contact the Pasco Planning Office: Dave McDonald, City Planner mcdonaldd@pasco-wa.gov Jeff Adams, Associate Planner adamsj@ pasco-wa.gov 509-545-3441 252 N. 3rd Ave. Pasco WA, 99301 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan: Non -project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement May September 2020 Prepared for: City of Pasco Prepared by: White Bluffs Consulting With assistance from: Oneza & Associates JUB Engineers, Inc. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page a Integrate d Non -project Draft Final E nvironmental I mpact S tatement Factsheet Project Title: Integrated Non-Project Final Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Pasco 10-year Comprehensive Plan Proposed Action and Alternatives: The City is updating its Comprehensive Plan based on projected growth projections. Three alternatives were studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), including a No Action Alternative and two Action Alternatives. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative growth will occur based on the past trends. No land use change will occur to affect the growth pattern. The UGA boundary would remain as currently identified for the City. Alternative 2: Recommended Growth Target Alternative 2 proposes changes in the Comprehensive Plan land use designations to accommodate Pasco’s 20-year population growth and capitalize on other development opportunities in a large UGA area expansion on the northern borders of the City. Alternative 3: Recommended Growth Target High Density, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, proposes changes in the Comprehensive Plan land use designations with higher density land use designations proposed in a UGA area expansion on the northern borders of the City, and smaller in area than Alternative 2, and also through increased in- fill development and higher density development, including redevelopment, within the City. Lead Agency: City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department 525 N 3rd Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official: Rick White, Director City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department 525 N 3rd Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 EIS Contact Person: Rick White Community & Economic Development Director City of Pasco 525 N 3rd Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Phone: (509) 545 3441 E-mail: whiter@pasco-wa.gov Required Permits and/or Approvals: Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan by the City of Pasco Council; review by the Washington State Department of Commerce, as required by the GMA. Additionally, any approval of the Urban Growth Area expansion would be granted by the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners. Also, the Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page b transportation element will be reviewed and is expected to be certified by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Authors and Principal Contributors: This Integrated Non-Project Final EIS was prepared under the direction of the City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department. Research and analysis was provided by: • White Bluffs Consulting, Lead Author • Oneza & Associates, Built and Natural Environment Analysis • JUB Engineers, Transportation analysis Date of Draft EIS Issuance: May 15, 2020 Date of Draft EIS Comments Due: June 15July 31, 2020 Public Meetings May 21, 2020 Date of Final EIS Issuance September xx, 2020 Related Plans and Documents • City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan 2020 (September 2020) - Volume 1 • City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (September 2020) - Volume 2, prepared by Oneza & Associates • The City of Pasco Urban Growth Area Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis (May 21,2020) and its appendix, Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation by Murray Smith and Associates (November 18, 2019) A limited number of CD and hard copy draft Final EIS documents are available at the City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department at 525 N 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington 99301. The draft Final EIS is also available online at: https://www.pasco-wa.gov/1088/10763/Comprehensive-Plan- Update-2018-2038 Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. What is an Integrated SEPA/GMA document? .................................................................................. 1 1.3. What is an EIS ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.4. What is this Process ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.5. Background information on GMA ...................................................................................................... 2 1.6. Location .............................................................................................................................................. 3 1.7. Summary of the Proposal................................................................................................................... 4 1.8. Scope of Review ................................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2. Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1. Description of EIS Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 6 2.2. How the Alternatives Were Developed ............................................................................................. 6 2.3. The Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action .............................................................................................................. 6 2.3.2. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target .................................................................................... 8 2.3.3. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative ................................................ 10 Chapter 3. Major Issues and Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 14 3.1. Major Issues and Areas .................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1. Increased Density and Development ........................................................................................ 14 3.1.2. Traffic ........................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.3. Open Space and Natural Areas ................................................................................................. 15 3.1.4. Healthy Community .................................................................................................................. 15 3.2. Comparison of Alternatives to GMA Goals ...................................................................................... 15 Chapter 4. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 21 4.1. Earth ................................................................................................................................................. 21 4.1.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 21 4.1.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 22 4.1.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 23 Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page ii 4.2. Surface and Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 24 4.2.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 24 4.2.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 26 4.2.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 28 4.3. Plants and Animals ........................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 29 4.3.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 31 4.3.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 33 4.4. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 34 4.4.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 34 4.4.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 37 4.4.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 38 4.5. Environmental Health ...................................................................................................................... 40 4.5.1: Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 40 4.5.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 40 4.5.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 41 4.6 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas ........................................................................................................ 42 4.6.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 42 4.6.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 42 4.3.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 44 4.7. Shoreline Use ................................................................................................................................... 44 4.7.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 44 4.7.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 45 4.7.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 45 4.8. Population, Housing, and Employment ........................................................................................... 46 4.8.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 46 4.8.2. Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 47 4.8.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................. 4948 4.9. Parks and Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 50 4.9.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 50 4.9.2. Impacts .................................................................................................................................. 5150 4.9.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 51 Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page iii 4.10. Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 53 4.10.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 53 4.10.2. Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 54 4.10.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 55 4.11. Public Services and Utilities ........................................................................................................... 58 4.11.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 58 4.11.2. Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 61 4.11.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 62 4.12. Heritage Conservation ................................................................................................................... 65 4.12.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 65 4.12.2. Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 67 4.12.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 68 4.13. Summary of Impacts by Alternative .............................................................................................. 69 4.14. Summary of Mitigation Measures by Topic ................................................................................... 80 Chapter 5. Comments and Responses ........................................................................................................ 87 5.1. Comments and Responses for Final EIS ........................................................................................... 87 References ................................................................................................................................................ 197 City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update – EIS Scoping Comment Response Matrix ................... 203 List of Tables Table 1 Population Estimates ................................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2 Existing Residential Capacity .................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3 Alternative 1 Existing Land Use Acreage .......................................................................................... 7 Table 4 Proposed UGA Area Alternative #2 ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 5 Land Use in Alternative #2 ...................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6 Proposed Land Use in the UGA Expansion Area ........................................................................ 11 Table 7 Land Use in Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................... 12 Table 8 Summary of Alternatives Compared to GMA Goals ............................................................ 1514 Table 9 Geologic Hazards of the City ......................................................................................................... 2221 Table 10 Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations in the City Limits and UGA 3534 Table 11 Existing Land Use within the City’s Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................ 3635 Table 12 Summary of Impacts by Alternative ............................................................................................ 6968 Table 13 Summary of Mitigation Measures by Topic ............................................................................ 8078 Table 14 Comments and Responses for Final EIS .................................................................................... 8785 Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page iv List of Figures Figure 1-1 Regional Context........................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2-1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-2 Alternative 2: Traditional Growth ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2-3 Alternative 3: Compact Growth – Preferred Alternative ........................................................... 11 Figure 4-1 Geologic Formations ................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 4-2 Frequently Flooded and Water Resources Critical Areas ......................................................... 25 Figure 4-3 Priority Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 4-4 Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space ......................................................................................... 50 Figure 4-5 Proposed and Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space .......................................................... 52 Figure 4-6 Existing Transportation System. .......................................................................................................... 54 Figure 4-7 Transportation improvements. ............................................................................................................ 57 Figure 4-8 Existing Water System ............................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 4-9 Existing Sanitary Sewer System ........................................................................................................... 59 Figure 4-10 Water infrastructure improvements .................................................................................................. 63 Figure 4-11 Sewer system improvements ............................................................................................................... 63 Figure 4-12 Fire service improvements ..................................................................................................................... 64 Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 1 Chapter 1. Overview 1.1. Introduction The City of Pasco (City) is updating its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA; Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A). Every 10 years, the City is required to update its Plan. Pursuant to the GMA, the City wais to complete the update by the target date of June 30, 20189; this plan is expected to be completed by Fall 2020. The Plan consists of goals, policies, and analyses of the following elements: economic, land use, transportation, utilities, capital facilities, and housing. It also includes parks and recreation, schools, municipal facilities, fire and emergency services, police services, telecommunications, and Irrigation District Facilities. The Plan guides decisions about development and growth within the City limits and in the Urban Growth Area (UGA). It is designed to help the City meet its long-term vision for growth. The updated document contains visions, goals and policies, and analyses. The Plan is also required to be consistent with the County-wide Planning Policies established for Franklin County (Franklin County 2019). The City has determined this proposal is likely to have significant adverse impact of the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). 1.2. What is an Integrated SEPA/GMA document? In 1995, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) adopted amendments to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11-210) to authorize cities and counties planning under GMA to integrate the requirements of SEPA and GMA. These new rules (WAC 197-11-210 through 235) allow the environmental analysis required under SEPA to occur concurrently with and as an integral part of the planning and decision making under GMA. The City has decided to follow this course and incorporate the EIS discussion of the impacts of the Plan by SEPA into the Plan itself. The integration of SEPA and GMA results in improved planning and project decisions from the environmental perospective. Just as GMA goals cannot be addressed without consideration of environmental factors, the goals of SEPA are benefited by the examination of the "big picture" and identification of mitigation to address cumulative impacts of development that occurs during GMA planning. 1.3. What is an EIS An EIS is a document required under the SEPA that evaluates the possible impacts of a proposed action. Several different ways of achieving the goal must be explored and contrasted before a final option/alternative is chosen. The EIS alternatives provide a framework for analyzing impacts and making comparisons among different land use options. This document discusses the current state of the City, presents two action and one no-action alternative for the future of the City, and analyzes expected changes under each alternative. No alternative should be considered definitive. This will allow decision makers, with input from residents, the opportunity to incorporate the better features of each alternative (if appropriate) into a recommended Plan. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 2 1.4. What is this Process First, the Responsible Official of the City determined an EIS was required. Once that occurred, the City issued a Scoping Notice to request public input on the scope of the document, including issues to be addressed, alternatives to be evaluated, and the level of detail to be provided. Several public comments were received during scoping, as provided in Appendix A. These comments were considered in both scoping the draft EIS and the alternatives and in analysis of specific topics addressed in the draft EIS. Once a final scope of work had been determined, then the draft comprehensive plan was prepared, and this draft EIS was also prepared to more fully considerable effects and also to solicit comments during the public review process. 1.5. Background information on GMA In 1990, the Washington State Legislature recognized that uncoordinated and unplanned growth was reducing the quality of the environment and of life in many areas of the State, and so adopted the GMA. The overall goal of this legislation is to provide a managed framework for growth and development throughout Washington State. There are 14 goals in GMA as follows: • Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided. • Reduce Sprawl: Reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development. • Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems based on regional priorities. • Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population. • Economic Development: Encourage economic development consistent with adopted Plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens, especially for the unemployed and the disadvantaged, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacity of the state’s natural resources, public services and public facilities. • Property Rights: Protect property rights from arbitrary or discriminatory actions. • Permits: Process permits in a timely and predictable manner. • Natural Resource Industries: Conserve timber, agricultural, and mineral resource lands. • Open Space and Recreation: Retain open space and enhance recreational opportunities. • Environment: Protect the environment and enhance air quality and availability of water. • Citizen Participation and Coordination: Foster early and continuous public participation in the planning process. • Public Facilities and Services: Provide adequate public facilities and services to serve new growth. • Historic Preservation: Encourage historic preservation. Shoreline Management: Incorporate the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) into the Plan. In order to attain these goals, cities and counties planning under GMA are required to develop Plans addressing land use, transportation, housing, utilities, and capital facilities for the next 20 years. Plans are required to be updated every 10 years. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 3 1.6. Location The proposal includes the City limits and UGA boundary. The City of Pasco, Washington, is in Franklin County bordered by the Columbia and Snake rivers, in the geographic region known as the Mid-Columbia Basin. Pasco and the nearby communities of Richland and Kennewick are commonly called the Tri-Cities. The Tri-Cities area is the largest metropolitan area between Spokane, 145 miles to the northeast, and Seattle, 220 miles to the northwest. Boise, Idaho, is situated 300 miles southeast of Tri-Cities. Because of its location, the Tri-Cities metro has become a major transportation and commercial hub for travelers, and commodities in the Pacific Northwest. Figure 1-1 shows the City regional context. Figure 1-1 Regional Context • Populate d Place 0 Ccunty Seat --Inter stat es D Incorporat ed City of Pasco D Urban Growth kea IC Franklin Count y Bou ndary Other Crunty Boundary c:::I Stat e Bourdary D Hydrologic Uni t -SMA J 1Jisdiction NOTES: 1. This information is to be used for plan ning purposes onty . Data are ~i_s,f~~~~~~ ~~~~:o0~t J~u~~~t(io%)cruracy o r cofll)leteness 3. Hyd rologic u nit data acqu ire d from USGS and NRCS Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 4 1.7. Summary of the Proposal A Public Participation Plan was adopted by the City. The City provided multiple opportunities for public involvement in the form of public workshops with the Planning Commission and City Council (also broadcast on cable television), open houses, and through a Plan update webpage. The City reached out to agencies such as Pasco School District, Columbia Basin College, Benton Franklin Council of Government, Washington State Departments of Commerce and Transportation and other agencies. The Plan’s goals, policies, and elements reflect the input received from the public. The City of Pasco is updating its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA; RCW 36.70A). The updated Plan consists of goals, policies and analyses of the following elements and sub-elements: land use, housing, capital facilities, transportation, economic development, utilities, open space, public services, resources lands, and critical areas and shorelines. The updated Plan guides decisions about development and growth within the City limits and the Urban Growth Area (UGA). It is designed to help the City meet its long-term growth target as allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). The updated plan contains vision, goals and policies, analyses of future growth and potential UGA expansion, and updated elements to comply with the GMA. The Plan is also required to be consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies established for Franklin County. The current OFM population estimate for Pasco is 73,590 (OFM 2018). Population of the City is expected to reach 121,828 by 2038, an increase of 48,238 persons over the current population (Table 1). Table 1 Population Estimates Population in Franklin County Population in Pasco1 2018 93,541 73,590 2028 121,792 97,434 2038 152,285 121,828 10 year increase 30,49328,251 23,844 20 year increase 58,744 48,238 Additional Rresidential units needed in Pasco in 10 years2 7,522 Additional Rresidential units needed in Pasco in 20 years2 15,217 1. OFM Medium Series. Historically, Pasco’s share has been 80 percent of the County population. 2. Based on OFM - household size: 3.17 The land capacity analysis indicates that the City and the existing UGA has the capacity to accommodate 30,372 persons in the vacant, and under-utilized land and in the current UGA. See Table 2 for details. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 5 Table 2 Existing Residential Capacity Acres Capacity for additional residential units Additional Ppopulation needed to be accommodated Developable land in the City limits 428.20 1,490 4,723 Developable land in existing UGA 199.70 1,091 3,459 Broadmoor area1 7,000 22,190 Current capacity including Broadmoor. 9,581 30,372 1. Capacity anticipated in the Broadmoor area in the draft master plan 1.8. Scope of Review This Integrated EIS analyzes, at a programmatic level, the potential impacts on the following elements of the environment identified through the scoping process: • Earth • Water • Plants and Animals • Land Use • Environmental health • Shoreline Use • Population, Housing, and Employment • Parks and Recreation • Transportation • Public Services and Utilities • Heritage Conservation Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 6 Chapter 2. Alternatives 2.1. Description of EIS Alternatives The City is proposing three alternatives based on projected future growth patterns. Alternative 1, No Action, calls for keeping the City’s existing Plan without modifications. Alternative 2, Recommended Growth Target, allows for changes in the Plan to accommodate the 20-year population growth projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Alternative 3, Recommended Growth Target High Density also accommodates the 20-year growth projection but through a growth pattern of higher density. 2.2. How the Alternatives Were Developed For the Draft EIS, the City conducted multiple visioning workshops with the public, Planning Commission, and City Council to develop the alternatives. An online survey was also available to offer input on multiple issues. Public input was gathered in accordance with the adopted Public Participation Plan. Multiple ways of outreach include: • Online, television, and mail • Public meetings • Council and Commission workshops • Online survey • Topic group discussion • Other agency coordination Key topics to address in the Plan were gathered during the outreach process. These include: • Include a higher density alternative • Transportation system (roads/airport) and other infrastructure impacts • Characterize impacts to agriculture lands and critical areas/shrub steppe • Consider employment forecast and regional availability of industrial lands • Conduct detailed land capacity and densities analysis • Characterize impacts on existing water rights and needs/deficiencies • Evaluate affordable housing effects • Characterize air quality effects 2.3. The Alternatives The EIS is considering three alternatives for evaluation based on future growth expectations. Alternative 1, No Action, Alternative 2, Traditional Growth Target, and Alternative 3, Compact Growth Target. Description of each alternative with maps are summarized below. 2.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action SEPA requires an EIS study to contain a “no action” alternative. This alternative would maintain the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan without modifications. This means growth would be expected consistent with past trends but no land use changes would occur to accommodate this growth. The Urban Growth Area would remain the same. Limited policy changes may be needed to maintain consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 7 The land capacity analysis indicates that the City and the existing UGA has the capacity to accommodate 29,629 persons. This alternative will have a deficit of land to accommodate 18,625 (48,238 - 29,613) persons. The existing land use distribution in the City is shown in Figure 2-1 and described in Table 3. Draft EIS Chapter 2 includes a more detailed description of Alternative 1. Figure 2-1 No Action Alternative Table 3 Alternative 1 Existing Land Use Acreage Land Use Designations City Limits UGA Total Residential Lands Low Density 7,624.78 1,675.85 9,300.63 Mixed Density 1,252.65 425.18 1,677.83 High Density 188.59 — 188.59 Subtotal 9,066.02 2,101.03 11,167.05 Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 564.28 17.42 581.69 Commercial 2,050.20 34.42 2,084.62 Subtotal 2,614.48 51.83 2,666.31 Industrial Lands Industrial 5,118.44 7,768.43 849.351,669.12 5,967.799,437.55 Subtotal 5,118.44 849.351,669.12 Legend ---- D Comtnlfci111 ---P\tlk/Oua►P\.cllc Park"'°Pen Space 14rP I + -N- • Land u se Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 8 Land Use Designations City Limits UGA Total 7,768.43 5,967.799,437.55 Public / Quasi-Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 837.71 87.53 925.23 Subtotal 837.71 87.53 925.23 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 950.24 61.37 1,011.61 Subtotal 950.24 61.37 1,011.61 Airport Reserve Lands Airport Reserve 1,884.94 350.75 2,235.68 Subtotal 1,884.94 350.75 2,235.68 DNR Reserve Lands DNR Reserve 765.05 469.03 1,234.08 Subtotal 765.05 469.03 1,234.08 Total Land Area 21,236.87 3,970.89 25,207.761 Notes: 1. Total land area includes approximately 4,300 acres of street right of way Source: City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) 2.3.2. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target This alternative allows for changes in the Plan to accommodate the 20-year population growth projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). In this alternative, growth would occur based on the past trends, which could include some development within the undeveloped and infill areas of the City along with an expansion of the Urban Growth Area north of the City to accommodate future growth. This alternative considers land use and policy changes in order to maintain consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, and to accommodate growth. In this alternative, the Broadmoor area will develop under the current land use and traditional growth pattern. This alternative will add approximately 5000 acres in the area north of the City as shown in Figure 2-2 and Table 4. It should be noted that the land designated industrial in the UGA associated with this alternative is currently designated as industrial by Franklin County. This area is currently part of a County-designated Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development or LAMIRD. Table 4 Proposed UGA Area Alternative #2 Land Use Area (Acres) Low Density Residential 3,622.00 High Density Residential — Mixed Residential (Mixed Density) 278.00285278.00 Mixed Residential & Commercial 3.00 Commercial 119.00 Industrial 725809.00810.00 Government & Public — Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 9 Open Space & Parks — Airport Reserve 33.00 DNR Reserve — Total 4,738.864,871.334,864 Table 45 UGA Land Use in Alternative #2 Land Use Designations City Limits UGA (Existing and Proposed) Total Residential Lands Low Density 7,624.78 5,287.81 12,912.59 Medium Density 1,247.12 708.58 1,955.70 High Density 188.59 188.59 Subtotal 9,060.49 5,996.39 15,056.89 Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 564.50 17.45 581.95 Commercial 2050.00 152.31 2,202.51 Subtotal 2,614.70 169.76 2,784.46 Industrial Lands Industrial 5,106.88 1,645.86 6,752.74 Subtotal 5,106.88 1,645.86 6,752.74 Public / Quasi-Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 840.00 74.27 914.27 Subtotal 840.00 74.27 914.27 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 938.16 73.82 1,011.98 Subtotal 938.16 73.82 1,011.98 Airport Reserve Lands Airport Reserve 1,919.32 384.67 2,303.99 Subtotal 1,919.32 384.67 2,303.99 DNR Reserve Lands DNR Reserve 764.54 469.50 1,234.04 Subtotal 764.54 469.50 1,234.04 Area Total 21,244.09 8,814.65 30,058.37 Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 10 Figure 2-2 Alternative 2: Traditional Growth 2.3.3. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative This alternative allows for changes in the Plan to accommodate the 20-year population growth projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and to capitalize on other development opportunities. In addition, alternative 3 will consider a growth pattern of higher density. It includes considering land use and policy changes to gain an increase in development capacity within the undeveloped and infill areas of the City. Under this alternative, the Urban Growth Area would be modified to the north of the City at a higher density/smaller area compared to Alternative 2 to accommodate future growth. It will consider land use and policy changes in order to maintain consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, and to accommodate growth. In this alternative, the Broadmoor area will develop under a higher density growth pattern. This alternative will add approximately 3600 3500 acres in the area north of the City as shown in Figure 2-3, and Table 56. Table 6 7 summarizes land use under Alternative 3. Like Alternative 2, the land designated industrial in the UGA associated with this alternative is currently designated as industrial by Franklin County. Richland Legend O c1yuma D C11rre nt Urban GrO'Mh Area D Proposed Urtliln Growth Are.i (Alt 2) -A irport R1tMIMI 1 ;:; Ai rport ReseM 2 -Commercial -Mno:ed Resl1ential & Commercl81 LowD&nsrty Re5ldltntial -Mixed Reside nt.al -High Density Res.ldential -Industrial -GovemrTMJnl & Pubhc -Open Spece & Parks DNR ReseMI Kennewick Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 11 Figure 2-3 Alternative 3: Compact Growth – Preferred Alternative Table 56 Proposed Land Use in the UGA Expansion Area Land Use Land (acres) Low Density Residential1 1,8301,758 Mixed/Medium Density Residential 429351 High Density Residential 122 Commercial 39323362 Industrial 7266 Public / Quasi-Public 82 Airport Reserve 33 Total 3,53343,448 1. About 40 acres of parks, 160 acres of land for school facilities and additional public lands are included in the Low Density Residential land use acres. Locations to be identified at a later phase with the land use changes. 2. Additional commercial lands is assumed to be available through redevelopment on existing corridors over time Richland Legend Land Use Classifications -AirportReserve _c,,,n,«•• -Coofederalt!d Tribn -Colville ONR RefffVe HighDensit)'Residefitial -lndustri911 Low Density Res~ial -Medium Oetisrty Resdentilll -Medium High Density Residential -MiKed Resldenbill & Conmeraal ~ Mli e<I UM lnterchanoe EZ2:J MiKed Use Neighbomood ~ Mbce<I UM RegiOna,I Offio, -Open5p.cePa<1u -Publi,::Ouasl-Public C'J ~ Pllnn~ Area [:~]City lmts c:]Proposed •UrbillnGrowth Area Ke nnewic k Miles Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 12 Table 67 Land Use in Alternative 3 Land Use Designations City Limits UGA (Existing and Proposed) Total Residential Lands Low Density 7,136.507,124.3 4 3,581.52 3,478.35 10,718.0210,502.6 9 Medium Density 1,648.631,590.5 3 690.34628.34 2,338.972,218.87 Medium-High Density 60.77 162.96 223.73 High Density 171.25 122.40 293.65 Subtotal 9,017.158,946.8 9 4,557.224,392.05 13,574.3713,338.9 4 Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 345.31422.21 12.31 357.62434.52 Commercial 1,872.271,866.6 3 427.70370 2,299.972,236.83 Mixed Use Interchange 26.35 — 26.35 Mixed Use Neighborhood 20.60 56.82 77.42 Mixed Use Regional 147.96 — 147.96 Office 104.01 — 104.01 Subtotal 2,516.502,587.7 6 496.84439.34 3,013.333,027.10 Industrial Lands Industrial 5,128.114,938.4 7 1,564.561,606.04 6,692.676,544.51 Subtotal 5,128.11 4,938.47 1,564.56 1,606.04 6,692.67 6,544.51 Public / Quasi-Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 850.96 —82.17 850.96933.13 Subtotal 850.96 —82.17 850.96 933.13 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 1,040.181,251.0 7 70.39 1,110.57 1,321.46 Subtotal 1,040.18 1,251.07 70.39 1,110.57 1,321.46 Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 13 Land Use Designations City Limits UGA (Existing and Proposed) Total Airport Reserve Lands Airport Reserve 1,919.64 1,708.75 382.39 2,302.032,091.14 Subtotal 1,919.64 1,708.75 382.39 2,302.03 2,091.14 DNR Reserve Lands DNR Reserve 764.04 468.85 1,232.89 Subtotal 764.04 468.85 1,232.89 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 188.00 188.00 Area Total 21,2365.5793 7,540.257,359.05 28,776677.82 16 Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 14 Chapter 3. Major Issues and Summary of Environmental Impacts 3.1. Major Issues and Areas 3.1.1. Increased Density and Development Densities will be increased under the preferred alternatives, which may significantly impact the character built environment of the City, especially in the Broadmoor area to the northwest and the area to the north proposed for future UGA expansion. Some areas in existing single-family neighborhoods may have increased densities and infill developments in both action alternatives 2 and 3. Some of the areas in the existing UGA, especially the Riverview area , located between the Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) Canal and the Columbia River… would most likely retain similar densities for a longer timeframe. The creation of odd shaped lots and the placement of buildings in locations where future streets need to be extended, and the lack of sewer service all create challenges for future development. In addition, the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation is recommending cultural surveys be conducted for development proposals in this area that will add to development costs and time. City of Pasco Ordinance 4221 (June 2015) established that the RS-20 Zoning designation would remain in place for a period of five years. As a result, low density in this area will change to a higher density at a much slower pace than other areas within the City limits and UGA. Future development under both action alternatives will change the character of the primarily undeveloped areas of the City and the unincorporated areas in the County currently proposed for UGA expansion. Alternative 3 will have a variety of housing styles, including cluster and multi - family housing, requiring less expansion of the UGA. Therefore, and will impact less area in the unincorporated part of the County. In the responses to the scoping notice and in meetings, the Pasco community has largely expressed support for higher density development and a variety of housing choices. 3.1.2. Traffic The additional traffic generated by the increased housing densities, and commercial, and public facilities land uses could impact existing traffic pattern. Both action alternatives would result in a substantial increase in traffic volume, although proposed mitigation could reduce transportation impacts sufficiently under Alternative 3 to meet the City’s current Level-of-Service requirements. Additionally, the Broadmoor area in both alternatives will retain more some traffic internally due to the increase of a mix of land uses. Traffic within the Broadmoor area and in the proposed expanded UGA area is anticipated to significantly increase in Alternative 3. However, a portion of this traffic is expected to be contained internally due to the combination of businesses and housing opportunities planned in the same area. Alternative 2 will have an increased vehicular movement due to the UGA area consisting mostly of residential land uses, with residential traffic travelling to the work areas both within and outside of Pasco in the greater Tri-Cities area, along with travel to commercial areas throughout the City. The major facilities that will be affected by the forecasted growth in the City of Pasco under all alternatives are I-182 as well as Road 68 and Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd, both of which provide the only access at interchanges with I-182 in the western portion of the City where much of the growth is forecast to occur. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 15 3.1.3. Open Space and Natural Areas Open space and natural areas are located along the extensive shoreline areas of the City, industrial areas on the eastern side of the town, around the Pasco airport and near the Broadmoor area. Habitats in these areas include wetlands, sand dunes, shrub-steppe habitat and riparian areas, in varying levels of function. Many open space areas are also disturbed with non-native vegetation on them. The City’s existing environmental protection regulations, including Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Titles 28 (Critical Areas) and 29 (Shoreline Master Program) designed to protect wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, and other critical area functions and values. Additionally, state and federal regulations also guide the preservation of cultural resources in this area. 3.1.4. Healthy Community As the growth occurs in the City, there has been concern about the planning for a walkable, bike-friendly and a more active community that promotes a healthy lifestyle. The City’s zoning code currently allows mixed uses in certain zones with Mixed-Residential/ Commercial land use. Both alternatives would promote mixed-use developments as future development is anticipated in the Broadmoor area. Both alternatives’ goals and policies include streetscape and traffic improvement, along with pedestrian- and bike-friendly options. Land use in the proposed UGA area in the Preferred Alternative 3 includes a mix of residential, commercial, park, and public facilities land uses that would promote live and work environments, increase physical activities and encourage multi-modal travel options. The UGA area in Alternative 2 will include a minimal mix of uses. With predominantly low-density residential land use in the UGA area, Alternative 2 will mostly remain as an auto-oriented community. 3.2. Comparison of Alternatives to GMA Goals Table 78 Summary of Alternatives Compared to GMA Goals Goals Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Urban Growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. • Would accommodate the lLeast amount of future growth in the City. • Dispersed future growth throughout the city and low rise pattern. • Focused growth within the UGA. • Focused growth within the UGA with higher density and infill. Reduce Sprawl: Reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. • Dispersed and low- rise development pattern, would exceed the UGA to accommodate growth increasing sprawl. • Growth within the UGA, but suburban nature of development will result in sprawl. • Growth within the UGA, planned areas would reduce sprawl. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 16 Goals Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Transportation: Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems based on regional priorities and coordinated with the City Plan. • Retains current • Transportation plans with limited improvements. • Adds new transportation improvements to improve connectivity and street design that supports urban environment. • Adds new transportation improvements to improve connectivity and street design that supports urban environment. • Adds multi-modal travel options • Could result in shorter trips due to more compact development patterns and could also lead to more kids walking to school. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. • Housing not adequate to meet the 20-year demand. Disbursed and low rise pattern of housing development. • Housing meets the 20-year demand with limited housing types. • Housing meets the 20-year demand with a variety of housing types and residential densities. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 17 Goals Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Economic Development: Encourage economic development consistent with adopted Plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens, especially for the unemployed and the disadvantaged, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacity of the state’s natural resources, public services and public facilities. • Current economic development trends continue. • Employment to occur in the existing commercial and industrial areas. • Economic opportunities are identified in the plan. • Some employment will occur in the limited commercial areas. • Economic opportunities are identified in the plan. • Additional commercial and mixed-use areas will accommodate more employment. • Results in less land conversion than Alternative 2, maintaining existing agricultural production, and associated economic benefits Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 18 Goals Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Open Space and Recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreation opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks. • Maintains existing parks and Natural Open Space. • Recreation opportunities will be provided based on the Parks and Recreation’s adopted Level of Service. • Maintains existing parks and natural open space and adds additional park land to serve future growth. • Larger area of farmland (not Ag land of long-term commercial significance) and rural land to be changed to various uses in the UGA over time. Agricultural and rural lands to remain in production until the time of development. Parks and recreational open spaces will be provided to serve in future, as development occurs. • Maintains existing parks and natural open space and adds additional park land to serve future growth. • A smaller growth area "footprint" , although changing land use from farmland (not Ag land of long-term commercial significance) and rural land to various uses in the UGA over time. Agricultural and rural lands to remain in production until the time of development. Will maintain more open space than Alternative 2. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 19 Goals Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the City’s high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. • Environmental qualities are protected based on the current regulations and development pattern. • A sprawl type growth will involve more land for development, resulting in higher vehicular traffic that could negatively impact the air quality. • Environmental qualities are protected based on the current regulations and development pattern. • A low density growth pattern will involve more land for development, more farmland (not Ag land of long term commercial significance) and rural land to be changed to various uses in the UGA, resulting in higher vehicular traffic that could negatively impact the air quality. • Environmental qualities are protected based on the current regulations and development pattern. • A higher density development will involve less land, reduce vehicular traffic, and will reduce impact to air quality and ozone. • A smaller growth area "footprint" will maintain more open space than Alternative Public Facilities and Service. Adequate public facilities to serve the development. • Public facilities continue to serve the current development pattern. • Additional public facilities will be required in certain areas for urban development. • Additional public facilities will be required in certain areas for urban development. • Public facilities will be more efficient due to the more densely planned development pattern. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 20 Goals Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Historic Preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. • Historical or archaeologically significant sites or structures are protected under the current regulations during construction phase. • Historical or archaeologically significant sites or structures are protected in the planning phase, and also under the current regulations during construction phase. • Historical or archaeologically significant sites or structures are protected in the planning phase, and also under the current regulations during construction phase. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 21 Chapter 4. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.1. Earth 4.1.1. Affected Environment The geology, soils, and topography of the City area are primarily dictated by glacial outburst flooding that occurred near the end of the last major glacial period, approximately 18,000 to 20,000 years ago. This event is referred to as the Missoula Floods. The geologic makeup is the result of erosion of pre-flood geologic units, deposition of sediments carried by the floodwaters, and the formation of the unique topographic features that influence present-day hydrology. Prior to the Missoula Floods, the geology of Franklin County consisted primarily of Miocene-aged Columbia River Basalt flows that were in some places (e.g., plateaus) capped with varying thicknesses of wind-blown fine sands and silt known as loess (Grolier and Bingham 1978). The segments of the Columbia and Snake rivers around the City are located in a wide valley primarily comprising alluvial soils with relatively high infiltration rates. Within upland areas, particularly areas farther from the confluence of the rivers, outburst flood deposits of gravel occur as well. Figure 4-1 shows the geologic formations that occur near the City. Geologically hazardous areas are defined as those lands susceptible to erosion, landslides, seismic, or mine hazard events. Surficial geology is shown on Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 89. Figure 4-1 Geologic Formations Geologically hazardous areas are defined as those lands susceptible to erosion, landslides, seismic, or mine hazard events. Ntemabve 2 UGA c:::J Ntemabve 3 U GA . Preferred Action -Geologic Hazan:lArea Geologl e Unit AIILMal Deposits -Flood Deposits Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 22 Table 89 Geologic Hazards of the City Hazard Description Summary Source Erosion Soil units susceptible to erosion by wind, water, and unstable slopes Some water erosion hazard areas exist along the Columbia River along with wind erosion hazard areas where sandy soils and dunes exist. Soils – Water Erosion Hazards GIS Data (Franklin County) Landslides Steep Slopes underlain by weak, fine, and unstable geology There are three areas in the City that have slopes greater than 15% underlain by alluvium or dune sand. No area in the City is mapped as an active landslide area. Generalized Slope GIS Data (Franklin County), Surface Geology Polygon, 1: 100,000 Scale (WDNR) Active Landslide Area GIS Data (Franklin County) Seismic Hazards Active faults and earthquake locations There is no known fault exist in the City. Active fold and fault GIS data layers (WDNR) Mine Sites Active (permitted) mine sites One mine site is identified; both mines were for sand or gravel. Underground mining practices are currently not taking place in Franklin County. There are no known inactive mines sites; however, if they exist, these areas may present slope hazards (see Comprehensive Plan Appendix A Mapfolio – Map CA-1). Mining and Energy Resources GIS data (WDNR) 2004, 2010, 2011, and 2012 Liquefaction Susceptibility zone Liquefaction Susceptibility zone under alluvium deposit One liquefaction susceptibility zone is identified along the Columbia River (see Comprehensive Plan Appendix A Mapfolio – Map CA-1). City critical areas data Note: WDNR = Washington Department of Natural Resources 4.1.2. Probable Environmental Impacts Earth-related impacts would occur during development activities and operation that may cause any of the following disturbance mechanisms: clearing, grading, erosion and sedimentation, impervious area expansion, increased chemical contamination, or other site-disturbing activities. Such activities have the potential to increase erosion, compaction, or contamination of earth resources. Infill and new developments near the steep slope areas in all alternatives would impact the ea rth surface. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of land under the existing Plan land use designations. Earth-related impacts under the No Action Alternative would scale with the intensity of future activities occurring within the City’s infill areas, which are expected to be less intensive compared to future uses proposed under the two action alternatives. Future population growth Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 23 would not be fully accommodated under the No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impacts to earth resources from future sprawl-type development in other parts of the City and neighboring rural areas in the County. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 2 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped and infill areas of the City and in the UGA. Compared to the No Action Alternative, disturbance mechanisms associated with more intensive development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in increased erosion, compaction, or contamination of earth resources within the planning areas. Due to the maximum acreages occupied under this alternative, the extent of impacts to earth resources within the undeveloped or infill areas would be more in Alternative 2 than other two alternatives. A limited potential for earth slides or slope sloughing exists within the steeper sloped areas on the north side of the City within the Broadmoor area. Because of the fine sandy soils in most part of the planning area including the Broadmoor area and the northern part of the planning area, a potential does exist for siltation, particularly during construction. The Loess soils are windblown and extremely fine. Thus, these soils compact well but may be subject to some erosion. Because of the low rainfall in the Tri-Cities area, siltation from runoff after construction is not typically an issue. However, windblown siltation can impact surrounding areas if not watered during construction. Alternative 2 proposes lower density land use designations than Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would accommodate more land and less density, potentially resulting in increased impacts to earth resources from future development in the planning area. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas of the City and in the UGA area. Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 proposes denser residential development to occur in the northern portion of the City and in the Broadmoor area. as indicated in Figure 2-3. Broadmoor area anticipates adding about 7,000 dwelling units in by the year 2038. In Alternative 3, the denser development would result in higher population density per acre and reduce the need for sprawl-type development in the City and nearby rural areas to accommodate future population growth. This would concentrate development to planning areas and potentially reduce impacts to earth resources in other areas compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. Compared to Alternative 2, this could reduce impacts from development to earth resources, including steep slopes. 4.1.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce siltation and slides: • Maintain compliance with local air-quality agency requirements by watering exposed areas during construction. • Avoid disturbing the steep slope area. • Compact soils at densities appropriate for planned land uses. • Provide vegetative cover or soil cement on exposed surfaces. • Maintain Open Space land use and environment designations along the shoreline to protect shoreline functions. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 24 • Construction should be staged so that the maximum amount of existing vegetation is left in place. • Catch basins should be installed near storm drains Other Mitigation Measures The City has updated its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and will reflect updates to the GMA and SMP at a state and local level. PMC Title 28 addresses geologic hazard areas that occur in the County and provides parameters for development in and near geologic hazard areas through regulatory, review, and permitting processes. It also provides the designation and classification of geologic hazard areas (PMC 28.32.020 and 28.32.030), determination (PMC 28.32.050), and detailed study requirements (PMC 28.32.060 and 28.32.070) for activities that occur in or near geologic hazard areas. Development that is consistent with the CAO would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to earth resources under the three alternatives. The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (City of Pasco 2020b18) encourages consistency with the CAO and provides goals and policies related to natural resources, including protection goals for property and people near geologic hazard areas. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development: • LU-7Goal: Safeguard and protect shorelands and critical lands within the urban area. For consistency with the Plan, future urban design under Alternatives 2 and 3 should be sensitive to existing topography and landscaping and utilize design strategies and building techniques that minimize environmental impact, particularly near sensitive areas. 4.2. Surface and GroundwWater 4.2.1. Affected Environment The City of Pasco is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers in southeastern Washington within Franklin County. The Columbia River is to the west and south of the City, and the Snake River is to the east. The study area includes relevant discussion of the contributing watersheds. Damage from flooding along the Columbia River occurred in 1948 prior to the construction of the dam system. The flood stage for the Columbia River is 32.0 feet and is measured at the gage downstream of the Priest Rapids dam. During maintenance of the Priest Rapids Dam spillway i n July of 2012, high outflows from the dam raised the river near flood stage in the Tri -Cities (KNDU 2012). The floodway boundary is shown in Figure 4-2. The flood stage for the Snake River is 20.0 feet and is measured at USGS gage #13334300 (Snake River near Anatone, Washington). Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 25 Figure 4-2 Frequently Flooded and Water Resources Critical Areas The planning area is mostly located in the Esquatzel Coulee basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 36). A small area along the eastern boundary of the planning area is located in the lower Snake River basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 33). Major surface water resources are the Columbia River and Snake River. Lake Wallula is the major surface water resource for the planning area. The portion of the Columbia and Snake rivers within the planning area is part of the upstream portion of Lake Wallula. The lake is created from the impoundment of the Columbia River by McNary Dam. The Columbia River’s active continuous USGS gage nearest to the planning area is gage #12514500 (Columbia River on Clover Island at Kennewick, Washington). The Columbia River at this gage drains 104,000 square miles. This gage is a water surface elevation gage and has records from Water Year 1988 to present. The water surface elevation at this gage ranges from 335 feet to 344 feet (NGVD 1929). The closest Snake River historic USGS gage that measured streamflow near the City is gage #13353000 (Snake River below Ice Harbor Dam, Washington). The Snake River at this gage drains 108,500 square miles. It has records from Water Years 1913 to 2000. Because the planning area is within the Lake Wallula portion of the Columbia and Snake rivers, water levels are generally stable. Floodplain levels are also confined due to river regulation. The Columbia and Snake rivers are on the Ecology 303(d) list of impaired waters for temperature within the planning area. The Columbia River also has a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for total dissolved gas and is a 305(b) water of concern for pH. Additionally, the Snake River has TMDLs for dioxin and total dissolved gas, and it is a 305(b) water of concern for pH and dissolved oxygen. Alternative 2 UGA c:::J Alt ernative 3 UGA -Preferred Action -NWI Wellarll ~ FEM A Flo o:!way 100-year FloOOplaln 500-year FloOOplaln Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 26 Temperature and total dissolved gas are measured in the Columbia and Snake rivers at several gages as part of the Columbia River Data Access in Real Time (DART) program. The DART gage nearest to the planning area on the Columbia River is gage PAQW (Columbia River at Pasco, Washington). This gage has been in operation since 2000. The DART gage nearest to the planning area on the Snake River is gage IDSW (Ice Harbor Tailwater). This gage has been in operation since 2005. The Columbia and Snake rivers are stable, confined, single-thread channels with low sinuosity and largely unvegetated depositional mid-channel islands and bars. The flooding risk is low in the Columbia and Snake rivers due to the levy and dam system maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, no Channel Migration Zone is present adjacent to the City. Groundwater in the planning area is within the Columbia Plateau aquifer system, which consists of the Columbia River Basalt Group overlain by quaternary flood deposits. Groundwater in the planning area is hydraulically connected to surface water, so the amount of groundwater pumping affects surface water stream flow, and groundwater resources are recharged by surface water interaction. The estimated mean annual groundwater recharge in the planning area is up 2 inches (USGS 2011). The City’s water system is supplied from surface water withdrawals from the McNary Pool of the Columbia River. A portion of the Columbia River within the City is part of the upstream portion of Lake Wallula. Lake Wallula was created from the impoundment of the Columbia River by McNary Dam. Because the City is largely within the Lake Wallula portion of the Columbia River, water levels are generally stable within an operating elevation range as controlled at McNary Dam. Columbia River floodplain levels are also confined due to river regulation. An irrigation system was originally established to serve farmlands in Pasco by the Franklin County Irrigation District No.1 (FCID). With the expansion of urban growth in West Pasco, the missi on of the district has changed to that of an urban service provider as it provides irrigation water to more and more residential properties. The FCID pumps irrigation water from the Columbia River. Its main pumping station is located on the Columbia River near the intersection of Court Street and Road 111. The FCID maintains 36 miles of pipeline and 3.35 miles of canal. The City currently holds surface water rights for 13,269.25 acre-feet of annual withdrawal and 20,149 gallons per minute (gpm) (29 mgd) of instantaneous withdrawal. As defined in the CWSP, the City is currently in compliance with water right quantities by borrowing the surplus from the Quad Cities water right, at a current consumption of 14,424 acre-feet by volume and 18,456 gpm instantaneous. The City also holds individual groundwater rights sourced by various wells for separate irrigation purposes. These existing water rights and access to future water sources are adequate to serve the areas in all the alternatives. 4.2.2. Probable Environmental Impacts Impacts to surface water resources could occur from development activities that may cause erosion or increase impervious surfaces that could discharge contaminated or sediment-laden water to nearby surface waters. This point-source and non-point source pollution is a major sources of water quality impacts resulting from changes in development. Point-source and non-point source pollution can be exacerbated by development if not properly managed or mitigated (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2012). Additionally, increased impervious surface and erosion from construction and development could impact groundwater infiltration and increase the amount of impacted stormwater runoff into nearby surface waters and groundwater. Petroleum products from construction equipment could accidentally spill and contaminate the shallow aquifer. Stormwater is generally collected by storm drains and discharged to stormwater handling Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 27 facilities. Current state and City regulations require the inclusion of stormwater treatment facilities for projects that create significant new impervious surface area. Developing currently undeveloped or infill areas that are irrigated could also change the stormwater recharge dynamics from new impervious surfaces, soil compaction, or other soil- disturbing activities. In the undeveloped condition, groundwater recharge would either return to streams as baseflow or recharge deeper portions of the underlying aquifer. Reducing groundwater recharge can result in lower water tables and reduced baseflow to streams, lakes, and wetlands. Additionally, expansion of the city's UGA and subsequent annexation and extension of sewer can limit the number of homes that are built with septic systems, which can benefit groundwater quality. The same factors that impact groundwater and surface water quality and availability can also affect water supply. As described previously, changes in land use that reduce groundwater recharge have the potential to prevent precipitation from recharging groundwater aquifers. Additionally, changes in population can increase demand for water for public water supplies, domestic use, irrigation, industrial processing, energy production, or other needs. This can limit the availability of water supplies in various parts of the City, particularly during drought conditions. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of land under the existing Plan land use designations. Surface water-related impacts under the No Action Alternative would scale with the intensity of future activities and population growth occurring within the planning areas as infill developments, which is expected to be less intensive compared to future uses proposed under the two action alternatives due to the limited land area in this alternative. Since the additional and projected future growth won’t be occurring within the City limits, sprawled development will take place in the areas surrounding the City. These developments would most likely to occur on large lots in the County impacting surface waters outside the planning areas. The rate of water supply demand would generally be proportionate to the rate of growth anticipated for each alternative. The impacts of Alternative 1 on water supply demand could be less with lower expected population growth and associated development, compared to the other alternatives. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide the capacity to develop existing undeveloped or infill lands to accommodate future population growth. Recent studies indicate that land use intensity, land cover composition, landscape configuration (i.e., patterns or distributions), and the connectivity of impervious surface areas have complex but direct influences on the ecology and water quality of the surface waters within a watershed (Alberti et al. 2004). Consequently, these alternatives could indirectly affect surface water resources, scaled to the intensity of development. The change in development patterns to the north under Alternatives 2 and 3 from irrigated and vacant to developed lands would also change groundwater and stormwater recharge dynamics from new impervious surfaces, soil compaction, or other soil-disturbing activities. This change would concentrate where stormwater recharges compared to existing conditions where rain currently falls and dispersed across agricultural fields and seeps into groundwater aquifers. Alternative 2 could have more impervious surface per capita due to the lower density development planned for this alternative, compared to Alternative 3 Without mitigation, surface waters within the City would be at greatest risk of degradation because of the expected development. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 28 As described above, the rate of water supply demand would generally be proportionate to the rate of growth anticipated for each alternative. The impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 on water supply demand could be greater than the No Action Alternative due to higher expected population growth being planned for. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas of the City and in a smaller UGA area compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes denser residential development to occur in the Broadmoor and UGA areas. Due to increased density and land area covered by Alternative 3, this alternative would increase new impervious surface area and development-related impacts to surface water within the planning areas. However, Alternative 3 would focus development within the City and could potentially result in decreased impacts to surface water recharge to groundwater from future development within the city infill and redevelopment areas, and in the reduced and higher density UGA area compared to Alternative 2. 4.2.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the mitigation measures described in Section 4.1.3. for reducing impacts to earth resources should also be employed to reduce potential impacts to nearby surface waters and the underlying groundwater from erosion and runoff, and surface water infiltration. The following mitigation measures should also be employed: • Under both development alternatives, detention ponds will reduce peak runoff flows to natural state conditions. Detention ponds will also provide settlement for silt. Oil/water separators can reduce impacts from automobiles. • Additional mitigation measures include bio-filtration, either before or after entry into the various detention ponds, and buffers around wetlands and around wetlands in accordance with the CAO. • Stormwater improvements are planned to manage stormwater and protect water quality. • Evaluate and apply Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater techniques, where appropriate, to maintain dispersed groundwater infiltration. Other Mitigation Measures The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) goals and policies encourage the protection of critical areas, and management of storm water. Alternatives 2 and 3 should identify and regulate the use of wetlands, essential habitat areas, and other critical lands within and adjacent to the planning areas, in coordination with the appropriate agencies. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development: • UT-3 Goal: Assure the provision of adequate and efficient storm water management. • UT-3-A Policy: Require adequate provision of storm water facilities with all new land development • UT-3-B Policy: Include adequate storm water management facilities to serve new or existing streets. Proposed policies and regulations for the environmental protection of surface water and groundwater resources, and the protection of public health and safety from flood hazards, would apply, to minimize surface and groundwater quality impacts. The City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan also identifies the priority projects. Improvements identified for the Water Treatment Plant, Process Water Reuse Facility, and Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 29 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Water quality improvement features on the existing storm drainage and water main system are also planned to be constructed. Water-capacity improvements are also planned throughout the City. Existing federal, state, and county policies regulate land use activities near, and within, surface waters such as the Columbia and Snake rivers and wetlands. The City CAO in PMC 28.16, addresses and provides protections for the wetlands and provides parameters for development in and near these resources through regulatory, review, and permitting processes. Similarly, CAO in PMC 28.24, protects groundwater resources from hazardous substance and hazardous waste pollution by controlling or abating future pollution from new land uses or activities. Development that is consistent with the CAO would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to earth resources under the three alternatives. The following regulations and commitments are relevant to protecting County surface water resources: • Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations as well as City stormwater regulations require stormwater quantity and quality controls. The City has adopted the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (Ecology 2004). • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promotes wetland avoidance and regulates the filling of wetlands via Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. • The City uses its SEPA authority in PMC 23.05 to require mitigation for impacts on drainage, habitat, and water quality and ensure mitigation is appropriate and sufficient. 4.3. Plants and Animals 4.3.1. Affected Environment This section reviews plant species and habitat, and fish and wildlife. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has identified fish and wildlife resources that are a priority for management and conservation and maps areas where these habitats are known to occur through the Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program (WDFW 2008). WDFW designation of priority habitat types is advisory only and carries no legal protection; although, such designation may increase the significance of impacts as evaluated through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the SEPA process. WDFW does have authority over projects within the wetted perimeter of rivers, streams and lakes. Additionally, cities are required to designate and conserve priority species and habitats through their GMA critical areas regulations , as discussed further below. Figure 4-3 shows the extent of listed PHS occurrence within the City, including floodways, wetlands, and priority species and habitats, based on data and observations by the agency staff over the past several years. As can be seen with the underlying imagery, some of these lands have been developed for housing, agriculture or industrial uses since the species or habitats were identified. These maps provides a general guide for the environmental review process but site-specific permitting and studies should be conducted to verify and confirm what habitats and species exist at the time of the development. The City protects the habitats and associated plant and animal species through its Critical Areas code, PMC Title 28. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 30 Figure 4-3 Priority Habitats and Species Plants and Habitat Shrub-steppe upland habitat is the largest native land cover type in Franklin County and is also found within the City as small remnant patches, primarily in the western and northern parts of the City and UGA areas. The shrub-steppe habitat in the city and UGA areas provides certain ecosystem services, including soil stabilization, wildfire moderation, and increased biodiversity in the few areas where native vegetation exists. Vegetation is primarily invasive species such as cheatgrass and Russian thistle, with pockets of sagebrush and native grasses. The displacement of shrub- steppe plant species by the invasive cheat-grass, Russian thistle, and other invasive species increases fire intensity and frequency, which, in addition to the hazards this creates for humans and wildlife, and also impacts shrub-steppe plant species such as big sagebrush, an important species for rare birds such as the sage grouse (Link et al. 2006). In some areas, shrub-steppe habitat abuts or nearly abuts the shoreline, and there are small remnants of shrub-steppe habitat interspersed among the irrigated agricultural fields and industrial lands. Much of the remnant shrub-steppe habitat has been previously disturbed through grading, gravel mining, agriculture and off-road recreation vehicle activity, and the non-native grasses and weeds have taken over most of these areas. Riparian areas are located along the shorelines of the City, with varying levels of structural diversity and productivity in terms of organic material, with reductions in diversity and productivity due to levees and upland developed areas. Habitat characteristics of healthy riparian areas include a connected corridor for fish and wildlife travel, vegetation types adapted to wetter soils, occasional flooding, and natural disturbance regimes. Riparian areas also offer important functions for species that inhabit the shrub- steppe, as well as species more limited in range to the riparian zone. For shrub-steppe species, they provide a critical water source and often a more productive environment for forage, escape, thermal cover, and nesting sites. For many species, they [:J CityUmlts D Altema~ve 1 • Pasco Exl!tlng UGA (No Action) Freshw'aterEmergentWetlarld AJtema~ve 2 UGA -Freshw'ater Forested/Shnb Welland c::::J AJtema~ve 3 UGA-Prererred Action -Fresrwater P171CI Frecwertry F1oooeoArea -Lake e:szJ Pt1 crlty Species Occurrerw::e -Ott-er Habitat, ShruO-Steppe Ul'OanNatura l Open Space Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 31 provide critical winter habitat. Riparian areas typically support larger flocks and a greater density of upland birds than shrub-steppe habitat due to the greater production of biomass and the more complex mosaic of vegetation (Stinson and Schroeder 2012). The removal of native riparian vegetation in riparian and shrub-steppe habitat, the introduction and proliferation of invasive plant species, like Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and the filling or degradation of wetlands along shorelines impact the organic inputs that fuel production of the lower levels of the food chain and, therefore, can have impacts throughout the entire food web. Organic matter produced by these habitats supports terrestrial and aquatic insects and other organisms that are then eaten themselves by birds, juvenile salmonids, and various fish species. Fish and Wildlife Species The Snake and Columbia rivers make up the border of the southern and eastern areas of the City and provide the shoreline aquatic habitat within the City. The aquatic habitat supports numerous resident and anadromous fish, aquatic invertebrates, and numerous migratory bird species. Many ESA-listed anadromous salmonid species are found within the two rivers, including bull trout, steelhead, sockeye, and spring and fall Chinook salmon. Coho salmon are rare but may occur through reintroduction programs underway in the Yakima River Basin and this population segment is not ESA-listed. Pacific lamprey are present but have experienced population decline in recent years. Resident fish include a mix of native and non-native species, such as smallmouth and largemouth bass, northern pikeminnow, sculpin, mountain whitefish , sturgeon, catfish, sucker and other species. The aquatic nearshore and riparian shoreline areas of the Columbia and Snake rivers near the City support concentrations of wintering migratory waterfowl, and primarily serve as resting and feeding areas for Canada goose and ducks. Some waterfowl nesting likely occurs in areas with wider riparian buffers, potentially near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia rivers and along reaches of the Columbia River where development is less intensive, such as residential zones, parks, and open spaces. The Columbia River in the vicinity of the City also provides a breeding area for long billed curlew and a variety of gulls, as well as a resting area with limited nesting for great blue heron and egret (USFWS 2008, 2012). Some common species for shrub steppe habitat include sparrows, magpie, robins and various types of hawk species. State species listed as threatened or candidate species that can be associated with this habitat include Ferruginous hawk, Townsend’s Washington Ground Squirrel and burrowing owls. The entire Columbia Basin is a bird migration route for nearly 350 species of migratory birds (USFWS, May 5, 2011). 4.3.2. Probable Environmental Impacts Under all three alternatives, development would continue to occur throughout the City and neighboring rural areas for urban uses and activities of varying intensity. Construction activities can cause noise and activity that can disturb wildlife or cause avoidance behavior. The effects of construction on nesting birds and other wildlife would depend on project‐specific factors, including the timing of construction, background noise levels, and the type and duration of construction activities. Impacts to surface waters from increased impervious surface and erosion from development, as described in Section 4.2, can also impact fish and wildlife habitat. Fis h breeding and rearing areas are particularly sensitive to siltation caused by erosion. Development activities could have direct and indirect impacts on vegetation and habitat for listed- and non-listed species in the County, with direct impacts primarily involving the physical removal of vegetation and other habitat features. This can lead to impacts on riparian, wetland, and shrub- Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 32 steppe habitat. Development of currently vacant or underdeveloped parcels could lead to fragmentation of wildlife habitat, potentially further altering habitat connectivity, and potentially causing some species to migrate into remaining undeveloped areas. Indirect effects common to all alternatives could include a reduction in wildlife habitat quality and function because of increased human disturbance and associated factors in areas adjacent to wildlife habitat. Additionally, operational impacts include light from buildings, streetlamps, and vehicles, traffic noise, and other urban activities, causing sensitive wildlife species to avoid the area. Traffic would also continue to cause mortality to wildlife crossing roadways. These impacts would increase with the intensity of development and population growth. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of land under the existing Plan land use designations. Impacts to plants and animals under the No Action Alternative would scale with the intensity of future activities and population growth occurring within the planning areas as infill developments which are expected to be less-intensive compared to future uses proposed under the two action alternatives due to the limited land area in this alternative. Under Alternative 1, the least amount of development would occur as it has the least projected capacity to accommodate population growth of all alternatives and would be expected to have the least impact on plants and animals. However, population growth would not be accommodated under the No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impa cts to plants and animals from future development in other parts of the City and neighboring rural areas. For example, sprawl developments in the northwest side of the City could potentially affect disturbed shrub-steppe habitat around agricultural and industrial lands. Development under this alternative would have very limited impact on wetlands or wetland buffers in the City, as these largely exist along the shorelines. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 2 proposes to change land use designations to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas of the City, and in the expanded UGA area to the north. Alternative 2 proposes lower density land use designations than Alternative 3. Under the 20-year population growth projection for the City, Alternative 2 would increase the buildable areas and developments resulting in greater impacts to plants and animals in those areas compared to Alternative 3. The change in development patterns under Alternatives 2 and 3 from undeveloped and irrigated to developed lands would alter the landscape, potentially reducing habitat provided by open tracts of land. Although agriculture practices impact historical habitats with a more intensely managed landscape, they can provide pockets of semi-natural habitat among the more intensively cultivated ground. Development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a very limited impact on wetlands or wetland buffers in the City, as these largely exist along the shorelines and are designated open space and protected from development under the City’s Shoreline Master Program update. Wetlands provide habitat for species such as waterfowl, which are concentrated at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers, and also provide water filtration and storage that improve water quality and temperatures for salmonid species. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 proposes to change land use designations to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas of the City and in the less expansive UGA area to the north. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 33 Alternative 3 would focus development in these areas to a greater density than proposed in Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 2, vegetation and wildlife habitat would be impacted within the planning areas. However, by focusing most development in these areas, fewer impacts on terrestrial plants and animals would occur outside of the planning areas than under Alternatives 1 and 2. In the Broadmoor area, Natural Open Space along the core PHS areas would be preserved. Compared to Alternative 2, this could reduce potential impacts to habitats and species from future development. 4.3.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to plants and animals: • Provide erosion and stormwater control measures during construction, particularly in areas adjacent to surface waters that provide fish and wildlife habitat such as Columbia Point South. • Consider landscaping with native plants to provide vegetation of habitat significance in streetscapes, buffers for stormwater swales, rain gardens, and other habitat features. • Avoided, minimize, or mitigate impacts to shrub steppes, priority habitats, wetlands or wetland buffers, in accordance with the CAO and SMP. All alternatives will provide shoreline and critical areas buffer along the Columbia and Snake rivers shoreline, providing fish and wildlife habitat protections from future development. In Alternative 3, Broadmoor area, designates wildlife mitigation area and corridor and protects them as open space. Alternative 3 would have less impact on shrub steppes due to the limited area it covers. Compared to Alternative 2, this would provide additional fish and wildlife habitat protections from future development. Other Mitigation Measures The City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (20182020b) goals and policies encourage the protection of critical areas, including surface waters. Alternatives 2 and 3 should identify and regulate the use of essential habitat areas, and other critical lands within and adjacent to the planning areas, in coordination with the appropriate agencies. Public access opportunities to the shoreline and other natural features should be considered through integration with the City’s trail system to the extent practicable. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development: • LU-7 Goal: Safeguard and protect shorelands and critical lands within the urban area. • LU-57-A Policy: Maintain regulatory processes to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitats, and other critical lands within the urban growth area. The City CAO in PMC 28.20, addresses and provides protections for fish and wildlife habitat areas, including surface waters that provide habitat to native fish. Development that is consistent with the CAO would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to earth resources under the three alternatives. The City uses its SEPA authority in PMC 23.05 to require mitigation for impacts on drainage, habitat, and water quality and ensure mitigation is appropriate and sufficient. Mitigation measures may include: • Reduce impervious surface area by evaluating, adopting and implementing applicable low- impact development (LID) requirements practices per the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (Ecology 2004). Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 34 • Promote the preservation of on-site native vegetation, particularly riparian vegetation near surface waters and upland shrub-steppe communities. • Publicize and encourage the preservation of native soils and protect the natural processes of soil maintenance and on-site hydrology. Leaving areas/tracts (“belts”) of native vegetation undisturbed in commercial and residential developments can be shown to provide long-term benefits regarding stormwater management, on-site “landscaping” maintenance, microclimate, and general aesthetics/sense of well-being in a developed landscape. • Sponsor or encourage public education about the benefits of native vegetation. • Promote LID, with emphasis on native plant retention in greenbelts between and within areas of proposed development to retain a portion of the wildlife habitat on the site and to preserve a measure of connectivity between areas of wildlife habitat. • Encourage buffer enhancement. Where stream and/or wetland buffers to be left are in a degraded condition, encourage enhancement of the buffer through means such as establishment of native vegetation and control of non-native invasive plant species. 4.4. Land Use 4.4.1. Affected Environment The City is part of the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area in southeast Washington and includes 25,72925,208 acres in the current incorporated City limits and UGA. The City is located at the southern edge of Franklin County, bounded by the Columbia River to the south and the Snake River to the southeast. The City is the major urban area within Franklin County. The City and its associated UGA comprise about 72% of the 55 square miles of designated UGA in Franklin County (Franklin County 2008). The City includes a variety of land uses from residential, commercial, industrial and agriculture (primarily in the UGA alternative areas) to open space. The City’s land use designations and acreages within the City limits and UGA alternative areas are identified in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. Residential land is the predominant use in the City limits and current UGA, containing over 3544% of the City’s total land. Residential land use is followed by industrial land use, which consists of 1924% of the total land use within the City. Commercial lands are distributed along the major corridors, City Center and along the Interstate-182. Open space land use is distributed throughout the City in the form of parks and natural open spaces. The shoreline areas consist of several parks, trails, and natural open space. See Table 9 10 for a summary of existing land use types designations in the City limits and current UGA. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 35 Table 910 Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations in the City Limits and UGA Land Use Designations Acreage 1 % of Total Residential Lands 11,167 44% Low Density Mixed Density High Density Commercial Lands 2,666 11% Mixed Residential/Commercial Commercial Industrial Lands 5,968 2437% Public/Quasi-Public Lands 925 4% Open Space / Park Lands 1,012 4% Airport Reserve Lands 2,236 9% DNR Reserve Lands 1,234 5% Total 25,208 100% Note: 1. The total includes approximately 4,300 acres of street right of way, which is about 17% of the total land area The County land use designations of the proposed UGA areas in both alternatives include Agriculture, Ag Service Center – LAMIRD Type III, Rural Industrial – LAMIRD Type III, Rural Remote – LAMIRD Type I, and Rural Residential – LAMIRD Type I. Alternative 2 also includes Rural Shoreline Development – LAMIRD Type II. Within the proposed UGAs, agriculture lands are estimated at XX3,250 acres in alternative 2, and 2,520 acres in alternative 3acres. Both alternatives 2 and 3 would impact existing lands under cultivation, however, Nnone of the alternatives would affect Franklin County-designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. The proposed industrial land to the north in Alternatives 2 and 3 is currently classified as industrial by Franklin County (as a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development or "LAMIRD"). For this area, there is no net increase in the amount of land designated for industrial purposes; rather it is a jurisdictional change. Switching the land from industrial in the county to industrial in the city will serve the area with urban-level services. Shoreline Unlike the Citywide land use pattern, the City's shoreline is dominated by Open Space land use consisting of 60% of the total shoreline area. Industrial land use consists of over 25% of the shoreline. Much of the Open Space area is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington State Parks and Recreation Department also owns Open Space (Sacajawea State Park) within the shoreline. Other major public landowners include Port of Pasco and Washington State Department of Transportation. Industrial land along the shoreline is mostly owned by the Port of Pasco on the south and southeast sides of the City. Residential uses are mostly concentrated on the south side of I-182. See Table 10 for a summary of land use within the shoreline jurisdiction. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 36 Table 110 Existing Land Use within the City’s Shoreline Jurisdiction Land Use Category Acres in Shoreline % of Land Use Open Space 307.30 60.2% Low Density Residential 68.24 13.3% Mixed Residential 2.53 0.5% Mixed Residential Commercial 2.38 0.5% Industrial 130.21 25.5% Commercial 0.02 0.0% Total 510.68 100.0% Source: Pasco Shoreline Master Program 2015 The City’s proposed Comprehensive Plan land use categories and their purposes are discussed below. • Open Space/Nature – This land use designation applies to areas where development will be severely restricted. Park lands, trails, and critical areas are examples of different types of open spaces. • Low Density Residential – This land use allows residential development at a density of two to five dwelling units per acre. The land use designation criteria includes sewer availability or approval from the Benton-Franklin Health District when sewer is not available, suitability for home sites, and market demand. • Medium Density Residential – This land use designation includes single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre. This is designated to areas where the location is convenient to major circulation routes and it provides transition between more intense uses and low density uses. Availability of sewer services and market demand are also key criteria for this land use designation. • Medium High Density Residential – This land use designation includes single-family dwelling units, townhouses, condominiums and multi-family; 8-15 dwelling units per acre. This is designated in Broadmoor area only. • High Density Residential – This land use designation includes multi-family dwellings, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 21 dwelling units or more per acre. This is designated to areas where the location is convenient to major circulation routes and employment areas. Availability of sewer services and market demand are also key criteria for this land use designation. • Mixed Residential Commercial – This land use designation is a mix of residential and commercial uses. Residential uses include single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 5 to 29 dwelling units per acre. Commercial uses include neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service, and office uses. This is designated to areas where the location is convenient to major circulation routes and land is suitable for heavy building sites. • Mixed Use Interchange – This land use designation is to protect existing and future interchange efficiency from high traffic-generating uses that compound congestion and Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 37 increase access conflicts.. This is designated along along I-182 corridor in Broadmoor area only. • Mixed Use Neighborhood – This land use designation is to provide a variety of residential options, and a mix of residential and commercial uses such as neighborhood grocer, drug stores, coffee shops in a pedestrian friendly environment. This is designated in Broadmoor area only. • Mixed Use Regional – This land use designation is to provide a mix of residential and commercial uses in a pedestrian and transit friendly environment. This is designated in Broadmoor area only. • Office – This land use designation is to provide a mix of professional office, personal services, and resource centers. This is designated in Broadmoor area only • Commercial – This land use is designated for neighborhood, community and regional shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service, and office uses. This is designated to areas where the location is convenient to major circulation routes and land is suitable for heavy building sites. • Industrial – This land use is designated for manufacturing, food processing, storage, and wholesale distribution of equipment and products, hazardous material storage, and transportation-related facilities. • Public and Quasi Public - This land use is designated for schools, civic buildings, fire stations and other public uses. • Airport Reserve - This land use is designated for lands owned or occupier by the Port of Pasco for Tri-Cities Airport. • DNR Reserve - Transition lands owned and presently managed by DNR for natural resource production. Characteristics include, but are not limited to, proximity to urban-type development, road and utility infrastructure, and market demand.This land use is designated for lands owned by DNR. • Confederated Tribes – Colville Reservation - This land use is designated for lands owned or occupier by Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. 4.4.2. Probable Environmental Impacts Future development resulting from adoption of the Plan update could convert undeveloped and infill areas to more intensive uses. Impacts associated with land use conversions could include construction-related and operational impacts. General land use impacts are likely to be associated with future population growth, increased development densities and aesthetic impacts associated with changed land use. Associated development activities would include increased noise, light and glare, and traffic delays; changes in views or the aesthetic character of the area; and increased pressure to develop or redevelop adjacent vacant or underutilized areas. Construction and operational noise is regulated by the PMC 9.130.030 – Public Disturbance Noise – Prohibited. In all alternatives, infill lands would continue to be redeveloped under the existing land use designations. All alternatives would change the build environment as well as the aesthetics of the current conditions. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of the properties as currently zoned by the City. Current land uses would continue to predominate, including residential and industrial uses. Future population growth would not be accommodated in the planning areas under the No Action Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 38 Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impacts to land use from future sprawl type development surrounding the City in the neighboring rural areas. The No Action Alternative will not result any short-term impacts to the aesthetic and visual quality of the planning area. But in the long-term, when developments are permitted in the vacant and infill areas under the current land use and zoning, this will result in significant aesthetic and visual quality impacts. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Under Alternatives 2 the land use from underutilized and vacant land in the UGA would change to a mix of Low, and Medium Density Residential, Commercial, industrial and Public Facility. Compared to the No Action Alternative, land use patterns would increase in intensity from the current land uses. Agricultural and other land uses will be transformed by future roadways, residential and commercial development, and light industrial activities with some green spaces. None of the alternatives would include Franklin County designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. Also, under Alternatives 2 and 3, some of the limited current shrub-steppe topography will be removed to some extent to accommodate housing development and roadways, noting that for Alternative 3 in the Broadmoor area Natural Open Space along the core Priority Habitat Species (PHS) areas would be preserved, reducing potential impacts to habitats and species from future development. New development and redevelopment would involve demolition of some existing structures, site preparation, infrastructure installation, and construction of new buildings. Such development and construction activities would affect surrounding land uses in terms of dust, construction traffic, and noise throughout the duration of the construction. Throughout the full buildout timeframe, these impacts would shift from one development location to another within the planning areas. Construction of infrastructure, housing, and business facilities is usually accompanied by temporary increases in noise and vibration due to the use of heavy equipment and hauling of construction materials. Noise impacts depend on the background sound levels, the type of construction equipment being used, and the amount of time it is in use. Operational noise (including construction-related noise) in the City is regulated by PMC 9.130.030, addressing public disturbance noise. Developments in Alternatives 2 and 3 would include an UGA area that falls within the Tri-Cities airport safety compatibility zone. Alternative 2 will include a larger area within the airport safety compatibility zone than Alternative 3. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 proposes denser residential development to occur in the northern portion of the City and in the Broadmoor area. Under Alternative 3, land use to the north would transform from underutilized, low intensity and current agricultural uses to a mix of Low, Medium, and High Density Residential, Commercial, Public Facility, and Open Space. Alternative 3 includes the highest density residential land use allocation. Alternative 3 will have higher density and more concentrated development and less need for development in low-density land use designated areas compared to Alternative 2. The higher density will help the City to meet the 20-year population growth target. Both alternatives will reduce potential future impacts from development in the shoreline area. 4.4.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to land uses in and adjacent to the planning areas: • Meet population growth targets and housing demand through developing planned areas, and infill developments. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 39 • Improve the built environment through designing new structures and development per PMC. • Reduce local traffic volumes by creating a live-work environment in Alternative 3 • Protect shoreline areas according to the City’s shoreline regulations under Title 29 • Allow adequate parks, open space and public facilities • Implement design standards for Broadmoor area (under development). • Implement City’s land use and zoning regulations to maintain the physical and aesthetic qualities of future developments. • Maintain low density residential in the airport’s fly zones. New avigation easement(s) will be in place near the airport with height restrictions per PMC 25.190 Airport Overlay District. • Airport Overlay District (PMC 25.190) in the City and Franklin County (Chapter 17.76, Airport Zoning) codes - provide for safety, compatibility zones, use restrictions, and height limitations. • Maintain land use compatibility to mitigate adverse impacts between different land uses (see Comprehensive Plan Volume II) • Revised Alternative 3 further reduces the UGA area by 100 acres of agricultural land. Other Mitigation Measures The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (20182020b) goals and policies are intended to plan for future population growth within the UGA while promoting compatible land uses and community objectives. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development under the three alternatives: • LU-2. GOAL: Plan for a variety of compatible land uses within the urban growth area • LU-2-A Policy: Maintain sufficient land designated to accommodate residential, commercial, industrial, educational and public facility uses proximate to appropriate transportation and utility infrastructure. • LU-2-B Policy: Facilitate planned growth within the City limits and UGA, and also promote infill developments in the City limits. • LU-2-C Policy: Ensure that adequate public services are provided in a reasonable time frame for new developments. • LU-2-D Policy: Encourage the use of buffers or transition zones between non-compatible land uses. • LU-2-E Policy: Discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to Pasco airport. • LU-3 Goal: Maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable places to live. The City of Pasco Zoning Regulations in PMC Title 25 regulate development in various zoning districts, and a zoning change could be made to further restrict the type and density of development in the planning area. Similarly, the City CAO in PMC Title 28, and Shoreline Regulations in Title 29 address and provide protections for critical areas and shorelines. Subdivision Regulations in Title 21 regulate and ensure appropriate land sub-divisions for developments to occur. Development that is consistent with these regulations would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to land use under the three alternatives. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 40 Another mitigation measure to consider is implementing rural land protection measures and incentives to make UGAs and planning areas more attractive (e.g., density incentives and infrastructure investment), which could be applied to direct growth to urban areas under all alternatives. 4.5. Environmental Health Environmental health addresses all the physical, chemical, and biological factors external to a person and related factors impacting behaviors. 4.5.1: Affected Environment The City includes a variety of land uses from residential and commercial/industrial to open space. While the residential land is the predominant use in the City, it is followed by industrial land use. Commercial lands are distributed along the major corridors. Future developments of infill and undeveloped commercial and industrial lands could impact environmental health. During construction and operation of some industrial developments, chemicals may be stored that could potentially create a risk of fire, explosion or spills. Additionally, within the existing City limits and within both UGA areas associated with alternatives 2 and 3 respectively, are in proximity to Superfund sites, facilities with Risk Management Plans (RMP), facilities that generate hazardous waste and Wastewater Discharge Indicator [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2019]. 4.5.2. Probable Environmental Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of the properties as currently zoned by the City. Current land uses would continue to predominate, including residential and industrial uses. Future population and employment growth would not be accommodated in the planning areas under the No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and intense use of industrial lands, as well as more diffuse impacts to land use from future sprawl type development surrounding the City in the neighboring rural areas. In the long-term, when developments are permitted in the vacant and infill areas under the current land use and zoning, this will result in continued risks to environmental health as seen by current development patterns. Additionally, the EPA EJSCREEN (environmental justice screening) report generated for the City identifies that within the current city limits three factors are above the state average. Superfund proximity is rated in the 61st percentile; RMP Proximity in the 92nd percentile and Wastewater Discharge Indicator in 96th percentile. Hazardous waste proximity is below the state average at the 41st percentile (EPA 2019). Accordingly, additional growth that would occur within the existing City limits would continue risk exposure at the existing levels. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Compared to the No Action Alternative, land use patterns would increase significantly in inte nsity from the current land uses. Vacant open land will be transformed by future roadways, residential and commercial development, and light industrial activities with some green spaces. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, existing County under-utilized industrial lands will be added to the UGA. Also, limited areas of agricultural land will be added in the industrial land use inventory. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 41 New industrial developments could increase the exposure to chemicals or risk of fire. Hazardous waste could occur depending on the types of uses. However, most of these uses would have happened within the County’s industrial uses. In both alternatives 2 and 3, the industrial lands will be served with better utilities and safety system. Open burning is not allowed within the UGA. Therefore, and expanded the UGA will limit the ability for existing and future residents in the subject area from being able to burn, which may lead to air quality enhancements. The EPA EJSCREEN report generated for the two UGA areas identifies Superfund proximity increasing from 61 to the 62nd percentile when compared to the existing City limits; RMP Proximity reducing from 92 to the 91st percentile and Wastewater Discharge Indicator reducing from 96 to the 57th percentile. Hazardous waste proximity is below the state average for but increases from 41 to the 47th percentile (EPA 2019). Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 will have higher density and more concentrated development. Development impacts in the industrial areas will remain the similar in both Alternatives 2 with slightly less in 3. Because this alternative includes higher density and more concentrated development, both within the existing City limits and within the smaller UGA, risk exposures would be comparable both to the No Action and Alternative 2, for development within the City limits and the smaller UGA area respectively, as described above. 4.5.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to environmental health in and adjacent to the planning areas: • Improve the built environment through designing new structures with safety and hazard maintenance per PMC. • Maintain and employ emergency management plans for all existing industrial facilities and new industrial development.s • Support the preparation of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plans (SPCC) required for existing facilities and construction projects, along with timely spill or contamination emergency response measures. • Support appropriate hazardous waste management through reuse, recycling, and disposal. • Listed hazardous sites should be subject to ongoing monitoring by Ecology’s Hazardous Waste and Toxic Reduction Program. Other Mitigation Measures The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b18) goals and policies are intended to plan for future population growth within the UGA while maintain the environment. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development under the three alternatives: • CF-8-B Policy: Ensure all potential environmental impacts are considered for each essential public facility including the cumulative impacts of multiple facilities. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 42 • ED-1-2C PolicyGoal: Support the promotion of Pasco’s urban area as a good business environment by enhancing the infrastructure of the community Assure appropriate location and design of commercial industrial facilities.. 4.6 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas 4.6.1. Affected Environment The City of Pasco experiences air quality conditions similar to the rest of the Tri-Cities region. Typical air pollution sources include vehicle traffic and commercial and industrial businesses, releasing carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Particulate matter is generated by industrial emissions, motor vehicle tailpipes, and fugitive dust from agricultural and open space lands, and roadways, including particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in size (PM10) and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5). Ozone (O3) is a highly reactive form of oxygen that is generated by an atmospheric chemical reaction with ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides and VOCs. Ozone concentrations in City of Pasco are being watched more closely after AIRPACT, a daily predictive air quality forecast model operated by Washington State University (WSU), consistently showed elevated ozone in the Tri - Cities area. It has been determined from ozone monitoring that began in 2013 that elevated ozone occurs in the summer months on hot days > 85 °F with light NNE winds (< 6 mph) (WSU 2017). The highest ambient concentrations generally occur near the emissions sources, which would be from motor vehicle tailpipes driving on major roads. PM2.5 has a greater impact than PM10 at locations far from the emitting source because it remains suspended in the atmosphere longer and travels farther. Additionally, the EPA EJSCREEN report generated for the City and the UGA areas for the alternatives identifies that two parameters are well above the state average for air quality: PM2.5 and ozone are both above the 90th percentile. Within the current city limits the values are higher and they slightly decline farther north in the UGA alternative areas (EPA 2019). Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) are gases that, when present, absorb or reflect heat that normally would radiate away from the earth and thereby increases global temperature. GHGs typically include CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, ozone, and halocarbons. CO2 is the individual constituent that is normally emitted in the greatest amount and generally contributes the most to climate change. Two agencies have jurisdiction over ambient air quality in Franklin County: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 4.6.2. Probable Environmental Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current air quality regulations would continue to prevent new developments and commercial and industrial facilities from generating unacceptable air pollutant emissions that would affect nearby areas during construction or operation. Population is expected to increase but not at the same levels within the City limits and UGA areas as expected with Alternatives 2 and 3, and there would be expansion of commercial and industrial space; therefore air pollutant emissions generated within the study area are expected to increase. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 43 Similarly, vehicle miles traveled for those who work in the City and its UGA would also increase, along with the tailpipe emissions generated by those vehicles. During construction, dust from excavation and grading could cause temporary, localized increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Construction activity could cause localized fugitive dust impacts at homes and businesses near construction sites. Construction activities would likely require the use of diesel-powered heavy trucks and smaller equipment, such as generators and compressors that could slightly degrade local air quality in the immediate vicinity of construction sites. However, these emissions would be temporary and localized. Some construction activities could cause odors detectable to some people in the vicinity of construction activities, especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt. Such odors would be short-term and localized. Future development is expected to increase traffic and add additional roadways. When a street is widened or extended, or a new road constructed, air emissions could be higher. Localized CO impacts could occur at major intersections that experience significant traffic congestion. Additionally, tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on public streets are one of the largest sources of air pollutant emissions associated with the growth in the study area. However, ongoing EPA emission control requirements for on-road cars and trucks have dramatically improved per-vehicle tailpipe emission rates. This beneficial trend is expected to continue into the future as drivers gradually replace old vehicles with new, cleaner-burning ones. As a result, the decrease in future per-vehicle emission rates would at least partially offset the likely increase compared to existing levels. Additional air quality impacts are expected due to commercial and business operations. It is likely that new commercial development would occur near either current or future residential property. Stationary and mechanical equipment, and trucks at loading docks at retail buildings could cause air pollution issues at adjacent residential properties. Accordingly, additional growth that would occur within the existing City limits would continue risk exposure at the slightly higher levels for PM2.5 (92nd percentile) and ozone (98th percentile) (EPA 2019). Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 2 air quality impacts are expected to be similar to those impacts identified in the No Action Alternative. Temporary construction impacts would likely be higher as construction activities are expected to be more concentrated in the northwest areas of the City and UGA Area for this alternative. Exposure to PM2.5 and ozone would initially be slightly lower than the No Action, as the UGA area for Alternative 2 is currently rated in the 91st percentile for PM2.5 and ozone is in the 95th percentile, but over time as development occurs and more population is located within the City and UGA area, then these values are expected to increase. Open burning is not allowed within the UGA. Expanding the UGA will limit the ability for existing and future re sidents in the subject area from being able to burn, which may lead to air quality enhancements. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 air quality impacts are expected to be similar to those impacts identified in the No Action and Alternative 2. Temporary construction impacts would likely be higher as construction activities are expected to be more concentrated in the northwest areas of the City and UGA Area for this alternative, although more concentrated than Alternative 2. Exposure to PM2.5 and ozone Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 44 would be similar to that described for Alternative 2. The exposure values could increase over time as growth occurs. Open burning restriction may lead air quality enhancements. 4.3.3. Mitigation Measures For all the Alternatives, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce impacts. • Reductions in traffic congestion through encouraging alternative modes of transportation such as transit and bicycles or walking may help offset any potential localized increase in emissions. Furthermore, on a regional basis, the EPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations (coupled with ongoing future fleet turnover) should, over time, cause significant reductions in region-wide air quality levels. Ongoing EPA motor vehicle regulations have caused steady decreases in tailpipe emissions from individual vehicles, and it is possible that those continuing decreases from individual vehicles could offset the increase in vehicle traffic. • Air quality regulations require construction contractors to take all reasonable steps to minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction. These required mitigation measures are designed to reduce localized impacts affecting homes and businesses adjacent to construction sites. • Promote transit and other types of transportation that do not contribute to additional air emissions and reduce vehicle traffic. • Support State and EPA efforts to reduce ozone levels during hot summer days where levels might increase due to limited wind. • Continue to support hydropower electrical general facilities in the region that do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. Existing regulations and other mitigation measures described above should be adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of projected growth. 4.67. Shoreline Use 4.76.1. Affected Environment The City of Pasco is located along the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers in southeastern Washington within Franklin County. The Columbia River is to the south of the City, and the Snake River is to the east. The affected area for this section includes all land currently within the shoreline jurisdiction for incorporated City and the City’s unincorporated Urban Growth Area (UGA). The City’s shoreline consists of various water-related and water-oriented uses. The City’s shoreline consists of water-related uses such as industrial and barge facilities along the Snake River and the Port of Pasco’s industrial facilities along the Columbia River. Water-enjoyment uses include much of the park and open space areas along the shoreline that provides for recreational use, including beach and shoreline access, as well as aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline on trail systems. The shoreline also contains fishing and passive recreation (e.g., bird watching) opportunities on multiple shoreline locations. Sacagawea State Park is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers and includes a bike and pedestrian trail that connects to the Sacagawea Heritage Trail providing public access to the shoreline area throughout most part of the City. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 45 4.76.2. Probable Environmental Impacts Increased population growth in the City, including growth in rural areas, has the potential to change shoreline uses. Shoreline areas often attract development due to the scenic values that they provide. Increased development in or adjacent to these areas may c hange the existing character or degrade the shoreline environment. Additionally, development could potentially alter surrounding land use patterns sufficiently to reduce the value of shoreline areas as recreational opportunities or wildlife habitat. The City’s Shoreline Master Program (PMC Title 29) sets requirements for land uses, densities, setbacks, and open space for the 17 miles of river shoreline within the City. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to the shoreline are anticipated to be similar to current development patterns. Future population growth would not be fully accommodated under the No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impacts to shoreline areas from future sprawl-type development surrounding the City in the neighboring rural areas. In these cases, development in shoreline areas would be required to comply with the SMP and other rules and regulations, and avoid or minimize potential impacts to the shoreline environment. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 2 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas of the City, primarily located outside of the shoreline. Directing development into these areas would minimize potential impacts sensitive shoreline environments in other parts of the City or nearby rural areas. Alternative 2 also expands development on the north side along the shoreline. Shoreline buffer within the planning area would alleviate pressure associated with shoreline development and maintain the existing public accesses. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would protect the publicly owned open space along the Columbia River. Mixed use developments would occur in this alternative which will provide buffers and open space according to the shoreline regulations. Shoreline area that would be added within the City through annexations over time includes an additional 1.5 XX miles. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas of the City. Similar to Alternative 3, directing development into these areas would minimize potential impacts sensitive shoreline environments in other parts of the City or rural areas. Alternative 3, similar to Alternative 2, expands development on the north side along the shoreline. The land along the shoreline is less in this alternative compared to Alternative 2. Shoreline area that would be added through annexations over time includes an additional quarter of a XX miles. 4.76.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to shoreline: • Provide a development buffer along the Columbia and Snake rivers shoreline using Open Space land use designation. • All shoreline goals and policies, and regulations should be applied for future developments. • No net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development shall be allowed, consistent with the provisions of the SMP. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 46 Other Mitigation Measures The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) considers Shoreline Master Program (SMP) goals and policies as part of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. These goals and policies encourage the protection, conservation, and restoration of natural areas, including the shoreline, as assets to the community. Alternatives 2 and 3 should identify and regulate the use of shorelines, in coordination with the appropriate agencies. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development: • SMP Public Access Goal (1)(a): Promote, protect, and enhance physical and visual public access along the shoreline of the Columbia and Snake rivers. Increase the amount and diversity of public access along the shoreline consistent with private property rights, public safety, and the natural shoreline character. • SMP Shoreline Uses and Modifications Goal (1)(a): Encourage shoreline development and uses that recognize the City’s natural and cultural values and its unique aesthetic qualities offered by its variety of shoreline environments, including, but not limited to, reservoir- bounded river segments, flood protection levees, recreational and industrial developments, riverine wetlands, open views, and plentiful formal and informal public access. • SMP Conservation Goal (1)(a): Protect the existing hydraulic, hydrologic, and habitat functions, as well as scenic and recreational values, of City’s shorelines and the McNary Pool The City of Pasco SMP establishes regulations to protect sensitive shoreline areas from the impacts associated with new development. Any development projects undertaken within the jurisdiction of the SMP would be required to undergo evaluation for consistency. The City CAO and SMP addresses and provides protections for sensitive habitats, including the shoreline environment. Additionally, the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations in PMC Title 25 regulate development in various zoning districts, including the shoreline environment. Development that is consistent with these standards would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to earth resources under the three alternatives. 4.87. Population, Housing, and Employment 4.87.1. Affected Environment As discussed above, population estimates for the City in 2018 are 73,590 and in 2019 are 75,290. Based on 2018 numbers, it is estimated that 48,238 people will be added to the City’s population in the next 20 years (Oneza & Associates, 2020). The 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data indicate existing 21,653 housing units in Pasco (Table H-1 in Comprehensive Plan Volume II). About 70 percent of the housing units are owner‐occupied, and 30 percent renter‐occupied. About 73 percent of all housing units are single-family both attached and detached, and 18 percent are multi- family. Mobile homes constitute about 8 percent of the total housing stocks. Per the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume IIs, using the average household size of 3.17 persons per unit, added population from the 2018 base population will require 15,217 housing units. Existing vacant buildable land is estimated to provide 9,581 units in a variety of housing types (e.g., single‐family, multi‐family, townhome, condominium); therefore, an additional 5,636 housing units will be required to meet the demand of future housing (Oneza & Associates 201208). Much of Pasco’s (and Franklin County's) economy is tied to transportation and agriculture. The agricultural economy of Pasco is mostly mass production, tied to domestic and global trade, and connected to international conglomerates. As this industry in and around Franklin County matures, additional support facilities which process and handle production plants will continue to be Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 47 needed. This has also led to more opportunities for year around employment, meaning that families are less likely to migrate during the winter months, and are settling in the area permanently. (Oneza & Associates 201208). Pasco’s economy is also tied to the economy of the Tri-Cities metro area. The Tri‐Cities area is unique in that its employment base is dominated by a select num ber of large employers. Roughly one in five of estimated 116,000 jobs in the Benton and Franklin Counties are for large employment firms or agencies, with the top five ranging in type, including research and development, health services, engineering and construction, food processing, and education. The continued employment growth at the Department of Energy Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Energy Northwest and the Office of River Protection will continue the growth of Pasco’s population. This growth will not only attract new residents to Pasco, but also provide opportunities for our young population to remain in Pasco. Employment in the Tri‐Cities region increased from 2006 to 2015 by more than 22,000 jobs, with an average annual growth rate of 2 percent. There are roughly 116,000 jobs in the region. All industries experienced positive employment growth by the end of the 10‐year period. However, from 2011 to 2014 employment slightly declined as spending cuts at the Hanford Site impacted the entire regional economy. In Pasco, the expansion of its economy led to increasing industrial diversity, and although the economic downtown in 2008 did have an impact, food manufacturing, agriculture, private and public educational and healthcare services provided strong stability. Additional information on population, housing, and employment can be found in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume II (Oneza & Associates, 201208). Industrial lands and associated jobs are mostly located on the east side of the City. Other business- related jobs are dispersed throughout the City with major clusters near the City Center, and Road 68 and I-182 intersection areas. 4.87.2. Impacts According to current trends, population is expected to grow under all three alternatives. Housing and employment growth are also expected and would be accommodated under each alternative, but at varying levels. Impacts to population, housing, and employment would occur from inadequate existing facilities or insufficient future development opportunities to accommodate growth. An increase in population will require more intensified commercial, business, and other public facilities than would be possible under current development and population conditions. An intensification of urban uses and densities will increase traffic congestion, park requirements, police and fire requirements, and other public service demands and fiscal impacts. Additional urban development could further tax the City’s fiscal and public service resources, potentially leading to a dilution of the service levels or capabilities provided current residents. Additionally, inadequately located or designed urban infrastructure, including roads, parking lots, and other improvements that are not properly sited, could create stormwater runoff, erosion, and other environmental hazards affecting neighboring properties and public services. These impacts should be mitigated through consistency with the Plan and other planning documents to ensure compatible development. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of the properties as currently zoned by the City. Future population growth would not be accommodated in the planning areas. Similar to the action alternatives, the No Action Alternative would increase housing or employment opportunities in the City but would not meet the demand for housing and employment based on future population Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 48 growth trends. The City is currently updating its development regulations which would have the potential to add additional densities. Based on permitted housing units, from 2014-2019, 10% of all units were duplexes/zero-lot-line. Under the No Action Alternative, this mayupdated regulations may addresult in an increaseapproximately XX% units in addition to of the current capacity in a variety of housing types. Alternative 2: Recommended Growth Target Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the expanded land area will accommodate population growth, and provide housing and employment opportunities. Both alternatives would accommodate 15,217 housing units to meet the future needs. The addition of housing in these areas is expected to improve the City’s economic vitality and support local businesses. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase housing and employment opportunities in the City consistent with future population growth trends. The industrial area to the north along US-395 would provide the City with additional capacity for industrial developments to add more jobs. However, the uses that would increase population and employment levels, would include associated traffic, noise, air pollution, public service demands, and other issues related to increased development in urban environments. Alternative 2 would result in a traditional low-density growth predominant by single family homes in approximately 3,622 acres in the proposed UGA. Approximately 280 acres of additional mixed residential land will be added allowing single-family homes, patio homes, townhouses, apartments and condominiums at a density of 5 to 29 dwelling units per acre. Overall density in the proposed UGA will be 2.55 units/acre. Similar to No Action Alternative, both Alternatives 2 and 3 will experience increased density as a result of updated development regulations. Based on permitted housing units, from 2014-2019, 10% of all units were duplexes/zero-lot-line. Under the No Action Alternative, updated regulations may result in an increase of the current capacity of housing types. Alternative 2: Recommended Growth TargetThis may add result in approximately XX% units in addition to current capacity of 9,581 units in a variety of housing types. For Alternative 2, this would mostly be single family homes in a low density setting. Alternative 3: Recommended Growth Target High Density, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 includes the highest density residential land use allocation and would accommodate additional future population growth and housing in an area smaller than the area proposed in Alternative 2. Higher density and proximity between housing and jobs could attract more employers and businesses. Alternative 3 would allow for more affordable housing opportunities in terms of variety of housing types such as single-family, townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. It would also create job opportunities in certain centers in close proximity to housing, creating a more walkable community than the traditional growth in Alternative 2. Approximately 1750 acres of low density residential land will be added in the proposed UGA. After deducting approximately 400 acres of land needed for public facilities and parks, about 1,350 acres will be available for low density residential development at a density of at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 350 acres of additional land will be added to the medium density land use inventory. This will allow small lot single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 120 acres of additional land will be available for the high density residential developments, allowing multiple unit apartments or condominiums at a density 21 units per acre or more. Overall density in the proposed UGA will be 5.23 units/acre. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 49 4.87.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume II (Oneza & Associates 20182020) identifies the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to population, housing, and employment: • Implement SOMOS1 Pasco economic development strategies. • Development of agricultural industrial businesses • Infrastructure development • Train labor force • Promote tourism • Meet housing demand through developing existing planned areas, infill developments and development in the UGAs. Other Mitigation Measures The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (20182020b) provides goals and policies to accommodate population trends, housing, and employment. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development: • H-1. GOAL: Encourage housing for all economic segments of the City’s population consistent with the local and regional market. • H-1-A Policy: Allow for a full range of housing including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot line, planned unit developments etc. in areas as appropriate. • H-2. GOAL: Preserve and maintain the existing housing stock for present and future residents. • ED-1 Goal: Maintain economic development as an important and ongoing City initiative. • ED-1-F Policy: Recognize that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning are vital to economic development and attracting businesses. • ED-2 Goal: Assure appropriate location and design of commercial and industrial facilities. • ED-2-B Policy: Encourage development of a wide range of commercial and industrial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. • ED-3 Goal: Maintain development standards and design guidelines to ensure that commercial and industrial developments are good neighbors. • ED-3-A Policy: Enhance compatibility of commercial and industrial development with residential and mixed-use neighborhoods through the use of landscaping, screening, and superior building design standards and guidelines. The GMA requires jurisdictions to allocate population growth to cities when feasible. Housing and employment are maintained and updated by the City as part of required Plan updates. 1 Somos means “we are.” Somos Pasco is a community wide effort to discuss the future of the Pasco community. It is a collaboration of the City, Port of Pasco, Franklin County, the Pasco School District, Columbia Basin College and the Hispanic and other groups. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 50 To accommodate future population growth, the City should consider infill incentives and upzones. Other rural land protection measures and incentives make UGAs more attractive through infrastructure investment and infill incentives. 4.98. Parks and Recreation 4.98.1. Affected Environment The City has approximately 656 acres of park and open space land within its corporate limits and UGA (Oneza & Associates 201208; Figure 4-4). The City’s park land inventory includes neighborhood, community, large urban, regional, linear, and special use parks. In general, the City has excellent waterfront shoreline access along most portions of the Columbia River and part of the Snake River, with boating facilities, trails, and active and passive recreation opportunities. There is a land trail component and water trail component that make up a corridor of various habitats ranging from shrub-steppe to wetlands. Sacagawea State Park is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers and includes a bike and pedestrian trail that connects to the Sacagawea Heritage Trail. The rivers provide recreational watersport and fishing opportunities on multiple shoreline locations. On the north side, Shoreline Road currently provides shoreline access to the Columbia River on the northern part of the City with some open space abutting the river. The City of Pasco typically devotes 5% of the City’s overall budget for parks and recreation. This funding supports the acquisition, development, and maintenance of facilities, and operation and management of recreational programs. Figure 4-4 Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space Rich land Facility Type CorrJTuwty Part -NeqibofhoodPart -l.argeUrbanPMII -~PYie. -Lne•Pri ffiffiill1 Speaa1Use-P.i,r1< -Trah C]c,,LmS c:::J Pasco Urb.Jln Growlh Bolmary Kennewick .... , Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 51 4.98.2. Impacts Regional population growth will result in greater demand for parks and open space. Recreational opportunities will also be in higher demand, commensurate with population growth in the area. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would provide additional parks and recreation within the City limits. Therefore, the parks and recreation opportunities would be insufficient to accommodate future population growth. Alternative 2: Recommended Growth Target Increased population growth and density projected for Alternatives 2 and 3 would place greater demand on parks and recreation facilities within and near the City. Alternatives 2 and 3 would preserve waterfront access to the Columbia River and trail along the river. Both alternatives would set aside lands to the north in the UGA to accommodate future parks demand. Alternative 3: Recommended Growth Target High Density, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 includes the highest density residential land use allocation and would place a greater demand on parks and recreation facilities within the planning areas. Alternative 3 includes a similar amount ofmore land for park and recreation space asthan Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would provide natural open space and wildlife mitigation areas in the Broadmoor area. Additionally, the Broadmoor area will provide streetscape and design standards to offer additional urban recreational opportunities. 4.98.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to parks and recreation: • Provide for park or recreation opportunities near urban centers through land use designations (Figure 4-5). • As development occurs, incorporating shoreline access may be appropriate to meet future demand for access created by the development. • Public access opportunities to the shoreline and other natural features should be considered through integration with the City’s trail system to the extent practicable. • Continue park and school impact fees for future developments • Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 52 Figure 4-5 Proposed and Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space Other Mitigation Measures The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b18) Parks, Recreation, and Open Space goals encourage providing an integrated system of parks, recreation facilities, trails, and open spaces. Alternatives 2 and 3 should maintain consistency with the policies under this goal by: • CF-5. GOAL: In conjunction with the County, provide parks, greenways, trails, and recreation facilities throughout the urban growth area. • CF-5-B Policy: Encourage use of existing natural features, open spaces and appropriate excess right-of-way as an integral part of the community-wide park system. CF-5-C Policy: Maintain a cooperative agreement with the Pasco school district regarding the development, use, and operation of neighborhood parks. Also consider Goals from the City of Pasco Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan (2016) provides additional mitigation measures: • Goal 1: Provide physical facilities that offer youth and adults a broad variety of passive, active and organized recreation opportunities • Goal 2: Maintain and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities to provide the highest quality of service level to the community The GMA provides 14 goals for comprehensive planning, including goals to encourage the retention of open space and development of recreation opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks. Development under Alternatives 2 and 3 should consider these goals to the extent practicable in providing parks and recreation opportunities. The City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program Update includes policies to work with other jurisdictions, property owners, open space groups, and interested parties to develop and Richland Faci lity Ty pe Parka ~ Fulure Part. & Open Space C011VT1Unity P ane -NeighborhoodP•rtr. -l•rgeUrbanPa rlr. -RegionalParlr. -Lwiear Pa/11 [I] Special Use Pane -TraW• _""",_ -Fu ture Public -Prwate [:] C,,l- Ke nnewick c::::J Proposed uroan GfowthAtea Bou~cite: Estimated 47 Acres of future Par1<.s/Open Space to be available in the Urban G rowth Area Miles Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 53 implement regional and City parks, recreation, trails plans, and appropriate implementation strategies (Anchor QEA 2014). 4.109. Transportation 4.109.1. Affected Environment The Tri‐Cities area is the largest metropolitan area between Spokane to the northeast, Seattle to the northwest, Portland to the west, and Boise to the southeast. Because of its location, the Tri‐Cities is a major transportation hub for travelers and commodities in the Pacific Northwest. As part of the Tri-Cities, Pasco has easy, direct access to all modes of commercial transportation services (Oneza & Associates 201208). Throughout the next 20 years, Pasco is projected to experience a 3 percent annual increase or a 66 percent of total increase in population. This growth will result in an increase in traffic volumes to, from, though, and within the City. The Tri‐Cities are connected to the interstate highway system. I‐82 links the Tri‐Cities metropolitan area to I‐90 to the north and west, through Yakima, and to I‐84 to the south, in northern Oregon. I-182, which passes through Pasco, links Pasco to these interstates and US 395. US 12 links the Tri‐ Cities to the interstates and to US 395 and provides access to Walla Walla and other southeastern Washington locales. The limited‐access interstates serving the Tri‐Cities carry between 40,000 and 60,000 vehicles per day. I‐182 is a major 6-lane freeway that travels through the City of Pasco from the western edge at the Columbia River providing access to Richland and connects to US 395 which provides access to the City of Kennewick to the south. The only other access across the Columbia River is the Cable Bridge or SR 397 connecting to Kennewick from the downtown area of Pasco. The Washington State Department of Transportation is responsible for maintaining an adequate level of service on these highways. The City has developed future street classification system that re-emphasizes a grid network with arterial and collector roadways that serve the existing developed areas. Figure 4-6 shows the transportation network in the City. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 54 Figure 4-6 Existing Transportation System. 4.109.2. Impacts Demands on transportation and transit facilities throughout the City would continue to increase due to future population and employment growth. Under all alternatives, continued maintenance of these facilities would occur on a regularly scheduled or as-needed basis. For transit operations, the increases could increase in hours of operations and some capital facilities such as park -and-ride lots. This includes projects under the regional 2020-2025 Transportation Improvement Program developed by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments for the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Benton-Franklin Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO; 2019). Increases in population and employment levels would also increase the demand for additional non-motorized facilities such as trails and bikeways. These bicycle and trail facilities may be located along roadways as bike lanes/sidewalks or as separated facilities and would provide opportunities for recreational and commuter users. Under all alternatives, rail and airport use could also increase. In general, as employment and population increase, the use of these facilities also increases. Rail facilities would be affected by an increase in commerce associated with employment growth. Airport activity would also increase as recreational activities and employment increases. The major facilities that will be affected by the forecasted growth in the City of Pasco under all alternatives are US 395, I-182 as well as Road 68 and Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd, both of which provide the only access at interchanges with I-182 in the western portion of the City where much of the growth is forecast to occur. Doff Id lums Id Cicy cf ~ Pasco Washington Existing Street Functional Classification System °""' 'd Street Classm catioo (Existing) --(18.92miles) -Olh<r-(17.99miles) --Anirial(10-82miles) _.....,Anirial(l0.48miles) -O-W,(47.29miles) -(23.34miles) o-.av- •°""'= Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 55 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of land under the existing Plan land use designations. Future population and employment growth would not be accommodated under the No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impacts to transportation facilities from future development in other parts of the City and nearby rural areas. In turn, maintenance of transportation facilities would also be greater and more widespread across the City rather than focused near infill and urban areas. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Under Alternatives 2, the land use patterns would increase in intensity from the current agricultural land uses to low-density and predominantly residential uses. Increased population within the planning areas would in-turn increase demand on transportation facilities. Compared to Alternative 3, Alternative 2 would require additional roads to serve the larger area. Traffic analysis also indicates that Alternative 2 would likely need additional intersection improvements at several intersections due to longer trip lengths. Development associated with Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would result in potential impacts from construction activities, including increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes, and road closures. During construction, vehicles would be necessary to bring equipment and materials to the planning areas. Large, oversized trucks could require pilot vehicles as they travel to and from the freeway with large loads. These trucks may also require flaggers to manually divert or control traffic as it enters or exits roadways (due to large turning radii). This traffic maintenance would cause delays for motorists. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 also includes significant population growth, increasing in intensity from the current vacant, under-utilized and agricultural uses to a variety of low, medium and high density residential, commercial, and public uses. Hhowever with the population being will be accommodated within a smaller geographic area with higher residential densities. The additional commercial and employment included in the land use assumptions of Alternative 3 would potentially decrease the amount of trips and trip lengths resulting with less overall impacts to the transportation network than Alternative 2. Increased density in urban areas would most efficiently support new or extended bus routes in addition to more frequent service provided by transit facilities. Similarly, non-motorized transit demand would also increase. This increased demand would be more localized than the diffuse impacts anticipated under the No Action Alternative. 4.109.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to the transportation network (Figure 4-7): • The City will undertake joint efforts with the Washington State Department of Transportation to identify appropriate improvements at the I-182/Road 68 interchange as well as the I-182/Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd interchange along with appropriate local roadway improvements to protect and preserve those investments. • The City will implement travel demand management methodologies identified in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) to limit and manage the demand on and access to the major facilities of I-182 and US 395., Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 56 • During construction, the City will work with its development applicants to oversee that appropriate coordination with affected agencies and property owners occurs upon future development. This includes providing appropriate public notification and detour routes upon development of its own projects. • During construction, the City could require construction management plans at the time of development to reduce potential short‐term impacts. • To accommodate future population growth projections, the City has planned a roadway network to serve developing areas, and many of the improvements will be paid for by private development. Identified improvements to transportation networks are described further in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume 2 (Oneza & Associates 2020). • The City will cooperate with the RTPO and Benton-Franklin Council of Governments for levels of service. • The City should consider multi‐modal needs in new corridors and in street standards for when new roadway facilities are constructed. • Implement the City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development. • Implement land use compatibility that generates traffic along roads with adequate capacity • City’s allocates $249M budget for Capital improvements in 2020-2025. About $48M of this would be spent on transportation improvements. • Various long term and short term improvements are identified in Table T-10 and T-11 in the Comprehensive Plan Volume II. • City will continue to require the traffic impact fees from future developments that will be used for future road and other improvements Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 57 Figure 4-7 Transportation improvements. Other Mitigation Measures The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2017a2020b) transportation goals and policies encourage providing an efficient and multimodal transportation network to support the City’s land use vision and existing needs. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development: • LU-1-A Policy: Maintain and apply current design standards for major public investments, particularly streets. • LU-4-A Policy: Reduce the dependency of vehicle travel and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods. • CF-2-A Policy: Encourage growth in geographic areas where services and utilities can be extended in an orderly, progressive and efficient manner. • TR1-J Policy: encourage developments to meet the mission of the Pasco Complete Street Policy TR1-I Policy: Require developments to meet the intentstandards of the Pasco Complete Street Ordinance. • TR-4-A Policy: Incorporate streetscape design and streetscape into all major arterial and collector streets as they are constructed. T-12 Cityef tlii Pasco Washington Transportation Improvements • ~~:terr.«tion • ==tersection -~~~ -~ffl)f~ts • ■ • Short Range New Roadway ■ ■ ■ l.009 Range New Roadway ... •· KortchnetSt E Hl bboro Rd Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 58 4.110. Public Services and Utilities 4.110.1. Affected Environment Water Supply System The City’s water system is supplied from surface water withdrawals from the McNary Pool of the Columbia River and includes two surface water treatment plants and three water reservoirs (Figure 4-8). The majority of the population within the incorporated limits of the City of Pasco is served by the City’s Water Utility. The City has the following key water system facilities: • Butterfield Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 26.8 million gallons per day • West Pasco Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day • Riverview Heights reservoir: 10 million gallons • Rd 68 reservoir: 2.5 million gallons • Broadmoor Boulevard reservoir: 1 million gallons The City water distribution system has been arranged into three (3) service/pressure zones. Generally, these zones may be described as: • Pressure Zone 1: South of I-182 and west of the railroad yard • Pressure Zone 2: East of the railroad yard, the southern portion of the airport and a strip south of I-182 between Service Zone 1 and Service Zone 3 • Pressure Zone 3: Generally, north of I-182 and encompassing most of the northern part of the city Figure 4-8 Existing Water System Richland Current water Main s Upto8" --s·-12· --12·.36· Pressure Zones Zone 1 Zone2 Zone3 c=l crtyUmits c:::::J Pasco Urban Growth Boundary Kennew1c~ Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 59 Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater Collection System The City’s collection system is a conventional collection system that mainly relies on gravity sewers to convey wastewater flow to two lift stations that discharge to the treatment facility (Figure 4-9). Additional pump stations and force mains are used to supplement the gravity system. The City operates a wastewater collection and treatment system to manage the wastewater needs of the community. The City originally built a primary treatment facility in 1954 which has been upgraded over the years to increase design capacity and accommodate growth of the City’s service area. This system operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit issued by Ecology. Currently, the system is served by one activated sludge wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) which oxidizes, nitrifies and disinfects wastewater flow prior to discharging to the Lake Wallula reach of the Columbia River. The northern part of the City is currently not served by the system. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities The City also owns, maintains and operates a separate industrial wastewater treatment plant (PWRF – Process Water Reuse Facility) that collects, stores and then applies food processor wastewater to farm circles north of the City as irrigation. The PWRF is an industrial facility that receives the discharge of process water from six food processors in the region. The PWRF is a public/private partnership. The PWRF and associated farm circle properties are located in an area of irrigated agriculture production fields on approximately 1,800 acres north of Pasco and east of Highway 395 in Franklin County. The City of Pasco has owned and operated the PWRF since 1995. Figure 4-9 Existing Sanitary Sewer System Richland Existing Sewer Main --2"=16" --16"-36" --Sew er Force Ma in LJ Citylimits D Pasco Urban Gro'Mh Boundary Kennewick Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 60 Stormwater System Stormwater runoff is a major contributor of water quality pollution to waterways. Being located in a semi‐arid climate, the streets in Pasco still collect sediments from construction sites, fertilizers and pesticides from yards, bacteria from animal waste, and gas, oil, and toxic metals from cars. Managing the stormwater system includes illicit discharge detection and elimination, runoff control, operation and maintenance, and monitoring of the system. The City continually updates its system through a combination of programs and facilities. Public involvement, education, and outreach are important components of the program. Solid Waste Management Solid waste collection services are provided in Pasco through a franchise agreement with Basin Disposal Inc. (BDI). BDI provides automated curbside services to all residential properties. Refuse is collected in the community and taken to the Transfer station on Dietrich Road. The transfer station tip-floor has a capacity of about 1,200 tons per day. BDI delivers approximately 646 tons per day of waste to transfer station each day. Any waste that is economically recyclable is diverted at this point and the remainder is placed in specially constructed trailers and transported to the regional landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. Garbage service in the City is mandatory and is required for all businesses and residential structures. The residential service is often referred to as total service in that home owners may set additional bags, boxes or bundles beside their standard garbage can on collection day for pick-up at no additional charge. Garbage pick-up occurs weekly for all residential customers and may occur more than once a week for commercial customers. BDI also provides two coupons a year to residential customers that can be used for free dumping at the transfer station. Public Safety Pasco Fire Department (PFD) provides fire suppression, advanced life support, emergency medical services, ambulance transport services, technical rescue services, and hazardous materials services (through a regional partnership) to its service area community. The PFD, through a contract with the Port, also provides Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting services to the Pasco airport. Law enforcement services for the City are provided by the City Police Department. Unincorporated areas of the UGA are served by the County Sheriff. The City and County law enforcement agencies cooperate readily when the need arises. Energy The primary supplier of electrical power to Pasco and the surrounding UGA is the Franklin County Public Utility District (Franklin PUD). The Franklin PUD purchases power from the regional power grid (Bonneville Power Administration) and then distributes through substations and distribution lines to the end users. Utilities from Other Providers Other utilities are provided by various service providers, including natural gas, telecommunications, and irrigation district facilities. Additional details for all services described above are included in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2 - Supporting Analysis (Oneza & Associates 202018). Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 61 4.110.2. Impacts Under all alternatives, future population and employment growth will result in increased demand on public services and utilities. Increases in population density and employment under all alternatives could increase the number of calls for police and medical emergency services. Increases in traffic related to growth under both alternatives could affect the response time of emergency vehicles. Increases in vehicle and pedestrian traffic could result in the need for additional traffic enforcement. Increases in population and employment could occur and increase the use of existing schools and parks, as well as create a need for new educational and recreational facilities. The demand for other public services, including sanitary sewer, wastewater treatment, water, stormwater, solid waste management, energy, and other utilities, would also increase. Construction impacts from population and employment growth would occur to accommodate the increased demand. Impacts include construction to expand capaci ty for water and sewer services; existing water and sanitary sewer lines would be abandoned in place or removed and replaced with new and larger lines. New and larger water and sewer mains would be installed in existing and/or future dedicated public rights‐of‐way or within dedicated utility easements to the City, and would connect with the existing distribution network. Existing utility lines would continue to service the area during construction, or temporary bypass service would be implemented until the distribution or collection system is complete and operational. Construction impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services could include increased calls for service related to inspection of construction sites and potential construction‐related injuries. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in continued growth under the existing Plan’s land use designations. Future population growth would not be accommodated under the No Action Alternative. This could impact public services and utilities need for these facilities to areas surrounding the City and neighboring rural areas in the County. Additional growth would put pressure on the rural facilities providers. Alternative 2: Recommended Growth Target Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the land use patterns and the planning area would increase significantly in intensity from the current under-utilized land uses to mixed-use and predominantly residential uses. Increased residential density would increase demand on public services and utilities. Construction impacts in these areas would also increase to accommodate more intense land uses. These impacts would be more localized rather than the diffuse impacts in the nearby rural areas under the No Action Alternative. Public services and utilities in the north side are currently limited and will require transportation and other public services improvements and utility connections to occur under future use scenarios. Alternative 3: Recommended Growth Target High Density, Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 includes a similar level of development as Alternative 2, with increased residential density expected to the north, and in an area smaller than the area in Alternative 2. This alternative would place the greatest demand on public services and utilities. However, these demands would be more localized rather than the diffuse impacts anticipated under the No Action Alternative or spread out impacts anticipated in Alternative 2. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 62 4.110.3. Mitigation Measures For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to public services and utilities (Figures 4-10 and 4-11): • The City should continue to implement the improvements described in the City of Pasco Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP), 2019 to address deficiencies resulting from growth for the planning period. Priority projects and financing are included in the 2019 Capital Improvement Program for water and stormwater systems (City of Pasco). • The City should continue to implement the improvements described in the City of Pasco ’s Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP), 20194 to address deficiencies resulting from growth for the planning period. • To accommodate future population growth, the City should maintain its services with Basin Disposal Inc. • In 2019, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation, which evaluated the impact of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land use changes. As a result, in order to accommodate future growth, the City will need to make additional improvements to the West Pasco WTP, Zone 3 Reservoir, and acquire additional water rights to meet the 2038 demands. • In 2017 and 2019, the City re-evaluated the capacity and loading requirements of the Northwest Service Area as a result of potential development demands and growth projects changes as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan update and Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion. A strategy to provide sewer service to the proposed UGA and other growth areas within the city (Broadmoor Area) was evaluated and alternatives were identified. • The 2016 Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan proposes a reconfiguration of stations and an extension of services to the north. • City allocates $249M budget for Capital improvements in 2020-2025. About $57M would be spent on Sewer System Improvements, $40M on water, $36M on process water resource facility, $25M on Fire safety, $2M on irrigation and $1M of stormwater. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 63 Figure 4-10 Water infrastructure improvements Figure 4-11 Sewer system improvements Richland Proposed New Project • --12· --,s· --,e· --24• • Proposed Road 68 Lift Station • Proposed Tank Location Expanded Prenure ZonH Zone-1 Zone-1A Zone-2 Zone-2A Zone-2B -Zone-2C Zone-3 Proposed ■ Propoled Lift Stations ----Potential Alternative A lignment -·-Proposed Sewer Pipes --Proposed Lift Station Pump --Sewer Force Main Existing Sewer Main --2"=16" --16"-36" L_J City Limits Current Wate r Main• Upto8" --s·-12· --12"-36" ■ LlftStation l!'.I Storage Tank Water Treatment Plant C.:J cay um,11 D Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary D Proposed Urban Growth Area Kennewick ..... Kennewick ~ites Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 64 Figure 4-12 Fire service improvements Other Mitigation Measures The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b18) utilities element goals are intended to ensure public facilities and services necessary to support development are planned, sized, and constructed to serve new development. Alternatives 2 and 3 should be implemented consistent with the policies identified therein. This includes using a minimum 20‐year planning horizon to plan for City-provided public utilities and identifying new facilities, expansions, and improvements that will be needed. The City will work with other purveyors of public services to provide facilities and services concurrent with development. The City will also minimize environmental impacts while providing safe and reliable services. • CF-2. Goal: Ensure concurrency of utilities, services, and facilities consistent with land use designations and actions within realistic capital budget capabilities. • CF-3. Goal: Maintain adequate lands for public facilities. • CF-4. Goal: Acquire adequate water rights for future needs. • CF-7. Goal: Maintain within the City a level of fire protection service that is efficient and cost effective. Encourage that same level of service in the unincorporated portion of the the Urban Growth Area. • UT-I Goal: Provide adequate utility services to the Urban Growth Area to assure that the anticipated 20-year growth is accommodated. . i Proposed 4 Staffed Station Deployment (81 ,82,Relocated 83 , Relocated 84) • Staffed Station Travel Time-Proposed Staffed Station ~ 6 Minutes Travel ;; i 0 .. 95 Pasco Fire Department Study Area PFD Fire Station • Staffed • Unstaffed 0 City of Pasco (',! Pasco UGB County Boundary Miles Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 65 • UT-3 Goal: Assure the provision of adequate and efficient storm water management. 4.121. Heritage Conservation 4.121.1. Affected Environment Pasco Cultural History Pasco is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers. It is in the Southern Plateau, part of the larger Columbia Plateau culture area. The Southern Plateau stretches from southern Okanogan County in the north to the northern border of the Great Basin to the south. The prehistory and history of the Southern Plateau is briefly summarized here. Beginning about 11,000 years ago, early mobile foragers were present in the Columbia Plateau. This was followed by a brief but widespread Clovis occupation, and a “broad-spectrum” hunter-gatherer culture developed in the Columbia Plateau region and persisted until the middle Holocene, around 5,300 years ago (Chatters and Pokotylo 1998). A shift toward more permanent settlement began around 6,000 years ago, characterized by intensive salmon fishing and associated storage features, social inequality, large permanent winter villages, and diverse tool assemblages (Chatters and Pokotylo 1998; Ames et al. 1998). Pasco is in the traditional territory of the Palus tribe, a constituent tribe of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. It is also in the 1855 ceded lands of the Yakama Nation, additionally the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids and the Walla Walla tribe also utilized the area extensively. All are Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people. Pasco is in the traditional territory of the Yakama Nation, a Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people (Walker 1998). Wanapum and Walla Walla people also used the area (Kershner 2008). Traditional Plateau cultures were based on a seasonal round that took advantage of fish runs, game, and root resources, as well as trade, kinship ties, and intermarriage among groups (Walker 1998). Prior to historic resettlement, permanent winter villages anchored the seasonal round (Boyd and Hajda 1987). The spot where the Snake enters the Columbia had been a popular tribal rendezvous spot for centuries, sometimes called the Grand Rendezvous or the Great Forks. Tribes commonly camped, fished, and wintered from the Snake's mouth upstream on the Columbia for eight miles toward the spot where the Yakima River enters. The City of Pasco spreads out today over the eastern bank of this stretch of the Columbia (Brum & Associates, 2014). Fishing activities revolved around an early salmon run in March, and a second, larger run in June (Schuster 1998). Gathering activities took place throughout the year. Although salmon were a key staple, plant foods also made up a significant portion of the diet (Hunn 1981). By the time of the first sustained contact between the tribes of the Pasco area and Euro-American settlers in the mid-1800s, tribal life had already been significantly impacted. Introduced diseases decimated the population (Vibert 1997:50), and the introduction of the horse altered social and economic activities. In 1853, Washington became a territory separate from Oregon and, by the next year, Governors of both the territories began pursuing treaties that relegated tribes to reservations (Wilma 2003). Fourteen tribes and bands signed the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 that established the Yakama Indian Reservation (Yakima Nation Museum [YNM] 2011). The same year, the Walla Walla tribe signed the Treaty of Walla Walla, which established the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon, and many Walla Walla (and some Yakama) tribal members moved to there. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 66 The Lewis and Clark expedition recorded the first description of the confluence area in 1805, and David Thompson passed through in 1811 (Nisbet 2005). The area was rarely visited, a nd several early attempts at settlement (a mission, a group of cattle ranchers) failed (Kershner 2008). However, by the 1890s, settlers had established an agricultural economy and built irrigation systems (Kershner 2008). The general Tri-Cities region as a whole is within territory inhabited traditionally by Native people represented today by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids, and others. Large permanent villages were located in prominent locations, such as at the confluence of the Columbia River (Nch'i-Wana) and the Yakima River (Koots Koots A Min Ma). (Heather & Darby, 2018). The original town site of Pasco was created in April of 1886 with the recording of the Pasco Town Plat. The original town site contained 8 blocks equally divided by the Pacific Northern Rail yards. From that modest beginning Pasco has grown to encompass more than 33 square miles of land. The original town site that was home to a handful of settlers. (Oneza & Associates, 202019) The Yakima-Columbia confluence has a rich archaeological record, with sites in the area attributed to all of the Southern Plateau cultural phases. The area has been, “occupied more or less continuously for the last 10,000 years” (Western Heritage 1983). There are 32 recorded archaeological sites within 1 mile of the confluence. The arrival of the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1884 established Pasco as a major junction between rail lines serving Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, and Portland. The Columbia Basin Project reached Pasco in 1948. This project, in turn, spurred agricultural growth for the entire region thanks to the irrigation of nearby rivers. World War II had a significant impact that is still felt in the region because of the development of the Naval Air Station Pasco flight training facility (later the Tri-Cities Airport), the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and the Manhattan Project. While primary operations and research are conducted nearby in Benton County, Pasco’s rail infrastructure provided much needed logistical help along with plentiful land to house some of Hanford’s earliest workers. These events (rail, irrigation, air, and nuclear energy) have affected the cultural environment that Pasco, and the region enjoys today. Recorded Cultural Resources Many archaeological sites, Native American traditional places, and historical structures related to the area’s cultural history have been recorded in the City. Previously conducted cultural resources review This discussion includes two of many cultural resource reviews undertaken in Pasco and Tri-Cities area. A cultural resources survey for the Pasco Tri-Cities airport area indicates two National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) in the city of Pasco south of the Tri-Cities Airport. The Franklin County Courthouse (Building #78002740, 1016 N. 4th St., Pasco) is approximately 1.4 miles south of the Tri-Cities Airport. The Pasco Carnegie Library (Building #82004212, 305 N. 4th St., Pasco) is located approximately 1.7 miles south of the Tri-Cities Airport. The James Moore House (Resource ID: 674795) is also on the NRHP. The pedestrian archaeological survey did not locate any prehistoric or historic sites. Pasco’s Historic Preservation Plan (Brum & Associates, 2013) includes an inventory of historic buildings and structures. The Broadmoor area Cultural Literature Review, review of the WISAARD database shows 13 archaeological sites fall within a mile of the Broadmoor area. Some sites fall in Benton County, Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 67 others fall in Franklin County. Eight of these sites fall within the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible “Tri-Cities Archaeological District,” which runs along the Columbia River bank including adjoining uplandsthe Columbia River bank and does not extend inland, starting at about Van Giesen Street on the Benton County side, and just slightly north of Burns Road in Franklin County in the north, all the way to the Pioneer Memorial Bridge (locally referred to as the Blue Bridge) to the south (Solimano 2012). Also present within the Broadmoor Area is the “Hanford South Archaeological District,” which covers about 19 miles on both banks of the Columbia River, beginning at River Mile 350.5 (north of Wooded Island) and ending at River Mile 339 (near north Richland) (Hanford South Archeological District 45DT39A form 1983). One site within a mile of the Project Area falls within the Hanford South District. The Hanford South District has never been determined as eligible for the National Register and has not been recently updated in WISAARD, so its NRHP eligibility is unknown to NWA at this time. All but one of the 13 sites within a mile of the Broadmoor Area are precontact (one is historic) — eight of the 13 are eligible to be listed on the National Register. There are no sites located directly within the Broadmoor Area. The 13 sites within the one-mile radius contain an array of litchisNative American burials are identified within this radius. There are also archaeological , shell deposits, burials, irrigation features pipes, and an archaeological one was designated as a field camp. The singular historic site found within a mile of the Project Area indicates historic farming was also occurring nearby, which indicates there will have already been a great deal of ground- disturbing activity. The number of sites and their proximity to the river is unsurprising due to the nature of Native cultures in the Broadmoor AreaProject Area subsisting largely on fish resources since time immemorial (Hansen and Darby, 2018). Similarly, for the proposed Urban Growth areas identified in Alternatives 2 and 3, no recorded resources, including archaeological sites, historic structures or other resources are located directly within these boundaries. Some irrigation related structures are identified but have been determined not eligible to be counted as historic resources. It is important to note that there have been only limited surveys for these resources conducted in the proposed UGA areas. There are some resources just outside of the UGA areas, including facilities associated with the Esquatzel canal (Anchor QEA 2020). Even with this information, the cultural sensitivity of the city and its Urban Growth Area (UGA). Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP’s) Statewide Predictive Model categorizes the city and the UGA areas as “high to very high risk” for encountering cultural resources (DAHP 2020). This means there is high potential for the presence of archaeological resources in the region that could be disturbed or otherwise impacted by development. 4.121.2. Impacts Generally, the potential for impacts to cultural resources is proportional to the intensity of development. The greater the horizontal and vertical extent of ground disturbance, the more likely that a development will impact archaeological materials, historic structures, or traditional cultural properties. Several existing laws and regulations govern the identification and treatment cultural resources. These include: • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800, which apply to projects that are federally funded or approved. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 68 • Governor’s Executive Order 05-05, which applies to projects that use State of Washington capital funds. • RCW 27.53 (Archaeological Sites and Records), which prohibits the unpermitted removal of archaeological materials and establishes a permitting process. • RCW 27.44 (Indian Graves and Records), which describes how human remains must be treated. Also, PMC Historic Preservation Title 20 regulates historic sites for “identification, evaluation, designation, and protection of designated historic and prehistoric resources”. Given these laws and regulations, it is likely that any impacts to significant cultural resources would have to be mitigated, in consultation with Native American tribes and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, areas of proposed change would maintain the current zoning. Under existing conditions, most of City would be developed to its maximum capacity. Construction citywide could potentially impact cultural resources, including recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Under the Traditional Growth Target Alternative, various new residential, public use, and commercial developments could occur in the north side of the UGA. These developments would likely include disturbance of previously undisturbed soils for building foundations, utilities, roadways, and other infrastructure. Unrecorded archaeological sites could be affected in these areas. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative Under the Compact Growth Target Alternative, developments would be similar to the Traditional Growth Target Alternative, though with greater intensity of development in some parts of the planning areas. The greater magnitude could lead to potentially greater disturbance of undocumented archaeological resources. 4.121.3. Mitigation Measures The City should comply with applicable laws and regulations regarding impacts to cultural resources. Section 106, Executive Order 05-05, and RCW 27.53, among others, require impacts to cultural resources be mitigated. Mitigation is developed on a project-by-project basis, in consultation with Native American tribes, the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and other interested parties. The draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) goals and policies encourage the preservation of structures, districts, and cultural resources unique to the City. The following goals and policies should be considered for future development: • LU-8 Goal: Encourage the restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings and sites. • LU-8-A Policy: Allow adaptive re-uses in historic structures. • Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies Historic Preservation: Identify and encourage the preservation of land sites and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 69 4.132. Summary of Impacts by Alternative Table 12 Summary of Impacts by Alternative Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.213.1. Earth • Earth-related impacts Disturbance mechanisms (e.g., clearing, grading, erosion, impervious area expansion, and contamination) related to construction and operation would be scaled with the intensity of future development and operation. • Disturbance mechanisms to earth resources would be less intensive than with Alternatives 2 and 3. • Population growth would not be fully accommodated and could result in increased and more diffuse impacts to earth resources from sprawl-type development in other parts of the County and nearby rural areas. • Increased impacts to earth resources compared to No Action Alternative associated disturbance mechanisms from more intensive development within the planning areas. • Increased erosion potential, compaction, or contamination of earth resources from development within the planning areas. • Due to lower density development compared to Alternative 3, and maximum acreages occupied under this alternative, the extent of impacts to earth resources within the undeveloped or infill areas would be more in Alternative 2 than other two alternatives • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but denser residential development proposed. This would result in higher population density per acre and reduce sprawl-type development in the City and nearby rural areas to accommodate future population growth. Concentrated development and associated impacts within the planning areas would reduce earth-related impacts in other areas. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 70 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.213.2. Surface Water • Development activities may cause erosion or increase impervious surfaces that could discharge contaminated or sediment-laden water to nearby surface waters. • Point source and non- point source pollution can be exacerbated by development if not properly managed or mitigated. • Development of undeveloped areas could reduce groundwater recharge and potentially reduce baseflow to nearby surface waters. • Changes in population and increased development could limit the availability of water supplies. • Lower population growth and less intensive development within the planning areas would have less impact on surface waters compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. • Impacts to water supplies and water supply demand would also be less due to lower number of population accommodated compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. • Population growth would not be fully accommodated and could result in increased and more diffuse impacts to surface water from sprawl-type development in the nearby rural areas. • Changes in development patterns in the north UGA area from irrigated/ vacant to developed lands would change stormwater and groundwater recharge dynamics. • Without mitigation, higher intensity development within the planning areas could put surface waters at greater risk of degradation. • Water supply demand could be higher than the No Action Alternative due to higher population growth. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but denser residential development would increase impervious surfaces and other development-related impacts within the planning areas. • • Development within the City could potentially result in decreased and less diffuse impacts to surface water resources from future development in other parts of the City and nearby rural areas compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 71 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.213.3. Plants and Animals • Impacts to plants and animals would generally be scaled with the level development. • Construction causes noise and other activities that are known to cause short-term behavioral disturbance to wildlife. • Development activities can remove vegetation and result in fragmentation of wildlife habitat, reduce wildlife habitat quality and function, and result in long-term operational impacts. • Lower population growth and less-intensive development within the planning areas would have less impact on plants and animals compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. • Population growth would not be fully accommodated and could result in increased and more diffuse impacts to plants and animals from sprawl-type development in the nearby rural areas, potentially impacting shrub-steppe habitat, burrowing owl, and other wetlands or riparian vegetation designated in other communities. • Due to lower density residential designations compared to Alternative 3, increased development in other parts of the City and nearby rural areas could have greater and more diffuse impacts to plants and animals. • Changes in development patterns from irrigated/ vacant to developed lands would alter the landscape and potentially reduce habitat provided by the existing uses. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but denser residential development in would potentially reduce habitat provided by existing uses. • More area would be preserved in the Broadmoor area including the core PHS areas. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 72 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.213.4. Land Use • Future development could convert undeveloped and infill areas to more intensive uses. • Construction-related and operational impacts could affect immediate vicinity and nearby land uses from increased noise, light and glare, and traffic delays; changes in views or the aesthetic character of the area; and increased pressure to develop or redevelop adjacent vacant or underutilized areas. • The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of the properties as currently zoned by the City. • Population growth would not be fully accommodated and could result in increased and more diffuse impacts to land uses in the nearby rural areas. • in the long-term, when developments are permitted in the vacant and infill areas under the current land use and zoning, this will result in significant aesthetic and visual quality impacts. • Land use patterns would increase in intensity in the north UGA area as they change from irrigated/ agricultural / vacant to predominantly residential uses. • Vacant open land will also be transformed by future roadways, commercial development, and light industrial activities with some green spaces. • None of the area would include Franklin County designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but denser residential development in the planning area and would better accommodate future population growth. • Higher density and more concentrated development. Land use to the north would transform from underutilized, low intensity current uses to a mix of Low, Medium, and High Density Residential, Commercial, Public Facility, and Open Space. • None of the area would include Franklin County designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 73 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.213.5. Environmental Health • Future developments of infill and undeveloped commercial and industrial lands could impact environmental health. • During construction of some industrial developments, chemicals may be stored that could potentially create a risk of fire, explosion or spills. • The No Action Alternative would result in increased and intense use of industrial lands. • Developments in vacant and infill areas under the current land use and zoning will result in continued risks to environmental health as seen by current development patterns. • Under this alternatives, existing County under-utilized industrial lands will be added to the UGA and will be developed. • New industrial developments could increase the exposure to chemicals or risk of fire. Hazardous waste could occur depending on the types of uses. • Under this alternatives, existing County under-utilized industrial lands will be added to the UGA and will be developed. • New industrial developments could increase the exposure to chemicals or risk of fire. Hazardous waste could occur depending on the types of uses. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 74 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.13.6. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas • Future development twould include expansion of commercial and industrial space; therefore air pollutant emissions generated within the study area are expected to increase. • Vehicle miles traveled for those who work in the City and its UGA would also increase, along with the tailpipe emissions generated by those vehiclesext. • Temporary construction activities are common to all alternatives. • Increases in ozone are all expected for each alternative at varying degrees based on concentration of development. • Population is expected to increase but not at the same levels within the City limits and UGA areas as expected with Alternatives 2 and 3, so the localized air quality effects are expected to be lower.text • Exposure to PM2.5 and ozone would initially be slightly lower than the No Action, as the UGA area for Alternative 2, but over time as development occurs and more population is located within the City and UGA area, then these values are expected to increase. • Expanding the UGA will limit the ability for existing and future residents in the subject area from being able to burn, which may lead to air quality enhancements.text • textSimilar effects to Alternative 2 are expected, with potential higher localized concentrations due to expected higher densities. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 75 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.2.513.7. Shoreline Use • Increased population growth has the potential to change shoreline uses and increase development in or adjacent to these areas. • Changes in surrounding land use patterns could reduce the value of shoreline areas as recreational opportunities or wildlife habitat. • Population growth would not be fully accommodated and could result in increased and more diffuse impacts to shoreline areas in the nearby rural areas. • The current Public Facility and shoreline areas would allow for more intensive future development to occur adjacent to the shoreline compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. • Directing development to within the planning areas would minimize potential impacts sensitive shoreline environments in other parts of the City or nearby rural areas. • Future development would allow shoreline public access, recreational and water- oriented uses to occur. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but denser residential development would better accommodate future population growth, reducing shoreline impacts in other parts of the City or nearby rural areas. • Less shoreline area is involved in this alternative compared to Alternative 2. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 76 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.2.613.8. Population, Housing and Employment • Population, housing, and employment growth are all expected, with more intensive growth occurring under Alternatives 2 and 3. • Impacts to population, housing, and employment would occur from inadequate existing facilities or insufficient future development opportunities to accommodate growth. • Population and employment growth would not be fully accommodated and would nominally increase housing or employment opportunities in the City. Housing demand would not be met based on future population growth trends. • Land use would accommodate population growth and provide housing and employment opportunities. • The industrial area to the north along US-395 would provide the City with additional capacity for industrial developments to add more jobs. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but denser residential development would better accommodate future population growth and provide more opportunities for housing and employment. • Higher intensity uses within the planning areas would increase issues related to increased development in urban environments such as traffic, noise, air pollution, public service demands, and other issues, but within a lesser geographic area compared to Alternative 2. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 77 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.2.713.9. Parks and Recreation • Regional population growth will result in greater demand for parks and open space. • Recreational opportunities will be in higher demand, commensurate with population growth. • No parks and recreation would be provided beyond the land already set aside for public purposes and would be insufficient to accommodate future population growth. • Preserving Open Space land use in UGA area would meet the future demand for park land. • More parks and open space area than Alternative 2. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but dDenser residential development proposed would place greater demand on parks and recreation in these areas. • In the Broadmoor area, streetscape and design standards to offer additional urban recreational opportunities. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 78 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.2.813.10. Transportation • Demand on transportation and transit facilities would increase commensurate with population and employment growth. • Demand for additional non-motorized facilities such as trails and bikeways would also increase with population growth. • Rail and airport use would increase with population and employment growth. • Population and employment growth would not be fully accommodated and would result in increased and more diffuse impacts to transportation facilities in other parts of the City and nearby rural areas. • Maintenance of transportation facilities would also be greater and more widespread to accommodate growth in other parts of the City and nearby rural areas. • Increased density would increase demand on transportation and transit facilities, as well as non- motorized transportation opportunities. • Compared to Alternative 3, Alternative 2 would require additional roads to serve the larger area. Alternative 2 would likely need additional intersection improvements at several intersections due to longer trip lengths. • Construction impacts on transportation facilities would be increased near the planning areas from development. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but with the population being accommodated within a smaller geographic area with higher residential densities, this would place greater but more localized demand in these areas. • The additional commercial and employment included in the land use assumptions of Alternative 3 however mean that shorter trip lengths would result, with less overall impacts to the transportation network than Alternative 2. • Increased density in urban areas would most efficiently support new or extended bus routes in addition to more frequent service provided by transit facilities. Similarly, non- motorized transit demand would also increase. This increased demand would be more localized than the diffuse impacts anticipated under the No Action Alternative. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 79 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.2.913.11. Public Services and Utilities • Demand on public services and utilities would increase with population and employment growth. • Increases in traffic could result in the need for additional traffic enforcement and affect the response time of emergency response vehicles. • Public facility usage would also increase with population and employment growth. • Population and employment growth would not be fully accommodated and could impact public services and utilities by increasing the service area to other parts of the City and neighboring rural areas. • Increased and more diffuse demand for public services and utilities could result in added costs to the City and utility providers and delay service response times. • Increased growth would increase demand on public services and utilities. However, this demand would be more localized to urban areas compared to the No Action Alternative. • Increased residential growth would increase demand and construction impacts related to public services and utilities. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but denser residential development would place the greatest demand on public services and utilities. The increased demand would be more localized to urban areas under this alternative. • Due to the limited area in the UGA compared to Alternative 2, cost associated with pipeline expansions, roads and utilities will be less. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 80 Topics/Impacts Common to All Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative 4.2.1013.12. Heritage Conservation • The potential for impacts to cultural resources is generally proportional to the intensity of development. • Impacts to significant cultural resources would have to be mitigated, in consultation with Native American tribes and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. • The vacant area to the north would likely remain vacant and maintain current uses with limited potential for impacts to archaeological resources. • Under the existing land use designation, vacant lands within the City could be developed and potentially impact cultural resources, including recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites. • New development would likely disturb soils and have the potential to impact unrecorded archaeological sites in these areas. • The area re-designated as Commercial, Residential etc. could potentially impact cultural resources, including recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites and the Columbia Point South Cultural Landscape. • Similar impacts as Alternative 2, but with greater intensity of development in some parts of the planning areas. • At Broadmoor area, more cultural resources land will be preserved. 4.143. Summary of Mitigation Measures by Topic Table 13 Summary of Mitigation Measures by Topic Topics 4.13.1. Earth For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Maintain compliance with local air-quality agency requirements by watering exposed areas during construction. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 81 Topics • Avoid disturbing the steep areas. • Compact soils at densities appropriate for planned land uses. • Provide vegetative cover or soil cement on exposed surfaces. • Maintain Open Space land use and environment designations along the shoreline to protect shoreline functions. • Construction should be staged so that the maximum amount of existing vegetation is left in place. • Catch basins should be installed near storm drains Other mitigation measures include: • Maintain compliance with the CAO. • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 4.13.2 Surface Water For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Implement mitigation measures described for reducing impacts to earth resources described in Section 4.1.3. • Under both development alternatives, detention ponds will reduce peak runoff flows to natural state conditions. Detention ponds will also provide settlement for silt. Oil/water separators can reduce impacts from automobiles. • Additional mitigation measures include bio-filtration, either before or after entry into the various detention ponds, and buffers around wetlands in accordance with the CAO. • Stormwater improvements are planned to manage stormwater and protect water quality • Evaluate and apply Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater techniques, where appropriate, to maintain dispersed groundwater infiltration. Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • Maintain compliance with existing federal, state, and local policies that regulate land use activities near, and within, surface waters such as the Yakima and Columbia rivers and wetlands, including: ‒ NPDES regulations and City stormwater regulations ‒ USACE wetland avoidance and mitigation requirements ‒ The City SEPA and CAO requirements Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 82 Topics 4.13.3 Plants and Animals For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Provide erosion and stormwater control measures during construction, particularly in areas adjacent to surface waters that provide fish and wildlife habitat such as Columbia Point South. • Consider landscaping with native plants to provide vegetation of habitat significance in streetscapes, buffers for stormwater swales, rain gardens, and other habitat features. • Avoided, minimize, or mitigate impacts to shrub steppes, priority habitats, wetlands or wetland buffers, in accordance with the CAO and SMP. Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • Maintain compliance with the CAO. 4. 13.4. Land Use For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Meet population growth targets and housing demand through developing planned areas, and infill developments,. • Improve the built environment through designing new structures and development per City code. • Reduce local traffic volumes by creating a live-work environment in Alternative 3. • Protect shoreline areas according to the City’s shoreline regulations under Title 29 • Allow adequate parks, open space and public facilities • Implement design standards for Broadmoor area developments under the Broadmoor area master plan and design standards. • Implement City’s land use and zoning regulations to maintain the physical and aesthetic qualities of future developments. • Maintain low density residential in the airport’s fly zones. New avigation easement(s) will be in place near the airport with height restrictions per PMC 25.190 Airport Overlay District. • Airport Overlay District (PMC 25.190) in the City and Franklin County (Chapter 17.76, Airport Zoning) codes - provide for safety, compatibility zones, use restrictions, and height limitations. • Maintain land use compatibility to mitigate adverse impacts between different land uses (see Comprehensive Plan Volume II) • Revised Alternative 3 further reduces the UGA area by 100 acres of agricultural land. Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • Maintain compliance with City Zoning Regulations and CAO requirements. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 83 Topics • Implement rural land protection measures and incentives to make UGAs and planning areas more attractive (e.g., density incentives and infrastructure investment). 4. 13.5. Environmental Health For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Improve the built environment through designing new structures with safety and hazard maintenance per PMC. • Maintain and employ emergency management plans for all industrial developments • Support the preparation of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plans (SPCC) required for existing facilities and construction projects, along with timely spill or contamination emergency response measures. • Support appropriate hazardous waste management through reuse, recycling, and disposal. • Listed hazardous sites should be subject to ongoing monitoring by Ecology's Hazardous Waste and Toxic Reduction Program. Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. 13.6. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Reductions in traffic congestion through encouraging alternative modes of transportation such as transit and bicycles or walking may help offset any potential localized increase in emissions. Furthermore, on a regional basis, the EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations (coupled with ongoing future fleet turnover) should, over time, cause significant reductions in region-wide air quality levels. Ongoing EPA motor vehicle regulations have caused steady decreases in tailpipe emissions from individual vehicles, and it is possible that those continuing decreases from individual vehicles could offset the increase in vehicle traffic. • Air quality regulations require construction contractors to take all reasonable steps to minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction. These required mitigation measures are designed to reduce localized impacts affecting homes and businesses adjacent to construction sites. • Promote transit and other types of transportation that do not contribute to additional air emissions and reduce vehicle traffic. • Support State and EPA efforts to reduce ozone levels during hot summer days where levels might increase due to limited wind. • Continue to support hydropower electrical general facilities in the region that do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 84 Topics 4. 13.67. Shoreline Use For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Provide a development buffer at along the Columbia and Snake rivers shoreline using Open Space land use designation • All shoreline goals and policies, and regulations should be applied for future developments • No net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development shall be allowed, consistent with the provisions of the SMP. Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • Maintain compliance with the City SMP and CAO. 4. 13.3.68. Population, Housing and Employment For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Implement SOMOS Pasco economic development strategies. • Development of agricultural industrial businesses • Infrastructure development • Train labor force • Promote tourism • Meet housing demand through developing existing planned areas, infill developments, and Development of the UGA Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • Maintain compliance with the Washington State GMA requirements. • The City should consider infill incentives and upzones. 4. 13.3.78. Parks and Recreation For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • Consider ways to provide park or recreation opportunities near urban centers through land use designations. • As development occurs, incorporating shoreline access may be appropriate to meet future demand for access created by the development. • Public access opportunities to the shoreline and other natural features should be considered through integration with the City’s trail system to the extent practicable. • Continue park and school impact fees for future developments Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 85 Topics Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • Maintain compliance with the Washington State GMA requirements. • Maintain compliance with the City SMP policies to work with other jurisdictions, property owners, open space groups and interested parties to develop and implement regional and City parks, recreation, and trails plans and appropriate implementation strategies. 4. 13.3.8.9. Transportation For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • The City will undertake joint efforts with the Washington State Department of Transportation to identify appropriate improvements at the I-182/Road 68 interchange as well as the I-182/Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd interchange along with appropriate local roadway improvements to protect and preserve those investments. • The City will implement travel demand management methodologies identified in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) to limit and manage the demand on and access to the major facilities of I-182 and US 395, • During construction, the City will work with its development applicants to oversee that appropriate coordination with affected agencies and property owners occurs upon future development. This includes providing appropriate public notification and detour routes upon development of its own projects. • During construction, the City could require construction management plans at the time of development to reduce potential short‐ term impacts. • To accommodate future population growth projections, the City has planned a roadway network to serve developing areas, and many of the improvements will be paid for by private development. Identified improvements to transportation networks are described further in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2 - Supporting Analysis (Oneza & Associates, 201720). • Cooperate with the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments for levels of service, • The City should consider multi‐modal needs in new corridors and in street standards for when new roadway facilities are constructed. • Implement the City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development. • Implement land use compatibility that generates traffic along roads with adequate capacity • City's allocates $249M budget for Capital improvements in 2020-2025. About $48M of this would be spent on transportation improvements. • Various long term and short term improvements are identified in Table T-10 and T-11 in the Comprehensive Plan Volume II. • City will continue to require the traffic impact fees from future developments that will be used for future road and other improvements --- Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 86 Topics Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. 13.3.910. Public Services and Utilities For Action Alternatives 2 and 3: • The City should continue to implement the improvements described in the Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP), 2019 to address deficiencies resulting from growth for the planning period. • The City should continue to implement the improvements described in the City’s Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP), 2014Plan to address deficiencies resulting from growth for the planning period. • To accommodate future population growth, the City should, maintains its services with Basin Disposal Inc.. • In 2019, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation, which evaluated the impact of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land use changes. As a result, in order to accommodate future growth the City will need to make additional improvements to the West Pasco WTP, Zone 3 Reservoir, and acquire additional water rights to meet the 2038 demands. • In 2017 and 2019, the City re-evaluated the capacity and loading requirements of the Northwest Service Area as a result of potential development demands and growth projects changes as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan update and Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion. A strategy to provide sewer service to the proposed UGA and other growth areas within the city (Broadmoor Area) was evaluated and alternatives were identified. • The 2016 Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan proposes a reconfiguration of stations and an extension of services to the north. • City allocates $249M budget for Capital improvements in 2020-2025. About $57M would be spent on Sewer System Improvements, $40M on water, $36M on process water resource facility, $25M on Fire safety, $2M on irrigation and $1M of stormwater. Other mitigation measures include: • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • The City should continue to provide and maintain collection services to all City residents consistent with adopted service levels and the City’s various public services and utilities plans. 4. 13.3.1011. Heritage Conservation Mitigation measures include: • Comply with applicable laws and regulations regarding impacts to cultural resources. Section 106, Executive Order 05-05, and RCW 27.53, among others, require that impacts to cultural resources be mitigated. • Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 87 Chapter 5. Comments and Responses 5.1. Comments and Responses for Final EIS Table 14 Comments and Responses for Final EIS # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 1 Port of Pasco 2/18/2020 UGA Exhibit #A – CPA2020- 001 - UGA Port of Pasco is primary economic development organization within Franklin County. Strong support for adding industrial land to the Urban Growth Area to promote economic development and meet GMA goals. • Much of the industrial property available in Pasco/Greater Tri-Cities does not meet development requirements (20 acres or greater), nearby utilities, access to transportation (highway and rail) and for heavy industry, a buffer from residential property. • Certain large industrial tracts are unavailable or very limited in their development. 220 acres of industrial land at Tri-Cities Airport is in the runway protection area. 640 acre tract of industrial land east of the new AutoZone is owned by the State Dept. of Natural Resources • Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation recently purchased 165 acres of industrial land located in the Commercial Avenue area. In 2016, Dept. of Natural Resources acquired 450 acres of industrial property within the UGA near the Snake River, with no plans to pursue industrial development. • Additional industrial land proposed to the UGA is north of existing industrial development. Land is already in industrial land use designation Noted Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 88 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response within Franklin County. • Franklin County is net-exporter of talent, exporting 6% of its workforce each day to neighboring counties. • Further reliance on industrial development distant from workforce housing in Pasco will further congest roadways. Companies will locate closer to their workforce if the right land is available. 2 Withers, Niel 4/3/2020 UGA Exhibit #B – CPA2020- 001 UGA Opposed to the proposed urban growth area boundary, specifically the area of 2,810 acres north of Burns Road The expansion further North will increase the congestion on RD 68 and its arterial roads of Burden RD, Sandifur Parkway, RD's 44 and 36, and the corresponding interchanges of Rd 68 and 100 and hwy182. The interchange already gets backed up onto hwy 182 from exit 7 and 9 during evening commute hours. The already planned expansion west of RD 100 will further congest that traffic as well. Expansion north will also put a strain on city services, police and fire and rescue. That can remediated by hiring, buying and building more of necessary components of personnel Equipment and trucks. Additional Schools and teachers will be needed as well. Again more Spending. More bonds, more taxes to approve, more funding to secure. Expansions that have already taken place have brought in increasing number of real estate Speculators that are building and buying homes to rent, rather than being affordable for families to purchase. The number of quick build storage units The Washington State Office of Financial Management has indicated that the City of Pasco will add approximately 48,000 residents between 2018 and 2038. An expansion is necessary to accommodate the necessary housing and employment needs of the community. Without an expansion, existing services, facilities and neighborhoods would be diluted and/or be over capacity risking Level of Service requirements. As the city expands, facilities and utilities (streets, sewer, water, Stormwater, etc) will be required as development occurs. The City collects impact feels for Parks, Schools and Transportation to assist with the construction of necessary infrastructure. The City is currently updating various elements of the Land Use and Zoning/Development Standards to increase housing density and options to accommodate a wide-range of community housing needs. The City was awarded funds for affordable housing through House Bill 1923 and pursuing a sales/tax credit through House Bill 1406. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 89 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response can confirm that. 3 TLP (Bob Tippett)_1 4/9/2020 UGA Exhibit #C – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • This letter is on behalf of the Thanksgiving Limited Partnership (TLP). As Managing Partner, I ask that staff and the planning commission, reconsider the current Urban Growth Boundary to include all of the TLP property, as previously approved in Resolution 3845 dated June 18, 2018. • TLP owns+/-140 acres of land immediately adjacent to City limits, and immediately north of 160 acres recently purchased by the Confederate Tribes of the Colville Reservation. The westerly property boundary (approximately 2,000 lineal feet) fronts Capital Avenue. The land is currently zoned AP-20 and Rural Residential 5 Acre Tracts. • Per RCW 36.70A.110, the TLP property is postured to utilize existing sewer and water infrastructure available in Capital Avenue. To include the sewer lift station installed for the AutoZone project, which we understand, was adequately sized to accommodate the TLP property. • Satisfies a City planning goal as defined in Appendix Ill of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under the heading Growth Management Mandate, which states "Encourage development of urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be • 2016 Industrial Zoned Land Assessment indicated that the Tri-Cities region was well served by existing industrial land supply, although large parcels are limited. • The TLP property is currently zoned AP-20 by Franklin County, and is adjacent to existing rural/residential development • RCW 36.70A.110(2) requires the Urban Growth Area to be based on reasonable assumptions to accommodate twenty-years of growth • Coordination with Franklin County necessary to confirm proposed conversion of land use and zoning for industrial or commercial use Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 90 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response provided in an efficient manner". 4 Halvorson Northwest Law Group (Fickes)_1 5/14/2020 UGA Exhibit #D – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • The Property currently is under contract to be sold to Big Sky Developers, LLC for future residential development contingent upon the property being included in Pasco's UGA and zoned for residential development. • CPA 2018-03, a proposal to expand the City's urban growth area, was originally submitted in June of 2018. The City's original Future Land Use Map included the Property within the City's expanded UGA with a land use designation of Low Density Residential consistent with all the surrounding property in the area. • The Olberding Property Should Remain Designated Low Density Residential and The City's Proposed Commercial Designation Cannot be supported. • Notice of the proposed map change has not been properly given; The proposed draft, October 2019 Future Land Use Map proposed by the City was not properly published and circulated to affected property owners as required by applicable law; RCW 36.70A.035; • Our clients' position is that the March 19 Planning Commission meeting did not meet the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act and SEPA as applied to any material modifications to the Future Land Use Map. • The City's proposed Commercial designation cannot be supported; Our clients simply believe that based on GMA goals, the as-built • The City issued a Scoped EIS during the Fall of 2018 indicating an additional scenario for evaluation (Compact Growth Target), now known as Alternative #3; the Scoped EIS followed SEPA regulations for public comment • Public review of the Future Land Use (and Comprehensive Plan) officially began at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing • RCW 36.70A.020(2) Reduce Sprawl, the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development shall be avoided and RCW 36.70A.020(3) encourages multi-modal and efficient transportation systems • Providing lands for job growth, neighborhood commercial services (retail, business, etc.) provide existing residential communities alternative opportunities for commerce without overloading existing congested corridors • Creating neighborhood commercial areas to accommodate new jobs was identified in the SOMOS Pasco ((Economic Strategic Vision) based on stakeholders including representatives from the Port of Pasco, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Columbia Basin College, Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Pasco Chamber of Commerce • Per established Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, Growth Management Act Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 91 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response environment and practical considerations, that an island of commercially-designated property is not needed and cannot be supported along Burns Road in the southwest portion of the Property. • First, there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the City of Pasco's inventory of commercially-designated and zoned property is inadequate. As a practical and legal matter, commercially-designated and zoned property should be located in and along established commercial corridors where commercial property and development already exists, such as along Road 68 or Broadmoor Boulevard. Our clients believe that the commercial designation proposed without notice to the owners or without any support on the record, violates one or more of the State's GMA planning goals including but not limited to the following: • It fails to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public; facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 36.70A.020(1) • It fails to encourage efficient transportation systems coordinated with County and City Comprehensive Plans. RCW 36.70A.020(3) • It fails to promote the retention or expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, and fails to encourage such growth where public services and facilities are available. RCW 36.70A.020 (5) • It fails to protect the property rights of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. RCW 36.70A.020 (6). • It fails to ensure that public facilities and requirements, staff is not in violation of RCW 36.70A.020(6); providing commercial areas for residential communities to access is appropriate and responsible planning • Public facilities, services, utilities and levels of service have been identified within the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Facilities Analysis for the Expansion of the Urban Growth Area • Specific zoning designations will not be applied until a formal annexation process begins; The City will not approve heavy/intensive commercial zoning adjacent to residential and public (school) sites • Burns Road would require necessary improvements to be completed as development occurs, including capacity and safety upgrades and right-of-way dedications when properties are developed meeting requirements of RCW 36.70A.110(13) • Current commercial land allocations have limited the city's ability to provide commercial jobs, services and related activities. Added commercial designations were recommended by the SOMOS Pasco effort identified by the Port of Pasco, City and Franklin County. The commercial designation at this specific property will provide nearby residential housing with opportunities without forcing additional and longer travel to existing shopping areas adding additional congestion onto Road 68, Sandifur and Burden Blvd. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 92 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response services necessary to support the commercial development will be adequate. RCW 36.70A.020 (12). • The 80-acres immediately east of the Property recently has been sold to the Pasco School District for a future high school site, which use would be inconsistent with any type of more intensive commercial use. Last and most importantly, the entire area (north, south, east and west) is designated Low Density Residential and already supports significant low-density residential development. • Burns Road is not a commercial collector arterial and is inadequate to handle any type of commercial traffic. Burns Road does not even have the needed right-of-way and is not connected west, to Road 68. GMA mandates recognize that urban growth should first occur in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facilities and capacities to serve the development. RCW 36.70A.110(3). • A simple review of the proposed Future Land Use Map shows this small 30-acre Commercial designation to be in effect an illegal spot zone inconsistent with the surrounding community. In north Pasco, commercially designated properties should remain around established commercial collector arterials such as Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68 and should not be located in isolated residential communities. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 93 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 5 Futurewise (Alison Cable) 5/19/2020 UGA Exhibit #E – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • Urban growth areas help keep our existing cities and towns vibrant and economically desirable; This reduces the tendency to move out of existing center cities such as the City of Pasco • In our August 2018 letter, we concurred with Franklin County and the Department of Commerce, that the expansion was oversized. Our recommendations were that the gross acreage reflect a reasonable market supply factor, incorporate an estimate of the redevelopable land in the existing UGA, and include the full capacity of the West Pasco/Broadmoor Development Master Plan of over 8,000 housing units in the capacity calculations. • Noted • The proposed Alternative 3 reflects a revised and reduced boundary based on 2018 comments from multiple agencies and a detailed analysis by the City. 6 Futurewise (Alison Cable) 5/19/2020 UGA Exhibit #E – CPA2020- 001 - UGA Support Pasco's work to explore opportunities to expand development within the existing UGA, including but not limited to, actions eligible for support under HB 1923 • Allowing more homes in existing neighborhoods through backyard cottages, duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard apartments. • Retrofitting existing neighborhoods to be more walkable and have the densities and mix of zoning to support local businesses and more frequent transit in order to promote environmental and community health benefits and reduces traffic congestion. • Making zoning changes, paired with proper infrastructure like sidewalks, that facilitate opportunities for restaurant and retail uses that are comfortably and safely accessible by walking and biking from nearby homes. • Creating opportunities for townhouse and apartment zoning integrated throughout the • Noted • House Bill 1923 efforts underway through the Pasco Planning Commission • Local Road Safety Plan conducted in 2020 evaluated transportation safety projects including Complete Street opportunities • Ongoing Transportation System Master Plan will have emphasis on street connectivity, standards and opportunities to increase mobility opportunities Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 94 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response city on quiet, slow moving residential streets that are safer for children rather than limiting these uses to the edges of major arterials and the area adjacent to the airport flight path. • Identifying a path to annexation of the existing 'donut hole' of unincorporated areas inside the city boundaries. We would like to offer our support in advocacy with the state to address barriers and costs related to annexing the 'donut hole' communities. These challenges are similar to those faced by unincorporated urban areas across the state. • Reinvesting in historic downtown Pasco. 7 Futurewise (Alison Cable) 5/19/2020 UGA Exhibit #E – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • We are concerned about the loss of agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and if an expansion is needed, the city should consider alternatives expanding onto rural, non- agricultural land. • We are concerned about the UGA expansion at the end of in the airport and under the flight path both because of its impact on airport operations and future expansion capacity and because of the impact on future residents living below the flight path. • If an urban growth expansion is needed, determine how public facilities and services will be provided and funded. Will they be addressed in the updated transportation, capital facility, and utility elements? Will taxpayers in existing Pasco neighborhoods end up subsidizing the public facilities and services in these new neighborhoods? Response to agricultural land of long-term commercial significance is addressed in comment response #68. See response to comment # 63 for airport area land use. Refer to the Capital Facilities Plan for the UGA. Financing of capital facilities includes various street funds, utility fees, grants and LIDs - mostly to be paid by the development. 8 Halvorson Northwest Law Group 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F – CPA2020- 001 - UGA Our office represents Big Sky Developers, LLC that currently has under contract for purchase and residential development approximately 100 • Resolution 3845 (approved June 2018) was not formally submitted to Franklin County; the Urban Growth Area Application was Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 95 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response (Fickes)_2 acres of prime residential development property owned by Ms. Debra Kohler overlooking the Columbia River. The Property originally was slated for inclusion in Pasco's proposed UGA expansion currently being considered by the City of Pasco ("City" or Pasco") and its Planning Commission as part of its required periodic review of its Comprehensive Plan. The City's original application that included the Kohler Property within its UGA was submitted to Franklin County and its Planning Commission under CPA 2018-03. • Following limited public comment, the City apparently withdrew or modified its original UGA expansion application and has scoped three alternative proposals in a draft Environment Impact Statement (EIS) recently issued for its proposed UGA expansion; Alternative #3 was developed without specific notice to our client and without the input of affected property owners, and without substantial input from the Pasco development community. • The Property owner Debra Kohler and the developer, Big Sky both strongly support the inclusion of the Property within the City's new UGA. The Property is located immediately adjacent to the City's existing UGA overlooking the Columbia River, is designated primarily Rural Shoreline Development under the County's Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RC-1 and AP-20. Urban level residential development already exists north and south of the proposed Property. withdrawn so that the City could conduct additional analyses and evaluations, and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area impact • Scoped EIS issued in the Fall of 2018 indicated a third Alternative (#3) be created and evaluated, focused on compact urban growth • Public review of the Urban Growth Area began at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Revisions of the Urban Growth Area through the Scoped EIS started in Fall 2019. The Urban Growth Area has been a workshop item for the Pasco Planning Commission and City Council nine separate occasions referencing a reduced UGA was likely • Property is located one mile north of existing Urban Growth Area Boundary, residential to the north is rural development at less than 2 du/acre while residential development to the south is higher at 2.7 du/acre 9 Halvorson Northwest Law 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F – CPA2020- The Kohler Property Should be Included in Pasco's UGA and Should be Designated Low Density Per RCW 36.70A.020(2) Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 96 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Group (Fickes)_2 001 - UGA Residential Under its Comprehensive Plan. low-density development, the proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Area to include the site would be in violation. Expected population as determined in the Land Capacity Analysis can be accommodated within a reduced boundary as shown in Alternative 3. The Site is not within the study area for City of Pasco Comprehensive Sewer Plan Addendum (2020) The Scoping notice of EIS, issued in Fall 2018 indicted a revised and reduced alternative (#3) would be added to the boundaries considered. 10 Halvorson Northwest Law Group (Fickes)_2 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • Notice of the new proposed map change and draft EIS has not been properly given. The proposed draft, October 2019 Future Land Use Map proposed by the City (which provided the basis for "Alternative #3" in the draft EIS) was not properly published and circulated to affected property owners as required by applicable law. Washington law is clear that county or city actions to change an amendment to a comprehensive plan triggers a statutory mandate for SEPA compliance, for public review and comment and robust public participation. RCW 36.70A.035. • Our client's position is that prior Planning Commission meetings, including the one that occurred on March 19, did not meet the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act and SEPA • All maps have been identified as “Draft” as a final map will not be available until formal adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Expansion • Notices of the Draft Future Land Use Map and Urban Growth Area were sent to property owners in February, April and May 2020 and published on the Public Notice of the City Website meeting requirements of RCW 36.70A.035 11 Halvorson Northwest Law Group 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • As the City recognized when originally submitting its UGA expansion application (now Alternative #2), an expanded UGA of up to • Alternative #2 did not include a Land Capacity Analysis and did not incorporate redevelopment, infill and updated zoning Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 97 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response (Fickes)_2 4,700 acres was warranted by OFM population growth projections. • Washington's GMA generally recognizes that urban growth areas and urban growth should encompass areas first already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facilities and service capacities, and second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by existing and additional public facilities and services. RCW 36.70A.110(3) • Most of the Property is not designated or suitable as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, and the Property owner is in the process of terminating all agricultural operations due to economic conditions. regulations • Urban Growth Area shall only include areas and densities necessary to permit urban growth for a twenty-year period (RCW36.70A.110(2)) 12 Halvorson Northwest Law Group (Fickes)_2 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F – CPA2020- 001 - UGA Inclusion of the Kohler Property into the City's UGA also is consistent with multiple state GMA planning goals including but not limited to the following: • It encourages development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. RCW 36.70A.020(1 ) • It encourages efficient transportation systems coordinated with County and City Comprehensive Plans. RCW 36.70A.020(3). • It encourages economic developments consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans and encourages growth in areas already experiencing economic growth where public services and facilities can be provided. RCW 36.70A.020(5). • It protects the property rights of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. RCW • Public facilities are not identified in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, or ongoing Amendment of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan • Low-density residential development prohibits the use of public transportation and does not support multi-modal transportation or efficient systems per RCW 36.70A0.020(3) • Inclusion is not consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan or ongoing studies/planning efforts • The City is not in violation of RCW36.70A.020(6) and is not proposing any use of the property, the site would be under the provisions of Franklin County • RCW 36.70A.020(9)(10)(12) are not supported or met with inclusion of the property within the Urban Growth Area Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 98 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 36.70A.020(6). • It would help protect and preserve open space and the environment by limiting groundwater use in hydraulic continuity with the Columbia River and limiting onsite sewage disposal systems. RCW 36.70A.020(9) and (10). • It ensures public facilities and services necessary to support development will be adequate. RCW 36.70A.020(12). 13 Halvorson Northwest Law Group (Fickes)_2 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • UGA inclusion increases the likelihood that it will be done with City water and sewer which is more protective of the environment and which would allow infill development to occur. The site is currently located one mile north of the existing Urban Growth Area the Growth Management Act 14 Halvorson Northwest Law Group (Fickes)_2 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • Inclusion of the Kohler Property also is entirely consistent with many specific goals and policies of the Land Use elements of the City's draft Comprehensive Plan (02-24-2020), especially those in its housing element. • Meets the proposed land use goal to plan for a variety of compatible land uses within the City's urban growth area which includes a specific policy to ensure that adequate public services are provided within a reasonable time frame. LU-2-C • Proposed policy LU-2-F discourages developments dependent on septic systems and at densities below minimums to sustain urban level services. Prior to meeting established goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the city must meet the requirements of delineating an appropriate Urban Growth Area per RCW 36.70A.110. Expected population growth can be accommodated within a reduced boundary as shown in Alternative 3. 15 Halvorson Northwest Law Group (Fickes)_2 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • The inclusion of the Kohler Property also is consistent with the City's draft proposed Capital Facilities and Water Comprehensive Plans. • Extending City water one-half mile north along Dent Road would provide access to City water mains for perhaps as much as 420 acres of adjacent undeveloped land • The Capital Facilities Analysis for the Urban Growth Area does not include this property • RCW36.70A.020(9) and (10) both encourage the preservation and conservation of the natural environment including shorelines and natural habitat areas Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 99 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response • Even if the City elects to reduce its proposed UGA size, the Kohler Property because of its location along the river and the availability of public infrastructure should be included as a unique 100- acre Property clearly slated for urban level growth within the next 20 years. 16 TLP (Bob Tippett)_2 5/21/2020 UGA Exhibit #G – CPA2020- 001 - UGA • In June 2018, inclusion of the 120 TLP acres was approved by resolution. • In March TLP was notified with no prior discussion that the UGB had been revised to include only 40 aces of the 120 acres originally approved in Resolution 3845. • Noted; Resolution 3845 (June 2018) was approved but a formal application to Franklin County was withdrawn/postponed • Scoping notice of EIS (Fall 2018) indicated an additional UGA Alternative (#3) focused on a Compact Growth Target in compliance with the Growth Management Act and in response to public comments received 17 TLP (Bob Tippett)_2 5/21/2020 UGA Exhibit #G – CPA2020- 001 - UGA TLP requests that the City re-consider including the entire 80 acre tax parcel in the UGA for this reason. • Noted • Evaluation underway for potential impacts associated with including additional AP-20 from the County into the Urban Growth Area • Consideration of existing and planned development of adjacent properties is underway 19 Stromstad, Caleb 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Public Comment period for 2018 UGA #2 not sufficient for UGA #3 • Noted • Public comment period included two Planning Commission Public Hearings spanning over 115 days 20 Stromstad, Caleb 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Requests PC to ask Council to consider comments from developers • Noted • Public Hearings provided comment opportunity for the public, and private stakeholders 21 Stromstad, Caleb 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Olberding Property; commercial allocated to artificially manipulate traffic study • Comprehensive Plans are required to include a Transportation Element which addresses Demand-Management Strategies (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(vi) and encouragement of community access (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(vii) Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 100 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response • The Washington State Department of Transportation identifies land-use zoning supportive of transit/multi-modal travel as a strategy of Transportation Demand Management and Practical Solution via their 2019-2023 TDM Strategic Plan • The Travel Demand Forecast must be consistent with the Regional Travel Demand Model assumptions (policy and land-use) of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (Benton-Franklin Council of Governments) • Assumptions (inputs) for Regional Travel Demand Modeling undergo rigorous evaluations via the MPO Board and Technical Advisory Committee and include stakeholders from jurisdictions and public agencies • Land Use diversity is generally regarded and supported as a responsible, practical and beneficial consideration as indicated by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Environmental Protection Agency 22 Greeno, Dave 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC 20-30% of UGA properties do not want to sell (develop) • Noted • Property owner reserve rights to sell and/or develop 23 Greeno, Dave 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Kohler Property should be included in UGA • The site is currently located one mile north of the existing Urban Growth Area and identified as leap-frog development violating the Growth Management Act (PSC/JG) 24 Greeno, Dave 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Want to bring city water to Burns / Kohler Road / Dent • The site is currently located one mile north of the existing Urban Growth Area violating the Growth Management Act 25 Greeno, Dave 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Olberding Property should be residential, not commercial Request noted Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 101 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 26 Dockstader, George 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Concerned about traffic on Road 68; Road 68 should be 5 lanes to Clark Road • Expansion and improvements of infrastructure, including transportation roadways will be required as development occurs and as identified in PMC 12.36 (Concurrency) • Capacity improvements on Road 68 are planned via requirements ROW dedications as development occurs 27 Dockstader, George 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC BPA Power Line on Olberding Property • Noted • Applicants are required to obtain necessary permits and or/permissions prior to development of property 28 Dockstader, George 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC 20% of proposed UGA (both sides of RD 68 (farmer)) will not develop Noted 29 Dockstader, George 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Supports Alternative #2 Noted 30 Dockstader, George 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Alterative #3 is too compact; Avg buyer wants 3 car garage + RV/Boat, not small lots RCW36.70A.020 (GMA Planning Goals) require Comprehensive Plan to reduce sprawl, concentrate urban growth and support multi-modal transportation and efficient systems A 1.95 (Autos per HH) per the 2015 American Community Survey was utilized The Comprehensive Plan aims to create housing choices for all segments of population in Pasco. Land uses will allow housing types ranging from single family homes in a relatively lower density to medium density. It will also allow other housing types such as townhomes, condominiums, apartments, etc. These will allow homes available for purchase by first time home buyers, single occupants, families, retirees, empty nesters etc. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 102 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 31 Olberding, Fred 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Gave easement to Port of Pasco in UGA #2, was not notified on UGA #3 • Noted • Scoping notice of the EIS (Fall 2018) indicated an additional UGA Alternative (#3) focused on a Compact Growth Target in compliance with the Growth Management Act 32 Olberding, Fred 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Sold land to PSD; commercial land will not be supported; Kau Trail Road is not up to standard • Noted • 38% of residential growth and housing is expected to occur in the expanded Urban Growth Area • Additional Commercial Land Use is necessary to accommodate job growth and services required by added growth • Improvements to the transportation system are required as development occurs; Kau Trail and any impacted existing or planned roadways will be evaluated and improved to not fall below established regional Level of Service Standards 33 Olberding, Fred 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Traffic implications; improvements needed • Expansion and improvements of infrastructure, including transportation roadways will be required as development occurs and as identified in PMC 12.36 (Concurrency) 34 Olberding, Fred 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC People will not travel to commercial designation on Olberding property • Noted • Providing additional commercial land use within closer proximity to existing residential and planned residential growth will increase opportunities for households to access goods and services • A mix of land-uses is also supportive of RCW 36.70A.108 (Transportation Element) which requires Comprehensive Plans to include and promote multi-modal transportation options Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 103 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 35 Mullen, Randy 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Owns property along RD 68, has a buyer ready to develop to commercial (Health facility) Noted; Staff updating Future Land Use designation for this area 36 Bauman, Steve 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Who defines what is inappropriate conversion of ag lands to sprawling low density development See responses to comment # 68 37 Bauman, Steve 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Did EIS ask for public comment The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on May 15, 2020. The public comment period was extended through July 31, 2020. Bauman, Steve 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Developers/Real estate have a stake, and must be included in process Noted. Members of the public, including private developers and real-estate professionals are able to participate and provide feedback and/or comments via the normally scheduled public hearings for all items related to the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement and Urban Growth Area application. 38 Laird, Charles 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Not informed about decision to remove partial property out of the UGA Scoping notice of the EIS (Fall 2018) indicated an additional UGA Alternative (#3) focused on a Compact Growth Target in compliance with the Growth Management Act Met with applicant in February 2020 and phone discussion with applicant in April discussing UGA revisions 39 Laird, Charles 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Requests all 120 acres from Alt #2 to be included in Alt #3 Noted 40 Fickes, Mark 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Alt #3 has not had adequate public participation in accordance with RCW 36.70A.035 • Notices of the Draft Future Land Use Map and Urban Growth Area were sent to property owners in February, April and May 2020 and published on the Public Notice of the City Website meeting requirements of RCW 36.70A.035 • Public review of the Urban Growth Area began Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 104 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Urban Growth Area has been a workshop item for the Pasco Planning Commission and City Council nine separate occasions referencing a reduced UGA was likely 41 Fickes, Mark 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC PC Hearing should not have occurred until after EIS comment period ended • Comprehensive Plan DEIS comment period was extended through July 31, 2020. An action by the Pasco City Council will not occur prior to the issuance of a final EIS. 42 Fickes, Mark 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Olberding Property; no evidence of 30 acres should be commercial not residential; no demand for it; Burns Road is not arterial; remove c-designation; violates various GMA; • Opportunities for commercial lands necessary to provide access to future neighborhood businesses, services, retail, food/accommodation services • 75% of residents living in Pasco travel to employment outside of the City Limits (per Census LODES 2017) • Lack of commercial within the City may add to congestion and vehicle miles/hours traveled on arterials and Interstate Systems and would not meet RCW 36.70A.020(3) 43 Fickes, Mark 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Kohler; 104 acres of "prime" residential; client thought it was going to be included; property is ready to be developed; owner does not to farm See response to comment #42 44 Port of Pasco; Randy Hayden 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Supports Alternative #3 Noted 45 Stromstad, Caleb 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Kohler property, developer will extend water; requests PC to review submitted letters • Public facilities are not identified in the Draft Comprehensive Plan, or ongoing Amendment of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan 46 Dockstader, George 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC No real-estate, HBA, developers/land owners allowed to comment since 2018 • Public review of the Urban Growth Area began at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Urban Growth Area has been a workshop item for the Pasco Planning Commission and City Council multiple times Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 105 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response (from 2018 to 2020) referencing a reduced UGA was likely • The City has not restricted comments from any individuals, agencies, organizations or associations 47 PC - Myhrum 5/21/2020 UGA Verbal Comment @ 5/21 PC Are tailored/custom modifications allowed to Land Use, are they based on capacity? • Modifications to the Land Use designations are allowed and conducted annually through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process outlined in PMC 25.215.020 48 Kenricks, Terri 6/8/2020 Comp Plan Social Media Comment (FB) @ 6/8 Council WS Update on cannabis sales • Marijuana production, processing and retail sales are prohibited per Ordinance 4166 passed by the Pasco City Council on July 21, 2014 49 Wright- Mockler, Dylan 6/8/2020 Comp Plan Social Media Comment (FB) @ 6/8 Council WS What is being done to ensure commercial areas and parks are within safe/walkable areas for residents? • The Future Land Use Map has indicated increased diversity of land use and public/quasi-public spaces in the expanded Urban Growth Area • The City already has a complete street standard in place that promotes walkability • The City is evaluating ongoing and future amendments to the zoning code and development standards to increase walkable, efficient and multi-modal opportunities safe and accessible for all users and modes 50 Martin, Joni 6/8/2020 Comp Plan Social Media Comment (FB) @ 6/8 Council WS Please discuss planned city-owned parks that break up the long wall lined corridors that are already prevalent in the Broadmoor development area and along Sandifur and Burden. Please break up large tracts of single family homes with pockets of multi- use mult-family and commercial spaces. Open spaces with trees and parks and play spaces like Volunteer Park and Chiawana Park are vital to building community in these new areas • The City has ongoing Code Amendments to the Pasco Municipal Code to address comments • Code Amendment: 2019-013 Street Connectivity • Code Amendment: 2020-001 and 2020-002 for “missing middle” housing • House Bill 1406 and House Bill 1923: City was successful in applying and receiving funding to address affordable housing and missing middle Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 106 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response housing to increase residential building capacities 51 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H - DEIS/UGA Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 4 (page 54): Please strike the following language: "Pasco is in the traditional territory of the Yakama Nation, a Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people (Walker 1998). Wanapum and Walla Walla people also used the area (Kersher 2008)." We offer the following language as a substitute: "Pasco is in the traditional territory of the Palus tribe, a constituent tribe of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. It is also in the 1855 ceded lands of the Yakama Nation, additionally the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids and the Walla Walla tribe also utilized the area extensively. All are Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people." Update as suggested 52 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H - DEIS/UGA Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 8 (page 55): Please strike the following language: "Fourteen tribes and bands signed the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 that established the Yakama Indian Reservation (Yakima Nation Museum [YNM] 20 l l ). The same year, the Wa1la Walla tribe signed the Treaty of Walla Walla, which established the Umati1la Indian Reservation in Oregon, and many Walla Walla (and some Yakama) tribal members moved to there." Update as suggested Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 107 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 53 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H - DEIS/UGA Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 10 (page 55): Please amend the following sentence by adding the language in italics: "The general Tri-Cities region as a whole is within territory inhabited traditionally by Native people represented today by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids. Update as suggested 54 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H - DEIS/UGA Recorded Cultural Resources (page 55): Please amend the following sentence by adding the language in italics: Many archaeological sites, Native American traditional places, and historical structures related to the area's cultural history have been recorded in the City." Update as suggested 55 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H - DEIS/UGA Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Review, Paragraph 3 (page 56): Please strike the following sentence "The 13 sites within the one-mile radius contain an array of litchis, shell, burials, irrigation pipes, and one was designated as a field camp". We offer the following language as a replacement: "Native American burials are identified within this radius." There are also archaeological shell deposits, irrigation features, and an archaeological camp. Update as suggested 56 Halverson_Fick esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I - DEIS/UGA • From comments made at the last Planning Commission hearing on May 21, 2020 (in which this office and client representatives actively participated), it is clear that City Staff is advocating for the adoption of Alternative #3 summarized in the DEIS without change. • Our clients are and continue to be opposed to the suggestion by City Staff and its consultants that there should be a 30-acre commercial development in the middle of a low-density • Requested (Land Use) change noted • Providing lands for job growth, neighborhood commercial services (retail, business, etc) provide existing residential communities alternative opportunities for commerce without overloading existing congested corridors • Creating neighborhood commercial areas to accommodate new jobs was identified in the SOMOS Pasco ((Economic Strategic Vision) Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 108 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response residential area next to a future school site. • Our clients continue to request that the entire 80-acre parcel of property within the City's proposed UGA remain designated Low Density Residential and not Commercial as proposed by Staff. based on stakeholders including representatives from the Port of Pasco, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Columbia Basin College, Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Pasco Chamber of Commerce • Per established Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, Growth Management Act requirements, staff is not in violation of RCW 36.70A.020(6); providing commercial areas for residential communities to access is appropriate and responsible planning 57 Halverson_Fick esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I - DEIS/UGA • As an initial matter, this office and our client is concerned about the Planning Commission's practice of limiting public comments on the City's UGA to 3 minutes. We believe this violates the spirit and intent of the GMA which is "early and continuous" public participation in the process. RCW 36.70A.140. • The Planning Commission and City as a legal matter should not have held hearings on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Alternative #3 until the comment period on the DEIS had expired. • It is axiomatic under SEPA that governmental action should not be taken or finalized until the impacts of any proposal are complete. • Alternative #3, which included a smaller UGA boundary and different designations was not finally developed until the DEIS was published on May 15, 2020. • The Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30) allows the authority (Planning Commission) to limit the time of speakers to a uniform amount • Concerns Noted • Council Action on the urban growth area change has been revised to follow after the issuance of the Final EIS of the Comprehensive Plan 58 Halverson_Fick esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I - DEIS/UGA • This office and numerous client representatives credibly testified that the Property owner or builder/developer associations were not contacted about the significant changes between Alternative #2 and #3 • Notices of the Draft Future Land Use Map and Urban Growth Area were sent to property owners in February, April and May 2020 and published on the Public Notice of the City Website meeting requirements of RCW Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 109 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 36.70A.035 59 Halverson_Fick esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I - DEIS/UGA • There is no demand or support for a commercial island on 30 acres of our clients' property • The Property could not be economically developed for commercial use • Commercial designation is inconsistent with GMA goals • Property is surrounded by existing residential and planned increased residential growth • Opportunities for commercial lands necessary to provide access to future neighborhood businesses, services, retail, food/accommodation services • Growth Management Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) require Concentrated Urban Growth and the Reduction of Sprawl, particularly reducing the conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development • SOMOS Pasco, the Greater Pasco Area Economic Strategic Vision (2017) indicated an interest and priority to increase consumer services by creating planned retail and specialty services/centers accessible to residential neighborhoods and communities 60 Halverson_Fick esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I - DEIS/UGA • Notice of the New Commercial Designation Affecting Only the Olberding Property was not Properly Given. • Our clients were not provided the legal notices required by due process and the GMA. Under the GMA, local governments are required to provide both "early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use pans" (RCW 36.70A.140) • The notice provided must be "reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and others affected (RCW 36.70A.035). • Notices of the Draft Future Land Use Map and Urban Growth Area were sent to property owners in February, April and May 2020 and published on the Public Notice of the City Website meeting requirements of RCW 36.70A.035 • Public review of the Urban Growth Area began at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Urban Growth Area has been a workshop item for the Pasco Planning Commission and City Council multiple times (from 2018 to 2019) referencing a reduced UGA was likely 61 • The Proposed Commercial Designation is Illegal and Violates GMA • On our client's property, there is only a demand Comprehensive Plan DEIS comment period extended through July 31, 2020. An action by the Pasco City Council will not occur prior to the Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 110 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response and potential for residential development, not commercial development. comment period ends 62 • The Planning Commission, and Other GMA Decision Makers Clearly Have the Power to Modify Alternative #3 • At the Planning Commission hearing, our office was concerned with Planning Staff suggestions that changes to proposed Alternative #3 should not (or cannot) be made or considered. This simply is incorrect. • Noted • PMC 2.45.040 provides powers and duties of the Pasco Planning Commission (PSC/JG) 63 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J - UGA Do not plan increased residential around Tri-Cities Airport; Limits future expansion of airport runway; new residential will be impacted by airport noise/flights; long range airport operations will become difficult with adjacent residential development The City is proposing the site in question (Parcel #114250016) to have two Land Uses – Low Density Residential (approx. 80%) and Airport Reserve (approx. 20%). The City is working with the property owner to preserve the Airport Reserve Area to be in strict compliance with the Airport Overlay Zones per Pasco Municipal Code 25.190.090 The Site will be regulated by Zone 2 and Zone 4 standards which limit residential densities and permitted uses. The Low Density Residential Land Use can be applied with a Planned Unit Development which requires 15% open space. The City intends to coordinate any development of this site with the Port of Pasco, the Washington State Department of Transportation and other stakeholders of aviation. 64 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J - UGA Include compact urban growth areas with amenities, natural resource lands • Noted • Alternative #3 increased residential and commercial land mix, specifically accommodating appropriate residential densities • The agricultural lands within the identified Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 111 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response UGA areas, while not of long-term commercial significance, can remain under cultivation until such time that they are brought into the City. 65 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J - UGA Design walkable neighborhoods with densities and mix of zoning to support local businesses and safe streets, bike lanes and frequent transit supporting environmental and community health, reduce traffic congestion • Noted • Planning Department has numerous code amendments underway and planned to address increased residential densities, creating additional mixed-use areas and corridors to support multi-modal transportation and walkable communities • The Transportation System Master Plan is expected to be completed by Spring 2021 • See response to comment #49 above. Traffic has been analyzed and improvements have been proposed. See Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and maps T-1 through T-11 in Appendix A of the Comprehensive Plan. 66 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J - UGA Provide long-term capital facilities plan to ensure that existing tax payers in Pasco do not subsidize new neighborhoods • See response to comment # 7 above • The Capital Facilities Plan for the Urban Growth Area Expansion also included an Expanded Infrastructure Evaluation identifying projects, costs and sources of funding for associated facility improvements • The Comprehensive Plan includes the Capital Facilities Element identifying a short and long- range project lists with costs, sources of revenue, funding and fees 67 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J - UGA Reinvestment in neighborhoods and businesses; Downtown Pasco • The City continues to work with and provide monetary support to the Downtown Pasco Development Authority • The City coordinates economic development efforts with the Port of Pasco • The SOMOS Pasco effort was included in the Comprehensive Plan to reference identified Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 112 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response priorities and strategies to increase economic development opportunities, investments and support to Downtown Pasco and the general Pasco area 68 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J - UGA Proposed UGA expansion paves over working farms designated by Franklin County as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance • Both alternatives 2 and 3 would impact existing lands under cultivation, however neither alternative 2 or 3 UGA areas would affect Franklin County-designated agricultural lands of long-term significance. • The areas identified are classified by the County as Rural Residential, Rural Shoreline or Agriculture, a more general designation that includes both lands of long-term commercial significance and those that are not. • In the area identified for alternatives 2 and 3, the County map does not show the County- designated prime irrigated, prime dryland or Fields with Quincy soils (i.e., agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance). We have also confirmed this understanding with the County that the alternatives do not impact County-designated agricultural lands of long- term commercial significance. 69 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J - UGA Proposed UGA expansions will interfere with future expansions of the Tri-Cities Airport and bring residences closer to the airport, making operations more difficult and adversely impacting new residents See response to comment # 63. 70 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J - UGA Draft EIS does not comply with SEPA and the City cannot amend the Comprehensive Plan to select a UGA expansion until a SEPA compliant Final EIS is prepared (WAC197-11-070(1)) • The Public Comment period for the Draft EIS was extended through July 31, 2020 • Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area have been revised to meet requirements of WAC 197-11-070(1) Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 113 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 71 Saget, Pierre 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #K - UGA • Protect agricultural lands and do not expand into farmlands; • Do not plan for increased residential development around the Tri-Cities Airport; • Ensure compact UGA that are well designed and well furnished with amenities; • Design walkable neighborhoods, with densities and a mix of zoning to support local businesses and safe streets with bike lanes and frequent transit to promote environmental/community health and reduce congestion; • Provide long-term Capital Facilities Plan that will ensure that existing tax payers do not subsidize new development; • Reinvest in existing neighborhoods and business; Downtown Pasco • Noted • The Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will identify a series of existing, planned and future development regulation modifications to ensure compliance with the Growth Management Acts Planning Goals including the protection of public facilities, environment, land use and zoning and multi- modal transportation impacts. • Farmland – Farmlands are not designated as agricultural lands of long term commercial significance. Some farmlands would be impacted to accommodate future growth. However, development will not occur in the immediate future, and property owners will be able to continue farming until such land is annexed to the City. • Airport – See response to Comment 63 • Compact UGA – Alternative 3 has been developed to provide a compact development scenario. Also the Capital Facilities Plan for the UGA indicates public facilities and improvements needed. • Walkable neighborhood – see comment response # 49 • Existing tax payers – see comment response # 7 • The Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan focusses on improving existing businesses including downtown businesses. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 114 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 72 Nelson, Lisa 6/18/2020 UGA Exhibit #L - UGA Protect agricultural lands and do not expand into farmlands; Do not plan for increased residential development around the Tri-Cities Airport; Ensure compact UGA that are well designed and well furnished with amenities; Design walkable neighborhoods, with densities and a mix of zoning to support local businesses and safe streets with bike lanes and frequent transit to promote environmental/community health and reduce congestion; Provide long-term Capital Facilities Plan that will ensure that existing tax payers do not subsidize new development; Reinvest in existing neighborhoods and business; Downtown Pasco See comment response #71 above 73 Sanchez, M 6/18/2020 UGA Exhibit #M - UGA Please plan for complete, connected and walkable neighborhoods • Planning Department has numerous code amendments underway and planned to address increased residential densities, creating additional mixed-use areas and corridors to support multi-modal transportation and walkable communities • The Transportation System Master Plan is expected to be completed by Spring 2021 • Street Connectivity Code Amendment is currently going through the public hearing process, anticipated Council action in the Fall 2020 74 Spokkeland, Jon 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #N - UGA Too much commercial lands designated in Alternative #3; Current market requires 15 acres of commercial for every 1k households; Future demand for commercial space may be lower due to shirt to online retail; Favors Alt #3 with reduced commercial • Noted • Franklin County has significantly smaller Jobs to Households balance, which has increased the need for workers to commute outside of Pasco for work. This has increased commute times and congestion on local and interstate systems • Increasing commercial opportunities may mitigation future lack of jobs and services necessary for residential growth Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 115 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 75 Wilson, Dave 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #A - DEIS Owns property SW of Road 100/Chapel Hill Blvd; Property is currently developed with commercial (banks, credit union); Future Land Use designates as MHDR; Requests change to Commercial City to update the map and related tables/land use inventory 76 TLP (Bob Tippett) 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #B - DEIS Clarify discrepancies in Industrial totals on table 4 and table 5 • Noted • Tables will be adjusted and corrected 77 TLP (Bob Tippett) 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #B - DEIS Requesting the inclusion of 120 acres of TLP property in Alt #3 to meet GMA Goals • Request noted • City has held discussions with applicant/property owner 78 Carosino, Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C - DEIS DEIS does not adequately analyze additional scenarios to Alt #2 or Alt #3; DEIS does not adequately address environmental/socioeconomic impacts of proposed actions SEPA is different from NEPA, in the scope of items that need to be considered. The EIS will be reviewed to see if there are areas to supplement the evaluation of environmental impacts but socioeconomic impacts evaluation is not required. In WAC 197-11-448 …SEPA contemplates that the general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in weighing and balancing alternatives and in making final decisions. However, the environmental impact statement is not required to evaluate and document all of the possible effects and considerations of a decision or to contain the balancing judgments that must ultimately be made by the decision makers. Rather, an environmental impact statement analyzes environmental impacts and must be used by agency decision makers, along with other relevant considerations or documents, in making final decisions on a proposal. The EIS provides a basis upon which the responsible agency and officials can make the balancing judgment mandated by SEPA, because it provides information on the environmental costs and impacts. SEPA does not require that an EIS be an agency's only decision making document. (2) Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 116 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response The term "socioeconomic" is not used in the statute or in these rules because the term does not have a uniform meaning and has caused a great deal of uncertainty. Areas of urban environmental concern which must be considered are specified in RCW 43.21C.110 (1)(f), the environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) and WAC 197-11-440 and 197- 11-444. (3) Examples of information that are not required to be discussed in an EIS are: Methods of financing proposals, economic competition, profits and personal income and wages, and social policy analysis (such as fiscal and welfare policies and nonconstruction aspects of education and communications). EISs may include whether housing is low, middle, or high income. Definition of terms … The list of elements of the environment shall consist of the "natural" and "built" environment. The elements of the built environment shall consist of public services and utilities (such as water, sewer, schools, fire and police protection), transportation, environmental health (such as explosive materials and toxic waste), and land and shoreline use (including housing, and a description of the relationships with land use and shoreline plans and designations, including population). 79 Carosino, Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C - DEIS Requests DEIS comment period be extended additional 60 days The Draft EIS Comment period was extended through July 31, 2020. The DEIS was issued on May 15, 2020 for a total public comment period of 77 days. Per WAC-197-11-455(6): Any person or agency shall have thirty days from the date of issue in which to review and comment upon the DEIS Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 117 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 80 Carosino, Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C - DEIS Section 3.1.2; Traffic Analysis is not complete, no discussion of traffic impacts presented with facts and/or figures; no discussion of future projects • Traffic analysis is discussed in the Transportation Element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Element includes proposed improvement projects for both the short and long-range periods. • Comprehensive Plan Map Folio Transportation Maps T1-T12 contain existing conditions and transportation forecasts. • Analysis of deficiencies is in Volume II, pages 104-117 and includes Table 10 and Table 11. 81 Carosino, Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C - DEIS Encourage development/change zoning in Central Pasco • Noted • City will evaluate any proposed or identified changes to development and growth strategies with the Downtown Pasco Development Authority and neighborhood community members 82 Carosino, Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C - DEIS DEIS does not discuss recreational needs, and park planning SEPA requires evaluation of alternatives related to environmental effects. However the EIS does address recreation and parks through: 1) identifying existing park and open space lands and how each alternatives would modify or increase additional park and open space area (see Sections 3.2 and 4.1.1 and others and; 2) affected environment descriptions and mitigation measures (see Sections 4.4.3, 4.7 and 4.8) 83 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS DEIS is not adequate and violates SEPA and WAC 197-11-070; Until the Final EIS is issued, the City cannot choose an expanded UGA request to Franklin County • Council action on the Urban Growth Area will not occur until after the issuance of the Final EIS of the Comprehensive Plan is made available 84 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS Page b of the factsheet includes information on the availability of the Draft EIS. Hispanic or Latino persons make up 55.1 percent of the City of Pasco's population. Of the population over five years of age, 50.4 percent speak a language other than English at • Noted • Staff evaluating appropriate measures to address and provide information on the Comprehensive Plan for Spanish only speakers Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 118 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response home. So we appreciate and support that the Public Participation Plan for the City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan provides on page 5 that "efforts will be made to provide notices in English and Spanish." Also, given the high percentage of the population in the City of Pasco speaking a language other than English at home, we recommend that versions of the draft comprehensive plan and the final EIS be made available in Spanish and the public participation efforts should reach out to the Hispanic and Latinx population in addition to the population as a whole. 85 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS Last Sentence, Page 2: Pasco and Franklin County are required to update Comp Plans/Dev Regulations every eight years Will be updated as suggested 86 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS Table 2 Existing Residential Capacity (page 5) It would helpful to include a reference to a more detailed description of how the existing residential capacity in Table 2 was determined. The City of Pasco is also considering the adoption of legislation to allow more "Missing Middle" housing in the city which Futurewise strongly supports. We recommend that the EIS include an estimate of the increased housing capacity this legislation will create. References to the Land Capacity Analysis will be added before table 2 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 119 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 87 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 3.2. Comparison of Alternatives to GMA Goals (pages 13 - 16) The GMA transportation goal discussion on page 14 does not disclose that Alternatives 2 and 3 do not have densities sufficient to support transit citywide, an important element of a multimodal transportation system. While transit is especially important to the three percent of Pasco's occupied housing units that do not have access to a vehicle and residents of other households that are too young or otherwise do not drive, all Pasco residents and businesses benefit from increased transportation choices. Parts of the City of Pasco have a very high proportion of households that lack access to private vehicles compared to Washington State as a whole. Public transit is particularly important in those parts of the city. The GMA housing goal discussion on page 14 does not disclose the impacts of allowing residential uses so close to the Tri-Cities Airport and the adverse impacts this will have on the planned housing. The Draft EIS does not disclose the economic impacts of the loss of this agricultural land of long- term commercial significance. The economic development goal discussion on page 14 does not disclose the impacts of allowing residential uses so close to the Tri-Cities Airport and the impacts of the limited expansion opportunities created by the UGA expansion and residential zoning in the vicinity of the airport.11 These impacts are inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.020(5). Alternative 3 was developed to accommodate a higher density. The land use in this alternative was developed to have higher density and clusters to be better served by a multi modal system. Also, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element goals aim to achieve a multimodal transportation system. For airport land use, see comment response # 63 None of the alternatives would result in loss of agricultural land of long term commercial significance. See comment response # 68 above Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 120 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 88 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS There is no analysis as to the consistency of the proposed comprehensive plan with RCW 36.70A.020(8), the GMA natural resource industries goal. RCW 36.70A.020(8) requires the City of Pasco to "maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses." Since most of the land proposed for the UGA expansions is designated as agricultural resource lands of long-term commercial significance the comprehensive plan update is inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.020(8). The failure to disclose this inconsistency anywhere in the Draft EIS is a serious SEP A violation. See response above in comment #s 68 and 87 89 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS The GMA open space and recreation goal discussion on page 15 does not disclose the impacts of converting agricultural and rural land to relatively low-density residential uses. The GMA environment goal discussion on page 15 also does not disclose the environmental impacts of converting agricultural and rural land to relatively low-density residential uses. These impacts include a loss of farmland, reduced storm water recharge to ground water, increased storm water runoff, increased greenhouse pollution, and loss of wildlife habitat on rural and agricultural land. These impacts are inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.020(9) and (10). Update description of Alternative 3 to note the open space and park area identified in the Broadmoor area; also update environment goal discussion on page 15 to note this open space area for alternatives 2 and 3. See also footnote 1 to Table 5 (1. About 40 acres of parks, 160 acres of land for school facilities and additional public lands are included in the Low Density Residential land use acres. Locations to be identified at a later phase with the land use changes.) Additionally, note farmland will be converted to several different types of uses – residential, commercial, industrial land, parks and public lands. And that development will be phased with agricultural land available to remain in production until the time of development. Also see comment response #68. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 121 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Discussion of stormwater recharge and stormwater runoff effects is characterized in the EIS in sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.3.3 and 4.10.1; greenhouse pollution discussion will be added in the final EIS, and measures for conserving fish and wildlife habitat effects are characterized in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.3.3. City of Pasco Resolution 3853 adopted Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy (2018) 90 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS The GMA historic preservation goal discussion on page 16 does not disclose that the city's planning and regulations focus on known archaeological and cultural sites. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has developed an archaeological predictive model that can predict where archaeological resources, a type of cultural resource, are likely to be located and where the department recommends archaeological surveys should be completed before earth disturbing activities and other uses and activities that can damage archaeological sites are undertaken. The predictive model shows that Pasco and the UGA expansion areas have a "high risk" and "very high risk" of cultural resources in these areas. H Land development can adversely impact these resources and this adverse impact on actual but currently unidentified cultural resources is not disclosed. This impact is inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.020(13). City regulations are protective of both known and unidentified archaeological and cultural sites. If during construction a site is encountered, the City has. In summary, the City believes its efforts are consistent with the GMA historic preservation goal. 91 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS DEIS does not mention probable environmental impacts or consequences of agency actions, and is inconsistent with GMA Goals, DEIS is not adequate Headings in Section 4 and associated discussion for the various environmental elements will be clarified to identify that the effect being discussed are probable environmental impacts. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 122 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 92 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS DEIS does not disclose UGA Land expansion includes prime farmland; DEIS does not disclose that UGA expansion includes 2,209 acres of farmland of statewide significance; UGA includes 83.5% of prime / farmland; No Mitigation was disclosed in the DEIS; DEIS is not adequate See comment responses above in # 68. Additionally, Section 4.4.2 characterizes that for alternatives 2 and 3, there will be impacts to agricultural lands from land conversion, as development would occur in the two different UGA areas described. Because this land is not agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, and because more specific analysis of lands would occur at the time of development, a more detailed characterization of these lands was not deemed necessary. Alternative 3 reduces lands included in the UGA and includes more redevelopment and infill development within the existing city limits. Additionally, the bringing in of lands within the UGA into the City limits will occur through a phased approach. The agricultural lands impacted, while not of long-term commercial significance, can remain under cultivation until such time that they are brought into the City. Discussion of mitigation in the EIS will be updated to more clearly reflect these mitigation measures in appropriate locations. City intends to work with the County on development phasing that would protect land currently being used for farming from immediate development. City has removed approximately 137 acres of ag land from the UGA expansion proposal in Alternative 3. These mitigation measures will be added in the Final EIS. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 123 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 93 4.1. Earth (pages 17 to 20) and Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.1. Earth (page 58) Two letters commenting on the scope of the EIS requested that the EIS examine impacts on agricultural land. However, the Draft EIS does not disclose that the land proposed for the UGA expansions includes 694.7 acres of prime farmland. This is 20 percent of the UGA. expansions. The Draft EIS also does not disclose that UGA expansions also include 2,203.9 acres of farmland of statewide importance. This is another 63.5 percent of the UGA expansion? Together the prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance cover 2,898.6 acres and 83.5 percent of the proposed UGA expansions. Franklin County designates prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance as agricultural lands of long- term commercial significance. This was also not disclosed in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS also does not disclose that the prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance will be converted to urban uses by Alternatives 2 and 3. No mitigation is proposed for these undisclosed adverse impacts. The adequacy of an EIS "is assessed under the 'rule of reason' ... which requires a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences of the agency's decision. The failure to even mention these significant adverse impacts on agricultural soils means that the Draft EIS is not adequate. See responses to comments #s 68 and 92 above. The county conducted a County-wide agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance review as part of the 2008 update and the lands included in Alternatives 2 and 3 are not designated resource lands of long-term commercial significance. See Map 8 of the County’s existing Comprehensive Plan. Section 4.4.2 characterizes that for alternatives 2 and 3, there will be impacts to agricultural lands from land conversion as development would occur in the two different UGA areas described. Section 4.10.2 also describes for alternatives 2 and 3, increase in intensity from the current agricultural land uses to various other uses. Additional description to be added in Section 4.4 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 124 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 94 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.2 Surface Water: 4.2.2. Impacts, Alternative 1: No Action Alternative (page 23) The Draft EIS claims on page 23, without any citation to evidence or analysis, that "since the additional and projected future growth won't be occurring within the City limits, sprawled development will take place in the areas surrounding the City." While there are some rural lands near Pasco, most of the land adjacent to Pasco and the existing UGA is designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and are protected from sprawling development. Most of the land in the western UGA expansion is also agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. The proposed western UGA expansion avoids the Rural lands north of Pasco between North Road 36 and Road 52. It also does not include the Rural land north of the existing UGA along the Columbia River. Given this evidence and the relatively low densities proposed for most of the UGA expansions, it is incorrect to assume, as the Draft EIS apparently does, that Alternative 1 will lead to more sprawl and greater impacts on surface and ground water quality. This sentence must be deleted to comply with SEPA. See comment response #s 68 and 92 above on ag lands of long-term commercial significance. The densities for the areas in the UGAs and surrounding lands ranges from one DU per 5 acres to one DU for 20 or 40 acres. In Alternative 1, developments have been anticipated in all vacant and under-utilized land at the current zoning densities. If fully buildout, the current UGA does not have adequate land to accommodate projected population. There is a shortage of land to accommodate 18,625 persons in the 20-year timeframe. It is therefore, assumed, that the projected population for Pasco UGA will occur, if not within the City limits, it is most likely to occur in the nearby rural areas where land is available and land that are not Ag land of long- term commercial significance. 95 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.2 Surface Water: 4.2.3. Mitigation Measures (page 24) and Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.2. Surface Water (page 59) Compact UGAs also help conserve water long-term. Large lots and low densities increase water demand, increase leakage from water systems, and increase costs to water system customers.3 So accommodating the same Alternative 3 will help conserve water long-term. See above for discussion of ag lands in comment # 68. The City requires specific design standards, such as landscaping, trees etc in the areas identified in PMC 25.180.060. Amendments to the design standards can be revisited through the Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 125 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response population in a right-sized UGA can reduce future water demands and costs. One of the mitigation measures for water quantity should be a smaller UGA expansion that conserves agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. Additional mitigation measures that should be included in the EIS include: • Requiring street trees between streets and sidewalks. This will both reduce storm water runoff and making walking more inviting by helping to shade sidewalks and give a sense of protection from cars to pedestrians. Street trees can also help moderate temperatures. • Assessing storm water fees based in part on impervious surfaces. The current storm water fees only consider impervious surfaces for uses other than single-family dwellings. This tends to encourage single-family homes to have large areas of impervious surfaces, increasing storm water runoff and water pollution. implementation of the Comprehensive Plans Goals and Policies. Specifically, adjacent to transit corridors, parks and public facilities and other areas where pedestrian movements may occur. The City requires specific features as part of the Stormwater System Plan for every development. These are indicated in the City Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. Stormwater Utility Fees are identified in PMC 3.35.200 and were last updated in 2017 via Ordinance #4369 after completion of a rate study to determine the impacts of needed improvements and system expansion for regulatory compliance and service to customers, including stormwater and irrigation. 96 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.3. Plants and Animals: 4.3.1. Affected Environment (pages 25 -27) and Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.3. Plants and Animals (page 60) Futurewise appreciates that the Draft EIS includes information on priority habitats and species identified the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSFW). This is helpful to decision makers and the public. Page 25 includes the following statement "WDFW designation of priority habitat types is advisory only and carries no legal protection; although, such designation may increase the significance of impacts as evaluated through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the SEPA process." While the Washington State Update as suggested Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 126 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Department of Fish and Wildlife does not have the authority to regulate most of the upland habitats identified by the priority habitats and species program, counties and cities are required to designate and conserve priority species and habitats through their GMA critical areas regulations. Does have regulatory authority over projects within the wetted perimeter of rivers, streams, and lakes. We recommend that sentences to that effect be included in the Final EIS. 97 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS The proposed UGA expansions are inconsistent with the Southern Resident Orca Task Force recommendations and the EIS needs to disclose this impact. Further, a potential mitigating measure should be reducing or eliminating the UGA expansions. The EIS should also analyze excluding Priority Habitats and Species including Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife identified sandy shrub steppe habitats and potential breeding sites for burrowing owls from the UGA expansions. This will better conserve wildlife habitats, as the GMA requires. The Draft EIS on page 27 lists Townsend's Ground Squirrel as one of the species listed as threatened or candidate species associated with shrub steppe habitat. While this is true generally, Townsend's Ground Squirrel is not known to be found in Franklin County. We recommend instead that the Washington Ground Squirrel, which is found in Franklin County, be substituted:'° Alternative 3 will result in reduced UGA boundary compared to Alternative 2, and increased development densities, in comparison to Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 3 provides open space and park area near the Broadmoor location in the City. Site specific critical areas evaluations will occur at the time of development for specific proposals and at this time, more detailed critical areas reviews and site investigations will occur, and through this process the City will protect applicable critical areas, including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, verified to be present. Updated the name of Ground Squirrel as suggested. 98 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS Futurewise supports adopting and implementing low-impact development (LID) requirements and retaining native plants and native soils which the Section 4.3.3 includes LID and native landscaping as mitigation actions. Additionally, landowners can Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 127 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Draft EIS identifies as mitigating measures the City may implement. LID and retaining native plants and native soils can protect fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. We also support including the Broadmoor area as a wildlife area and corridor because this area includes significant areas of shrub- steppe habitat. In addition to the proposed mitigation measures which Futurewise supports, we recommend that the city consider requiring landscaping with native plants to provide vegetation of habitat significance in streetscapes, buffers for stormwater swales, rain gardens, and other habitat features. work on a voluntary basis with Franklin Conservation District to provide native landscaping Alternative 3 provides open space and park area near the Broadmoor location in the City that would preserve shrub steppe habitat. 99 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.4. Land Use (pages 30 - 34) and Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.4. Land Use (page 61): Two letters commenting on the scope of the EIS recommended that the EIS examine impacts on agricultural land. Franklin County designates most of the land in the proposed UGA expansion as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. This was not disclosed in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS also does not disclose that the agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance will be converted to urban uses by Alternatives 2 and 3. No mitigation is proposed for these undisclosed adverse impacts. Additional characterization of agricultural lands will be included in the final EIS. See response to comment #s 68 and 92 above for discussion on agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and prescribed mitigation measures. 100 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS The GMA prohibits including agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance within an UGA unless there is a purchase or transfer or development rights program adopted and implemented for those lands and they are protected as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. This inconsistency with the GMA was See response to comment response #68 above for discussion on agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 128 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response not disclosed in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS does not document that the agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance no longer meet the Franklin County or GMA criteria for such designations. 101 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS In addition to these undisclosed impacts, the Draft EIS does not disclose the impacts of allowing residential uses so close to the Tri-Cities Airport on airport operations, the impacts of the limited airport expansion opportunities created by the UGA expansion, and the impacts of airport operations on residential uses in the vicinity of the airport. The adequacy of an EIS "is assessed under the 'rule of reason' ... which requires a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences of the agency's decision." The failure to even mention these significant adverse impacts on agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance means that the Draft EIS is not adequate. It is the same with the impacts on the airport and the impacts of locating housing so close to the airport. See Comment #63 102 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.5. Environmental Health: 4.5.1: Affected Environment (page 35) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool documents that many areas of Pasco are in proximity to Risk Management Plan (RMP) facilities. These are facilities that have potential chemical accident management plans and are within five kilometers (km) (or nearest one beyond 5 km) each divided by distance in km. This map is calculated from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's RMP database. The UGA expansion areas are within the 90 to 95 percentiles for Washington State. Update discussion in Section 4.5.1, Environmental Health, to include additional information drawn from the EPA EJ screening and mapping tool. Note baseline conditions within the existing City limits and also the UGA expansion areas. Mitigation measures will be reviewed in Section 4.5.3 and updated as appropriate. Air quality information from the EJ screening tool will also be added to a new air quality section in the final EIS, that will be located after Section 4.5, Environmental Health. [It should be noted that the Alternative 2 UGA area has lower relative risk for Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5, Ozone, Diesel PM and Risk Management Plan Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 129 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Parts of Pasco and all of the UGA expansion areas also have a higher proximity to hazardous waste than other parts of Washington State We recommend that the EIS disclose these potential adverse impacts and identify potential mitigating measures. Given this and other issues with the UGA expansions planned for residential and commercial uses, one mitigating measure should be not including the area proposed for residential and commercial development within the UGA. (RMP) Facilities as it would locate future growth in the City farther to the north compared to Alternative 3. Alternative 3 also encourages growth in relatively higher risk areas compared to the UGA for these factors with the proposed in- filling, as the higher urbanized areas show slightly higher values, noting these values would likely adjust during plan implementation as additional development occurred within either of the UGA areas. The only risk factor that increases within the UGA areas is Hazardous Waste Facility proximity, noting it is still below the 50th percentile compared to the rest of the state average.] The expansion of the Urban Growth Area towards the North helps to mitigate existing Environmental Justice challenges due to the increasing risk within Central Pasco per the United States Department of Housing & Urban Developments Environmental Health Index. The areas north of the existing City Limits / UGA rank 80 – 100 while Central Pasco ranks 20-40. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. 103 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.7. Population, Housing, and Employment: 4.7.2. Impacts (page 39) and Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.6. Population, Housing and Employment (page 63) Futurewise’ s scoping comment letter recommended that the EIS should analyze impacts on affordable housing. Housing is an element of the environment. There is a significant need for more affordable housing in Pasco. A quarter of the homeowners with City is currently evaluating potential impacts to increased density and permitted housing through House Bill 1923 code amendments • The Land Capacity Analysis indicated that approximately 9,581 dwelling units will be accommodated within existing zoning/development standards. Staff will evaluate added dwelling potential with HB 1923 amendments however until a market Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 130 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response mortgages are paying 30 percent or more of their incomes for housing, the standard for cost overburdened housing. For renter-occupied housing units, 41.2 percent are paying 30 percent or more of their incomes for housing. Overcrowding is related to housing affordability. Of the occupied housing units, 8.4 percent have 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room. Nearly four percent of the occupied housing units (3.9 percent) have 1.51 or more occupants per room. There are early inrncations that overcrowding increases the risk of acquiring infectious diseases including Covid-19. Providing more opportunities for affordable housing by zoning for more affordable densities can reduce overcrowding. Different alternatives may have rnfferent impacts on the affordable housing. However the Draft EIS does not analyze displacement impacts or whether each of the alternatives allow densities that would allow the construction of housing affordable to all income groups. This analysis is still needed. The City of Pasco is considering the adoption of legislation to allow more "Missing Middle" housing in the City which Futurewise strongly supports. We recommend that the EIS include an estimate of the increased housing capacity this legislation will create and an analysis of the potential impacts of the legislation. analysis is conducted true potential will be difficult to calculate and depend upon. • Approval of each or all of the proposed code amendments (Accessory Dwelling Units, Missing Middle and Lot Size Averaging) would permit increased densities and housing units in all residential zoning districts raising capacities by right • Land use in Alternative 3 includes varied densities, thereby allowing different housing types. Final EIS will add further discussion on densities and different housing types. • Increased housing capacity based on new regulations will be performed and added in FEIS 104 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.8. Parks and Recreation: 4.8.3. Mitigation Measures (pages 42 - 43) Figure 4-5, Proposed and Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space on page 43, includes the note "Urban The City’s development regulations currently includes park impact fee, park land dedication and/or in lieu park fee. Final EIS will add these in the mitigation measures. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 131 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Growth Area: Park/Open Space Area build as area develops." It is unclear if this is a mitigation measure or something else. We recommend that the mitigation measures include a requirement that developers dedicate and construct neighborhood serving parks as development occurs. Where a park will serve more than one development, latecomer agreements could be used to share the costs with the other developments. In addition, Figure 4-4 shows significant areas of the City that lack a neighborhood serving park or a school that can also function as a neighborhood park within a 15-minute walk of all homes. Figure 4- 5 shows that this need will not be met in all areas of the City. We recommend as a mitigating measure that the parks and recreation plan should identify neighborhood park opportunities and funding to provide neighborhood parks within a 15-minute walk in all neighborhoods. The Trust for Public Lands Park Score indicates that 67% of Pasco residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. 68% of residents aged 0-19, 67% of those aged 20-64 and 63% of those 65+ of age are within 10-minute walking distance of a park in Pasco. In reference to Fig 4-4, much of the northeast southeast parts of the City consist of industrial and port lands, therefore, no neighborhood parks would be appropriate there. 105 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4. 9. Transportation (pages 44 - 48) and Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.8. Transportation (page 64)We appreciate that the EIS, Volume 2 of the comprehensive plan, and the map folio have analyzed traffic impacts including traffic impacts on state highways. We appreciate the planned transportation projects. We also applaud and support the City's complete streets policy. However, the comprehensive plan and the UGA expansions have the potential to increase vehicle miles traveled and to increase traffic hazards. It does not appear that vehicle miles traveled and increased traffic hazards were analyzed and measures to reduce them were considered. The combination of revised land-use for the expanded UGA and Broadmoor result in a total overall decrease in vehicle miles and hours travelled (VMT/VHT) than the existing Comprehensive Plan (and No-Action) land-uses call for. Projects addressing the Broadmoor Masterplan are incorporated into the updated Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. See Comment #63 for Airport Discussions Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 132 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response The UGA expansions and planned residential uses close to the airport will adversely impact the operations and expansion potential of the Tri-Cities Airport, an important regional transportation and economic development asset. While the Draft EIS points to policy LU-2-E which discourages the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to the Pasco airport, the location of Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential comprehensive plan designations adjacent to and at the northwest end of the runway is inconsistent with this policy. The EIS does not analyze the adverse impacts of these designations on the airport, particularly the residential designations at the north end of the runaway that preclude future expansion opportunities.58 Nor does it analyze the impacts of the airport on the housing to be built in these areas.59 106 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS The draft EIS mentions recreational and commute bicycling and walking, but not walking and bicycling to access stores and services or the relevance of the placement of commercial zoning to allow for more convenient access by pedestrians and bicyclists. There also does not appear to be plans to address the need for transit, walking, and bicycling within the city and within the urban growth area. Parts of the City of Pasco have a high proportion of households that lack access to private vehicles compared to Washington State as a whole Public transit is particularly important in those parts of the city but is also beneficial citywide. Walking and bicycling are important citywide. The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan includes a proposed trail along the FCID irrigation canal right- of-way. For more discussion about this, see Comprehensive Plan transportation inventory, Active Transportation (non-motorized). For improvements, see Deficiencies and Improvement section in Transportation Element. The Pasco City Council adopted the 2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan which was a follow up effort of Resolution 3021. The 2020 Local Road Safety Plan analyzed non- motorized (pedestrian and bicycle) along with vehicle crashes and incidents and indicated a Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 133 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response We were unable to find a long-range citywide plan for bicycle facilities, trails, sidewalks, and safe pedestrian crossings of major arterials. The levels of fatal and serious crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists in parts of the City of Pasco underline the need for such a plan. The Draft EIS also did not analyze the need for these facilities. This analysis should be added to the EIS. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool documents that many areas of Pasco suffer traffic proximity compared to other areas of Washington State. Many of these areas are proposed to be designated for residential uses. We recommend that the EIS analyze whether noise walls, tree plantings, or other mitigation measures should be implemented to protect existing and proposed neighborhoods. preliminary list of proposed projects. The ongoing Transportation System Master Plan will have a focus on non-motorized travel that will refine strategies, issues, constraints and solutions. The US Department of Housing & Urban Developments Environmental Health Index indicates that the City of Pasco has a mean index of 67.55. The higher the score, the less hazard. Areas of the city with the most hazards are Central Pasco (31) and between the Tri-Cities Airport, I-182 and south of Sandifur Parkway (47) 107 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.10. Public Services and Utilities (pages 48 - 54 and 4.2. 9. Public Services and Utilities (page 65) Residential growth in the City of Pasco has increased the exposure of residences on the Wildland Urban Interface to wildfires.6-1 Expanding the city onto agricultural and rural lands will increase this exposure. Fire services are an element of the environment. The impacts of the alternatives and UGA expansions on community fire safety must be analyzed in the EIS and mitigation measures identified such as directing growth away from areas with a moderate to high wildfire threat levels. Another potential mitigating measure would be to require new Comprehensives plan Public Services Element indicates existing and future fire service areas. Also the city is discussing a fire mitigation fee. Information related to wildlife protection and fire risk areas information will be made info available at time of application and on website. Final EIS updated to add these as mitigation measures. City will also follow up with the Fire Districts and Franklin Co Emergency Management to identify risks and include mitigation measures Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 134 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response developments to meet Firewise Communities Program standards or the equivalent. Unfortunately, the Draft EIS did not include this analysis and mitigating measures despite the fact that Futurewise's scoping letter included this information. The changing climate will also increase wildfires in the west including the City of Pasco. A recent peer - reviewed study showed that human caused global warming has made wildfire fuels drier and caused an increase in the area burnt by wildfires between 1984 and 2015.68 Global warming's drying of wildfire fuels is projected to increasingly promote wildfire potential across the western US. The area of this increase in drying fuels includes the City of Pasco. 108 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS The Draft EIS noted that "irrigation exists surrounding the City, and this significantly reduces wildfire risk." But this ignores the Franklin County, Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plan which states three times that "[m]any irrigation systems and wells rely on above ground power lines for electricity. These power poles pass through areas of dense wildland fuels that could be destroyed or compromised in the event of a wildfire." One of the purposes of an EIS is to provide accurate information to the public and decisions makers not to shoot from the hip. This statement in the Draft EIS also ignores the fact that the comprehensive plan update proposes to pave over thousands of acres of irrigated farmland and replace them with flammable homes. The Draft EIS states that "the City conducted an The City of Pasco acquires water rights in several ways to accommodate new developments within the city and within the UGA areas. • The first and most preferred way is in accordance with the PMC whereby land owners are required to transfer existing water rights on their properties to the City in a quantity sufficient for the proposed development. This includes water rights for potable and irrigation uses. • The second way, also in accordance with the PMC, is for the property owner/developer to pay a fee ‘in-lieu’ of transferring existing water rights. This fee is a pre-determined amount based on the current market price per acre- foot of water sufficient for the proposed development. Funds collected from the ‘in- lieu’ fee are used to purchase additional water Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 135 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation, which evaluated the impact of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land use changes. As a result, in order to accommodate future growth, the City will need to make additional improvements to the West Pasco WTP, Zone 3 Reservoir, and acquire additional water rights to meet the 2038 demands." But the Draft EIS does not indicate whether it is possible to acquire the water rights or whether the water rights will be acquired at the expense irrigated farms. This requires further analysis and disclosure. rights from other sources. • The City also acquires water rights from other city, county, state and federal agencies as they may become available. For example, Pasco recently acquired a block of 5,000 acre-feet of water from the Department of Ecology related to water releases from Lake Roosevelt into the Columbia River. Pasco is also in the process of acquiring a second block of 5,000 acre-feet of water right from Ecology from Lake Roosevelt. • The City is also in the process of purchasing 320 acre-feet of unused water rights from the Burbank Irrigation District. The City is exploring options to acquire water from local Irrigation Districts that will supplement the City’s irrigation system and allow for expansion. An example of this is recent coordination with the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on a request to acquire 2,500 acre-feet of water from their irrigation system via an M&I contract. The Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation referenced in the EIS took all the above information into consideration and determined there are/will be sufficient water rights available to support growth in the proposed UGA 109 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS 4.11. Heritage Conservation (pages 54 - 57) and Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.10. Heritage Conservation (page 66) We appreciate this section of the Draft EIS and particularly appreciate the disclosure that construction allowed under the alternatives could potentially impact cultural resources including recorded and unrecorded City works closely with DAHP. The City uses SEPA to require survey if risk area is identified. If development is located in a lower risk area, then the City uses an inadvertent discovery protocol, where work is stopped if a resource is encountered, and then a work plan is followed to protect the resources in coordination with DAHP Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 136 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response archaeological sites. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has developed an archaeological predictive model that can predict where archaeological resources, a type of cultural resource, are likely to be located and where the department recommends archaeological surveys should be completed before earth disturbing activities and other uses and activities that can damage archaeological sites are undertaken. The predictive model shows that the City of Pasco and the UGA expansion areas have a "high risk" and "very high risk" of cultural resources. The Draft EIS should include as a mitigating measure adopting regulations that require consultation with Native American Tribes and Nations and site investigations by archaeological professionals before allowing ground disturbing activities in the city and UGA. and other agencies, including tribes. City will evaluate additional clarifications to requirements in PMC 23.35 110 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS The EIS should analyze the impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions: Futurewise's scoping comment letter requested that the EIS analyze impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas pollution. Air quality is an element of the environment.77 Elevated ozone level averages in the Tri-Cities for 2015 through 2017 exceeded the federal regulatory limit which could trigger sanctions from the Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, a joint study was conducted with the Department of Ecology, Washington State University, and Benton Clean Air Agency, the Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS). The study found that elevated ozone levels are not caused by one source and that An air quality qualitative analysis to include greenhouse gas emissions will be included in the final EIS City of Pasco Resolution 3853 adopted Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy (2018) City of Pasco is a participating member of the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG). BFCG is leading Ozone related transportation discussions in Benton and Franklin Counties. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 137 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response traffic emissions are a major source of air pollutants in the Tri-Cities. Particulate matter from vehicle emissions, fires, and blowing dust contribute to unhealthy air quality that increase symptoms of asthma and heart disease. Weather, topography and wind directions contribute to high-levels of ozone in the Tri-Cities. Expanding the UGA will increase vehicle miles travelled and emissions. These are all probable adverse impacts on elements of the environment and should have been but were not analyzed in the EIS. 111 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS Climate is also an element of the environment. Washington State enacted limits on greenhouse gas emissions and a statewide goal to reduce annual per capita vehicle miles traveled for light-duty vehicles. Comprehensive planning is one way to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and vehicle miles traveled. Almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in our state result from the transportation sector. Land use and transportation strategies that promote compact and mixed-use development and infill reduce the need to drive and greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding the UGA will increase vehicle miles travelled and emissions. These are all probable adverse impacts on climate, an element of the environment, and should have been analyzed in the Draft EIS, but were not. See response to comment #110 The expansion of the Urban Growth Area, Draft Future Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan along with ongoing and planned code amendments are intended to reduce single occupant vehicle reliance. The addition of increased residential and commercial activity centers, densities accompanied with an efficient transportation “grid” pattern are aimed at reducing vehicle dependency and increasing travel options for non-motorized users. 112 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D - DEIS SEPA EISs are required to analyze greenhouse gas pollution. As the Shorelines Hearings Board concluded, "because it failed to fully analyze the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the Project and to consider whether additional See response to comment #110 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 138 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response mitigation is required, the Final EIS is remanded to Cowlitz County and the Port for further SEPA analysis consistent with this opinion. 113 Washington State Department of Commerce 06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G - DEIS Development Phasing and Growth Monitoring - We are pleased to hear that the Community and Economic Development Department recognizes that additional work is critical in upcoming years to implement the Comprehensive Plan and to ensure development occurs as envisioned. This work requires close collaboration and partnership with Franklin County. It also requires a divergence from past practices, but one that is critical for the long-term fiscal sustainability of Franklin County and the Pasco community. There is a trend in the unincorporated Pasco UGA of allowing large-lot development on septic systems. These development patterns create long-term financial liabilities for the City and County, and undermine GMA requirements. • City will coordinate discussion and implementation of phasing for the expanded Urban Growth Area with the Washington State Department of Commerce and Franklin County • Added language will be included in the Implementation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan 114 Washington State Department of Commerce 06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G - DEIS As the City and County move forward with the UGA review and adoption, our core recommendation is to commit to adopting policies, agreements, and regulations on how development occurs in the unincorporated UGA. Development phasing is a critical tool to prevent a pattern of sprawling low-density development from occurring or vesting in areas prior to the ability to support urban densities. Development phasing can also lower or delay the need for new infrastructure, allour administrative rule, WAC 365-196-330, provides guidance on phasing development in the unincorporated UGA. We understand that the County needs to take a lead role in addressing this problem, and we are See response to Comment #113 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 139 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response committed to partnering with you as you continue working to ensure that development actually occurs as envisioned in the Draft EIS and Comprehensive Plan. 115 Washington State Department of Commerce 06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G - DEIS In addition to development phasing, we also recommend a growth monitoring program so that the City and County have a clear picture of where growth is occurring and whether you are achieving your assumed densities. Changes to Pasco's development regulations through our HB 1923 housing grant should allow more density and housing options over the next twenty years. With development phasing and new development regulations, the City may be able to provide necessary housing for its projected growth that limits the need to commit to the capital facilities and services at the periphery of the proposed UGA. We recommend that you include development phasing, growth monitoring, and code amendments (associated with the HB 1923 grant) as implementation strategies in the Final EIS and your Comprehensive Plan. • Growth Monitoring Program will be added to the Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan • Added to the PMC 116 Washington State Department of Commerce 06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G - DEIS After discussions with City staff, we do not have specific concerns about the proposed UGA expansion to the existing industrial LAMIRD. The LAMIRD was considered as part of the existing land base available for development in Kennewick's Industrial Zoned Land Assessment. As the City moves forward with the adoption process, we strongly encourage you to work with the Port of Pasco to develop an overlay zone or regulatory protections to preserve large, contiguous parcels in the proposed expansion area. • Noted • City staff will begin evaluation of existing heavy commercial and all industrial land use and zoning categories • City will conduct analysis and comparison of current city site requirement and improvement standards for commercial and industrial lands to ensure appropriate development of sites Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 140 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response The City should also use the periodic update process to review the development regulations in your industrial zones to ensure that you are not allowing uses that undermine industrial development. The City must also continue to work with WSDOT to improve transportation access and local connections to the subject area. 117 Washington State Department of Commerce 06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G - DEIS Tri-Cities Regional Airport One fundamental concern we have with the proposed alternatives are the likely impacts on the Tri-Cities Regional Airport. According to the Washington State Department of Transportation, (WSDOT}, the number of enplanements has increased by nearly 100,000 over the last five years. The limited airspace in Eastern Washington is under increasing demand. It is critical that Franklin County and Pasco support land use decisions that allow the airport to operate as an essential public facility. We expressed concerns about this issue in 2015 and 2017 in regards to smaller UGA expansions proposed directly adjacent to the Airport. In 2015, the Board of County Commissioners denied the proposal and said, "there is not merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole" which is an appropriate response considering the importance this airport has for the region's economic future. We provided specific recommendations regarding this issue in our comments on the EIS scope. The City's EIS states, "Under all alternatives, rail and airport use could also increase. In general, as employment and population increase, the use of these facilities also increases ... Airport activity See response to comment #63 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 141 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response would also increase as recreational activities and employment increases." There appears to be a significant gap in the analysis in the draft EIS regarding impacts to the Airport, and we encourage you to remedy that gap in the Final EIS. The mandatory formal consultation with airport owners, managers, private airport operators, general aviation pilots, ports, and the Aviation Division of WSDOT should provide supplemental information regarding potential impacts on the Airport. Currently, the City and County have a variety of choices in how you will accommodate future growth. We strongly encourage you to choose an option that will not undermine the long-term economic growth for the region, while simultaneously creating public health concerns for future community members. The City could meet its growth allocation without expanding the UGA in a manner that precludes a future runway expansion by increasing densities elsewhere in the proposed expansion area, or changing some of the commercial land use designations to mixed-use designations. 118 Washington State Department of Commerce 06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G - DEIS After reviewing some of the public comments and testimony at the Planning Commission hearing on May 20, 2020, we understand that elected and appointed officials are grappling with challenging decisions about whose property should be included in the Pasco UGA. The City of Pasco has clearly met GMA public participation requirements by adopting a Public Noted Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 142 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Participation Plan in accordance with our agency's recommendations, holding numerous public meetings and workshops on the periodic update, and disseminating notice through the paper of record and online communications. As appointed and elected officials consider the proposed alternatives, we encourage Franklin County and the City of Pasco to recognize that decisions about where and how growth occur should be based on the overriding public interest. The compact growth alternative appears to best meet that standard. 119 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Page A: Where “Required permits and approvals” are listed, the text should be updated to note that any approval of the Urban Growth Area expansion would be granted by the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners. Also, discuss any review of your transportation element that would be conducted by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, such as certification. Update as suggested 120 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Page b: It appears that The City of Pasco Urban Growth Area Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis (May 21, 2020) and its appendix Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation by Murray Smith and Associates (November 18, 2019) should be added as "Related Plans and Documents." Update as suggested 121 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 1.1 Introduction: The periodic update was due to be completed by June 30, 2018 (not 2019). Update as suggested 122 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Table 1: It appears that the population in Franklin County, 10 Year increase should list 28,251 (not 30,493); it looks as though there was a computational error. (Also see Table LU-4 in the Noted, correct as applicable Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 143 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response draft Comprehensive Plan update which shows the same figures). Next, where it says "Residential units needed in Pasco in 10 years, ... 20 years" the label should instead say "Additional Residential units needed in Pasco in ..... "; it would also be a good idea to put the topic in a different column, as the column is labeled "Population" in the heading. 123 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Table 2: Add the sum of residential units (9,580) for existing capacity. Also, the related text does not describe where Broadmoor is or provide a map; which would help readers unfamiliar with the area. In addition, Table 2 does not seem to correspond with later discussion of the Broadmoor area, that describes different density scenarios between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Which alternative does the table reference, and should the table be expanded to list capacity at Broadmoor under both Alternatives? Add Broadmoor boundary in the map 124 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Chapter 2 Alternatives: Alternatives 2 and 3 both involve adding industrial lands into the City's UGA. It would be helpful to emphasize that the land being brought inside the UGA is already classified as industrial by Franklin County( as a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development or "LAMIRD"). There is no net increase in the amount of land designated for industrial purposes, rather it is a jurisdictional change. Switching the land from industrial in the county to industrial in the city makes sense so that urban-level services can be provided. Update as suggested 125 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Table 3: The information in the table does not correspond with the referenced figure (for example, there are no airport reserve lands or DNR reserve lands on the map). Update as suggested 126 Franklin County 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Tables 4 and 5: These tables should be better Final EIS will add further clarifications Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 144 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response – Planning & Building Department labeled to detail that they are referencing increased UGA totals. For Table 4, why not include a full table that shows the changes in land uses from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2? Comparing Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 does not only involve additional land in the UGA, but it also involves the re-designation of some land within existing city limits and UGA. Additionally, it is unclear how land uses in the Broadmoor area differ between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. (Table 5 and Table 6 both show sufficient detail for Alternative 3). 127 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 3.1.1 Increased Density and Development: The first sentence says "Densities will be increased under the preferred alternatives" yet there is only one stated "preferred alternative" -Alternative 3. This should be corrected. Next, the text includes a reference to the Riverview area, and is the first mention of Riverview. We suggest defining the area, showing it on a map, or including a footnote with a description. Additionally, a reference is made to City of Pasco Ordinance 4221. Since the time period under which the Ordinance take effect has lapsed it is not clear how this is important. Did/ will the city extend the time period? If the Ordinance no longer applies it may be best to exclude the reference and related discussion from the EIS. Final EIS will add further clarifications 128 Franklin County – Planning & Building 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 3.1.2 Traffic: Are there any figures or forecasts to support the information provided in the section? When "increases" in traffic are discussed, See response to comment #80 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 145 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Department what is the magnitude? Consider referencing supporting documents or including data from your studies. 129 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Table 7: In the row for "Urban Growth", column for Alternative 1, we suggest changing the statement to say that the alternative would accommodate the least amount of projected growth. In the row for "Transportation," column for Alternative 3, we suggest noting the alternative could result in shorter trips due to more compact development patterns (this could also include mode split shifts-i.e. more kids walking to school). For the row for "Economic Development," column for Alternative 3, consider noting that the alternative results in conversion of less land than Alternative 2 which is currently in agricultural production, which relates to production of commodities, food processing jobs, etc. For the row for "Open Space ... ," column for Alternative 3, consider adding that with a smaller growth area "footprint" there will be less affected fish and wildlife habitat. Update as suggested 130 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3: Specify that the referenced "proposed UGA" is Alternative 3. None of the maps show the mapped features which are present farther north, and which would be included in the Alternative 2 scenarios. These maps should all be updated in order for Alternative 2 to be fully presented/ examined in the document Update as suggested Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 146 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 131 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Table 8: There is a reference to one mine site and a reference to "both" which is confusing. Verify the correct number of mine sites. It would be helpful to show the mine(s) on a map or at least, describe the general location. In Vol. II of the draft Comprehensive Plan update, two mineral resource sites are referenced. Update table as suggested. Clarify map CA-1 132 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I 4.1 Earth Figure 4-1: Consider showing and labeling the location of the liquefaction susceptibility zone as referenced in Table 8. (Perhaps consider cross- referencing to the draft Comprehensive Plan map folio.) Section 4.1.2 Impacts: The Alternative 3 discussion says that Broadmoor will be developed with more density in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, but there is little detail or information on that. It would be helpful if more information was provided. • Cross reference to Comprehensive Plan mapfolio map CA-1 • Add discussion about the total number of units anticipated in Broadmoor in Alternative 3 133 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.2 Surface Water: Consider re-naming the section "Surface and Ground Water." Update as suggested 134 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.2.1 Affected Environment: We suggest changing the description that currently states the Columbia River is to the south of the City, to instead describe that the river lies to the west and south of the City. Update as suggested 135 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.2.1 Affected Environment: The final paragraph discusses City of Pasco Water Rights. It is unclear in the document if the City has sufficient water rights to accommodate the considered alternatives. Please indicate if this is an issue or not (or reference supporting documents). Mitigation measures should be listed, if relevant. See Comment #108 136 Franklin County 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.2.2 Impacts: We recommend adding an Update as suggested Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 147 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response – Planning & Building Department observation that expansion of the city's UGA and subsequent annexation and extension of sewer can limit the trend of homes that are built with septic systems, which can benefit groundwater and lessen impacts on it We also noticed that "Alberti et. al." is referenced, but the reference does not appear in the bibliography. There may be other instances where references are not included in the bibliography. 137 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures: We recommend adding a mitigation measure about low-impact development (LID), which appears later in the document (section 4.3.3), to this section on stormwater. It would be appropriate to discuss LID in the stormwater mitigation section. Update as suggested 138 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.3 Plants and Animals: We noticed there is no reference to bird migration routes. This information will be added 139 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.3.2 Impacts: First, this section could be improved by mentioning that development can cause displacement of habitat. Next, under the "Alternative 1: No Action Alternative" subsection, there is a statement that reads "the least amount of development would occur as it [the alternative] has the least projected population growth." This is not a true statement; the population growth projection does not change between the scenarios, only the amount of development to accommodate such growth does. Update to make more accurate 140 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.4.1 Affected Environment: We recommend broadening this section to answer the SEPA checklist question "Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land Update as suggested Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 148 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting?" Please discuss compatibility of the new development under the proposed alternatives with existing farming practices in the area. 141 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Table 9: The table shows existing land use designations, and not necessarily existing uses as developed (if that were truly the case, you would have a vacant land category, among others). We suggest re-naming the table for better understanding. Also, airport reserve lands and DNR Reserve lands are going to be newly introduced in the comprehensive plan update, and therefore appear out of place here for a discussion of"existing land uses." Likewise, Table 10 should also be re- titled. Update the title to add Existing Comprehensive Plan land use. Also change DNR and Airport reserves in all relevant tables (e.g. Table 3) based on the decision on those land uses 142 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.4.1 Affected Environment: The text included after Table 9 should be corrected to discuss the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (not Corp). Also, it appears that there should be more discussion / mention of DNR land holdings in this section. Update as suggested 143 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.4.1 Affected Environment: At the top of page 3 2 there is a list of Comprehensive Plan designations. Please specify that this list is from the draft updated comprehensive plan, and not from the current plan. Update as suggested 144 Franklin County 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.4.2 Impacts: Discuss existing airport and Update as suggested, also update in the Comp Plan Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 149 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response – Planning & Building Department land use compatibility issues, and how the Comprehensive Plan addresses them. under Land Use Areas and Compatibility 145 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures: The last two paragraphs at the end of the section are unclear. In addition, include a mention of the new avigation easement(s) that will be in place near the airport. The section should also discuss existing zoning code provisions (for both Franklin County and the City of Pasco) for the Airport Overlay District -which provides for safety compatibility zones, use restrictions, and height limitations -as mitigation measures to address development proximate to the Tri-Cities Airport. These paragraphs are discussing development regulations as added mitigation measures. Airport navigation - update as suggested 146 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.5.1 Affected Environment: Change the last paragraph to "During construction and operation of some industrial developments .... Update as suggested 147 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.5.2 Impacts: Consider adding some language referencing that open burning is not allowed within the UGA -expanding the UGA will limit the ability for existing and future residents in the subject area from being able to burn, which may lead to air quality enhancements. Update as suggested 148 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures: ED-1-C Policy does not appear to really fit in with the section's subject. Replace ED-1-C with ED-2 GOAL 149 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.6.2 Impacts: Shoreline uses are already regulated by the County, and shoreline functions are protected through mitigation to ensure a no net loss standard. If the UGA is Noted Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 150 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response expanded north (and specify the linear miles) and the land is annexed, then regulation of shoreline uses transfers to the City. 150 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.6.2 Impacts: It would be helpful if the document would quantify the different linear length of shoreline area included in the different alternatives. Update as suggested The 2016 Shoreline Master Program indicated that there are 17 miles of river shoreline, which includes the Columbia and Snake Rivers within the Pasco City Limits. 151 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.7.1 Affected Environment: The figures included in the first paragraph are not consistent with the data shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 shows that 7,522 additional residential units will be needed in 10 years and 15,217 additional units will be needed in 20 years. Update the documents 152 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures: The draft Comprehensive Plan update document says, "The City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development." Consider adding this measure as a mitigation. Update as suggested 153 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I 4.10.2 Impacts: Will infrastructure projects and improvements result in any business displacement? • Business displacement is not expected and will be avoided 154 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I 4.10.3 Mitigation Measures: The total cost for capital improvements for 2020-2025 is $249M (of which $57M would be spent on Sewer System Improvements and $48M would be spent on transportation improvements), as identified in Table CF-1 in the draft Comprehensive Plan Vol. 2. It would be prudent to call out the planned investment in Capital Facilities in this section, or elsewhere in the document. • Update as suggested • Add table CF-1 from Comp Plan to EIS as mitigation measures Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 151 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 155 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Consider Discussing Impact Fees: While impact fees are not discussed in the EIS document, they are clearly an important part of the scheme for funding improvements related to future growth. For example, City representatives have been very forthright in their support for impact fees to fund schools. Some mention or reference to these mitigation measures should be incorporated into the EIS, unless the City Council intends to discontinue the fees. • Update as suggested • Impact fees will be added as Mitigation Measures 156 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Document Choices Made when Determining UGA Alternatives: When the City's updated UGA application is provided to the County for processing, it would be very helpful if an explanation or documentation is provided with your submittal, identifying how certain properties were selected ( or not selected) to be included in Alternative 3. • Noted • Additional information to be added 157 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I We are aware that some landowners and other stakeholders have voiced concerns about this issue, and it would be helpful to have a record to refer to regarding these choices, for reference when the UGA application is considered by the County for legislative processing. For example, it would be important for the city staff to provide the rationale used to propose extending its UGA into areas which are currently designated as "Agricultural Lands" in some of the most northerly locations, as opposed to taking in the areas designated as rural (the LAMIRDs). • Noted • Additional information to be added 158 Franklin County – Planning & Building 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I The Kohler properties (which are included in the County's Columbia River West Area LAMIRD) are excluded from the UGA in Alternative 3, but the City • The 2014 Comprehensive Sewer Plan is currently being amended; the amended Sewer Plan does not include this specific property Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 152 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Department of Pasco 2014 Sewer Comprehensive Plan shows that the city public works department plans to extend sewer infrastructure to these locations by 2026. (We understand that the city's Public Works Department is currently updating the 2014 Comprehensive Sewer Plan with an addendum that incorporates proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Area, however it is unclear if that document should be relied upon for this analysis.) Likewise, the property is proximate to a proposed future lift station and proposed sewer pipes are drawn extending to the property line in Exhibit CF-2 of the draft Comprehensive Plan update map folio. • City Planning and Public Works staff has coordinated Comprehensive Plan draft Land Use, UGA and Sewer analysis 159 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Only part of the Thanksgiving Partnership (TLP) property (which is included in the County's East Foster Wells Road Area LAMIRD) is included in the UGA under Alternative 3, but sewer is projected to run up Capitol Ave. to E. Foster Wells Rd. by 2031. • Noted • City staff discussing options with property owner 160 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Document Choices Made when Determining Future Land Use Designations: When the updated UGA application is provided to the County for processing, it would be very helpful if an explanation or documentation is provided with your submittal. We will be comparing the areas selected for more intensive uses with the existing development patterns of the LAMIRDs. • Noted • Additional information to be added 161 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Discuss Annexation Plans and Policies: We recommend adding a discussion to address how City staff foresees annexation would take place. It appears that the documents do not shown any proposed phasing" approach to the UGA expansion; rather, it appears that the UGA expansion would occur at one time. This is unfortunate, particularly since materials Add phasing discussion Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 153 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response presented during the August 15, 2019 Planning Commission workshop included "10 year and 20 year boundaries." Has the City staff changed their approach in this regard? 162 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I We recommend adding more discussion describing phasing, and how annexation could be used as a tool to prevent land entitlements from being possibly granted before services are in place. Furthermore, if there are other mechanisms that City staff has in mind to phase expansion into the UGA, those should be detailed as well. The Department of Commerce's Urban Growth Area Guidebook (Page 19) could be consulted for suggestions. Absent any mechanisms or stated preference or intentions, the County staff will likely include proposed "future UGA reserve areas" or UGA phasing in their recommendation to the County Planning Commission and County Commissioners for consideration. Add phasing discussion. Coordinate with County on designating future UGA reserve areas by the County. See response # 113. 163 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Expand and Clarify the Discussion of the Broadmoor Area: The discussion of the Broadmoor area and the future development is rather limited in some topics, and could be broadened, particularly since the bulk of development to occur within the current city limits will be at Broadmoor. Since mining is occurring on the site, we paid particular attention to the discussion about mining in Vol. II of the draft Comprehensive Plan update, which says on page 138 (emphasis added): Presently, American Rock Products is mining the lands and producing various types of crushed rock. American Rock Products also produces ready mix concrete utilizing gravel the company mines. The Broadmoor area is discussed under Land Use Areas and Compatibility in the Land Use Element. Add further discussion on Broadmoor area in the FEIS Add clarification on mineral resource lands Add note on annexation requiring Zoning Designations indicated by City/Broadmoor Master Plan Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 154 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response crushed rock and sand that are derived from the American Rock pit are used throughout the region in the construction industry. ecause of the importance of gravel for construction activities and the lack of other known mineable sites, there is a need to orotect the lands located in Section 12 [T. 9N R 28E] and Section 7 [T. 9N R 29E] for mineral extraction. With the Pasco UGA population project to increase by about 50,148 over the next 20 years, there will be an ever-increasing need for mineral resources for new infrastructure, and residential, commercial, and industrial development American Rock estimates that there are enough resource materials in these lands that mining could continue for another 20 to 25 vears ...The above text appears to conflict with the following statement, on the same page: ... While the lands described above have been designated for mineral extraction, such use designation is considered an overlay use only. Upon completion of the mineral extraction, the intended and ultimate use of the land is as shown on the land use map ... Furthermore, the rock mine location is shown to carry a proposed medium density residential designation. Please provide further discussion on what portions of the Broadmoor area are encumbered by mining verses what areas are going to be developed in the next 20 years. Please elaborate further on what mitigation measures will be needed, or what policies the City Council may put into place to assure compatibility between on-going rock extraction operations and Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 155 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response proposed new development within a close proximity. Additionally, when the City staff provides a formal UGA re-application, it will also be important for the package to include information regarding the phasing or development timeline intended for the Broadmoor area, particularly for annexation. One of the mixed-use, land use classifications in alternative 3 (Mixed Use Neighborhood) is located mostly outside of city limits in the proposed UGA. Table LU-1 in the draft City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Vol. II shows that a zoning district known as "MU-N" will be used in the development regulations to implement the Mixed Use Neighborhood designation. The City staff should coordinate with the County staff so it can be determined if a similar zoning district will be needed in the County's zoning code. (See County-Wide Planning Policy Section II, no. 9 and Section VII, no. 28 and 29.) 164 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I 6.Identify and Discuss Zoning Code Modifications: It is clear that Pasco's zoning regulations will need to be revised, and several new chapters added for new zoning designations. What will be the process for this work? Is that work already underway? In Sec. 4.4.3 there is a statement that "The City of Pasco Zoning Regulations in PMC Title 25 regulate development in various zoning districts, and a zoning change could be made to further restrict the type and density of development in the planning area." It appears that more attention and discussion should be granted on this topic, within the context of the EIS, to properly identify mitigation measures, • Noted • Additional information to be added in the Implementation Chapter of the Comprehensive plan Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 156 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response and measures to address impacts. 165 Franklin County – Planning & Building Department 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I To summarize, we have found areas where the DEIS should be further revised or amended prior to the issuance of a final EIS, to clarify and document plans, their impacts, and mitigation strategies. We have also identified some areas of concern related to an Urban Growth Area expansion request and have provided some early feedback in anticipation of the application, based on the EIS. As always, we welcome a meeting to coordinate and collaborate on these important issues. Noted 166 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J The Draft EIS, section 4.9.1 on page 44, states: “The Washington State Department of Transportation is responsible for maintaining an adequate level of service on these highways.” We believe this statement is misleading or inaccurate. With no development in the Tri-Cities, the I-182 bridge could expect to function within acceptable standards for many years to come. The US 395 bridge could be more easily managed. Development is driving the need for transportation management and the proposed development in the UGA expansion area will certainly contribute to the need for improved management. It is the responsibility of the whole region to address impacts to the state system. • RCW 36.70A.110(2) requires each city to designate an urban growth area based on population projected made for each county by the WA Office of Financial Management. • Projected population for the City of Pasco as allocated by Franklin County is 121,828 by the year 2038, an increase of over 45,000 people • Not expanding the UGA would severely limit the location of housing, possible increasing affordable housing challenges and decreasing level of service operations on city facilities and services • Existing V/C Ratio for I-182 shows signs of congestion (0.80 – 0.90) with a V/C above 1.0 on US 395/Blue Bridge. Congestion challenges are also identified in the BFCOG M/RTP • With expected population and employment growth, the City of Pasco is implementing a variety of land use strategies and policies to encourage less car dependent travel including increased densities, additional neighborhood, regional and office space land uses in NW Pasco and the proposed UGA. Additionally, the Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 157 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response proposed (ongoing) code amendment address street connectivity will help provide a foundation for a connected transportation network with shorter block lengths that may encourage alternative modes of travel. • The City of Pasco is in the process of conducting the Transportation System Master Plan which will also address updates to our Transportation Impact Analysis methodology and Transportation Impact/Mitigation Fees for private developments to ensure proper compensation and measures are in place. 167 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J The planned expansion of the industrial area along US 395 north of I-182 does not include transportation connection of residential (housing) to industrial (jobs) without using the State system. • Noted, coordination with Franklin County will be necessary for any facilities operating with Pasco City Limits, Urban Growth Area and Franklin County 168 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J We encourage the City of Pasco to plan for the future development and growth of the Tri-Cities Regional Airport. The demand for commercial passenger air service as well as air cargo are forecast to increase as time goes on. Airports with existing commercial service will play a vital role in trying to meet the demand for air service. SeaTac International Airport is reaching the limits of its capacity and existing commercial service airports will be needed to help meet the demand. The Tri- Cities Regional Airport in Pasco is critical to the region’s transportation system providing air passenger and cargo service to southeast Washington. It is Washington’s fourth largest airport. Passenger traffic grew over 25% between 2015 and 2019. The Airport Master Plan shows future plans to • Noted • City ongoing TSMP progress, WSDOT is stakeholder/TAC member Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 158 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response potentially extend runway 12 – running southeast to northwest – 1,850 feet to the northwest. In order for the Tri-Cities Regional Airport to continue its regional function, it is important to preserve the ability to expand. We believe it is important for the City of Pasco to work with the Tri-Cities Regional Airport sponsors and management, aviation businesses, general aviation pilots, ports, and the Aviation Division of WSDOT, and convene formal consultation between the stakeholders to discuss the potential impacts to the Airport. Suggested revised mitigation measure: The City will prioritize and implement travel demand methodologies identified in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan to limit and manage the demand on and access to transportation network, including the major facilities of I-182 and US 395, and the river crossings. This will include identifying funding sources and an implementation schedule. 169 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J There are a large number of dwellings between Road 36 and Road 100 north of I-182 with many more planned. We believe Powerline Road also needs to be extended to Glade Road (about one mile) and Foster Wells Road (another mile, but probably requires grade-separation over the railroad lines). Powerline Road is conveniently placed for these large number of dwellings and should be developed as a collector or arterial. This corridor could extend from Shoreline Road in the west to Pasco Kahlotus Road in the east, a distance of more than 14 miles and improves local transportation network connectivity. • Comment Noted • TSMP underway 170 Washington State 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J The Capital Facilities Plan Analysis includes Synchro modeling results for the year 2024 for Rd 100 and • Noted • City believes we have met the requirement Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 159 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Department of Transportation Road 68 EB & WB off ramps. We understand the City has results for 2038 for all of the interstate/highway interchanges and river crossings. We would like to see this information included in the Comprehensive Plan. and intent of RCW 36.70A.070(6) 171 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J The Benton Franklin Council of Governments’ model shows severe problems with both the I-182 and US 395 bridges in 2038, but the draft materials do not discuss these important transportation features. It is most likely these impacts will need to be addressed through reduction in demand. As stated above, the City has plans to change Municipal Code and implement TDM strategies with the hope of reducing trips. • Existing V/C Ratio for I-182 shows signs of congestion (0.80 – 0.90) with a V/C above 1.0 on US 395/Blue Bridge. Congestion challenges are also identified in the BFCOG M/RTP • City has ongoing code amendment addressing transportation connectivity and accessibility for all modes, including creating walkable and transit accessible / friendly communities 172 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J In Volume 2-Supporting Analysis, in the Recommendations section on page 119, it states that “Some projects will be the City’s responsibility; others will be the responsibility of WSDOT, and in many cases, developers will be required to construct improvements associated with proposed subdivisions or other developments.” WSDOT does maintain and operate the state highway system. However, as stated above, development is driving the need for transportation management and it is the responsibility of the whole region to address impacts to the state system. We would like the phrase “others will be the responsibility of WSDOT” to be rephrased. • Noted • Add language clarifying that WSDOT responsibilities only apply to WSDOT facilities 173 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J PMC 3.40.100 established the “I-182 Corridor Impact Fund”. We understand that traffic impact fee requirements, fees, and applicability are being evaluated through the Transportation System Master Plan. We note that a number of projects could draw on it • PMC 3.40.100 (1-182 Corridor Traffic Impact Fund) was created to house/collect fees associated with traffic impact (TIFs). https://pasco.municipal.codes/PMC/3.40.100 • The Traffic Impact Fee requirements, fees and applicability are being evaluated through the TSMP Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 160 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response even if they are not on or do not intersect I-182. It seems this would be an important sources of funds to address impacts to I-182. 174 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 Compreh ensive Plan Vol 2 Exhibit #J A number of funding sources are described in the Capital Facilities Plan Analysis on pages 34-40. In Volume 2 – Supporting Analysis, Tables T-10 (pages 106-107) and T-11 (pages 110-117) list a number of funding sources. It would be helpful to have similar descriptions for these funding sources as well. These could be included in the Capital Facilities Plan Analysis, or it would be most convenient to have the descriptions in the Finance section of Volume 2 beginning on page 119. Add description as suggested 175 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J Please include funding sources for the planned TDM measures. Refined strategies for TDM including funding sources will be specifically identified in the upcoming Transportation System Master Plan, expected in 2021. 176 Washington State Department of Transportation 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J We understand that you will add a map showing the changes in land use designations in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Noted 177 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Concerned about an apparent lack of information regarding outreach to Spanish speaking residents. You may very well have conducted specific outreach to the Spanish speaking community - but it was left out of the public relations plan or primary document. Please indicate what effort was made in the final document, or delay the process until the process can be more inclusive. • The City reached out directly to stakeholders and organizations throughout the public review process of the Comprehensive Plan (DEIS) • The City also includes numerous media and community orgs/agencies through it normal Public Press Release notifications including the following: o Bustos Media; Cherry Creek Media; KNDU, KEPR, KVEWTV, La Vox, La Raza del Noreste, Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Tu Decides, Univision, Latino Coalition and the Downtown Pasco Development Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 161 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Authority 178 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Utilizing the EPA's Environmental Justice screen to learn about Pasco ("user specified area" is depicted in green), I confirmed what I already suspected. Pasco residents are disproportionately burdened by traffic noise, air pollution, and exposure to diesel dust. See response to comment #78 179 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Regarding the Broadmoor development, please work with the developer and BFT to ensure that the Mixed Use Regional includes a bus transfer station. It is the most logical location for Delta HS kids as well as commuters into Richland. Noted 180 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K No mention of water supply. The Quad Cities water right is finite and required the cities to take conservation actions. Ironically at the time it was negotiated the city forced a Desert Plateau resident to rip out perfectly fine shrub steppe plants, and put in irrigation and turf grass. There should be no mandate that people put in lawns as they are a notorious waste of water. Trees use less water and are more beneficial by decreasing the heat island effect and stormwater, and increasing property values. They should be broadly encouraged and even required in some cases. Water rights existing conditions are covered in Section 4.2.1. Section 4.10.3 includes a mitigation measure to secure additional water rights to meet the future demand. Additionally Section 4.3.3 identifies promoting the preservation of on-site native vegetation, particularly riparian vegetation near surface waters and upland shrub-steppe communities, as a mitigation measure 181 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Promote ADUs, and remove requirements that only a family member can live in them. Many people might invest in them if they knew it was allowed, and that would be a perfect solution for 'thickening' the areas from 40th west to Riverview without having to build more city services. • Noted • City is working through House Bill 1923 amendments in 2020-2021 including an amendment to the existing accessory dwelling unit regulations 182 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Please add bike racks and a safe path from the sidewalk to the entrance as bulleted items in this section, as you have LID in the water section. (I live near Steptoe and Gage and there is no safe access by foot or bike to Dairy Queen without crossing the The City recognizes the need to bike facilities improvements. The Complete Streets policies will implement safer bike lanes. Improvements are identified in Volume II Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 162 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response parking lot or riding in a traffic lane. They had no bike rack for many years, but I believe they do now.) Please don't leave the old neighborhoods behind, but rather incorporate appropriate street speeds (reducing if necessary) and implementing road diets. The entire length of Sylvester, for example, does not warrant such wide lanes or high speeds and could serve the central and historic Pasco neighborhoods better with protected bike lanes, and shaded park strips east of 395. 183 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Additional measures to suggest: Require trees in all new developments to absorb rain, help ameliorate some stormwater issues and combat the urban heat island effect. Consider levying stormwater assessments based on the amount of impervious surfaces - three car driveways impact stormwater more than two car driveways. Keeping water on the lots minimizes the need for stormwater detention basins which sometimes don't perk, and can harbor mesquites. Require a percentage of pervious paving and onsite swales for commercial establishments. Noted. See response to comment #s 89, 98 and 137 All stormwater is required to be retained on site within the development. 184 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Low-impact development should go in 4.2.3. Update as suggested 185 Wireman, Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Concerned that the highest density zoning is only near the railroad and airport. Surely, there can be some denser pockets distributed across the community? • The Urban Growth Area has increased medium-density and high-density residential distributed widely through the proposed expansion area. Approximately 15% of the UGA reserved for medium to high density residential • The Draft Future Land Use Map indicates increased densities in the expanded Urban Growth Area, Broadmoor, Road 68 and near Osprey Point • Ongoing code amendments (House Bill 1923) will increase the minimum densities and Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 163 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response building capacity of the Low Density Residential Land Use across the entire city 186 Burns, Max & Diana 07/12/2020 Compreh ensive Plan Exhibit #M One of our main concerns is the current lack of sidewalks going from Burns Rd and Broadmoore down to Dent and Kohler Roads. As you know two schools are scheduled to open this fall which will result in students walking home after school or even later after sports practices and other after school activities. Many families live in the developments off of both Dent and Kohler Roads but there are no sidewalks for these students to safely walk home. As a former middle school principal my school faced a similar problem as students were often walking in the middle of the road due to the lack of a side walk. I trust the council members have driven around these areas of development and understand our concern. Especially when walking west on Burns from Broadmoore where there is a steep hill and basically no edge to walk safely out of the traffic lanes. Likewise there are no sidewalks on Dent resulting in folks walking in the road. I witness this on many evenings as neighbors are out for an evening walk but must walk in the road due to a lack of sidewalks. Is there a plan to resolve this safety issue? • The City previously left sidewalk constructions (and full-street) construction as a developer option in Low-Density Residential areas. In 2019, Ordinance 4454 was adopted by the Pasco City Council requiring sidewalk construction in all/every residential zone • The current Transportation Improvement Program has identified a pedestrian connection on Burns Road to assist non- motorized users with accessing the new school sites (funding is pending) 187 Burns, Max & Diana 07/12/2020 Compreh ensive Plan Exhibit #M We would also like to see more parks and walking trails as the city expands out into the rural areas. We have lived at our current residence for 40 years and as the growth has moved north areas to safely walk and enjoy nature have decreased. There are several areas that are a natural fit for such trails but I assume the city must designate them as such to keep houses from taking over these areas? Will the • The Comprehensive Plan includes a Parks and Open Space Element that describes the expected level of service to be maintained to adequate provide service to the growing population • Level of Service estimates were identified in the 2016 Parks & Forestry Plan • The Administrative and Community Services Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 164 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response council be speaking about the number and types of parks to be included in the plan? Whose responsibility is it to see that these plans come to fruition? Department is responsible for park planning 188 Burns, Max & Diana 07/12/2020 Compreh ensive Plan Exhibit #M The current plans talks about keeping developments aesthetically pleasing but our concern is that most of the recent developments look like clones of each other due to the large brown brick fences surrounding them. When some of the first developments-Quail Run, Pelican Point-were developed they did not have to put up fences leaving the beauty of open space. Driving north and south on Dent Rd is like driving through a brown brick tunnel. Is the fencing requirement a decision of the property developer or can the council set standards for fencing types or no fencing at all? • Landscaping and Screening, including fencing are regulated in PMC 25.180 and are the responsibility of the property developer/owner. • Regulations and standards in Title 25 (Zoning) are recommended by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the Pasco City Council • Amendments (changes/revisions) to the municipal code can be initiated by any person, firm, group of individuals or municipal department as indicated in PMC 25.210.020 189 Burns, Max & Diana 07/12/2020 Compreh ensive Plan Exhibit #M We agree with the idea of walking communities but wonder who will be setting the codes for these communities. Will it be a decision of the property developer, the council or combined decision? • Standards and regulations in Title 21 (Subdivision Regulations) and Title 25 (Zoning) are recommended by the Planning Commission and final decisions are made by the Pasco City Council. 190 What is mixed-use property on River Shore Drive and Burns Rd. defined as? • The City will create a series of new Mixed-Use Designations through the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. • Mixed-Use-Neighborhood (MU-N) is draft Land Use created out of the Broadmoor Master Planning effort (ongoing). This Land Use is characterized as including a variety of housing types and commercial/office space. 191 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N In future comprehensive planning efforts, BFT recommends that two different firms or teams of firms be considered for plan development and Noted Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 165 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response subsequent environmental reviews. 192 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N BFT appreciates participating in the review of the EIS, but it may have been appropriate to include BFT, as the region's transit agency, in an earlier stage of the plan development process. BFT's late inclusion in the consultation process appears to have inhibited meaningful consideration of transit into Pasco's planning framework. Noted 193 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N BFT noted that the Plan forecasts housing needs as a function of long-range population growth within a static and unchanging average household size of 3.17 (e.g. Table 1 related text in the EIS). The data tables are not sufficiently detailed in that household size is applied across all housing types, but the average household size does appear to remain static even as the City changes the housing mix. Nationally, average household size has declined steadily and consistently for 160 years; only since 2010 has household size seen a slight increase. These long-term trends reflect both a declining birth rate and a reduction in extended (multigenerational) family living. It seems unlikely that household size in Pasco will remain as a constant in the face of changing national trends, economic uncertainty, and demographic change. It is highly probable that household size will change, reflecting long-standing shifts in the composition of households and demographic trends, and this is especially true if the City adds smaller, higher density, and mixed-use housing as proposed in the Plan. The assumption that household size is static over • Noted, the city recognizes that household sizes vary by unit type • Average household size is derived from the existing housing units and existing total population. This gives an average/base number to work with for future need. It is understandable that this numbers can vary and can also change over time. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 166 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response time may be unrealistic, and it may lead the City to plan for today's families, leaving fewer options that respond to the needs of future generations. 194 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Table 2 and related text identifies the available land capacity as land that is currently vacant and developable, while the number of housing units that can be accommodated on that land consists almost exclusively of larger lot single-family houses. Within the existing city limits, density is less than 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Within the urban growth area (UGA), the density target is just under 5.5 dwelling units per acre. The target density for the Broad moor area is unclear, given the data presented (and still uncertain, given the lack of an approved development plan). The implication of the density target, however, is that most higher density land uses will be located along the fringes in new development areas. This may avoid conflict with existing residential areas, but it does not lead to walking, cycling, or transit to become viable transportation options. • In addition to the increased density target, the City is working through a major code amendment (CA2019-013) Street Connectivity to ensure that new developments result in smaller, more walkable blocks with connected streets, pathways and corridors within the City limits and in the proposed UGA. 195 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Table 3 and related text presents the acreage of existing municipal, UGA, and proposed UGA land areas by land use type. Residential is characterized as low, medium, medium-high, and high density, with the vast majority of land zoned as low density residential. Commercial areas include single-use categories of commercial and office, as well as a number of mixed-use categories with labels that are more indicative of where the development is than what urban form it takes (e.g. "mixed-use interchange"). • Noted. As already mentioned in response #65, Planning Department has numerous code amendments underway and planned to address increased residential densities, creating additional mixed-use areas and corridors to support multi-modal transportation and walkable communities Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 167 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response This table-and every discussion of density-needs to incorporate the measures of density if it is to be useful in the analysis of transit or active transportation modes. Density is the most important factor that increases utilization of transit, walking, and cycling (coequal with street network connectivity in importance). The number of dwelling units per acre is the common measure for residential density, while total acreage and floor- area ratio (FAR) provides the density measures for commercial and industrial development. Both measures should be provided for mixed residential/commercial zones. 196 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Chapter 3 begins by saying that "Densities will be increased under the preferred alternatives, which may significantly impact the character of the City, especially in the Broad moor area and the area to the north proposed for future UGA expansion. Some areas in existing single-family neighborhoods may have increased densities and infill developments in both action alternatives 2 and 3." First, it is unclear what is meant by "character'' in this context. Character encompasses a range of physical components of the built environment including building use and height, architectural style and materials, building setbacks and density, street width and layout, vegetation and landscape, topography, and other factors. The term "character'' is widely used in plans throughout the United States and beyond, but the term is also the subject of controversy and criticism precisely because a definition of "character" is highly subjective, almost always a matter of individual taste and preference, and rarely given a specific definition in planning • Noted, and may be revised. Character should be replaced with “built environment”. This paragraph describes that future development will occur in the proposed UGA and within the City’s existing neighborhoods with infill developments to increase densities. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 168 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response documents. In short, "character" is just a personal opinion; yet, the term "character" (referring to community aesthetic or environmental context) is used approximately six times in the EIS. Each use of the term "character" occurs in a different context and with a potentially distinct meaning. If a common definition of "character" does not exist, how can anyone determine when "character" has been significantly impacted or altered? Moreover, is changing the City's character necessarily an undesirable outcome? Second, neither the data presented nor the explanatory text support a finding that the City's character (whatever that may mean to an individual) may be "significantly" impacted by the plan alternatives 2 or 3. Density (3.Sdu/acre) in areas currently developed is not planned to change, except through infill development at comparable density of development; the development of permitted lots that are currently vacant in existing neighborhoods does not necessarily lead to a change in neighborhood character. Density in undeveloped areas (5.Sdu/acre) in future development areas-areas that are not currently developed-will not necessarily affect the character of existing neighborhoods that are located in other parts of the city. Even the text, as worded, acknowledges that there may be no impact to overall density in existing neighborhoods, except to the extent that infill development at currently allowable densities may take place. 197 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS/ Comp Plan Exhibit #N The EIS (p. 12) states that "Alternative 3 will have a variety of housing styles, including cluster and multi-family housing, and will impact less area in the • Clarification added as suggested • The City is in the process of various code amendments intended to increase the Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 169 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response unincorporated part of the County." We interpret this to mean, using simplified language, that "the plan provides for a variety of higher density housing options, requiring less expansion of the urban growth area (UGA)." A diverse mix of housing may be desirable to attract a more diverse population. Transit service thrives when there is a mix of higher density housing, ranging from small lot homes to accessory dwelling units, condominiums and apartments, and townhouses, especially where those housing types are integrated with retail and office as mixed-use developments. We encourage this approach to development, as long as the higher density development is located along major arterials where transit operates and as long as the City improves pedestrian access to development along these arterials. The data presented in Table 3 (and LU-2) and elsewhere in the text (including the lack of data and discussion) do not support this statement of finding in the EIS. Table 3 indicates that 79% of Pasco's residentially zoned land area will continue to be devoted to low density (single-family detached) housing. Medium density housing will occupy 17% of the residentially zoned land area, while medium-high and high-density housing will occupy a combined 4% of residentially zoned land area. The data in Table 3 reaffirms Pasco's commitment to predominantly large lot, single-family housing. The key takeaway from this is that it is possible that the City has an aspirational goal to achieve greater diversity in its housing stock, but it does not appear permitted/allowed housing types across every residential parcel and zoning designation. Code Amendments are being conducted as part of the House Bill 1923 Legislation to create and increase residential building capacities. As such, the City is continuing efforts with the Planning Commission to permit duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments, accessory dwelling units and utilizing lot size averaging to encourage housing diversity and construction flexibility • Table 3indicates existing land use in the City limits and current UGA. The proposed land uses are shown in Table 4 and Table 5 for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 170 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response the Comprehensive Plan as written will necessarily enable that to occur. 198 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 3.2, Table 7 states, "Housing meets the 20- year demand with a variety of housing types and residential densities." This statement is unsupported by the data presented in the plan. Even alternative (3) maintains large lot, single-family, low density housing (3.5-4.0 du/acre) as the dominant residential land use for nearly 80% of the future land area. "Medium density" housing (17% of residential land use) may still include single-family detached and attached housing on smaller lots (e.g. 6.0-10.0 du/acre). The dominance of residential land area devoted to single-family housing does not suggest or accommodate a "variety" of housing types and densities. • See response #197 above • See footnote #1 in Table 5, that the low density residential land includes 40 acres of parks, 160 acres of land for school facilities and additional public lands. 199 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 3.1.2 states, "The additional traffic generated by the increased housing densities, and commercial, and public facilities land uses could impact existing traffic patterns. Both action alternatives would result in a substantial increase in traffic volume ... " The use of "could" in the first sentence appears to be speculative and without basis in analysis. The subsequent use of "would" in the next sentence turns the speculation into a foregone conclusion. We can reasonably deduce that any growth scenario for Pasco will result in increased traffic, particularly given that the status quo and both alternatives largely maintain the current development approach that has resulted in increasing traffic levels. • Noted • See Section 4.10 Transportation, Transportation Element in Volume 2, and Appendix A, mapfolio maps T-1 to T-12 for detailed analysis. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 171 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response However, the Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Transportation Master Plan should not treat this outcome as a foregone conclusion; they should envision a strategy where growth can be accommodated in a way that minimizes transportation system impacts. 200 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 3.1.2 states, "the Broad moor area in both alternatives will retain more traffic internally due to the increase of mixed land uses." In stark contrast to the prior comment (in response to the apparent conclusion that traffic will increase), the plan proceeds to suggest that large-scale expansion of development at Road 100/Broadmoor will have little, or at least limited, impact on the regional transportation network. This statement is not supported by evidence, and it is a highly unlikely outcome. It is unclear how the City of Pasco or the developers of the Broadmoor area will force "more traffic" to remain internal to the area. Highly successful mixed-use developments naturally attract traffic from other parts of a region. Likewise, people who choose to live in a mixed-use development may not necessarily work within the mixed-use area; that is, they may still have to commute to a job in another part of the region even if many of their other activities take place within the mixed-use area. This paradigm can be different for transit-accessible development in regions with well- developed rapid transit systems, but the statement in the local context reflects an improbable outcome. • Noted and text should be amended. The rate of increased congestion in terms of VMT and VHT will be slowed down due to the increased land uses and densities along with associated new street pattern and connectivity requirements with the intent of fostering a more hospitable environment for multi-modal travel 201 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 3.1.4 states, "The City's zoning code currently allows mixed uses in certain zones with • See response #6 above regarding House Bill 1923 and ongoing Street Connectivity Code Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 172 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Mixed-Residential/Commercial land use. Both alternatives would promote mixed-use developments as future development is anticipated in the Broadmoor area." Although this section is presented in the context of health, a pedestrian-oriented city is also a precursor to making transit accessible to a city's residents. Mixed-use (residential/commercial) is apparently focused only in the Broadmoor area, an area that will likely be anchored by highway oriented commercial development, dominated by higher income single-family housing, and located within the barriers of 1-182, the Columbia River, and the northern urban growth area boundary. Therefore, the Broadmoor area-the only concentration of mixed-use development represented in the Plan- is unlikely to benefit from a quality, frequent transit service. Without effective transit, the traffic impacts resulting from higher density in the Broad moor area will be more significant than would occur in an area with a well- connected street network. In addition, the amount of land dedicated to mixed residential/commercial uses is minimal. That is, both the scale and location of mixed-use and higher density residential development is likely insufficient to have any meaningful impact on non-single-occupant vehicle mode share, thus contributing to mounting congestion over time from the get-go. Amendments; both will apply across all zoning and new developments in the city • City is also updating its Traffic Impact Analysis procedures and Traffic Mitigation Fee process to ensure appropriate improvements are included in any/all developments 202 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 3.2, Table 7 indicates that "Growth within the UGA, planned areas would reduce sprawl." While the planned action may encourage infill at Noted. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 173 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response prevailing residential densities and a slightly higher greenfield development density along the fringes, it is unclear that the proposed action would reduce sprawl. The term "sprawl" (and its variations) is used over 20 times in the EIS, but nowhere is it defined. Sprawl is generally understood to mean geographic expansion of a city with most development occurring through a single-use, low density development. 203 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 3.2, Table 7 states, "Adds new transportation improvements to improve connectivity and street design that supports urban environment. Adds multi-modal travel options." Although connectivity and multi-modal travel options are indicated as aspirational goals in the Comprehensive Plan, there is no plan or action that would modify land development and infrastructure design standards to achieve this goal. Policies under Comprehensive Plan Goal TR-2 are encouraging, but "policies to encourage" are not actionable against competing (road) design standards that are mandatory. • See comments response #6 above regarding House Bill 1923 and Street Connectivity Code Amendment; The City Construction and Design Standards would be updates in accordance with the Pasco Municipal Code updates 204 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 3.2, Table 7 indicates that, "A higher density development will involve less land, reduce vehicular traffic, and will reduce impact to air quality and ozone." This statement is not supported by any presented evidence. Higher density development, even high- rise developments, whether commercial or residential, located in areas without well-connected streets and a minimum level of transit will still generate high volumes of private vehicle traffic. Absent any other viable mobility options, high • Noted • The City intends to adopt a major revision to the PMC Title 21 that will require smaller block lengths, perimeters with requirements for pedestrian and non-motorized pathways to provide maximum route and travel choices for users Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 174 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response density developments will generate more traffic than lower density developments in a geographic area of comparable size. 205 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 4.4.1, Table 9 includes a footnote that says, "The total includes 4,300 acres of street right of way, which is about 17% of the total land area." A well-connected urban street grid (similar to downtown Pasco) that supports higher density development typically results in street infrastructure that covers 28% to 35% of total land area. Disconnected street networks in areas that are not characterized as walkable or transit accessible typically have a street right-of-way coverage of less than 20% of total land area. It is possible to minimize the footprint occupied by roads while maintaining a high level of access, but this approach requires a greater emphasis on pedestrian access than currently exists in most cities. Noted 206 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Page 32, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories, offers the first reference in the EIS to density thresholds. This is a critical element of defining how growth will occur in the Plan, and it seems appropriate to discuss key definitions, including density (along with "character" and "sprawl") early in the document. The plan defines residential and mixed-use density as follows: • Low Density Residential means 2 to 5 single- family dwelling units per acre (79% of residential land area). o As previously noted, this represents a significant portion of the City's residential land that remains devoted to very low-density sprawl. • Noted • The City plans to develop a coordinated approach to include Ben Franklin Transit, Benton-Franklin Council of Governments and the Washington State Departments of Transportation and Commerce in zoning amendments Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 175 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response • Medium Density Residential means 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre (17% of residential land area). o This is a wide range of density, coupled with a very permissive range of allowable housing types (defined elsewhere) that can easily be maintained as single-family housing. It is unclear how the City of Pasco seeks to shape urban form in such an overly broad land use category. • Medium-High Density Residential {2% of residential land area) o This category of residential land use is indicated in earlier data tables but not defined, in terms of dwelling units per acre, and not consistently referenced throughout the EIS. • High Density Residential means 21 units per acre or greater (2% of residential land area). • Mixed Residential/Commercial means 5 to 29 dwelling units per acre and Commercial development, which lacks a density measure. o Measuring mixed-use density with a residential density measure absent a commercial density measure (e.g. floor-to-area ratio, or FAR, which allows the Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 176 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response calculation of gross commercial floor area) results in an incomplete measure of density. The lack of density measures for commercial areas is a concern, from a transit perspective. • Commercial development densities are not defined. Commercial development densities should use FAR as the common density measure. As a general rule, for transit to be effective and efficient (productive, in terms of service) and to be useful and convenient as a mode of travel (frequent) for the general population, urban development needs to meet a minimum level of density and, where viable, be incorporated into mixed-use developments. 207 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N On frequent bus corridors (every 15 minutes or better), it is generally desirable to achieve a floor- area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 or greater for commercial development and greater than 10 dwelling units per acre in order to exceed a combined 15 residents, visitors, students, and employees per acre within one-quarter mile of the corridor. In urban centers (or "hubs"} and locations near transit centers (focal points with high levels of connecting transit service), and on corridors planned for bus rapid transit, it is generally desirable to achieve a mixed-use FAR of 2.0 or greater and at least 25 dwelling units per acre, or any combination of commercial and residential development, to exceed 40 residents, visitors, students, and • Noted • The Draft (proposed) future Land Use incorporates higher concentrations of residential and commercial densities and along planned future corridors with ongoing code amendments increasing housing density/flexibility within existing zoning districts. • Code Amendment 2019-013 Street Connectivity will require smaller block lengths, perimeters and pedestrian/non-motorized pathways Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 177 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response employees per acre within one-quarter mile of the corridor. Higher density should be focused within existing urban arterial corridors where transit service already exists. It should never be assumed that transit will be extended to new areas (the lack of street connectivity often precludes the extension of transit into new development areas). Major institutions, such as large schools (high schools and colleges), should be planned along transit arterials and not located in fringe areas or within neighborhoods that cannot be served effectively by transit. In contrast, smaller schools serving younger students (e.g. elementary schools) should be deliberately sized and located so that safe, walkable routes to school can be offered within a neighborhood; they should typically not be located along major arterials. In addition to increased development density, serious consideration should be given to the current levels of minimum parking required for development projects. Free parking discourages the use of transit by making it more convenient for people to drive and by making it uncomfortable or more difficult to walk (e.g. crossing a parking lot adds to the trip length and discomfort for pedestrians). Where transit is not viable, including areas with irregular or disconnected street patterns and low- density areas, higher density developments should not be allowed. Newly developing areas on the Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 178 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response urban fringe are not typically suitable for transit- oriented, high-density development. 208 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Access to Circulation Routes Page 32, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories, states that, "Higher density residential, mixed residential/commercial, and commercial land categories are required to be convenient to major circulation routes." What is a "circulation route?" Do "circulation routes" have any relationship to the functional classifications of the city's street network? What does "convenient" mean, and how is it measured? For example, Broadmoor Apartments and Silver Creek Apartments both have frontages on Chapel Hill Boulevard and are located along 1-182. It can be said that they are higher density developments that are "convenient to major circulation routes." However, they are not easily served by transit, and pedestrian access to any other land use from these higher density residential developments is almost non-existent. They may be convenient for some residents, but they are not likely convenient for people who want to walk, bike, or take public transit. • Noted • See comments response #207 regarding Code Amendment 2019-013 209 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Commute Trip Lengths Section 4.8.2 Impacts (Alternative 3) states that" ... the land use assumptions of Alternative 3 would potentially decrease the amount [sic] of trips and trip lengths resulting with less [sic] overall impacts to the transportation network than Alternative 2. Increased density in urban areas would most efficiently support new or extended bus routes in addition to more frequent service provided by transit facilities. Similarly, non-motorized transit • Noted • Results from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use / Traffic Forecast indicated decreased rates of increasing congestion that were mitigated by the added residential and commercial densities and locations throughout the proposed Urban Growth Area expansion • The City intends to adopt Code Amendment 2019-013 addressing Street Connectivity before the end of 2020 which would require Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 179 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response demand would also increase." The most important statement that BFT could make in response to this EIS is this: If increased density requires new or extended bus routes. then the locations proposed for increased density are generally not appropriate for transit-supportive development. At the levels of density proposed, and especially since all new higher density development is proposed in areas along the fringes, it is unclear that the Alternative 3 land use scenario could "potentially decrease" the number of trips and trip lengths or have fewer overall transportation network impacts; this statement is speculative and probably unreasonably optimistic. This is particularly true for the Broadmoor area which will be isolated between the Columbia River, 1-182, and the UGA and only accessible to the region along Road 100. For that reason, it is unclear whether the Broad moor area could ever support a convenient level of cost-effective transit service within or to the development. any/all new developments to conform to a more conducive land development pattern suited for multi-modal transportation 210 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS/ Comp Plan Vol 1 Exhibit #N Pages 47-48, Section 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures LU-1-A Policy: Maintain and apply current design standards for major public investments, particularly streets. TRl-J Policy: Encourage developments to meet the mission of the Pasco Complete Street Policy Unless the current street design standard is a complete street standard, these two policies • Noted • Policy TRI-J will be revised to state ”require” Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 180 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response contradict one another. The policy that "encourages" an action is unenforceable; thus, the current street standard will apply and continue to foster developments that can only be accessed by car. Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Page 48, Section 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures LU-4-A Policy: Reduce the dependency of vehicle travel and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods. It is unclear what a "compatible land use in and around residential neighborhood" means in the context of reducing vehicle travel and encouraging multi-modal options. • Noted • Land use compatibility is already discussed in Volume 2 of the Comp Plan. Final EIS will add clarification on land uses compatibility suitable for mitigation measures 211 Ben Franklin Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS/ Comp PLAN Volume 1 Exhibit #N Page 48, Section 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures TR-4-A Policy: Incorporate design and streetscape into all major arterial and collector streets as they are constructed. All streets are designed before they are constructed, and all streets have streetscapes (good or bad, as the term merely references the appearance of a street and its surroundings). What did the author intend for this statement to mean? • Noted • Modify policy in the Comp Pan Vol 1 and reference to DEIS to state: Incorporate design and streetscape into all major arterial and collector streets. 212 Misek, Lauren 07/27/2020 UGA Exhibit #P Interested in more neighborhood parks, playground constructions should be required as basic standards in developments Zoning and incentives for developing multiuse spaces, instead of sprawling strip malls, encourages density with forward thought into traffic/public transport needs • The City currently requires a Park Impact Fee for each dwelling unit constructed • An updated Parks & Forestry Plan will begin after the completion of the Comprehensive Plan • The City is currently revising various sections of the Pasco Municipal Zoning and Subdivision Code including Development Standards to Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 181 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response incorporate/require more considerations for non-motorized users/uses and creation of walkable neighborhoods 213 Bachard, Tony 07/27/2020 UGA Exhibit #Q I applaud the city's attempt to get ahead of the population growth. I have lived in city limits, lived in the "doughnut hole" and gone through annexation. The problem with the development of urban growth areas is the Franklin County Planning Commission does not adhere to any planning requirements. I have personally gone to several meetings and the commission sides with the developers every single time. Roads are not improved. During the development of Archer Estates and Spencer Estates along Bums and Kohler Road, the planning reports stated the roads are too narrow and not up to the standards the current amount of traffic requires. Even knowing this, the developers were not required to improve the roads. Despite having gang mailboxes on main arterial roads, no sidewalks were put in. Fences and brick walls were put up as development boundaries and no maintenance is provided, leaving a garbage and weed strewn road. Current county restrictions about access to arterial roads and house fronting them are also ignored in favor of maximizing developer's profits. All of these issues become a problem down the road when the urban growth area is eventually annexed into the city. At the very least it puts undue burden on homeowners. If these infrastructure problems are to be fixed, the homeowners have to fund a lid Noted Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 182 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response out of their own pockets despite having paid taxes already. When putting in these new urban growth areas I urge you to go after the county and require them to adhere to the minimum level of city developments to avoid the problems the county keeps handing you. 214 Williams, Raymond 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #O I have reviewed the subject EIS and my concerns are with basically dealing with growth in general, no mater which plan is followed. My concerns mainly with overall environmental issues impacting the planet and quality of life in general. • Noted • The Draft EIS and FEIS will identify mitigation measures addressing environmental concerns 215 Williams, Raymond 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #O Traffic (Section 4-9) Road 100 -Access to 1-182 Harris Rd to Sandifur road matchup. Harris needs to be extended to match up with Sandifur and share the signal that controlled access. Traffic from Harris Rd, wanting to continue east on Sandifur, is locked up when trying to turn left onto Broadmoor. At times, this can be a long wait. Road 36 and 44 Traffic Access to 1-182 This area needs access to 1-182 to allow for traffic to enter directly the west bound lane. This would mitigate morning traffic headed to Richland and West Kennewick. An off ramp for eastbound traffic on 1- 182 to exit onto Argent, before the Argent underpass, would aid returning afternoon traffic. This addition will off load the Road 68 exchange. North Pasco to North Richland Bridge This bridge would funnel traffic to the City of • The City has plans to re-align Harris Road to connect with Sandifur Parkway at Broadmoor Blvd • The City has preliminary funding through the Transportation Improvement Plan to conduct a I-182 Corridor Study identifying potential solutions for connectivity and congestion • The North Pasco to North Richland Bridge is identified in the 2018 Long-Range Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. No Funding is secured. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 183 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Richland and the Hanford area. Richland is presently working with expanding their Northern area to provide spinoff growth relative to PNNL and Hanford related technology industries. 216 Williams, Raymond 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #O Utilities (Section 4.10) Electric Power Homes in the low density areas larger than 3500 square feet should be required to have solar power systems. We live in an are where air condition is a driver to high electrical loads. It only makes sense that a home selling for $500-?00k, should have a $40k power system. Homes in the high and low density areas should have solar powered attic ventilation to reduce summer air conditioning loads. I have a solar powered fan in my attic and I have a one-story 2300 square feet home. My electric yearly electrical bill is divided by 12 and I have been paying $75 per month or less Noted 217 Williams, Raymond 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #O Water Landscaping should be controlled to have minimum irrigation demand. Desert rockery and native steppe vegetation should be required, not large lawns. This would reduce the impact to City Water and Franklin Irrigation systems. I see irrigation water running down the gutter from homes north of me on my street every day. We waste a lot of water. We need to acknowledge that we live in a desert. Noted 218 Department of Natural Resources 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #P The amendments, as proposed by the City, modify all of DNR's land use designations from Industrial to DNR Reserve Area. DNR is requesting that the land use designation of Industrial remain on all of its parcels in order to allow us to continue to prudently manage these parcels for the benefit of our trust The City kept the DNR Reserve Lands designation for these lands but is reaching out to DNR to evaluate future options with them. The City also added a definition to the Land Use Classification based on the State DNR’s Transition Lands Policy Plan describing the criteria used to define both Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 184 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response beneficiaries as explained in further detail below. Urban and DNR Reserve Lands within the Urban Growth Area 219 Department of Natural Resources 07/28/2020 DEIS/ Comp Plan Exhibit #P DNR Reserve area is not defined. We have reviewed the documents provided within the Draft EIS as well as the documents listed on the City's comprehensive plan page including Volumes I and 2 of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Capacity Analysis,. There is no definition of what DNR Reserve Area means other than to state that it is DNR land. This clearly doesn't articulate any meaning related to long-term planning within the comprehensive plan. • Noted • Specific language identifying lands will be added to documents 220 Department of Natural Resources 07/28/2020 DEIS/ Comp Plan Exhibit #P DNR Reserve area is an ambiguous designation. The only information provided to us regarding the justification for this new land use designation was an excerpt from a Planning Commission meeting in 2018 in which city staff presented information to the Planning Commission speculating on existing and future use of DNR's land. That excerpt is on Attachment B. The information provided in that statement is inconsistent with how DNR manages its lands and how we specifically manage these transition parcels. We cannot find anywhere in the supporting documents listed on the City's comprehensive plan web page, where the City justifies the land use designation change. The Land Capacity Analysis does not identify DNR land nor does it discuss the reason for its exclusion in the industrial land portion of the analysis. The Land Capacity Analysis does include a reference to RCW 36.70a.10(2) that states cities have discretion • City is open to suggested designation form DNR that suites the DNR ownership and use Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 185 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response to determine market factor (defined by Commerce as a "deduction from net developable area to account for lands assumed not to be developable in the planning period") based on local circumstances. If an assumption was made by city staff regarding DNR's future use of its properties then we would like to be provided with the documents that support that assumption. 221 Department of Natural Resources 07/28/2020 DEIS/ Comp Plan Exhibit #P DNR ownership is the only industrial property impacted. The City has removed only DNR land from its industrial land use classification. Purportedly, the reasoning is due to its current agricultural use or non-industrial use. If this is true, the same change should apply to all other industrial land owners in this area that are not currently developing their land industrially. However, it does not appear that any other non - industrially developed state, federal, or private properties with current industrial land use designations have any proposed new land use designations. The GMA lists the protection of property rights as a goal in the development of plans and regulations. Government entities are required to consider the impact of their actions upon property rights and must refrain from arbitrary and discriminatory actions-- RCW 36.70A.020(6). The failure to do so constitutes noncompliance with the requirements of the GMA-AGO 1992 No. 23, at 7. Although this property is not privately owned, it is trust property, which must be administered by the • The Final EIS and Final Comprehensive Plan (when approved/adopted) will include additional revisions to existing lands designated with the Industrial Land Use affecting the Port of Pasco, the Tri-Cities Airport and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 186 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Department, as would a private trust-solely for the benefit of the trust, not the public in general. County of Skamania v. State, 102 Wn.2d 127,133,685 P.2d 576 (1984). The fact that only DNR land is singled out for a proposed land use designation change is contrary to the intent of the GMA. 222 Department of Natural Resources 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #P Comprehensive Plan Elements. An amendment modifying the land use designation from industrial to DNR Reserve Area is inconsistent with the existing and proposed policies of the comprehensive plan. The inclusion of DNR's property within city limits and the UGA shows that the City recognizes the relevance of DNR's land to the city's historical and current growth patterns. Nothing has changed with DNR's property other than the City needing to justify its UGA expansion. Goal LU-2-A under the Land Use Element chapter requires that the City maintain an adequate amount of industrial land (among other land uses) proximate to appropriate transportation and utility infrastructure. Removing DNR land from the industrial land use designation in order to add additional industrial land currently outside of city limits skirts the intent of this goal. ED-2-C Policy within the Economic Development Element chapter provides direction to continue the pursuit and preservation of industrial sites for development that may be serviced by existing utilities. This policy continues to remain true for the DNR properties as most, if not all, of the properties have access to existing or planned utility infrastructure. In addition, as the City has previously determined in the land use designation process, the DNR properties are • The City proposed Urban Growth Area Expansion does not include any lands owned/operated by the Department of Natural Resources • All DNR Lands are within the existing City Limits and Urban Growth Area Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 187 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response located directly adjacent to developed industrial land along Highway 12 and Highway 395. Clustering planned or future industrial development within close proximity to other industrial developments is good planning policy. 223 Department of Natural Resources 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #P Land Use Appeals. Although the underlying zoning of Light Industrial would remain in place and would continue to allow permitted industrial uses on DNR's properties, the concern DNR has with the proposed land use designation change relates to discretionary reviews and capital facility projects both of which would require the reviewing party to turn to the comprehensive plan to ensure the proposal would meet the goals and policies. The DNR Reserve Area designation is not defined so discretionary review would then turn to the public record to find the intent of the land use designation. In addition, most jurisdictions and funding agencies require documentation that any major capital facilities projects comply with the capital facilities plan, but also with the intent of the comprehensive plan. It seems that the intent by the City is to remove DNR land from the industrial land base and identify it as land that will not be developed. If that is the case (it is unclear as DNR Reserve Area is not defined), then the land use designation and zoning conflict with one another and one could argue that any development on the DNR properties is not consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan. • Language clarifying the intent/purpose of the Department of Natural Resource Lands will be incorporated into relevant documents (EIS/Comprehensive Plan) • Including the industrial zoning (I-1) within the Department of natural Resources permitted zoning would comply with the DNR Land Use 224 Marvin, Marla 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #Q I have read the DEIS and am surprised at so few alternatives. Given this limited choice, I definitely agree that #3 is the preferred. But I request further consideration of expansion of the UGB boundary to • Noted; The Urban Growth alternatives were derived from the Scoped EIS issued in the Fall of 2018 which proposed three alternatives • Expansion east of HWY 395 for residential Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 188 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response the east and shrinking it to a straight line along Clark Road as its northern boundary. I was surprised to see no justification or explanation of why specific roads were chosen, so please add an explanation whether you take my suggestion or not growth is limited due to the existing industrial and heavy commercial uses. • Roads identified in the DEIS are prioritized based on projected and growth and assumed land uses. 225 Marvin, Marla 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #Q My chief concern is traffic congestion, primarily in I- 182 interchanges. WSDOT shares my concern, based on its comments. WDOT comments note Pasco cannot assume improvements in state transportation infrastructure without working with and receiving commitments from WDOT, which apparently we do not have. Please seek and secure commitments from WDOT for improvements on Rd 68 and Rd 100 interchanges before approving this planned expansion north of the city, which feeds directly onto these two interchanges. Please take all care that Road 100/Broadmoor not become the abomination that is Road 68. (Never again should there be mid -block access to high-volume retailers [like Walmart] as was done on Rd. 68.) • Noted • The City is coordinating with the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Ben Franklin Transit and others for the upcoming Transportation System Master Plan. The TSMP will provide refined projections for travel/congestion along with identifying future needs and solutions with applicable funding sources. • Ongoing Code Amendment (CA2019-013) will emphasize street connectivity and access management 226 Marvin, Marla 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #Q I was happy to see a green hatchmarked area along the Columbia River (Figure 4-5 map) on #2 and #3 suggesting a proposed new park. Please confirm that Pasco has purchased this area and will in fact provide public access to this beautiful river. Hopefully, it will be a mix of native plants/wild/restored areas preferred by non-human species, as well as manicured grasses preferred by many humans. • Noted • These lands are currently owned and operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers are also identified in preliminary Broadmoor Master Planning efforts for natural/recreational use such as parks and open space. 227 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R Failure to adequately analyze and discuss traffic and transportation impacts that will result from the City proposed Action Alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative • Transportation Impacts are identified on Page 44 Section 4.9 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 189 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 228 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R Failure to consider and include analysis of reasonable alternative geographic areas for the expansion of Urban Growth Boundaries around the city. • The Scoped EIS included alternatives to be considered was issued in Fall 2018 • Alternative #3 was conducted with the use of a Land Capacity Analysis that identified vacant and underutilized lands that significantly reduced the expansion of the UGA by 30% • Further redevelopment of lands within the city along corridors will be evaluated during updates to the Pasco Municipal Codes Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 229 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R Failure to include an analysis of an Alternative providing for a substantially smaller northward expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary in the area northwest of Pasco . • Alternative #3 was conducted with the use of a Land Capacity Analysis that identified vacant and underutilized lands that significantly reduced the expansion of the UGA by 30% • Increased Land Use densities and added Commercial Land Use permitted the reduction of Alternative #3’s UGA boundary 230 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R Failure to include an Alternative providing for redevelopment of lands already within city limits under zoning rules providing for enhanced density. • Alternative #3 was conducted with the use of a Land Capacity Analysis that identified vacant and underutilized lands that significantly reduced the expansion of the UGA by 30% • Further redevelopment of lands within the city along corridors will be evaluated during updates to the Pasco Municipal Codes Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 231 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R An alternative calling for reduced area of expansion in Northwest Pasco combined with expansion of the boundary in Northeast Pasco, or with redevelopment of lands within existing city limits. • The Scoped EIS included alternatives to be considered was issued in Fall 2018 • Alternative #3 was conducted with the use of a Land Capacity Analysis that identified vacant and underutilized lands that significantly reduced the expansion of the UGA by 30% • Expansion east of HWY 395 for residential growth is limited due to the existing industrial and heavy commercial uses. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 190 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response • Further redevelopment of lands within the city along corridors will be evaluated during updates to the Pasco Municipal Codes Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 232 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R Failure to adequately analyze and include planning and discussion of parkland needs under any of the alternatives, especially the need for an urban multi- purpose riverfront park available to residents of northwest Pasco in the future. • SEPA requires evaluation of alternatives related to environmental effects. However the EIS does address recreation and parks through: 1) identifying existing park and open space lands and how each alternatives would modify or increase additional park and open space area (see Sections 3.2 and 4.1.1 and others and; 2) affected environment descriptions and mitigation measures (see Sections 4.4.3, 4.7 and 4.9) 233 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S We note and support LU-8 on page 15 in the Land Use Element. Noted 234 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S In particular we note and support policy LU-8-C; Pasco has adopted a comprehensive and proactive Historic Preservation Plan (HPP). Although in need of updating, the HPP provides the Pasco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), City agencies, and Pasco citizens with sound guidance for leveraging historic preservation programs to achieve planning goals and implement other policies in land use, housing, economic development, and capital facilities planning. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the HPP be linked with text to other pertinent Land Use goals (such as LU-1 and LU-3) as well as the other planning goals and strategies, such as Economic Development, Housing (such as H-2), and Capital • Noted • Update as suggested Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 191 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response Facilities. Moreover, consider including the HPP as another element of the plan with cross references to other goals and strategies. Alternatively, include the HPP in the appendices. We strongly support the stated effort to monitor plus regularly report on how the HPP is being implemented. 235 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S In regard to ED-4, we recommend adding language to expand linkage to historic preservation. Suggested language might read something like the following: ED-5-D Policy: Continue following the Main Street Approach® in revitalization work in Downtown Pasco. • Noted • Update as suggested 236 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S In regard to IM-4 Goal, we note and support IM-4-C Policy. We strongly suggest including the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in this policy as municipal ordinances and regulations that pertain to ground-disturbing projects and new construction have potential to affect archaeological resources and historic buildings and structures. See additional comments below regarding the DEIS. • Noted • Update as suggested 237 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S 4.11 Heritage Conservation The DEIS needs additional narrative to establish the cultural sensitivity of the city and its Urban Growth Area (UGA). DAHP’s Statewide Predictive Model categorizes the city and it’s UGA as “high to very high risk” for encountering cultural resources. Discussion of this point is important to provide information upfront and early to property owners, • Noted • Add information/narrative regarding DAHP’s Statewide Predictive Model results and relevant guidance into EIS Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 192 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response developers, and consultants engaged in the development process. All participants are benefitted by including predictability in the design, development, and construction process; furthermore, it will help to avoid costly delays when undiscovered resources are inadvertently damaged or destroyed. This additional narrative is important given Pasco’s rapid development and growth rate plus high potential for the presence of archaeological resources in the region 238 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S DAHP appreciates that the City consistently provides project documentation to the agency for review and comment. However, concern is raised by what appears to be frequent absence of consideration, let alone implementation, of our comments and recommendations. An example would be when DAHP replies to a Notice of Application with a request for a survey to be conducted prior to construction taking place: To the best of our knowledge, the City rarely makes conducting a s ite survey a condition of a construction permit. We understand that the lead agency makes the final determination under SEPA. Nevertheless, DAHP recommends establishing a dialogue with the City to share our overall concerns and to better understand how the City’s development regulations and ordinances are interpreted and applied to cultural and historic properties. In addition, we would like to discuss how the Comprehensive Plan can be used as a way to achieve greater protection for heritage resources in the city and UGA (see comment 4 above). • Noted • Additional staff work will be necessary to implement suggestions (thresholds) • Additional guidance/examples from DAHP jurisdictions • Add information to the Implementation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 193 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response 239 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S We do not see any discussion of thresholds and/or requirements for cultural resource surveys. In what situations will surveys be required by the City, both for archaeological and built environment resources that are over 50 years in age? Plus, will mitigation be provided if a project threatens to damage, alter, or destroy significant archaeological sites and/or historic buildings/structures? This would be a good place to refer to potential preservation benefits mentioned in the HPP as well as the tax incentives that the City makes available to property owners as specified in Section 20 of the Pasco Municipal Code. • Noted • Refer to HPP • Additional staff work will be necessary to implement suggestions • Add information to the Implementation Element of the Comprehensive Plan 240 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S On Page 56, it is inaccurately stated that the Tri- Cities Archaeological District “runs along the Columbia River bank and does not extend inland.” According to DAHP’s WISAARD database maps, while the District boundary does closely follow the Columbia River shoreline, it generally extends upland by a few hundred feet on both sides of the river. Therefore, we recommend revising the statement to read as follows: “Eight of these sites fall with the National Register…, which runs along the Columbia River bank including adjoining uplands.” This comment also applies to the Lower Snake River Archaeological District, which extends into the city’s Urban Growth Area (UGA). If the City does not have a data-sharing agreement with DAHP, we recommend exploring signing the agreement that • Noted • Update as suggested Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 194 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response would provide a designated City staff person with access to sensitive cultural resource site information. For more information about the data sharing agreement, please contact Morgan McLemore at Morgan.mclemore@dahp.wa.gov. 241 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S On page 54 under the heading “Pasco Cultural History” we recommend including some narrative about the impact of the construction and operation of the nearby Hanford Site on Pasco’s history and growth. A few sentences or paragraph should do well to summarize the major impact that Hanford has had on Pasco since the 1940s, including built environment resources constructed as a result. • Noted • References to Hanford and the Department of Energy are identified on Page 38 (4.7.1 Affected Environment), 4.8.1 in the Final EIS 242 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S Two previous cultural resources reviews are mentioned on Pages 55-56 under “Previously conducted cultural resources review:” one for the Pasco Tri-Cities Airport and the other for the Broadmoor area. While it is interesting to note information about these two locations, there have been many more cultural resource reviews undertaken in Pasco and its vicinity. We recommend prefacing this section by making it clear that “the following are only two of many examples of cultural resource reviews undertaken in Pasco and Tri-Cities area.” Otherwise, it gives the impression to readers that no other such reviews have been undertaken, when they are, in-fact, routine occurrences. • Noted • Update as suggested 243 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S On Page 56, historic farming activities are described as having caused a great deal of ground disturbance within the Broadmoor Area (and, presumably elsewhere). DAHP frequently cautions against this line of reasoning. Farming activities are not as destructive to buried cultural resources as often • Noted • Refine or remove statement Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 195 # Commenter Date Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response assumed; the potential for intact cultural resources on agricultural land (previous and current) remains high. 244 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S This section also mentions, the Franklin County Courthouse (Building #78002740, 1016 N. 4th St., Pasco) and the Pasco Carnegie Library (Building #82004212, 305 N. 4th St., Pasco) as listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Please note that the James Moore House (Resource ID: 674795) is also on the NRHP. We also recommend mentioning that there are many other buildings and structures that are 50 years of age and older and that have been or should be inventoried and could be evaluated for NRHP eligibility. • Noted • Update as suggested • Refer to Pasco’s Historic Preservation Plan (inventory) 245 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S This discussion on pages 55-56 would be a good place to refer to the Historic Preservation Plan and its recommendations for inventory and designation of historic buildings, structures, sites, districts, objects, and landscapes in the city. • Noted • Add reference to existing Historic Preservation Plan 246 WA Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S Finally, please note that in order to streamline our responses, DAHP requires that Resource documentation (HPI, Archaeology sites, TCP) and reports be submitted electronically. Correspondence must be emailed in PDF format to sepa@dahp.wa.gov. For more information about how to submit documents to DAHP please visit: https://dahp.wa.gov/project-review. To assist you in conducting a cultural resource survey and inventory effort, DAHP has developed Guidelines for Cultural Resources Reporting. You can view or download a copy from our website. Noted Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 196 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 197 References Ames, K.M., D.E. Dumond, J. Galm, and R. Minor, 1998. Prehistory of the Southern Plateau. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau, edited by D. E. Walker, pp. 103- 119. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Anchor QEA, 2020. Email communication from Barbara Bundy dated February 20, 2020 regarding cultural and historic resources in the proposed UGA boundaries. Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2013. City of Pasco Draft Shoreline Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization Report. Pasco Shoreline Master Program Update. Prepared for the City of Pasco. June 2013. Anchor QEA, 2014. City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program Update. Prepared for the City of Pasco. February 2014. Franklin County, 2019. County-wide Planning Policies. Resolution dated October 22, 2019. Benton-Franklin County of Governments, 2016. 2016-2021 Transportation Improvement Program. Prepared for the Tri-Cities MPO and Benton-Franklin RTPO. Booth, D.B., D. Hartley, and R. Jackson, 2002. Forest Cover, Impervious Surface Area, and the Mitigation of Stormwater Impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:835-845. Boyd, R. and Y. Hajda, 1987. Seasonal population movement along the lower Columbia River: the social and ecological context. American Ethnologist 14(2):309-26. Brum and Associates, 20143. City of Pasco Historic Preservation Work Plan 2014- 2019. Chatters, J.C. and D.L. Pokotylo, 1998. Prehistory: Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau, edited by D. E. Walker, pp. 73-80. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. City of Pasco, 2015. City Ordinance 4221 establishing RS-20 Zoning designation, June 2015. City of Pasco, 2016. City of Pasco Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan, 2016. City of Pasco, 20182019. 2015 Comprehensive Water System Plan, as revised. Prepared by Murray Smith & Associates. Revised January 2019. City of Pasco, 20198. Comprehensive Sewer System Plan. Prepared by Murray Smith & Associates. Revised January 2019. City of Pasco, 2020 - 2025 Capital Improvement Plan. Prepared by Sandland, Buckley, Pashon, Robins, Serra, Andaya. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 198 City of Pasco, City of Pasco Zoning GIS Map. December 2019. City of Pasco, 2020a. Urban Growth Area Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis (May 21,2020) and its appendix, Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation by Murray Smith and Associates (November 18, 2019) City of Pasco, 2020b. City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan for 2018 – 2038, Volume I, Goals and Policies, dated May 2020. Cooper, Jason B., 2003. Cultural Resources Study of the Proposed Hanford Reach National Monument Heritage & Visitors' Center. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Dickson, Catherine, 2011. Inventory of Unsurveyed Lands within the McNary Project Area, Umatilla County, Oregon, Benton, Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties, Washington. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2004. Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington. Publication Number 04-10-076. September 2004. Ecology, 2019. WRIA 36: Esquatzel Coulee Ecology Links. Accessed: November 21, 2019. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eap/riverwq/stationlistbywria.asp?wria=36 Ecology, 2016. Washington State Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) List Search Tool. Updated: July 22, 2016. Cited: March 25, 2017. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/approvedwqa/ApprovedSearch.aspx. Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. EJScreen Report (Version 2019) for the City of Pasco and UGA areas accessed July 23, 2020. Franklin County, 2008. Franklin County Growth Management Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 27, 2008. Franklin County, 2019. County-wide Planning Policies. Resolution dated October 22, 2019. Friedrichsen, G., 1998. Eel River water quality monitoring project. Final report. Submitted to State Water Quality Control Board, for 205(J) Contract #5-029-250-2. Humboldt County Resources Conservation District. Eureka, CA. 76 pp. Gerber, Michelle Stenehjem. 1992. On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site. University of Nebraska Press, Omaha. Gilpin, Jennifer, 2008. Archaeological Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Hanford Reach Interpretive Center Project Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 199 Grolier, M.J. and J.W. Bingham, 1978. Bulletin No. 71: Geology of Parts of Grant, Adams, and Franklin Counties, East-Central Washington. Washington State Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Hansen and Darby, 2018. Heather Hansen, MA and Darby Stapp, PhD. A Literature Review of the 1,600–2,000 Acre Area in the Northwest Portion of Pasco for the Broadmoor Area Non- Project Environmental Impact Statement. Hunn, E.S., 1981. On the relative contribution of men and women to subsistence among hunter- gatherers of the Columbia Plateau: A comparison with Ethnographic Atlas summaries. Journal of Ethnobiology 1(1):124-134. Kerschner, J., 2008. Pasco – a thumbnail history. HistoryLink.org essay 8450. Accessed November 2012. Available from: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8450. KNDU, 2012. Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam near Flood Stage. Available from: http://www.kndu.com/story/18894666/columbia-river-below-priest-rapids-dam-near- flood-stage. Landreau, Christopher and Joel Geffen, 2009. An Archaeological Review and Inventory of the Barker Ranch Canal Project Benton County, Washington Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Link, S.O., W.H. Mast, and R.W. Hill, 2006. Shrub-steppe. Restoring the Pacific Northwest, D. Apostol and M. Sinclair, editors, pp. 216-240. Island Press, Washington D.C. May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Marr, and E.B. Welch, 1997. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4):483-494. Nisbet, J., 2005. The Mapmakers Eye: David Thompson on the Columbia Plateau. Washington State University Press, Pullman, WA. OFM (Washington State Office of Financial Management), 2018. Population Forecast for Franklin County and Cities and Towns. Oneza & Associates, 2019. Oneza & Associates, 2020. City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2 - Supporting Analysis., May 201208. Prendergast, Ellen, 2002. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Wanawish Horn Rapids Fishing Camp. Form on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Sanger, S.L., 1995. Working on the Bomb: An Oral History of World War II. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 200 Schuster, H.H., 1998. Yakima and neighboring groups. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau, edited by D. E. Walker, pp. 327-351. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Sharley, Ann, 2007. Cultural Resources Survey for the Washington State Department of Transportation's SR 240, Beloit Road to Kingsgate Way Project, Benton County, Washington. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Stinson, D.W., and M.A. Schroeder, 2012. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Columbian Sharptailed Grouse. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. USBR, 2008. Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study Final Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement. December 19, 2008. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2012. Green Communities: Land Use Impacts on Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/toolwq.htm. Last Updated: February 6, 2012. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2011. Hydrogeologic framework and hydrologic budget components of the Columbia Plateau Regional Aquifer System, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5124. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2008. The Final Hanford Reach National Monument Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. September 24, 2008. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/hanfordreach/management.html. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2011. News Release, Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuges Celebrate International Migratory Bird Day. May 5, 2011. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=mid-columbia-river-national-wildlife- refuges-celebrate-international-migrat&_ID=1479. USFWS, 2012. Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. February 10, 2012. USFWS, 2017. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory – v2. Updated: March 14, 2017. Cited: April 2, 2017. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Vibert, E., 1997. Trader’s Tales: Narratives of Cultural Encounters in the Columbia Plateau, 1807- 1846. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Walker, D.E., 1998. Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau, edited by D. E. Walker, pp. 1-7. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), 2020. Comment letter to City of Pasco dated July 31, 2020 Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 201 WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. August 2008. Washington State University, 2017. The Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS), Final Report, December 12, 2017. Prepared by Laboratory for Atmospheric Research, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering. Weibull, A., Ö. Östman, and Å. Granqvist, 2003. Species richness in agroecosystems: The effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity and Conservation 12(7):1335-1355. Western Heritage, Inc., 1983 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Tri-Cities Archaeological District. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA. Wilma, D., 2003. Stevens, Isaac Ingalls. HistoryLink.org Essay 5314. Available at: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=5314. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 202 Appendix A – Scoping Comments Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 203 City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update – EIS Scoping Comment Response Matrix Comment No. Commenter Comment Response EIS Alternatives 1 Futurewise We support the City of Pasco Determination of Significance and the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to consider the impacts of the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area expansion on the built and natural environment. We support Alternative 3 in the City of Pasco Scoping Notice: “Compact Growth Target: This alternative would allow for changes in the Plan to accommodate the twenty-year population growth projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and to capitalize on other development opportunities. In addition, alternative 3 will consider a growth pattern of higher density. It includes considering land use and policy changes to gain an increase in development capacity within the undeveloped and infill areas of the City. Under this alternative, the Urban Growth Area would be modified to the north of the City at a higher density/smaller area compared to Alternative 2 to accommodate future growth. It will consider land use and policy changes in order to maintain consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, and to accommodate growth.” Comment noted and Alternative 3 includes an evaluation of higher density growth. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 204 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response We believe the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will show that this alternative will accommodate projected population growth and result in the least adverse impacts on the built and natural environment. 2 Will Simpson, WA State Dept. of Commerce The City of Pasco is growing at a relatively high rate compared to other municipalities in Washington. The alternatives the City considers as it updates its Comprehensive Plan will have significant environmental and fiscal impacts for Pasco and the larger metropolitan area in the immediate future and beyond the twenty-year planning horizon. We support the City's decision to complete an EIS based on State growth forecasts for Franklin County and the City's allocated growth target from the County. The City's EIS will include detailed analysis about the impacts associated with new growth and potential UGA expansion areas to support that growth. Many of the environmental considerations addressed in an EIS will support Pasco's planning requirements under the GMA. The City may have other GMA requirements, such as those related to specific financing provisions, which may not be included in the EIS but that we recommend you consider as you review the alternatives and update your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. We have structured our comments to address the EIS scope, and to offer general observations Comments are noted and to be addressed in the EIS Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 205 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response regarding the GMA periodic update and statutory requirements. Based on the descriptions in the seeping notice, we believe that the "Compact Growth Target" alternative best meets the goals of the GMA and will allow the City to maximize the investments made in public infrastructure and the provision of public services. 3 Robert Carosino The range of alternatives is clearly inadequate as there clearly are other reasonable alternatives which merit full and complete analysis in this DEIS. The City of Pasco is already on notice from the State Dept. of Transportation and other commenters, the expansion within the current city limits that is already foreseeable will lead to traffic in excess of interchange capacities at Roads 68 and Road 100 interchanges. Unfortunately, there is simply no way to adequately mitigate the horrendous traffic jams and unsafe traffic conditions which would be created by the proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary in the area North of the existing City Limits in West Pasco as currently proposed by the Pasco alternatives. The Freeway I-182 access points simply cannot handle the proposed 55,000 additional residents which would be added to that area by development of this area under the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan updates and UGM boundary expansions in the area to the North of the West Pasco city limits. Nor would the main city and county feeder routes to these over-congested interchanges be able to be adequately expanded to handle the additional traffic. This factor alone Industrial lands are designated on the eastern side of the City and also in the County, and future industrial growth is also projected to occur in this area. Existing vacant and underutilized lands within the City limits will be considered in Alternative 3. The City believes the three alternatives to be evaluated provide a range of appropriate future growth choices for consideration. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 206 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response mandates that an adequate EIS will need to consider other alternatives that do not provide for expansion of the UGA in the area to the North of the West Pasco city limits. Three additional alternative actions (a, b and c below), that would provide appropriate and reasonable alternatives, are the following, and must be fully analyzed in any DEIS meeting the requirements of SEPA: a) Analyze in full detail an alternative providing for expansion of the city in a different area from west Pasco. This alternative would provide for expansion of the UGA and the city, to allow residential development in the area to the EAST of the current city limits. This area is less valuable farmland, it has potential to for access to main highways (Highway 395 to the West, and highway 14 running east to west, that are more amenable to access by thousands of more people, and therefore would not create as excessive an adverse traffic impact on the interchanges in West Pasco. It would also avoid the unreasonable intermixing of high - density growth with low density growth which the city's proposed expansion of the UGA in the area north of west Pasco would create. Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 207 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response The area to the East of the city of Pasco has substantial undeveloped land that could be easily used for residential development if the city provided utilities, (just as the city would need to provide utilities to the area North of west Pasco under its proposed alternatives). The East Pasco alternative would have much better access to transportation corridors and the transportation corridors in that area can be more easily the residential expanded if required, as the land around the major roads are primarily farmland and level ground. Expansion of development in that area east of Pasco would also provide housing that is more closely located to the employment hubs of the city of Pasco, thus reducing that transportation impacts that would be created by any additional residential population in the west Pasco area of the city, thereby also mitigating impacts on transportation corridors. b) The second full new alternative that should be considered in the DEIS is a change in the city comprehensive plan to allow re-development of the lands within the existing city limits of Pasco to allow for high density residential development within the existing city limits. Many areas within the central core of the city of Pasco are in need of redevelopment due to age and condition, and a greater population could be easily accommodated by redevelopment with increased density in the existing city limits of Pasco, particularly in the area of the city to the south of Road 68 and West of I-182 , to the Columbia River on the south, comprising the old central core of Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 208 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response Pasco. By channeling development within that area, it would allow better access to major transportation corridors by the 3 interchanges on I-182 to the east of Rd 68, as well as access to other major transportation corridors connecting Pasco its industrial center, highways 395, and to cities to the south of Pasco. There are two bridges from this area of Pasco to Kennewick that are available, and these provide access to the highway 240 freeway running on the south side of the Columbia River through Kennewick. This alternative would lead to much lower over-congestion on the Road 68 and Rd 100 interchanges at I-182. It would also create the necessary density in a compact which would allow greater use of mass transportation alternatives. Recall that the State Department of Transportation has already advised the city, that with the reasonably foreseeable development of current lands within the existing City limits in the west Pasco area, the two west Pasco I- 182 interchanges will be burdened far beyond capacity. It is unconscionable to imposed upon the residents of west Pasco, and thos