Source: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Yakima/html/Yakima06/Yakima0688.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:37:39+00:00

Document:
6.88.020 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference.
6.88.040 Designation of responsible official.
6.88.050 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.
6.88.065 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference.
6.88.070 Flexible thresholds for categorical exemptions.
6.88.100 Mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS).
6.88.110 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference.
6.88.120 Preparation of environmental impact statement (EIS)—Additional considerations.
6.88.140 Responsible official to perform consulted agency responsibilities for the city.
6.88.150 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference.
6.88.155 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference.
6.88.175 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference.
6.88.185 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference.
The city of Yakima adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120, and the SEPA rules, WAC 197-11-904. The ordinance codified in this chapter adopts many of the statewide SEPA rules by reference. This chapter contains this city’s SEPA procedures and implements the purposes and policies of SEPA pursuant to RCW 43.21C.010 and 43.21C.020, which are adopted by reference. The SEPA rules, WAC Chapter 197-11, should be referred to in conjunction with this chapter. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
197-11-158 GMA project review—Reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulations.
197-11-164 Planned actions—Definitions and criteria.
197-11-230 Timing of an integrated SEPA/GMA process.
(Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. “Department” means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order.
B. “SEPA rules” means WAC Chapter 197-11 as adopted, revised, or amended by the Department of Ecology of the State of Washington.
C. “Early notice” means the city’s response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of a determination of significance likely for the applicant’s proposal.
D. “City” means the city of Yakima.
E. “Day” means calendar day. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. For those proposals for which the city is the lead agency, the responsible official shall be the Yakima city manager, or the city manager’s designee.
B. For proposals initiated by the city, agency people carrying out SEPA procedures should be different, whenever possible, from agency people initiating the proposal.
C. For all proposals for which the city is the lead agency, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required environmental impact statement (EIS), and perform any other functions assigned to the “lead agency” or “responsible official” by those sections of the SEPA rules that are adopted by reference in this chapter.
D. The city shall retain all documents required by the SEPA rules and make them available in accordance with RCW Chapter 42.56. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. The department within the city receiving an application for or initiating a proposal that involves a nonexempt action shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under the applicable SEPA rules and supplemental provisions adopted in this chapter, unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the department is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determining the lead agency.
B. When the city is not the lead agency for a proposal, all departments of the city shall use and consider, as appropriate, either the DNS or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. No city department shall prepare or require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency, unless required under WAC 197-11-600. In some cases, the city may conduct supplemental environmental review under WAC 197-11-600.
C. If the city or any of its departments receives a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of the SEPA rules and supplemental provisions adopted in this chapter, it may object to the determination and seek Department of Ecology resolution of lead agency disputes according to the SEPA rules and supplemental provisions of this chapter.
D. The responsible official is authorized to make agreement as to lead agency status or shared lead agency duties in accordance with the SEPA rules and supplemental provisions of this chapter.
E. The responsible official shall require sufficient information from the applicant to identify which other agencies have jurisdiction over the proposal (that is: which agencies require nonexempt licenses?). (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. For nonexempt proposals where action by an advisory or decision-making body such as the city of Yakima planning commission, hearings examiner, or city council is required, the DNS or final EIS for the proposal shall be combined with the city’s staff recommendation to the advisory or decision-making body.
B. If the city’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications and the responsible official may agree to such request; provided, that adequate information must be furnished to the responsible official pursuant to the SEPA rules and supplemental provisions of this chapter to allow a threshold determination to be made.
C. The optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 may be used to indicate on a notice of application that the lead agency is likely to issue a DNS. If this optional process is used, a separate comment period on the DNS may not be required. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. The city endorses the procedures for SEPA and Growth Management Act integration as provided by the SEPA rules and any supplemental provisions adopted pursuant to this part.
B. The city endorses the procedures for environmental review of GMA project proposals as provided by WAC 197-11-158 and any supplemental provisions adopted pursuant to this part.
1. In reviewing the environmental impacts of a GMA project and making a threshold determination, the responsible official may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the city’s development regulations and comprehensive plan, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project.
2. In making the determination under subsection (B)(1) of this section, the responsible official shall follow the SEPA rules contained in WAC 197-11-158. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005).
A. The city endorses the procedures in the SEPA rules adopted in this section for project review as a “planned action” and will apply the provisions of WAC 197-11-164 through 197-11-172 to projects that meet the criteria for planned action environmental review under RCW 43.21C.031.
B. Whenever a project proposal meets the requirement and criteria for a planned action set forth in WAC 197-11-164 to 197-11-172, and the planned action ordinances of the city, the responsible official shall not be required to issue a threshold determination or require an EIS under the provisions of this chapter.
C. Nothing in this section limits the city from using this chapter or other applicable law to place conditions on the project in order to mitigate impacts through the normal local project review and permitting process. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005).
a. Five hundred cubic yards in all zoning districts. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2953 § 1, 1986: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. Upon receipt of an application for a proposal, and for city-initiated proposals, the responsible official shall determine whether the proposal is categorically exempt. This determination shall be made based on the definition of action (WAC 197-11-704), the process for determining categorical exemption (WAC 197-11-305), and any designation of environmentally sensitive or critical areas. The responsible official’s determination that a proposal is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is exempt, the city shall not require completion of an environmental checklist.
B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the responsible official shall make certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the governmental licenses required.
3. Any action that would limit the choice of alternatives.
D. The responsible official may withhold approval of an exempt action that would lead to modification of the physical environment, when such modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were not approved.
E. The responsible official may withhold approval of an exempt action that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant when the expenditures would serve no purpose if nonexempt actions were not approved. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. A completed environmental checklist, substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-11-960, shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not specifically exempted in this chapter.
3. Proposals where SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency.
C. The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination.
D. For private proposals, the city will require the applicant to complete the environmental checklist, providing assistance as the city determines necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal.
E. The city may require that it or a consultant of the city’s choosing, and not the private applicant, will complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal if the city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant, or if the applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. As provided in this section and in WAC 197-11-350, the responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant.
2. Precede the city’s actual threshold determination for the proposal.
3. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, revising the environmental checklist and/or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications.
D. The city may assist the applicant with identification of impacts to the extent necessary to formulate mitigation measures.
1. If the responsible official indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant revised the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the responsible official shall issue and circulate a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2).
2. If the responsible official indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate.
3. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures (clarifications, changes or conditions) must be in writing and must be specific, feasible and enforceable. For example, proposals to “control noise” or “prevent stormwater runoff” are inadequate, whereas proposals to “muffle machinery to X decibel” or “construct two-hundred-foot stormwater retention ponds at Y location” are adequate.
4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents.
F. A mitigated DNS issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) requires a fifteen-calendar-day comment period and public notice.
G. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit, or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city.
H. If the city’s tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigated DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)(a).
I. The city’s written response under subsection B of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarifications or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. Preparation of draft and final EISs and SEISs shall be under the direction of the responsible official. Before the city issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with this chapter and Chapter 197-11 WAC. The DEIS and FEIS or draft and final SEIS may be prepared by city staff, the applicant, or by a consultant selected by the city or applicant.
B. If the responsible official requires an EIS for a proposal and determines that someone other than the city will prepare the EIS, the responsible official shall notify the applicant immediately after completion of the threshold determination. The responsible official shall also notify the applicant of the city’s procedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the draft and final EIS prior to distribution.
C. The city may require an applicant to provide information the city does not possess, including specific investigations. However, the applicant is not required to supply information that is not required under this chapter or that is being requested from another agency; provided, however, this does not apply to information the city may request under another ordinance or statute. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
The lead agency may include, in a FEIS, DEIS or SEIS, an analysis of any impact determined to be relevant to the agency’s decision, whether or not required by the provisions of this chapter and the SEPA rules. The inclusion of such analysis may be based upon comments received during the scoping process. Such additional analysis shall not add to the criteria for threshold determinations or perform any other function or purpose under this chapter. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005).
A. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under this section with existing notice procedures for the city’s nonexempt permits or approvals required for the proposal.
1. If public notice is required for a nonexempt permit or approval, the notice shall state whether a DS or DNS has been issued and when comments are due.
c. Notifying the public or private groups that have expressed interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered.
3. Whenever the city issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3), the city shall state the scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408.
4. Notifying the public or private groups that have expressed interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered.
D. The city may require an applicant to complete the public notice requirements for the applicant’s proposal at the applicant’s expense, compensate the city for costs of carrying out the public notice requirements on behalf of the applicant, or provide services or materials to assist the city in carrying out the public notice requirements. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. The responsible official or designee shall be responsible for preparation of written comments for the city in response to a consultation request prior to a threshold determination, participation in scoping, or reviewing a DEIS.
B. The responsible official or designee shall be responsible for the city’s compliance with WAC 197-11-550 whenever the city is a consulted agency and is authorized to develop operating procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests are prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate city departments. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorizations of the city.
5. Such conditions are based on one or more policies in subsection E of this section.
3. The denial is based on one or more policies identified in subsection E of this section and identified in writing in the decision document.
D. If during project review the city determines that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation in the city’s development regulations or comprehensive plan, or in other applicable local, state or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts under RCW 43.21C.240, the city shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter.
g. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
2. The city recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
u. Greenway Park development plan. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2953 § 2, 1986; Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. It is the purpose of this chapter to combine environmental considerations with public decisions, and for this reason any appeal brought under this chapter shall be linked to a specific governmental action. Appeals under this chapter are not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action.
B. The appellate procedures provided for by RCW 43.21C.060, which provides for an appeal to a local legislative body of any decision by a nonelected official conditioning or denying a proposal under authority of SEPA, are formally eliminated. The administrative appeal procedures provided by this part shall be construed consistently with RCW 43.21C.075, Chapter 36.70B RCW, and WAC 197-11-680.
C. Appeals under the provisions of this part shall be limited solely to those actions and/or determinations listed below. No administrative appeals shall be allowed for other actions and/or determinations taken or made pursuant to this chapter (such as lead agency determination, a determination that a proposal is categorically exempt, scoping, draft EIS adequacy, etc.).
D. Except as provided in subsection E of this section, an appeal under this section shall consolidate any available SEPA appeal with a hearing or appeal on the underlying governmental action in a single simultaneous hearing before one hearing officer or body. The hearing or appeal shall be one at which the hearing officer or body will consider either the agency’s decision or a recommendation on the proposed underlying governmental action. If no hearing or appeal on the underlying governmental action is otherwise provided, then no SEPA appeal is allowed under this section, except as allowed under subsection E of this section.
E. The appeal of a determination of significance need not be consolidated with a hearing or appeal on the underlying governmental action.
F. All SEPA appeals provided under this section shall be initiated by filing a written notice of SEPA administrative appeal with the responsible official, accompanied with the applicable appeal fee.
c. A statement of the particular grounds or reasons for the appeal.
2. The responsible official shall arrange to conduct the SEPA appeal in conjunction with a hearing or appeal on the underlying permit or approval, where required to consolidate the SEPA appeal with a hearing on the underlying governmental action.
(a.) For proposals which may be approved by an administrative official without public hearing, an appeal shall be filed within fourteen days after notice that the determination has been made has been issued. Such SEPA appeal shall be heard in conjunction with the appeal of the underlying permit or approval, where such appeal is allowed; provided, that if no administrative appeal of the underlying permit or approval is otherwise provided for, and consolidation is not required by subsection D of this section, an appeal of the DNS shall be heard and decided in an open record hearing by the hearing examiner. The decision of the hearing examiner on the SEPA appeal shall be final and not subject to further administrative appeal.
(b.) For proposals which may only be approved by open record hearing or open record predecision hearing recommendation, an appeal shall be filed within fourteen days following the last day of any comment period required to be provided by this chapter, or where no comment period is required, then within fourteen days following the date of issuance or adoption of the DNS, and shall be heard and decided in the open record hearing in conjunction with the decision or recommendation on the underlying proposal. The decision of the hearing examiner on the SEPA appeal shall be final and not subject to further administrative appeal.
(c.) An appeal to a DS may be filed by the proposal applicant or sponsor within fourteen days of the issuance of the DS/scoping notice. The appeal shall be heard in an open record hearing and decided by the hearing examiner, whose decision shall be final and not subject to further administrative appeal.
(d.) The SEPA determination of the responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight, and the appellant shall bear the burden to establish a violation of SEPA, the SEPA rules, or the provisions of this chapter.
(e.) A SEPA determination shall be deemed to be conclusively in compliance with SEPA, the SEPA rules, and the provisions of this chapter, unless a SEPA appeal is filed in accordance with this part.
(f.) Where it is determined that there exists a violation of SEPA, the SEPA rules, or the provisions of this chapter, the hearing examiner may remand the SEPA determination to the responsible official and, in such event, shall continue the open record hearing or open record predecision hearing until such time as a new or modified SEPA determination is issued under the provisions of this chapter. The decision of the hearing examiner to remand the SEPA determination shall be a final administrative decision not subject to further administrative appeal. Where applicable, such remand shall toll any period for project permit approval required by Chapter 36.70B RCW or other statutes, or otherwise required by other provisions of this code.
iii. A taped or written transcript.
1. Any available administrative appeal provided under this section must be utilized by an agency or aggrieved person prior to initiating judicial review of any SEPA action, omission or determination made or taken under this chapter.
2. A judicial appeal of any SEPA action, omission or determination made or taken under this chapter must be filed within the time limitations established by any statute or ordinance for appeal of the underlying governmental action.
3. The city shall give official notice of the date and place for commencing a judicial appeal, in accordance with WAC 197-11-680(5), where there is a statute or ordinance establishing a time limit for commencing judicial appeal. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2002-49 § 1, 2002; Ord. 98-40 § 1, 1998: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
A. The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action.
B. The form of the notice shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-11-990. The notice shall be published by the city clerk, applicant or proponent pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
(Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
197-11-940 Transfer of lead agency status to state agency.
A. Threshold Determination. For every environmental checklist the city will review when it is lead agency, the city shall collect a fee established in YMC 15.26.010 from the proponent of the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination.
1. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the city, the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the city in processing the EIS.
2. The responsible official may determine that the city will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for activities initiated by some persons or entity other than the city and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. The city may require the applicant to post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs. Such consultants shall be selected by mutual agreement of the city and applicant.
3. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the responsible official shall refund any fees collected under subsection (B)(1) or (B)(2) of this section which remain after incurred costs are paid.
C. The city may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting the public notice requirements of this chapter relating to the applicant’s proposal.
D. The city may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this chapter, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by Chapter 42.17 RCW. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 3245 § 3, 1990; Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
The effective date of this chapter is October 1, 1984. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).
If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected. (Ord. 2011-07 § 1 (part), 2011: Ord. 2005-50 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 2805 § 2 (part), 1984).

References: § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 3
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2