(1) 
Fundamental land use planning choices made in the adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a proposed project's consistency with applicable development regulations and the adopted comprehensive plan shall serve as the starting point for project review. Land use permit review shall not reanalyze these land use planning choices in making a permit decision.
(2) 
The Reviewing Official may determine through the local project review process that existing requirements including mitigation measures in applicable development regulations and plans and other applicable laws provide adequate mitigation for some or all of a project's specific adverse environmental impacts.
(3) 
Project review shall be used to:
(a) 
Review and document consistency with comprehensive plans and development regulations;
(b) 
Provide prompt and coordinated review by government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level;
(c) 
Ensure accountability by local government to applicants and the public for requiring and implementing mitigation measures;
(d) 
Identify specific project design and conditions relating to the characteristics of a development;
(e) 
Identify specific adverse environmental impacts of the proposal not previously analyzed; and
(f) 
Address the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, transportation demand management, or other measures to avoid or otherwise mitigate a proposal's probable adverse environmental impacts.
(4) 
Nothing in this Title limits the authority of the County to approve, condition, or deny a project as provided in its adopted development regulations and in its policies adopted under RCW 43.21C.060 (SEPA) and Chapters 90.58 (Shoreline Management Act) and 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act).
(Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998; Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017; Ord. 12-2024 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2024)
The County shall incorporate the elements of RCW 36.70B.040 in its project review. This Chapter does not apply to the County's enforcement procedures.
(Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998; Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017; Ord. 12-2024 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2024)
Environmental review for projects determined not to be categorically exempt under SEPA (RCW 43.21C and Yakima County Code Chapter 16.04) shall be integrated and run concurrently with the permit procedures of this Title.
(Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998; Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017; Ord. 12-2024 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2024)
As provided by WAC 197-11-158, the Administrative Official may determine that existing comprehensive plans, sub-area plan elements of a comprehensive plan, development regulations, or other local, state or federal rules or laws provide adequate analysis and mitigation of the specific probable adverse environmental impacts of a proposed action.
(Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998; Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017; Ord. 12-2024 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2024)
Projects defined as "planned actions" under WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 172 do not require a threshold determination or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under RCW Chapter 43.21C, but are subject to environmental review and mitigation as provided in the course of project review.
(Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998; Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017; Ord. 12-2024 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2024)
(1) 
Expiration of Notice of Application Comment Period. Except for a Determination of Significance (DS), Yakima County may not issue its SEPA threshold determination or issue a decision or a recommendation on a project permit until the expiration of the public comment period on the Notice of Application.
(2) 
Preliminary SEPA Determination and Notice of Application. To integrate project and environmental review under SEPA and to encourage early public comment on project applications, a preliminary SEPA determination may be provided by the Administrative Official with the Notice of Application if such preliminary SEPA determination has been made at the time the Notice of Application is issued pursuant to the optional process in RCW 36.70B.060 and WAC 197-11-355. This preliminary SEPA determination may not substitute for the actual SEPA threshold determination, although the comment period for SEPA and the Notice of Application may be consolidated into a single fourteen-day comment period, as provided in Section 16B.05.020 above.
(3) 
SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) and Notice of Application. If Yakima County has made a SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) concurrently with the Notice of Application, the Notice of Application shall be combined with the Determination of Significance and scoping notice. Nothing in this Subsection prevents a Determination of Significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to a Notice of Application.
(4) 
Public Hearing on Project Permit. If an open record pre-decision hearing is required on the underlying project permit application, Yakima County shall issue its threshold determination at least fifteen days prior to the open record pre-decision hearing.
(5) 
A SEPA determination shall be deemed to be conclusively in compliance with SEPA, the SEPA rules, and the provisions of YCC Chapter 16.04, unless a SEPA appeal is filed in accordance with this Chapter or Chapter 36.70C RCW.
(Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998; Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017; Ord. 12-2024 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2024)
Administrative SEPA appeals to the Hearing Examiner only are hereby established. It is the purpose of this Section to combine environmental considerations with project decisions, and for this reason, any appeal brought under this Section shall be linked to a specific governmental action. Appeals under this Section are not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. The administrative appeal procedures provided by this Section shall be construed consistently with RCW 43.21C.075, Chapter 36.70B RCW, and WAC 197-11-680.
(1) 
Types of Appeals. Appeals under the provisions of this Section shall be limited solely to procedural determinations listed in Subsection 16B.06.070(1)(a) below and/or substantive determinations, as defined in YCC § 16.04.040(8), within those procedural determinations listed below.
(a) 
Only one consolidated administrative appeal proceeding on threshold determinations consisting of a Determination of Non-significance (DNS), Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS), or on a determination of adequacy of a final environmental impact statement (EIS), is authorized pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075.
(b) 
Procedural appeals are limited to those challenging the Responsible Official's compliance with the provisions of SEPA, the SEPA rules, and YCC Chapter 16.04 with respect to the threshold determination.
(c) 
The opportunity for administrative appeals of substantive determinations shall be limited to the appeal period following the procedural determinations listed in Subsection 16B.06.070(1)(a) above.
(d) 
No administrative appeals shall be allowed at other times for other actions and/or determinations taken or made pursuant to YCC Chapter 16.04 (such as lead agency determination, a determination that a proposal is categorically exempt, scoping, draft EIS adequacy, etc.).
(2) 
Hearing Examiner. All appeals shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner in an open record hearing as prescribed in 16B.03.030(2) and Table 3-1. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on a SEPA appeal shall be final and binding and not subject to further administrative appeal. This Section formally eliminates SEPA administrative appeals to the Board of County Commissioners. Such appeals are subject to the provisions of Chapters 16B.08 and 16B.09 of this Title and the Hearing Examiner's adopted rules and procedures.
(3) 
Consolidated Appeals:
(a) 
All allowed SEPA-related appeals, other than of a DS, shall be consolidated with the open record hearing on the underlying project application in a single simultaneous hearing before the Hearing Examiner where he will consider either the Administrative Official's decision or a recommendation on the proposed underlying governmental action.
(b) 
DS appeals shall be heard in a separate open record hearing prior to the open record hearing, if applicable, on the underlying project application. The purpose of this early and separate appeal hearing is to resolve the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS), and to permit administrative and judicial review, prior to preparation of an EIS.
(4) 
Notice of Appeal – Timing and Contents. All SEPA appeals provided under this Section shall be filed in writing with the Yakima County Planning Division, shall comply with the appeal period timing and content requirements of YCC § 16B.09.010 and shall be accompanied by the filing fee established by YCC Title 20. Such appeals must identify specific SEPA actions, omissions, conditions or determinations.
(5) 
Administration – Standard of Review.
(a) 
Any open record hearing shall be recorded or transcribed.
(b) 
All testimony shall be sworn.
(c) 
The Hearing Examiner shall issue a written decision containing findings and conclusions.
(d) 
The determination of the Responsible Official shall carry substantial weight, and the appellant shall bear the burden to establish a violation of SEPA, the SEPA rules, or the provisions of YCC Chapter 16.04.
(e) 
The Hearing Examiner may:
(i) 
Affirm the determination of the Responsible Official where the Hearing Examiner determines that no violation of SEPA, the SEPA rules, or the provisions of YCC Chapter 16.04 exists,
(ii) 
Modify the determination of the Responsible Official,
(iii) 
Reverse the determination of the Responsible Official, and may issue a revised DS, DNS or MDNS,
(iv) 
Request additional information pursuant to WAC 197-11-335, and continue the hearing pending the delivery of such information within a specified time frame, or
(v) 
Remand to the Responsible Official with a recommendation as appropriate. The decision of the Hearing Examiner to remand the SEPA determination shall be a final administrative decision not subject to further administrative appeal.
(Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998; Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 2012; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017; Ord. 12-2024 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2024)