The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-10-2025 YPC Agenda PacketThe meeting will also be recorded and posted on the Y-PAC website. Visit the Yakima Planning Commission webpage for more information, including agenda packets and minutes. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Bill Preston, P.E., Director Trevor Martin, AICP, Manager Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6183 • Fax (509) 575-6105 • Email: ask.planning@yakimawa.gov CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION Yakima City Hall Council Chambers 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 December 10, 2025 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. YPC MEMBERS: Chair Mary Place, Vice-Chair Anne Knapp, Jeff Baker, Roy Gondo, Charles Hitchcock, Leanne Hughes-Mickel, Colleda Monick, Philip Ostriem, Kevin Rangel, Frieda Stephens, and Shelley White City Council Liaison: Rick Glenn, Janice Deccio CITY PLANNING STAFF: Bill Preston (Community Development Director), Lisa Maxey (Admin. Assistant), Trevor Martin (Planning Manager), Eric Crowell (Senior Planner), Jason Radtke (Senior Planner), Connor Kennedy (Associate Planner), Eva Rivera (Planning Technician), Irene Linos (Department Assistant) AGENDA I.Call to Order II.Roll Call III.Staff Announcements IV.Approval of Minutes –November 12, 2025, Meeting V.Public Comment VI.Review Berk Materials: CAO Memo, Code Overview, & Adequate Provisions Memo VII.Other Business VIII.Meeting Recap IX.Adjourn Next Meeting: January 14, 2026 - 1 - 11/12/2025 YPC Minutes City of Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) Meeting Minutes November 12, 2025 Call to Order Chair Place called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Roll Call YPC Members Present: Chair Mary Place, Vice-Chair Anne Knapp, Colleda Monick, Jeff Baker, Charles Hitchcock, Leanne Hughes-Mickel, Shelley White, Roy Gondo YPC Members Absent: Kevin Rangel, Frieda Stephens, Philip Ostriem Staff Present: Trevor Martin; Planning Manager, Jason Radtke; Senior Planner, Eva Rivera; Planning Technician City Council Liaison: Janice Deccio, Rick Glenn Staff Announcements – Today’s meeting will be brief and will adjourn by 4:15 p.m. to accommodate the City Council meeting scheduled afterward. Approval of Minutes from October 22, 2025- Commissioner Gondo moved to approve the meeting minutes from October 22, 2025, Commissioner Hitchcock seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Public Comment – None Chair Place and Vice Chair Knapp suggested revisions to the layout of the Comprehensive Plan handbook. Study Session: Parking –Trevor and the commission reviewed proposed changes to Title 15 related to parking regulations and definitions, caused by two recent housing bills. Second Substitute House Bill (2SHB) 1183 and Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5184. Robert Washabaugh, Supervising Traffic Engineer, provided input on proposed changes related to drive‑thru regulations. Commissioners asked questions and discussed the proposed changes. Other Business - Trevor informed the commission about the Comprehensive Plan survey and explained that staff would be engaging with the community to encourage participation. He also said he will be emailing a link to the commissioners for the survey Meeting Recap – Action Items & Decisions: •The elements of the Comp Plan rough drafts will be reviewed in January or February •Implementation measures in the Comp Plan. •Alphabetize Table 4.1 by category •Pg. 23 parking space extend to 9ft •A link of the survey will be emailed 2 of 43 - 2 - 11/12/2025 YPC Minutes Outstanding Action Items •The commission will go through the comprehensive plan page by page •The Land Capacity Analysis currently under review by the Transpo group will be provided •A new section for congregant living will be added to the code and reviewed by the commission. •Councilmember Glenn will research rent-to-own options •Links to pg. 26-36 of the agenda packet from 08/27/25 will be emailed. •Staff will send a parks inventory Future Items •Staff will notify and update the Commission when the countywide policies are completed. •Downtown Action Plan - staff will determine if the Planning Commission will be involved •Staff will coordinate a future roundtable with experts to discuss design standards A motion to adjourn to December 10, 2025, was passed with a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:09 p.m. Chair Place Date This meeting was filmed by YPAC. Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Eva Rivera, Planning Technician. 3 of 43 DRAFT December 1, 2025 1 City of Yakima Development Regulations Gap Summary Yakima is updating its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations for 2026 major update. The City is required to update its regulations to comply with state legislations, most of which are new and adopted by the legislature from 2023 to 2025. The City has already moved forward with some of the code updates. This memo summarizes areas where Yakima is required by the State Law to update development regulations. These code updates will support implementation of housing policies in the draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan. New GMA Requirements for Yakima’s Comprehensive Plan Updates New Statutes and Requirements Applicable Areas/ Code Sections to Update House Bill (HB) 1110 (2023) – Middle Housing Middle housing requirements for some Washington jurisdictions. Under the middle housing regulations, communities must allow middle housing types and at least two dwelling units per lot in residential zones, with some exceptions. Middle housing includes duplex, triplex, fourplex, cottage housing, townhouse. For Yakima (a Tier 1 City of at least 75,00) must include: ▪At least six of the nine middle housing types (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, cottage housing.) ▪4 units per lot (6 units per lot near major transit) The City has updated its zoning code. YMC 15.04.030 includes attached single family dwelling (townhomes), duplex, cottage housing, multi-family development. Multifamnily development can include apartments, triplex, fourplexes etc. Update code as follows: YMC 15.02 to clarify multi-family definitions to include triplex, fourplexes or multiplexes YMC 15.04.030 Table 4-1 to include multiplexes HB 1337 (2023) – ADU At least two ADUs (both attached, both detached, or one attached and one detached) per lot must be allowed in residential zones in urban growth areas (UGAs) within all zones in urban growth areas where single family homes are permitted. Applicable standards for Yakima include: ▪Two ADUs are allowed per lot ▪ADUs do not require owner occupancy ▪ADUs allow separate sale ▪Parking requirements ▪maximum size limit shall be no less than 1,000 sq-ft ▪Setback should not be more restrictive than the that of primary units (can be on lot lines in certain circumstances). Height limit at least 24 ft. ESHB 1293 (2023) – Design Review May not impose aesthetic standards or requirements for design review that are more restrictive for ADUs than those for principal units. YMC 15.09.045 includes attached and detached ADUs with a maximum 1,000 sq-ft floor area limit. The code needs update to comply with HB 1337 as follows: Specify the number of ADUS allowed Clarify not requiring owner occupancy Clarify the size limit and other standards Update YMC 15.06.040 for parking Clarify the design review requirements 4 of 434 of 43 DRAFT May 24, 2024 Jefferson County| Middle Housing Gap Overview 2 New Statutes and Requirements Applicable Areas/ Code Sections to Update Senate Bill (SB) 5258 (2023) and SB 5559 (2025)– Unit Lot Subdivision This requires cities, towns and counties (RCW 58.17.060(3)) planning under GMA to allow unit lot subdivisions in their short plat regulations, to facilitate townhome and condominium development. RCW 58.17.060 requires jurisdictions to include procedure allowing “division of a parent lot into separately owned unit lots. Portions of the parent lot not subdivided for individual unit lots shall be owned in common by the owners of the individual unit lots, or by a homeowners’ association comprised of the owners of the individual unit lots.” Commerce fact sheet Update Short Subdivision Chapter 14.15 to include Unit Lot Subdivision provisions. SB 6015 (2024) – Parking Standards New rules for residential parking standards that cities must enforce including limitations on what can be required to meet minimum parking requirements. It provides various ways to count parking such as enclosed of unenclosed, tandem, grass block paved surface etc. Update residential parking standards in YMC 15.06.040 Table 6-1, including: Clarify parking spaces can be enclosed or unenclosed parking for residential uses; garages and carports can’t be required as a way to meet minimum parking requirements for residential development Identify that tandem parking spaces count towards meeting minimum residential parking requirements (one space for every 20 linear feet with any necessary provisions for turning radius) Clarify that parking spaces with grass block pavers count towards minimum parking requirements. Off-street parking may not be required as a condition of permitting a residential project if compliance with tree retention would otherwise make the proposed residential development or redevelopment infeasible. Revise code so that parking spaces are not required to exceed 8 feet by 20 feet except for required parking for people with disabilities SB 5184 (2025) – Parking Reform Reduces or eliminates parking requirements for certain residential uses and commercial spaces in cities with a population of 30,000 or more. Yakima must adopt this by January 2027. Update YMC 15.06.040 parking standards for compliance with the following parking requirements: ADU or residences under 1200 sq-ft: 0 per unit Detached single family: 1 per unit Duplex: 0.5 per unit Multifamily dwellings/ apartments: 0.5 per unit Affordable housing or senior housing: 0 per unit Commercial spaces under 3,000 square feet: 0 parking Commercial space: 2 stalls max per 1,000 sq-ft 5 of 435 of 43 DRAFT May 24, 2024 Jefferson County| Middle Housing Gap Overview 3 New Statutes and Requirements Applicable Areas/ Code Sections to Update HB 1998 (2024) – Co-Living1 Requires communities to allow co-living on any lot located within an urban growth area that allows at least six multifamily residential units, including mixed use zoning. Cities must adopt this by December, 2025. Key revisions include: Update YMC 15.02 to add definitions for sleeping units and co-living housing. Update YMC 15.04.030 Table 4-1 to allow co- living housing in all zones that allow multifamily housing with six or more units per lot. Clarify co-living housing sleeping unit for purposes of calculating dwelling unit density consistent with HB 1998 (e.g. sleeping unit not more than ¼ of a dwelling unit for density purposes). Update off-street parking considerations for co- living in YMC 15.06.040 HB 1754 (2020) - Limitations on Regulating Temporary Housing Provided by Religious Organizations. Places new limitations on the ability of jurisdictions to regulate temporary housing for unhoused individuals on religious organization property. Allows jurisdictions to require a religious organization hosting the homeless and the agency managing the hosting to enter a memorandum of understanding to protect the public health and safety of residents. The City currently complies with this under YMC 6.92.070 and 6.92.080 SB 5412 (2023) SEPA Infill Exemptions. Expands SEPA categorical exemptions for residential projects to reduce local governments’ land use permitting workloads, thereby facilitating more housing development. All project actions with one or more residential housing units that meet certain criteria within incorporated UGAs or middle housing within unincorporated UGAs are categorically exempt from SEPA. YMC 6.88.070 A.4 refers to infill categorical exemption per RCW 43.21C.229 for a) residential development up to one hundred dwelling units in the GC and CBD zoning districts, and land in the R-3 zoning district located adjacent to a principal arterial; and b) Mixed-use development up to one hundred dwelling units on upper floors in the GC and CBD zoning districts. Update YMC 6.88.070 to increase the threshold for middle housing. SB 1491 (2025) - Promoting Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Requires cities to designate “station areas” around certain public transit stops for higher-density development. It defines rail and bus station areas and amends the definition of a “major transit stop.” Commerce will develop a model code for station areas and can approve exceptions to the program. FAQ There are no major transit stops (light rail or bus rapid transit) in Yakima. Comprehensive Plan Related HB 1220 (2021) – Housing and Equity Requires communities to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of the population of this state . Comprehensive Plan update is addressing this. HB 5148 (2025) - Housing Accountability Provides cities, towns, and counties the option to request that the Washington Department of Commerce (Commerce) review and certify their comprehensive plan housing elements and development regulations for compliance with Growth Management Act. Allows but does not require the City to submit the Housing Element and supporting regulations to Commerce for review. 6 of 436 of 43 DRAFT May 24, 2024 Jefferson County| Middle Housing Gap Overview 4 New Statutes and Requirements Applicable Areas/ Code Sections to Update HB 1181 (2023) - Climate. Makes significant changes to the GMA to incorporate climate change into comprehensive plans. Comprehensive Plan update is addressing this HB 1799 (2022)- Siting of Organic Materials Management Facilities. Requires a compost procurement ordinance (CPO). Reduction of organic materials from landfills through a variety of interventions . Encourage cities and counties to procure compost created to turn organic materials into finished products. Applies each city or county in which organic material collection services are provided under chapter 70A.205 RCW. Department of Ecology handout Applies to city or county with a population greater than 25,000 residents to identify priority areas within the county for the establishment of organic materials management facilities. HB 1576: Requiring Property Owner’s Consent for Historic Landmark Designation prevents a city from designating a property as a historic landmark i f the property is less than 40 years old; or the designation would restrict use, alteration, or demolition of the property and the owner’s consent was not obtained. Properties may be nominated as a historic landmark without the property owner’s consent, but the owner’s consent must be obtained before designation Yakima can consider updating its Historic Element policy to reflect this. 1. "Co-living housing" means a residential development with sleeping units that are independently rented and lockable and provide living and sleeping space, and residents share kitchen facilities with other sleeping units in the building. Local governments may use other names to refer to co-living housing including, but not limited to, congregate living facilities, single room occupancy, rooming house, boarding house, lodging house, and residential suites. 7 of 437 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists City of Yakima: Adequate provisions checklists This appendix provides checklists to use in documenting barriers and programs and actions to achieve housing availability (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)). These checklists include the following: Exhibit B1: Moderate density housing barrier review checklist Exhibit B2: Low-Rise or mid-Rise multifamily housing barrier review checklist Exhibit B3: Supplemental barrier review checklist for PSH and emergency housing Exhibit B4: Accessory dwelling unit barrier review checklist Exhibit B5: Checklist for local option tools for addressing affordable housing funding gaps Documentation of the barriers to housing availability and the programs or actions needed to overcome these barriers must be in a public document and typically should be included as an appendix to the comprehensive plan housing element. Additionally, Exhibit 1: Proposed Changes by Zone summarizes BERK's recommended modifications for each zone based on the findings this adequate provisions analysis and new state requirements. Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element Updating your housing element to address new requirements 8 of 438 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier review checklists Exhibit B1: Moderate density housing barrier review checklist Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Unclear development regulations No This has not come up as a concern. Prohibiting some moderate density housing types, such as: Duplexes Triplexes Four/five/six-plexes Townhomes Cottage housing Live-work units Manufactured home parks Yes No clear mention of triplex, or multiplex. All Zones: Manufactured/mobile home parks found under YMC 15.04.150 . Permit process for Manufacturing Home Parks is not clearly defined in the code. Consider adding triplex or multiplexes in the code. Add middle housing standards per HB 1110. Clarify a permit process for manufactured/mobile homes parks in the code. High minimum lot sizes Yes For single-family the minimum lot size is 6,000 sf and duplexes the minimum lot size is 7,000 sf. The minimum lot size requirement for duplexes is too high. GMA allows all single family residentials to include duplexes. Therefore, a different lot size is not needed. Minimum lot size for SF, duplex and zero lot line in zones other than R zones is too high and will prohibit moderate density housing. Mixed use and multi-family housing is allowed in B-1, B-2, SCC, LCC, GC, CBD, and RD under Table 4-1. Zero lot line is defined as one common wall only: “Zero lot line” means the location of a dwelling on a lot in such a manner that one of the sides of the dwelling rests directly on a side lot line. This limits development to two units only. Townhomes and rowhouses should allow zero lot line on both sides for middle units. Reduce the minimum lot size requirement for duplexes to match the detached SF dwelling size of 6000 sf. in SR, R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones. Consider reducing lot size from 6000 sq-ft in B-1, B-2, SCC, LCC, GC, CBD, and RD zones to support various housing types with moderate density (e.g. duplex, multifamily) that are allowed in Table 4-1. Consider updating the zero lot line definition to allow zero lot line (townhomes) on both sides. Add townhome as a permitted use under attached single family home. 9 of 439 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. Cottage housing Cottage housing requires minimum 400 sf of common open space per dwelling, and 200 sf for private open space. This makes the lot (development) size requirements too high. The code requires 10,000 sf development size. Cottage housing The city can consider reducing the development size from 10,000 sf to smaller to fit a minimum of four units under cottage housing. Also add this requirement under YMC 15.05 Table 5-2. Low maximum densities or low maximum FAR Yes Density similarity between zones in Table 4-1 (YMC 15.04.030) and YMC 15.03.020 C.2: YMC 15.04.030 - Table 4-1 Same densities in R-2 and R-3 Zones • 8-12 DU/NRA • 13+ DU/NRA Reads that lower density (0-7 DU/NRA) is allowed in R2, R3, B-1 and B-2. YMC 15.03.020 - C2 and D2 R-2 Zone • Density "up to twelve dwelling units per net residential acre R-3 zone • Requires "more than twelve dwelling units per net residential acre" in R-3 Lot coverage • R1, R2 - 60% in Table 5-1 (YMC 15.05.030). This is low for duplex, attached SF, cottage housing and other middle housing types in R-2 zone. Update code to match density between sections. Update code as follows: • R-3 - 13 units of more for R3. • R-2 - 8-12 DU/NRA • Remove 0-7 density references from R-2 and R-3 zones • Allocate minimum density for each zone or regulate thought lot coverage under non-residential zones Increase lot coverage for R2 zone for developments that is consistent with 12 units per acre max density. Low maximum building heights Partially Max building height is 35 feet for residential R-1, R-2 zones, which is typically the tallest max height for such moderate density zones. Consider increasing height limits for R-3 and commercial zones 10 of 4310 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. 50 ft height limit for R-3 zone can be limiting for higher and moderate density structures. Large setback requirements Yes Minimum setbacks for residential districts are: - 20 ft from the front property line - 5 ft in general, or 10 ft from the side property line abutting right-of-way - 20 ft for rear setbacks A front and rear setback combination that takes up 40 feet is high and prohibitive of moderate density housing developments. Consider reducing the front and/or rear setbacks to keep the total within 25 - 30 ft. High off-street parking requirements Yes Currently require 2 parking spaces per unit for most residential uses, with multifamily development 10 of more units at 1.5 space per DU, and less than 10 units at 2 space per DU. Two parking spaces per unit is a barrier for moderate density, relatively small multifamily developments. It is likely not a barrier for single family lots in SR ad R-1 zones. Overall, this is non-compliance with SB 5184 parking requirements. Yakima will need to update its development regulations to comply with this new law SB 5184 by January 2027. Update parking standards for compliance with the following requirements: ADU - 0 if under 1200 sq-ft Detached SF - 1 Duplex - 0.5 Studio - 0.5 3 bedroom apartment - 0.5 High impervious coverage limits No 60% lot coverage for SR, R-1 and R-2, 80% for R-3. Lack of alignment between building codes and development codes Yes Building code: The City has adopted 2021 Washington State Building Code. Triplexes and Fourplexes are moderate density housing. Code is silent about permit fee for this type of housing. Multifamily under six units, single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes fall under the Master Plan documents. This has impacts on moderate Building code: HB 2071 (2024) has the State Building Council looking to update and include middle housing under the Washington State Residential Code, which would better align building codes and allowed residential uses. The City can adopt state building code changes or make changes themselves. 11 of 4311 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. density housing that is of similar size and only has one or two more units than a duplex under the residential code. Reference to townhouses is only found in the building code, but not in the zoning code. Add townhouses in the allowed use category in the zoning code. Other (for example: complex design standards, tree retention regulations, historic preservation requirements) Partially No tree retention requirements in the code on private properties except for shoreline areas under YMC 17.05.030. Yakima does not have separate design standards in addition to existing development standards. PROCESS OBSTACLES Conditional use permit process No Permitted use is located under YMC 15.04.030, Table 4- 1 and the permit type under YMC 15.04.020. The decision type table does not differentiate between specific residential uses; it appears to apply equally to all residential uses except for single family uses in B-1 and B-2 zones where type 3 permit is required for compatibility. Design review No Lack of clear and accessible information about process and fees1 No 1 For example: guidance resources are unclear or difficult to find, no digital permit tracking system, staff do not provide fee estimates or permitting time estimates are unavailable or inaccurate. 12 of 4312 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. Permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees Yes Anecdotally, fees are a challenge for private landowners. Not sure about larger developers. Utility connection fees may be challenging for properties that are far from services in the UGA and also in some areas of SR zone. Consider incentives to reduce fees for affordable or multifamily housing. Continue long-range utility planning in UGAs Seek infrastructure investments for underserved areas. Seek water/sewer investments. Processing times and staffing challenges Yes A short-staffed planning and building department have lesser capacity and can take longer to process permit applications. Online building application forms are available. Can consider full online application submittal. SEPA process Yes SEPA review processes can add time and expense that may not be necessary with other strong development regulations in place. YMC 6.88 adopts State SEPA rules. Consider establishing SEPA threshold exemptions consistent with WAC 197-11-800 (1)(c) to encourage development (up to 30/60 units in the UGA and up to 20/25 units elsewhere for single family/multifamily). LIMITED LAND AVAILABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Lack of large parcels for infill development No Not a barrier. Environmental constraints Yes CAO Permitting challenges (setbacks and buffer adjustments, RUEs are timely and expensive). TBD 13 of 4313 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Exhibit B2: Low-Rise or mid-Rise multifamily housing barrier review checklist Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Unclear development regulations No Not a concern from permit application perspective. High minimum lot sizes No No minimum lot size requirement for multi-family dwellings. They are regulated by density, 0-7 DU/NRA in R1, R2, R3 and B1 zones. These zones also allow 8-12 and 13+ DU/NRA. Not a barrier for lot size. Low maximum densities or low maximum FAR Potentially See discussion in Table B1. See recommendations in Table B1 Low maximum building heights Yes Max building height is 35 feet for residential R-2 zone, which is typically the tallest max height for low-rise buildings. R-3 zone with 50 ft height limit can be limiting for mid-rise buildings. B-1 and B-2 zones with 35 ft height limit is not consistent with mixed-use mid-rise building types. Mixed use buildings are only allowed in these two zones. Increase building height for R-3, B-1 and B-2 zones. Large setback requirements Yes See discussion in Table B1 See recommendations in Table B1 High off-street parking requirements Yes The code currently requires 1.5 to 2 parking spaces per unit for low-rise and mid-rise multifamily housing. It requires 1.5 space per DU for multifamily development 10 of more units; and 2 space per DU for less than multifamily development with less than 10 units. Yakima needs to update its development regulations to comply with this new law SB 5184 by January 2027. Update parking standards for compliance with the following requirements: Studio - 0.5 3 bedroom apartment - 0.5 14 of 4314 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. Two parking spaces per unit is a barrier for low to mid- rise housing. High impervious coverage limits No 60% lot coverage for R-1 and R-2, 80% for R-3. Lack of alignment between building and development codes No Garden apartments meet what is allowed in the building code and if height is increased to four stories, that still matches stick wood construction type allowance. Other (for example: ground floor retail requirements, open space requirements, complex design standards, tree retention regulations, historic preservation requirements) No PROCESS OBSTACLES Conditional use permit process No Permitted use is located under YMC 15.04.030, Table 4- 1 and the permit type under YMC 15.04.020. The decision type table does not differentiate between specific residential uses; it appears to apply equally to all residential uses except for single family uses in B-1 and B-2 zones where type 3 permit is required for compatibility. Design review No Lack of clear and accessible information about process and fees No Permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees Possibly. Potentially fees around utilities. Current fee structure has separate rates for single family vs multi family units. Yakima doesn't have impact fee. If impact fee is instated, ensure they meet SB 5258 requirements. 15 of 4315 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barrier. SB 5258 requires jurisdictions to have proportional impact fee schedules. Process times and staffing challenges Yes A short-staffed planning and building department have lesser capacity and can take longer to process permit applications. Online building application forms are available. Can consider full online application submittal. SEPA process No SEPA review processes can add time and expense that may not be necessary with other strong development regulations in place. Consider establishing SEPA threshold exemptions consistent with WAC 197-11-800 (1)(c) to encourage development (up to 30/60 units in the UGA and up to 20/25 units elsewhere for single family/multifamily). LIMITED LAND AVAILABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Lack of large parcels for infill development No Not a barrier for housing. Environmental constraints Yes CAO Permitting challenges (setbacks and buffer adjustments, RUEs are timely and expensive). - Determine how to permit RUEs Exhibit 1: Proposed Changes by Zone SR R-1 R-2 R-3 HB B-1 B-2 SCC LCC GC CBD RD Code Sections Lot size (minimum) SF detached 6,000 sq- ft 6,000 sq-ft 5,000 sq-ft 4,000 sq- ft No change of (Do not allow single family residential) Table 5-2 (YMC 15.05.030) 16 of 4316 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists SR R-1 R-2 R-3 HB B-1 B-2 SCC LCC GC CBD RD Code Sections SF attached/ zero lot line/ townhomes/ common wall 4,000 sq- ft 4,000 sq-ft 3,500 sq-ft 3,000 sq- ft existing use Two-Family Dwelling/ duplex 6,000 sq- ft 6,000 sq-ft 5,000 sq-ft 4,000 sq- ft Multifamily Dwelling/ PD Residential Density May Not Exceed Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Permitted per Net Residential Acre . Density (minimum) 4 lots/ NRA 4 lots/NR A 8 lots/NRA 13 lots/NRA 13 lots/NRA 13 lots/NRA 13 lots/NRA 13 lots/NR A 13 lots/N RA 13 lots/NR A 13 lots/N RA YMC 15.03.020; Table 4-1 (YMC 15.04.030) Density (Maximum) 7 DU/NRA 7 DU/NRA (no change) 12 DU/NRA No Max Lot Coverage 60% 60% 70% 80% 85% 90% 100% Table 5-1 (YMC 15.05.030) Building Height 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 50 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft NA 50 ft Setback (front) 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft Setback (rear) 15 ft 15 ft 10 ft 10 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Parking Apply SB 5184 Table 6-1 (YMC 15.06.035) Cottage Housing 10,000 sq-ft 10,000 sq-ft 10,000 sq-ft YMC 15.09.035 Commented [FO1]: Recategorize/ combine with SF detached row; no need for a separate lot size row Commented [FO2]: Lot density Commented [FO3]: Consider more height from 50 ft to 60 ft? Commented [FO4]: Reduce lot size? 17 of 4317 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists SR R-1 R-2 R-3 HB B-1 B-2 SCC LCC GC CBD RD Code Sections and Table 5- 2, (YMC 15.05.030). 18 of 4318 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Exhibit B3: Supplementary barrier review checklist for PSH and emergency housing Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barriers. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Spacing requirements (for example, minimum distance from parks, schools or other emergency/PSH housing facilities)2 Unlikely None mentioned in the code. No code on EH; need to add PSH in code. Parking requirements Possibly Vehicle resident safe parking program in YMC 6.92.060 includes residents living in parking. No separate parking requirement is identified. On-site recreation and open space requirements No None in YMC 6.92 Restrictions on support spaces, such as office space, within a transitional or PSH building in a residential zone No None mentioned in the code. Update the code to allow office and accessory spaces. Arbitrary limits on number of occupants (in conflict with RCW 35A.21.314) No None mentioned in the code. Requirements for PSH or emergency housing that are different than the requirements imposed on housing developments generally (in conflict with RCW 36.130.020) No Site plan requirement under YMC 6.92. No site development is required. Other restrictions specific to emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing Yes There are limited regulations around TH and PSH Temporary small houses are allowed under YMC 6.92.070 Add emergency and permanent supportive housing as separate use types in the code for clarity. 2 Note that RCW 35A.21.430 expressly states requirements on occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of a suff icient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each code city's projected need for such housing and shelter under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii). The restrictions on these uses must be to protect public health and safety. 19 of 4319 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists 20 of 4320 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Exhibit B4: Accessory dwelling unit barrier review checklist Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barriers. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Consistent with HB 1337 (2023) Must allow two ADUs on each lot in urban growth areas; May not require the owner to occupy the property, and may not prohibit sale as independent units, but may restrict the use of ADUs as short term rentals; Must allow an ADU of at least 1,000 square feet; Must set parking requirements based on distance from transit and lot size; May not charge more than 50% of the impact fees charged for the principal unit; Must permit ADUs in structures detached from the principal unit; May not restrict roof heights of ADUs to less than 24 feet, unless that limitation applies to the principal unit; May not impose setback requirements, yard coverage limits, tree retention mandates, restrictions on entry door locations, aesthetic requirements, or requirements for design review for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for principal units; Must allow an ADUs on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for the principal unit; Must allow detached ADUs to be sited at a lot line if the lot line abuts a public alley, unless the city or county routinely plows snow on the public alley; Must allow conversions from existing structures, even if they violate current code requirements for setbacks or lot coverage; and May not require public street improvements as a condition of permitting ADUs. Yes YMC 15.09.045 includes ADU regulations. The Code is not consistent as follows: - Only one ADU is allowed per single family; lot size is not specified - Silent on not requiring owner's occupancy - Silent on parking based on transit proximity - Does not seem to have owner occupancy requirements Update code: - Allow two ADUs - Add lot size standards - Add parking near transit standards - Clarify non-owner occupancy Unclear development regulations No Large setback requirements No Off-street parking requirements Yes 1 space per ADU in YMC 15.06.045. Standards are not in compliance with HB 5184 for 0 parking under 1200 sq- ft Update the code 21 of 4321 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Barrier Likely to affect housing production? Why or why not? Provide evidence. Actions needed to address barriers. Other (for example: burdensome design standards, tree retention regulations, historic preservation requirements, open space requirements, etc.) No Not a barrier PROCESS OBSTACLES Lack of clear and accessible information about process and fees Yes Standards are not in compliance with HB 1337 Update the code Permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees that are not proportionate to impact Yes, potentially Potentially utility connections. No impact fees in Yakima Processing times and staffing challenges Yes Identified as an on-going challenge. Work on-going to address. Consider online administrative review - reduces processing time and staff power. 22 of 4322 of 43 Appendix B: Adequate provisions checklists Exhibit B5: Checklist for local option tools for addressing affordable housing funding gaps Local option tools for addressing affordable housing funding gaps* Implementation status Plans for implementation Housing and related services sales tax (RCW 82.14.530) Implemented YMC 3.78.065 Affordable housing property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105) Not applied REET 2 (RCW 82.46.035) – GMA jurisdictions only and only available through 2025 Not applied Affordable Housing Sales Tax Credit (RCW 82.14.540) – was only available to jurisdictions through July 2020 Not applied Lodging Tax (RCW 67.28.150 and RCW 67.28.160) to repay general obligation bonds or revenue bonds Not applied Flexibility on lodging tax to short term rentals? (i.e., Air BNB?) Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Tax (RCW 82.14.460) – jurisdictions with a population over 30,000 Not applied Donating surplus public lands for affordable housing projects (RCW 39.33.015) Not applied Impact fee waivers for affordable housing projects (RCW 82.02.060) No impact fee in Yakima Application fee waivers or other benefits for affordable housing projects (RCW 36.70A.540) Not applied Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) with affordable housing requirement (RCW 84.14) Not applied General funds (including levy lid lifts to increase funds available) Not applied * Some tools may be unavailable for certain jurisdictions. For example, only GMA jurisdictions can use REET 2, or the surroun ding county may have already implemented the housing and related services sales tax. See MRSC’s summary of Affordable Housing Funding Sources for more details and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC)/MRSC booklet on Homelessness & housing toolkit for cities (2022). Commented [FO5]: Check with the City 23 of 4323 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW Riparian Management Guidance 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 98201  P 425.252.7700 1 To: Trevor Martin, Planning Manager, City of Yakima, WA From: Jennifer Groos, Environmental Planner III, Perteet, Inc. Andrea Bachman, Senior Environmental Scientist, Perteet, Inc. Oneza Ferdouse, Associate Principal, BERK Consulting Date: December 1, 2025 Re: Yakima Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Periodic Update WDFW Riparian Management Guidance 1.0 SUMMARY This technical memorandum supplements the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) section of the City of Yakima’s Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Gap Analysis and Best Available Science (BAS) Review report dated October 2025. The memo further supports continued compliance with GMA’s required process for the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update cycle. In accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the purpose of this memo is to specifically consider BAS for riparian ecosystems to be incorporated into Chapter 15.27 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC). Furthermore, this memo is intended to be an overview of the BAS concerning FWHCAs including guidance regarding the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Riparian Management Zones (RMZs), and Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH), as well as a comparison of considerations made by other local jurisdictions in which a flexible approach was warranted. This report does not review WDFW guidance as related to the City of Yakima’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in Title 17 of the YMC (RCW Chapter 90.58). Therefore, Type 1 Waters as designated in YMC 15.27.505 (and listed in Table 3 of this report) are not part of this review due to their designation as “shorelines of the state” per RCW Chapter 90.58. 2.0 Regulatory Basis The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.040 and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365- 196-830 require the designation and protection of critical areas and their ecosystems based on preserving the functions and values of the natural environment and safeguard the public from health and safety hazards. Additionally, RCW 36.70A.172 requires the designation and preservation of critical areas to be based on best available science and includes special consideration of measure necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. 3.0 WDFW RMZ Guidance The WDFW has published multiple BAS resources and guidance related to RMZs, including but not limited to: • Riparian Ecosystems Vol. 1 (Quinn, 2020): Identifies BAS regarding ecological functions of riparian areas and management measures necessary to maintain them. o Riparian Ecosystems Vol. 2 (Rentz et al., 2020): Identifies recommendations for how local governments can include BAS in protecting riparian ecosystems and associated aquatic habitats. 24 of 4324 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 2 • Site Potential Tree Height Guidelines (2025): Recommends implementation of riparian management zones (RMZ) through utilizing arboreal species-specific site-potential tree heights (SPTH200) or the extent of native riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, along with a 100-foot minimum to ensure pollutant-removal functions. • Riparian Management Zone Checklist (2023): Details performance measures and additional protective measures for CAO updates. While the City of Yakima’s existing provisions for stream buffering/setbacks and channel migration zones provide a baseline level of protection, they do not align with WDFW’s 2020 Riparian Ecosystems BAS (Quinn, 2020), the 2020 Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) guidance (WDFW, 2025), or the 2023 RMZ Checklist. Recent WDFW guidance on SPTH (WDFW, 2025) recommends that additional protections to designate riparian ecosystems should also be considered based on associated arboreal/forested systems and WDFW RMZ recommendations (Rentz et al., 2020). Designation of riparian ecosystems/habitats as a FWHCA through the use of RMZs ensures protection of the ecological functions of aquatic habitats, further supporting both fish- bearing riparian habitats (anadromous fish habitats) and non-fish-bearing habitats. Protection of these habitats support temperature regulation, nutrient cycling, pollution prevention, bank stabilization, water quality protection, terrestrial wildlife movement corridors, and climate resilience. The functional properties listed in YMC 15.27.504 support RMZs related to site specific circumstances where the protection of riparian function and values necessitate a larger buffer as a protective measure, such as poor soil conditions, steep slopes or stormwater runoff that can contribute to and deposit pollutants within riverine habitats. WDFW’s Riparian Ecosystems guidance, Vol. 2, Section 2.3.5 (Rentz et al., 2020) indicates that while site- potential tree height (SPTH) may apply in the limited areas of the Columbia Plateau where tall riparian trees occur, this condition is uncommon. In most dryland settings, riparian management zones are more appropriately delineated based on the extent of riparian vegetation and the pollution-removal functions they provide, with a minimum 100-foot width generally cited as necessary to achieve effective pollutant reduction (WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Vol. 2, Section 1.4 (Finding/Rec. #5-b/c) (Rentz et al., 2020). In Yakima, FWHCAs occur in a semi-arid shrub-steppe landscapes characteristic of the Columbia Plateau. Riparian systems along the Yakima River, Naches River, and tributaries provide essential functions even in the absence of tall coniferous forests. This setting requires a regulatory framework that predominantly emphasizes pollutant removal, water quality protection, and habitat connectivity over tree-height–based metrics that are not ecologically applicable in shrub-steppe habitats due to a lack of tall forested systems. Specifically, standard SPTH buffers at a minimum of 200-feet, with the arboreal species-specific tree heights ranging from 123 to 300-feet , may not be a suitable measure for the riparian habitats of the semi-arid shrub- steppe landscape of the Columbia Plateau. Alternatively, the remaining ecological values and functions in absence of tall forested systems along Yakima’s riparian areas could be supported by the designation of FWHCA RMZs based on WDFW recommendations (Rentz et all., 2020). Comprehensively, the WDFW’s guidance documents establish that while SPTH is the preferred scientific measure, BAS supports a flexible approach where ecological conditions (e.g., shrub-steppe) make implementation of SPTH standard buffers inapplicable. 25 of 4325 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 3 Due to the unique complexities of Yakima’s regional and localized ecosystems as well as potential social and economic impacts within the City of Yakima, the recommendations listed in section 4, Table 1 of this memo should be preliminary considerations for alignment with WDFW riparian ecosystems related to implementation of RMZs, SPTH practices, and their associated values and functions in conjunction with other critical area designations. 4.0 Yakima CAO Recommendations The following recommendations include one Primary Recommendation and six Sub-recommendations. The Primary Recommendation is provided as a consolidated list of WDFW recommendations to ensure overall consideration of WDFW BAS and guidance related to RMZs and SPTH practices as expressed in WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Vol. 2, Section 1.4 – Key Findings and Recommendations (Rentz et al., 2020). While the Primary Recommendation suggests three actions for overall consideration in implementation of RMZ protective measures, the subsequent Sub-recommendations provide more specific actions and further defines how the Primary Recommendation can be successfully implemented. Table 1. RMZ-Related Recommendations Code Section Reason/Consistency Recommendation Primary Recommendation 15.27.510 – Vegetative Buffers (Quinn, 2020); (Rentz et al., 2020); (WDFW, 2025); WDFW RMZ Checklist Consider implementation of RMZ protective mechanism recommended by WDFW BAS & guidance for riparian habitat management: • Designation as critical area, • Establish RMZ buffer widths, • Require RMZ delineation to all stream types. Sub-recommendation A 15.27.510 – Vegetative Buffers (Quinn, 2020); (Rentz et al., 2020); (WDFW, 2025); WDFW RMZ Checklist (A) Consider performing an RMZ/SPTH analysis across city riparian habitats based on stream typology and geological soil types in order to evaluate if vegetated buffers contain quality functions and values to support SPTH standard buffer widths. Sub-recommendation B 15.27.510 – Vegetative Buffers (Quinn, 2020); (Rentz et al., 2020); (WDFW, 2025); WDFW RMZ Checklist (B) Consider establishing RMZ delineation criteria. Sub-recommendation C 15.27.510 – Vegetative Buffers (Quinn, 2020); (Rentz et al., 2020); (WDFW, 2025); WDFW RMZ Checklist (C) Consider designation of riparian habitat for fish-bearing and non-fish- bearing streams. Sub-recommendation D Article V. Land Modification Development Standards (Quinn, 2020); (Rentz et al., 2020); (WDFW, 2025); WDFW RMZ Checklist (D) Consider establishing a RMZ minimum 100-foot pollution removal overlay identifying area that should be evaluated based on site-specific conditions due to the potential to hold riparian habitat functional properties 26 of 4326 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 4 when soil type, soil stability, slope, pollution removal, and stormwater contributions are taken into consideration. Sub-recommendation E Article V. Land Modification Development Standards (Quinn, 2020); (Rentz et al., 2020); (WDFW, 2025); WDFW RMZ Checklist (E) Consider including protective provisions for placement OSS within stream buffer and/or riparian habitats. Sub-recommendation F 15.27.315(A)(1) – Supplemental Report Requirements for Specific Critical Areas (Quinn, 2020); (Rentz et al., 2020); (WDFW, 2025); WDFW RMZ Checklist (F) Consider conditional provisions when geotechnical hazards within the delineation of RMZ buffer measurements such as when slopes and topography are part of the habitat feature. 4.1 Riparian Management Zone Primary Recommendation: Consider implementing RMZ protective measures consistent with WDFW guidance (Rentz et all., 2020) to ensure site specific, science-based management of riparian areas. Recommended actions include: • Designating riparian habitats as critical areas. o WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Vol. 2, Section 1.4, Finding/Rec. 1 (Rentz et al., 2020). • Establishing RMZ widths according to site-specific conditions, such as slope, vegetation, stormwater, channel characteristics, and site-specific terrestrial species. o WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Vol. 2, Section 1.4, Finding/Rec. 2-5, & 7-8 (Rentz et al., 2020). • Requiring RMZ delineation steps to all streams, including both fish-bearing or non-fish bearing streams. o WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Vol. 2, Section 1.4, Finding/Rec. 6 (Rentz et al., 2020). The definition of riparian ecosystems according to WDFW Vol. 2 guidance (Rentz et.al., 2020) is as follows, “Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota. They are areas through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (i.e., a zone of influence).” The above primary recommendation serves as the primary consideration for alignment with WDFW BAS and guidance. The following sub-recommendations should be considered as supplement and in support of the suggested protective measures listed in the primary recommendation. Sub-recommendation A: It is recommended that the City of Yakima consider performing an RMZ/SPTH alternative buffer analysis across city riparian habitats based on Ecology’s Permanent Stream Typing System. This effort will support evaluation of potential alternative buffer widths as site-specific or dependent upon unique RMZ functions and values, as well as provide an opportunity to compare geospatial differences in implementing WDFW’s RMZ and SPTH standard buffer guidance in contrast with Yakima’s existing stream buffer thresholds. Additionally, the SPTH buffer analysis should include consideration of RMZs in relation with floodplain CMZs and riparian habitats covered under Yakima’s SMP or designated as shorelines of the state. 27 of 4327 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 5 Sub-recommendation B: Consider establishing RMZ delineation criteria, in which its boundaries are derived based on the presence of a CMZ, OHWM, or other functional properties listed in YMC 15.27.504, whichever is more restrictive. Delineation criteria can be further defined as a result of the above recommended SPTH alternative buffer analysis. Sub-recommendation C: Consider designation of riparian ecosystems in support of the FWHCA Riparian Management Zone, regardless of whether they are fish-bearing or non-fish bearing. Additionally, YMC 15.27.504 does address aquatic fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as able to provide the functional property of “filtering solids, nutrients, and harmful substances,” but does not directly address pollution removal. In situations where the RMZ width is less than 100-feet, the overlay of a 100-foot pollution removal delineation would provide additional opportunities for this functional protection. If the SPTH alternative buffer analysis results in recommendations for alternative buffer widths less than the WDFW recommended standard buffer widths, the City should further consider adoption of a RMZ minimum 100- foot buffer provision with mechanisms for reducing buffers, increasing buffers, and management of disconnected buffers. Additionally, the city should anticipate potential need for supplemental development regulations to address buffer condition criteria and vegetated buffer enhancement measures through requiring the use of Habitat Management Plans and mitigation sequencing, or other adaptive management framework. Sub-recommendation D: Consider establishing RMZ buffer widths in combination with a minimum 100-foot pollution removal overlay based on site-specific conditions that hold riparian habitat functional properties where soil stability, slope, pollution removal, stormwater contributions, and site-specific terrestrial species are taken into consideration when determining the extent of riparian functions. 4.2 Onsite Sewage Systems While provisions for the placement of onsite sewage systems (OSS) with floodplain hazard areas and CARAs are present in Chapter 15.27 of the YMC, Part Five (FWHCAs) does not address OSSs within riparian habitats. WDFW BAS recommendations suggest utilizing HMPs to ensure protections are provided from contaminating waterways, for establishing setback requirements according to WAC 246-272A, and for allowing design, installation, operation, maintenance, and monitoring in according with State Department of Health regulations and standards. Sub-recommendation E: Consider including protective provisions for placement OSS within riparian habitats. 4.3 Bank Stabilization While provisions for designating RMZs are not present in Chapter 15.27 of the YMC, provisions for bank stabilization within FWHCAs and outside of shoreline jurisdictions are present in YMC 15.27.513. These provisions address threats to property, structures, and facilities, as well as professional supervision, minimum protective measures, the use of fill, design, material selections and alternatives for maintaining natural character. Sub-recommendation F: Consider establishing a conditional provision that includes slope, topographic, and/or geotechnical hazards as part of delineating RMZ buffer measurements. 28 of 4328 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 6 5.0 Pollution Removal Overlay Preliminary Review For better comprehension, and before considering implementation of a 100-foot Pollution Removal Overlay/Buffer on all fish-bearing and non fish-bearing streams and waterbodies, it is important to cross reference industry-based terminology regarding water typing systems. The City of Yakima’s CAO currently utilizes the Interim Water Typing System with numbered designations as depicted in WAC 222-16-031. As part of Yakima’s CAO Gap Analysis and BAS Review, the city’s water typing system has been recommended to be updated to a Permanent Water Typing System as required through WAC 222-16-030. Table 2 provides a comparison of current and recommended water typing systems, as well as noting Yakima’s current buffer widths and the WDFW recommended minimum pollution prevention overlay/buffer. Table 2. Water Typing System Comparison Current Interim Typing System (YMC 15.27.505) Current Buffers (YMC 15.27.510 – Table 27.5-1) Recommended Permanent Water Typing System (WAC 222-16-030) WDFW Minimum Pollution Removal Overlay/Buffer Type 1 Water* (See Table 09.030-1 in YMC 17.09.030(P)* Type “S”* 100-Feet* Type 2 and 3 Water 100-Feet/50-Feet Type “F” 100-Feet Type 4 Water 25-Feet Type “Np” 100-Feet Type 5 Water Not Regulated Type “Ns” 100-Feet * Not included in this assessment of FWHCAs RMZ; Applicable to Title 17 of the YMC (Shoreline Master Program Regulations). Two map graphics have been created to provide a preliminary and high-level graphic representation of areas across the city that would be potentially affected by the recommended implementation of a minimum 100-foot pollution removal overlay. The two maps utilize a combination of city-available GIS data for streams and creeks, partial GIS data for the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) waterbodies, and Ecology’s Planning-Level CMZ GIS dataset. Image 1 represents the city’s publicly available and existing stream data through the use of city’s ‘streams and creeks’ dataset, DNR’s ‘waterbodies’ dataset representing riparian-related and other potential waterbodies that would support riparian habitat applicable under the FWHCAs critical area designation, and Ecology’s identified CMZ boundaries. It is important to note that the DNR’s ‘waterbodies’ dataset may include bodies of water that may be considered man-made and not be applicable to wetland, stream, or FWHCA critical area regulations. Additionally, Type “S” waterbodies have been removed from the original DNR ‘waterbodies’ dataset. This partial DNR dataset has been included to help represent waterbodies with riparian functions and values that are not considered ‘shorelines of the state’ (Type “S” shorelines are separately regulated by the city’s Shoreline Master Plan). As shown in Image 1, the DNR’s ‘waterbodies’ dataset only includes Type F, N (Np/Ns), and X classifications as assigned by DNR. The subsequent Image 2 represents areas across Yakima’s jurisdiction that would potentially be affected by the implementation of a minimum 100-foot pollution removal overlay by applying an 100-foot buffer offset to each of the dataset mentioned above.. Together, the two map images (Images 1 and 2) should be used to further understand the need for a specific RMZ/SPTH analysis or assessment (Sub-recommendation A) to evaluate potential impacts to future development activity, private properties, and economic development in proximity to the identified areas. Therefore, locations highlighted in Image 2 have not been fully evaluated and their qualification as a designated 29 of 4329 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 7 critical area needs to be reviewed individually through further analysis. An RMZ/SPTH analysis or assessment would also need to consider impacts to underserved communities, agriculture/ag tourism, and properties that could result in a non-conforming property or structure status. Image 1. Watercourses, Waterbodies, and CMZ Map 30 of 4330 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 8 Image 2. Minimum 100-Foot Pollution Removal Overlay Map 31 of 4331 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 9 Alternatively, four additional map images (Images 3 through 6) have been included as focus areas for better understanding the potential of individual properties being affected. Each of these four map images represents a specific area of Yakima in which the 100-foot Pollution Removal Overlay Area (PROA) may influence future development activity. The four map images should also be used as a preliminary review of lots, structures, or land uses that may no longer conform to development standards as a result of implementing a 100-foot PROA. Image 3. Focus Area: US Hwy 12 / Fruitvale Blvd. 32 of 4332 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 10 Image 4. Focus Area: I-82 / Yakima Ave. / Terrace Heights Blvd. 33 of 4333 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 11 Image 5. Focus Area: Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister / W. Washington Ave. 34 of 4334 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 12 Image 6. Focus Area: S 64th Ave. / W Nob Hill Blvd. / W. Washington Ave. 35 of 4335 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 13 6.0 Case Studies Since most other local jurisdictions within Washington State are also considering WDFW BAS and guidance as part of their Comprehensive Plan & CAO Periodic Update, the following case studies are included to better understand how RMZ/SPTH implementation methods are being evaluated and/or adopted. Special consideration should be given to Kittitas County due to their similar relative location within the Columbia Plateau region (dryland environment). While not located within a dryland environment, the other case studies referenced below are provided for further reference related to their methods for designation, buffer width measurement, and alternative provisions for assessing site-specific conditions. Table 3. Comparison of Implementation Methods by Other Local Jurisdictions Jurisdictio n Source Riparian Habitat Designation Method of Measure Std. SPTH Buffer Min. 100- ft Buffer Alternative Provisions for Site- Specific Conditions Kitsap County Technical Guidance & Ord. 633 (2024) Fed. & State (PHS) identified species & habitats, and “Areas targeted for preservation by the federal, state and/or local government which provide fish and wildlife habitat benefits…” (KCC 19.300.310(B)(4)(a)(ii) OHWM or CMZ General Buffer Alternative (KCC 19.100.315 (A)(3) [Voluntary Provision] All Stream Types shown 100-ft or more in Stream Buffer Width Table Matrix • Buffer Averaging • UGA Alternative Buffer Widths • Increased Buffers • Disconnected Buffers • Exemptions & Std. for Existing Dev. • Mitigation Sequencing • Reasonable Use Exceptions • Variance Criteria Kittitas County Codified Ord. 2025- 006, KCC Chapter 17A.04 Fed. & State (PHS) identified species & habitats, “…and areas associated with state priority species.” (KCC 17A.04.020(1)(d); RMZ Defined (Native Growth Protection Areas) OHWM, CMZ, or Active Floodplain SPTH or Min. 100-ft Buffer, whichever is greater SPTH or Min. 100-ft Buffer, whichever is greater • Increased RMZ / Upland Habitat Buffers • RMZ / Upland Habitat Buffer Averaging • Non-aquatic Habitat Buffers Mountlake Terrace, WA Gap Analysis Technical Guidance (2025) Rec: Provide a FHWCA definition. Rec: OHWM or CMZ Rec: Utilize SPTH delineation methods Rec: Min. 100-ft Buffer for Pollution Prevention & Removal • Rec: Monitoring Program and Contingency Plan for FWHCAs. • Mitigation Plans/Sequencing • Exempt Activities & Alteration to Critical Areas • Reasonable Use Exceptions • Variances Sumner, WA Codified Ord. 2909 (2024) RMZ Defined (SMC 16.04.060) OHWM Min. 100-ft Buffer on all stream types. Min. 100-ft Buffer on all stream types. • Buffer Reductions (Not below 75-ft) • Partial Exemptions • Monitoring Plans • Variance Criteria 36 of 4336 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 14 6.1 Kitsap County Two references were used to assess Kitsap County’s CAO update, a WDFW Riparian Management Guidance technical memorandum, drafted by DCG/Watershed (currently known as Facet) in 2023 and Kitsap County’s Ordinance # 633 (2025), Title 19 CAO. The technical memorandum provided similar recommendations as noted in this memo including use of BAS and guidance from WDFW for riparian ecosystems, designation of riparian ecosystem as a critical area, establishment of RMZ widths/buffers, and methods for RMZ delineation regardless of related fish-bearing status. Review of the CAO ordinance shows that the County revised buffer measurement methods to include the CMZ, overlapping adjacent wetland buffers, and slope/topographic features of influence, where applicable. A provision referred to as the ‘General Buffer Alternative’ is provided as a voluntary alternative method for deriving a site-specific buffer according to WDFW SPTH modeling methods. UGA Alternative Buffer widths are also provided with conditional requirements for limited circumstances. Use of licensed professionals and Habitat Management Plan are implemented throughout these provisions. Additionally, conditional provisions are provided for buffer reductions including implementation of mitigation sequencing, percentage- based reductions for specific land uses, buffer averaging, variance processes, as well as methods for addressing increased buffers and disconnected buffers. 6.2 Kittitas County Kittitas County’s critical area ordinance contained provisions for Riparian Management Zones in 2021 as a result of Ordinance 2021-016, and recent codified efforts related to Ordinance 2025-006 made changes to all sections of Chapter 17A.04 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas). The historical background regarding Ord. 2025-006 is the result of efforts to update the County’s CAO in 2021 and included a series of petitioning and appeals in relation with the Yakama Nation for review by the Eastern Washington Growth Hearings Board (GMHB). Although, it is evident through a comparison of the prior version of the County CAO that amendments included added references to state regulations, added references to ‘BAS’, revised descriptions to the RMZs, their buffers/widths, measurement methods, and vegetated conditions. Conditions triggering increased RMZs also include project sites “…within or adjacent to documented anadromous fish spawning or rearing habitat.” (YCC 17A.04.030(7). 6.2 City of Mountlake Terrace, WA Reference to the City of Mountlake Terrace’s efforts to update the critical area ordinance include technical guidance from 2025 as provided by Facet (formerly DCG/Watershed) in the Critical Areas Ordinance Gap Analysis report. Subsequently, Facet provided a technical memorandum in July 2025 for SPTH Analysis, similar to the recommendation made in this memo in Section 5. Recommendations in the report included a 100-foot buffer to protect water quality for all streams, buffer condition and native vegetation enhancement requirements if/when buffers are chosen to be less than recommended by WDFW, and management of disconnected buffers. 6.3 City of Sumner, WA The City of Sumner’s critical area ordinance was amended in 2024 with Ordinance # 2909. Amongst the amendments the adoption of a clear definition of the RMZ was included along with provisions for requiring a Habitat Management Plan, management of disconnected buffers, and requiring a Resource, Wildlife, and Hazard application process for certain regulated activities, all as protective design and management measures. While variance criteria and a related review process already existed in the city’s CAO, a provision was added to specifically require other agencies with jurisdiction in addition to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 37 of 4337 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 15 National Marine Fisheries Service, to receive a notice of application for variances regarding the reduction of buffer widths for Type F streams. Provisions addressing alterations to buffer widths include buffer reduction criteria and partial exemptions. 7.0 References City of Yakima, WA. Yakima Municipal Code, Chapter 15.27 – Critical Areas Ordinance. First accessed February 2025 at : https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Yakima/#!/YakimaNT.html (Yakima Municipal Code). Department of Commerce. 2018. Summary of Critical Areas WAC Amendments. December 2018. Washington Department of Commerce. Olympia, WA. Department of Commerce. 2023. Critical Areas Handbook, A Handbook for Reviewing Critical Areas Regulations, Version 3. Washington Department of Commerce. Olympia, WA. Department of Commerce. 2024. Critical Area Checklist, A Technical Assistance Tool from Growth Management Services. Updated May 2024. Washington Department of Commerce. Olympia, WA. Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Riparian Management Zone Checklist for Critical Areas Ordinances. Olympia, WA. WDFW. 2025. (WDFW, 2025) Guidelines for Determining Site Potential Tree Height from Field Measurements. Olympia, WA. WDFW. 2025. PHS on the Web, Online webmap. Olympia, WA. First accessed August 2025 at: https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/ (PHS on the Web). WDFW. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List, Updated June 2023. Olympia, WA. 291pp. WDFW. 2020. (Quinn, 2020) Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science synthesis and management implications. Timothy Quinn, George Wilhere and Kirk Krueger, (Managing Editors). A Priority Habitat and Species Document of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. WDFW. 2020. (Rentz et al., 2020) Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. Amy Windrope, Timothy Quinn, Keith Folkerts, and Terra Rentz. A Priority Habitat and Species Document of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Conservation Commission). (WDFW-Shrubsteppe, 2024). March 2024. Washington Shrubsteppe Restoration and Resiliency Initiative: Long-Term Strategy 2024-2054. Olympia, Washington. 38 of 4338 of 43 MEMORANDUM - WDFW RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE 16 8.0 Glossary BAS – Best Available Science CAO – Critical Area Ordinance CMZ – Channel Migration Zone DNR – Washington Department of Natural Resources FWHCA – Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area GIS – Geographic Information System GMA – Growth Management Act HMP – Habitat Management Plan OHWM – Ordinary High-Water Mark OSS – Onsite Septic System PHS – Priority Habitat Species PROA – Pollution Removal Overlay Area RCW – Revised Code of Washington RMZ – Riparian Management Zone SMP – Shoreline Master Plan SPTH – Site Potential Tree Height UGA – Urban Growth Area WAC – Washington Administrative Code WDFW – Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife YMC – Yakima Municipal Code 39 of 4339 of 43 Building Permits Issued - Previous Month Permit Number Date Issued Primary Parcel Number Site Address Permit Type Project Description Applicant Total Valuations B250985 11/03/2025 18131544429 711 N 34TH AVE BLD-RES-SFR NEW SFR 1800SQ FT WILL D & JILL D SCARLETT $302,550.00 B251137 11/03/2025 18132713440 1018 S 37TH AVE BLD-RES-ROOF-P Roof replacement A W ROOFING OF YAKIMA LLC $9,000.00 B251044 11/04/2025 19131913483 314 S 7TH ST BLD-RES-SOLAR 18.450 KW PV ROOF MOUNT SOLAR AND LOAD CENTER, TO BE INSTALLED ON THE HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $38,000.00 B251088 11/04/2025 18132243036 401 DEL MAR TER BLD-RES-MISC-ALT COVERING TWO WINDOWS ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THE HOUSE ARMANDO CRUZ MENDOZA $1,000.00 B251103 11/04/2025 18132511500 716 S 4TH AVE BLD-RES-SOLAR 8.20 kw pv solar roof mount Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $16,500.00 B251121 11/04/2025 19131942510 404 S 7TH ST BLD-RES-SOLAR 11.07kW PV Roof Mount-Solar Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $2,200.00 B251124 11/04/2025 18133622461 1615 S 15TH AVE BLD-RES-SOLAR 9.430kW PV Roof Mount- Solar Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $20,000.00 B251144 11/04/2025 18132223453 4606 AVALANCHE AVE BLD-RES-ROOF-P Tear-off and re-roof 36SQ with CertainTeed Landmark Adamson, Missy $49,551.00 B251143 11/04/2025 18132331420 120 N 24TH AVE BLD-RES-ROOF-P Roof replacement A W ROOFING OF YAKIMA LLC $7,700.00 B250696 11/05/2025 18131441434 1601 FRUITVALE BLVD BLD-COM-GRADING After UST removal, the excavation will be backfilled, compacted and finished with asphalt.PAUL FAIRBAIRN $20,000.00 B250696 11/05/2025 18131441434 1601 FRUITVALE BLVD BLD-COM-GRADING After UST removal, the excavation will be backfilled, compacted and finished with asphalt.PAUL FAIRBAIRN $20,000.00 B250697 11/05/2025 18131441434 1601 FRUITVALE BLVD BLD-COM-DEMO removing vent lines, vapor piping lines, two dispensers, canopy, canopy footings, concrete pump islands, and concrete slabs. PAUL FAIRBAIRN $30,000.00 B250697 11/05/2025 18131441434 1601 FRUITVALE BLVD BLD-COM-DEMO removing vent lines, vapor piping lines, two dispensers, canopy, canopy footings, concrete pump islands, and concrete slabs. PAUL FAIRBAIRN $30,000.00 B250717 11/05/2025 18120413428 4603 W LARCH AVE BLD-RES-SFR New single-family residence TRADITIONAL DESIGNS INC - BRAD KESSINGER $414,675.44 B250670 11/06/2025 18132313512 222 N 23RD AVE BLD-RES-GARAGE Rebuild a garage ruined by fire (no plumbing or heating Allison Larson $21,011.40 B250702 11/06/2025 18131943047 8711 TIETON DR BLD-COM-ADDN Constructing a 48 sq. ft. addition for an ADA bathroom KATHERINE KOSTELECKY $10,994.88 B251149 11/06/2025 19133122423 64 W MEAD AVE BLD-RES-ROOF-P Roof removal and installation Grubenhoff, Noah $14,526.00 B250292 11/07/2025 18132923443 1005 WESTBROOK PL BLD-RES-ADD HOUSE ADDITION -CARPORT, W/COVERED PATIO, NEW KITCHEN, HOME UNITED CONSTRUCTION LLC $175,823.91 B250699 11/07/2025 19132033450 815 S 13TH ST #1-2 BLD-RES-DUP New duplex GONZALEZ, ISMAEL $423,313.20 B251096 11/07/2025 18132412535 601 W LINCOLN AVE #A BLD-COM-TI CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY FROM SALON TO TYPE RETAIL SECONDHAND STORE; locations of walls and doors to all remain the same as they were for previous tenant. JAIYEOLA, EMMANUEL B251100 11/07/2025 18132524567 903 S 11TH AVE BLD-RES-ADD ADDITION OF 2 BEDROOMS AND 1 BATHROOM; remodeling existing portion of the house. D 1 ROOFING LLC - MARIA TERRONES $111,392.46 B251139 11/07/2025 18132841416 5104 W NOB HILL BLVD #3 BLD-COM-ROOF add new layer of asphalt shingles to existing single layer of asphalt shingles, on a 40 sq ft apartment building.New Generation Roofing LLC $11,345.00 B251161 11/07/2025 18132524567 903 S 11TH AVE BLD-RES-MISC-ALT NEW SIDING OVER EXISTING WITH BOARD BATTEN LP SMART D 1 ROOFING LLC - MARIA TERRONES $5,000.00 B251161 11/07/2025 18132524567 903 S 11TH AVE BLD-RES-MISC-ALT NEW SIDING OVER EXISTING WITH BOARD BATTEN LP SMART D 1 ROOFING LLC - MARIA TERRONES $5,000.00 B251158 11/07/2025 18132513497 914 HANRATY DR BLD-RES-ROOF-P Tear off & Re-Roof.Brandon Woodcock $10,000.00 B251154 11/07/2025 18132612465 2101 SAINT HELENS ST BLD-RES-ROOF-P Roof replacement A W ROOFING OF YAKIMA LLC $16,000.00 40 of 4340 of 43 Building Permits Issued - Previous Month Permit Number Date Issued Primary Parcel Number Site Address Permit Type Project Description Applicant Total Valuations B251153 11/07/2025 18132121451 5906 GLACIER WY BLD-RES-ROOF-P Roof replacement A W ROOFING OF YAKIMA LLC $17,500.00 B251171 11/10/2025 19131913448 609 E WALNUT ST BLD-RES-ROOF Doing a re-roof on a SFR same for same EL PUERTO CONSTRUCTION LLC $7,000.00 B251089 11/10/2025 18133622461 1615 S 15TH AVE BLD-RES-ADD addition of a master bedroom (bathroom and closet); relocating laundry room; renovating existing kitchen and bathroom GONZALEZ, FRANCISCO $107,438.88 B251126 11/10/2025 18132943425 1428 S 68TH AVE BLD-RES-SOLAR 11.890 kw pv solar roof mount Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $24,000.00 B251141 11/10/2025 18132043476 406 S 70TH AVE BLD-RES-SOLAR 7.380 kw pv roof mount solar Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $15,000.00 B251145 11/10/2025 18132044481 213 S 67TH AVE BLD-RES-SOLAR 7.380 kw pv roof mount solar Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $15,000.00 B251162 11/10/2025 18132622481 2810 FRASER WY BLD-RES-ROOF Change out old roof and install sheeting along with new roof on a SFR AJR LIONS CONSTRUCTION LLC $9,500.00 B251163 11/10/2025 18133522426 1516 S 28TH AVE BLD-RES-ROOF Change out old roof and do a re-roof on SFR AJR LIONS CONSTRUCTION LLC $7,000.00 B251165 11/10/2025 18131333429 1505 FAIRBANKS AVE BLD-RES-ROOF Doing re-roof on SFR like for like SUPERIOR ROOFING LLC $6,000.00 B251169 11/10/2025 18132223462 4510 AVALANCHE AVE BLD-RES-ROOF-P Re roof Johnson, Nathan $13,500.00 B241041 11/12/2025 18132714077 3201 W NOB HILL BLVD BLD-RES-ROOF-P Remove old roofing and replace with metal roofing. Madrigal, Noe $28,000.00 B251064 11/13/2025 19131922463 201 E YAKIMA AVE #100 BLD-COM-REN demo portion of existing parapet wall, extending parapet wall at exterior public entrances. improvements to exterior building paint and siding materials. JACKOLA ENGINEERING - MARK CRAWFORD $300,000.00 B251164 11/13/2025 18133411445 1504 S 32ND AVE BLD-RES-SOLAR INSTALLATION OF A PV ROOF MOUNT 8.20KW SOLAR Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $16,500.00 B251178 11/13/2025 18132622400 620 S 31ST AVE BLD-RES-ROOF Tear off and re-roof with Pabco premier laminated asphalt shingles on SFR JOE W & JILL M SWITZER $17,000.00 B251179 11/13/2025 18132022520 7702 RICHEY RD BLD-RES-ROOF Tear off and re-roof with 50yr laminated asphalt shingles on SFR Lacy Roofing Inc $5,000.00 B250935 11/13/2025 19131923408 22 N 1ST ST BLD-COM-REN Interior renovation for an existing restaurant - new seating will be on the second level with new patrol and staff restrooms. The existing interior stair will be rebuilt. MEGAN BEYER $185,000.00 B251087 11/14/2025 18132144543 405 S 51ST AVE BLD-COM-ROOF remove metal roof and replace with 30yr composite shingle roof AR 509 CONSTRUCTION LLC $8,000.00 B250980 11/14/2025 18132513574 702 STEWART ST BLD-COM-FND FOUNDATION / SLAB FOR NEW MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING LESLIE ENGINEERING - MATT LESLIE $377,442.00 B251183 11/16/2025 18132714482 912 S 36TH AVE BLD-RES-ROOF-P Tear off and replace shingles SOWDER, KELLY $8,000.00 B251185 11/17/2025 18132041012 6409 W CHESTNUT AVE BLD-RES-ROOF RE ROOF LIKE FOR LIKE DAMPIER, ROGER E $12,000.00 B251187 11/17/2025 18131413023 1122 N 22ND AVE BLD-RES-ROOF Roof replacement, doing a re-roof on a SFR tearing off old shingles and replacing with same for same AN CONSTRUCTION & REMODEL LLC $7,000.00 B251182 11/17/2025 18132421488 1203 GARFIELD AVE BLD-RES-ROOF-P Reroof detached garage Hutchinson, Dan $1,000.00 B251155 11/18/2025 19131823407 309 MURPHY LN BLD-RES-MISC-ALT INTERIOR REMODEL, ADDING A FULL BATHROOM CARRILLO, ALFREDO $5,000.00 B251157 11/18/2025 18132433440 314 S 13TH AVE BLD-RES-MISC-ALT INTERIOR REMODEL, REMOVED AN ARCH FROM DINING ROOM AREA DIVIDING WALL GERWIN NAVA $150.00 B251192 11/18/2025 19131823583 322 E THORNTON LN BLD-RES-ROOF Residential reroof.FEDERICO B BADILLO $3,100.00 41 of 4341 of 43 Building Permits Issued - Previous Month Permit Number Date Issued Primary Parcel Number Site Address Permit Type Project Description Applicant Total Valuations B251160 11/19/2025 18132122490 6003 DOUGLAS DR BLD-RES-MISC-ALT BUILD A 13' L X8' WALL FOR A CLOSET IN EXISTING OFFICE ROOM, CAP WITH SHEETROCK ABH HANDYMAN SERVICE $3,000.00 B251184 11/19/2025 18132022518 7608 RICHEY RD BLD-RES-SOLAR 4.30 KW PV SOLAR ROOF MOUNT Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $9,000.00 B251188 11/19/2025 19131943404 608 S 4TH ST BLD-RES-SOLAR 9.020 KW PV ROOF MOUNT SOLAR, ON DETACHED GARAGE AND SERVICE Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $20,000.00 B251194 11/19/2025 19133011492 1111 S 8TH ST BLD-RES-MISC-ALT replace/repair part of the siding, the house had a previous addition, only old house portion needs siding LUCILA RUELAS $3,000.00 B251195 11/19/2025 19133011492 1111 S 8TH ST BLD-RES-ROOF replace/repair part of the roof, the house had a previous addition, only old house portion needs roof replaced LUCILA RUELAS $4,000.00 B250735 11/21/2025 18132441415 216 S 2ND AVE BLD-COM-NEW Add two exterior canopies to the West side of the existing building. These canopies will be attached to the existing building. KITT CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT LLC - CASEY KITT $75,499.20 B250929 11/21/2025 18132324487 324 N 25TH AVE BLD-RES-MISC-ALT replacing part of a chain link fence with vinyl fence, over old fence's existing footprint, 8' tall MARC A CRAVER LYKKEN $7,698.79 B251015 11/21/2025 18120413446 4818 W OAK AVE BLD-RES-SFR NEW SFR 1395 SQ FT HAYDEN HOMES LLC - STOKES, KRIS $275,799.85 B251017 11/21/2025 18120413445 4820 W OAK AVE BLD-RES-SFR NEW SFR 1395 SQ FT HAYDEN HOMES LLC - STOKES, KRIS $271,177.45 B251035 11/21/2025 18132533474 1302 S 14TH AVE #1- 2 BLD-RES-DUP Build a new duplex on the lot 2,576 LOGAN WILSON $431,145.12 B251173 11/21/2025 18132021464 7505 GLACIER WAY BLD-RES-SOLAR installation of a 4.920kw pv roof mount solar Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $10,000.00 B251189 11/21/2025 19131942401 506 S 4TH ST BLD-RES-SOLAR 10.660kw PV SOLAR ROOF MOUNT Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $22,000.00 B251190 11/21/2025 18132412519 502 N 5TH AVE BLD-RES-SOLAR 13.530KW PV ROOF MOUNT SOLAR PANELS Freedom Forever WA LLC - Leann Malloy $30,000.00 B251207 11/21/2025 19132243421 703 BEACON AVE BLD-RES-ROOF REPLAMENT OF ROOF, SHINGLES AJR LIONS CONSTRUCTION LLC- Juan Manuel Nava Gallo $8,500.00 B251208 11/21/2025 19131944535 717 S 7TH ST BLD-RES-ROOF REPLAMENT OF ROOF, SHINGLES AND SHEATING AJR LIONS CONSTRUCTION LLC- Juan Manuel Nava Gallo $9,000.00 B251209 11/21/2025 19131944536 713 S 7TH ST BLD-RES-ROOF REPLAMENT OF ROOF, SHINGLES AJR LIONS CONSTRUCTION LLC- Juan Manuel Nava Gallo $9,875.00 B251211 11/21/2025 18132514459 913 S 6TH AVE BLD-RES-MISC-ALT Remove and replace (6) rafters, sheetrock and insulation on the walls and ceiling due to fire damage. Seal smoke damage and add smoke alarms per code. ARTEAGA CONSTRUCTION LLC $80,000.00 B250232 11/21/2025 18132931401 7500 W NOB HILL BLVD #A BLD-COM-NEW New storage facility Steel Structures America Inc $2,164,265.60 B250233 11/21/2025 18132931401 7500 W NOB HILL BLVD #B BLD-COM-NEW New storage facility Steel Structures America Inc $2,396,515.80 B250236 11/21/2025 18132931401 7500 W NOB HILL BLVD #E BLD-COM-NEW New storage facility Steel Structures America Inc $1,786,540.00 B251212 11/22/2025 18131343429 719 N 4TH AVE BLD-RES-ROOF-P Residential Re-Roof 719 N. 4th Ave, Yakima, WA. 98902 Kearby, Don $5,000.00 B250771 11/24/2025 18132033511 210 S 78TH AVE BLD-RES-ADD BUILDING A PERGOLA OVER EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO AREA NEW CREATION CONSTRUCTION $6,002.70 B251134 11/25/2025 19132931450 1414 S 18TH ST BLD-COM-NEW New drive-thru snack shop MUNOZ, JAIME $71,399.68 42 of 4342 of 43 Building Permits Issued - Previous Month Permit Number Date Issued Primary Parcel Number Site Address Permit Type Project Description Applicant Total Valuations B250860 11/26/2025 18132212445 3905 RICHEY RD BLD-RES-GARAGE 896 sq ft garage with a recreational room on the second floor with full bath CARLOS JR LOPEZ $193,675.30 B251101 11/26/2025 18120413409 2523 S 47TH AVE BLD-MSTR-SFR New single-family residence DH CONSTRUCTION & ASSOCIATES LLC $276,314.07 B251102 11/26/2025 18120413406 2525 S 47TH AVE BLD-MSTR-SFR NEW SFR DH CONSTRUCTION & ASSOCIATES LLC $276,314.07 77 Total Permits 43 of 4343 of 43