Loading...
11/01/2021 19.C. Distribution of the Complete Record for the appeal hearing of West Valley School District-Apple Valley Elementary 1 14.4111\l'A 1—coi• oriV4 rr 11 i "i enc u nrry 1 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 19.C. For Meeting of: November 1, 2021 ITEM TITLE: Distribution of the Complete Record for the appeal hearing of West Valley School District-Apple Valley Elementary SUBMITTED BY: Joan Davenport,AI CP, Community Development Director Joseph Calhoun, Planning Manager(509) 575-6042 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The complete record, as of October 21, 2021, for the appeal hearing of the West Valley School District-Apple Valley Elementary(Project File:APP#008-21) is being distributed to City Council members in this agenda packet. Please bring these materials to the public hearing which will take place on November 16, 2021. Any additional documents submitted during the rebuttal period which ends on November 2, 2021, will be included in the November 16, 2021 hearing packet. Enclosed please also find a confidential memorandum from the Legal Department regarding quasi-judicial proceedings. As a reminder, as the City Council hearing this appeal, you sit as "judges" in this matter. As such, you must remain impartial and unbiased. Further, you may not have any ex parte communications with appellants or respondents regarding the matters in this appeal. Finally, you may not hear this matter if you have a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest arise if you have an interest in the property or the application, or own property within 300 feet of the property subject to the action or if you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the appeal. You will be asked to affirmatively answer questions on the record regarding these matters. More information can be found in the confidential memorandum included with this packet. ITEM BUDGETED: NA STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Neighborhood and Community Building APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: 2 ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type ❑ Part 1 of 5 WVSD-AppleValley 10/27/2021 Cotter Memo ❑ Part 2 of 5 WVSQAppleValley 10/27/2021 Cotter Memo D Part 3 of 5 WVSQAppleValley 10/27/2021 Cotter Memo ❑ Part 4 of 5_WVSaAppleValley 10/27/2021 Cotter Memo ❑ Part 5 of 5 WVSQAppleValley 10/27/2021 Cotter Memo 3 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21, APP#001-21) City Council Closed Record Appeal Hearing November 16, 2021 EXHIBIT LIST Applicant: West Valley School District—Peter Finch File Numbers: APP#008-21 Site Address: 7 N. 88th Avenue Staff Contact: Eric Crowell, Associate Planner Table of Contents CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Decision CHAPTER BB Appeal to City Council Applications CHAPTER CC Appeal Responses & Appellant Rebuttal CHAPTER A Staff Report CHAPTER B Maps CHAPTER C Site Plan CHAPTER D DST Review & Agency Comments CHAPTER E Public Notices CHAPTER F Public Comments CHAPTER G Land Use Application & Decision for MOD#021-21 CHAPTER H Supplemental Information/Additional Comments 4 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21, APP#001-21) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Decision 1)OC DOCVMEN. DATE INDEX# AA-1 Notice of Hearing Examiner's Decision 08/26/2021 5 RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 City of Yakima, Washington CITY AN OF YAKIMA VV Hearing Examiner's Decision August 26, 2021 In the Matter of an Appeal by the ) West Valley School District of an ) Administrative Official's Decision ) APP#001-21 Regarding One of Five Requests ) MOD#021-21 For a Minor Modification to the ) City's Approved Site Plan for the ) Apple Valley Elementary School ) A. Introduction. The main procedural aspects of the open record public hearing that was conducted by the Hearing Examiner on August 12, 2021, may be summarized as follows: (1) The Administrative Official, City of Yakima Community Development Director Joan Davenport, issued a decision on June 30, 2021, relative to a request for the Minor Modification of the site plan previously approved for the Apple Valley Elementary School. The decision approved as a Minor Modification the addition of a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sight-screening in some locations which were four of the modified features shown on the revised site plans submitted on June 21 and June 23, 2021 (Document Index B-3 and G-3). The decision did not approve as a Minor Modification the increase in elevation of grading contours of portions of the site beyond what the City had previously approved for building permit B200126 in 2020. That denial was based on a finding that the increase in site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project (Document Index E-3 and G-4). (2) A courtesy copy of the Administrative Official's decision was sent to West Valley School District 1 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School DOC. APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX R gCEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 GI rY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. adjacent property owners who had emailed concerns to the City about the increase in elevation of the site (Testimony of Joan Davenport). A section at the end of the decision entitled "APPEAL" set forth instructions as to how decisions by the Planning Division regarding approval or denial of administrative modifications may be appealed within fourteen days. West Valley School District(hereafter"WVSD") appealed the Administrative Official's denial of the increase in the site grading elevation of the playgrounds and playfields as a Minor Modification. There is no indication in the record that anyone appealed the changes that were approved as part of the Minor Modification request. If those aspects of the Minor Modification were appealed, they were not included within this Appeal proceeding and are not before the Hearing Examiner as part of this Appeal. (3) Testimony of City Associate Planner Eric Crowell recommended that the Appeal be denied and that the Administrative Official's failure to approve the requested increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification of the approved site plan be affirmed for reasons set forth in his staff report (Document Index A-1). Testimony in favor of denial of the Appeal and affirmance of the Administrative Official's decision was also presented by City Attorney Sara Watkins; by Community Development Director Joan Davenport; and by adjacent property owner John Manfredi. (4) Testimony in favor of the Appeal to authorize the increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification was submitted by appellant's attorney Julie A. Wilson-McNerney of the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP; by the Project Architect at Design West Architects, Matthew Whitish, AIA; by the Bond Oversight Committee Chairman, Peter Marinace; and by a parent of two Apple Valley Elementary School students, Chris Jevne. (5) Written comments in favor of the Appeal seeking approval of the requested increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification were submitted by appellant's attorneys, Kristine R. Wilson and Julie A. Wilson-McNerney of Perkins Coie LLP (Document Index D-1, G-2, H-5 and H- 6); by appellant's Acting Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Peter Finch (Document Index D-1); by a commenter who described herself as a taxpayer, Michelle Mueller (Document Index F-2); by a parent of an Apple Valley Elementary School student, Jamie Mathews (Document Index H-1); by a West Valley resident, Ryan K. Mathews (Document Index H-3); by a resident living across Barge Street north of the school, Oscar Rodriguez (Document Index H-7); and by the Bond Oversight West Valley School District 2 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA Committee Chairman, Peter Marinace (Document Index H-8). PLANNING DIV. (6) Written comments in opposition to the Appeal and in favor of affirming the Administrative Official's decision were submitted by Associate Planner Eric Crowell (Document Index A-1); by Administrative Official Joan Davenport (Document Index H-4); by adjacent resident Julia Ericson (Document Index F-1); by adjacent resident Stuart McCurdy (Document Index F-3); by adjacent residents Kevin and Melanie Cox (Document Index F-4); by adjacent residents John and Candace Manfredi (Document Index F-5 and H-2); by adjacent resident Thela McCurdy (Document Index F-6); and by adjacent residents Erasmo and Lorena Carranza (Document Index F-7). (7) Extensive written, photographic, illustrative and oral evidence was presented in this matter. Any attempt to summarize the evidence that was relative to the grounds set forth for this Appeal could not as a practical matter include all of the many points in their context that were submitted as evidence, but anyone interested in reviewing all of the evidence in its full context may do so by reviewing the documents submitted for this record and by viewing the hearing on the City's website entitled "yakimawa.gov" by clicking on "City Council" and then on "City Council Videos" and then on "City of Yakima Hearing Examiner 8/12/2021." The Hearing Examiner has more than once reviewed all of the written,photographic and illustrative evidence, as well as all of the testimonial evidence presented at the hearing. The following Findings, Conclusions and Decision are the result from that review and consideration of all of the evidence in the record and presented at the hearing which pertains to the stated grounds for this Appeal. These Findings, Conclusions and Decision have been issued within ten working days of the date of the open record public hearing as required by Subsections 16.08.018(G) and 16.08.020(C) of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC). B. Basis for Decision. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site on August 10, 2021, without anyone else present; his consideration of the staff report, the appeal information, the exhibits, the testimony and other evidence presented at the open record public hearing on August 12, 2021; and his consideration of the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code West Valley School District 3 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX # t5p-1 RECEIVED 8 AUG 26 2021 LA- YAKIMA .)+..ANNING DIV. (YMC), which apply to the Appellant's grounds for appeal; the Hearing Examiner makes and issues the following Findings, Conclusions and Decision: FINDINGS I. Background of Appeal. The background facts pertinent to this appeal may be summarized as follows: (1) When the City investigated a complaint regarding the construction of a walking pathway at Apple Valley Elementary School, it found that the school and parking areas had been constructed in accordance with the site plan that was approved on April 7, 2020 for the building permit (B200126), but it was determined that the playground areas, fields and pathway were in some areas one to three feet higher than shown on the approved site plan. A stop work order was placed on the playground and playfield portions of the project on May 26, 2021. WVSD applied for a modification of the approved site plan on May 28, 2021 which would add the pathway that had been constructed around the south and east perimeter of the school site. The City recommended during a virtual meeting with WVSD on June 4, 2021 that WVSD meet with the concerned neighbors to hear their comments. After WVSD sent email notices to neighbors on June 8, 2021, it held a meeting with neighbors to hear their concerns on June 14, 2021. The City's Community Development Director who is the Administrative Official, Joan Davenport, attended that meeting and heard neighborhood concerns, including concerns about the increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the playground and playfields at issue in this Appeal. She also visited the school campus. On June 21, 2021, an amended application was submitted to also modify backstop and goalpost locations for the playfields, to slightly reduce the asphalt area for the playground, to change some of the fencing and to allow the grading of the playfields to remain at the as- built elevations rather than at the previously approved elevations. The City Planning Division determined that the application was complete and the Administrative Official issued the decision relative thereto on June 30, 2021 (Document Index H-4 and E-3). West Valley School District 4 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School �a APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DQC. INDEX � -1 AUG 2 2027 U' YAKIMA °LANNING Div. (2) The decision approved as a Minor Modification the five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfields, the revised backstop and goalpost locations, the reduction in asphalt for the playground, and the installation of sitescreening, but it did not approve as a Minor Modification the as-built increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the playground and playfield areas of the site. (3)West Valley School District timely appealed the latter aspect of the Minor Modification decision on July 14, 2021. Public notice of the Appeal hearing set for August 12, 2021 was given by mailing notice to the parties of record and the applicant/appellant on July 23, 2021, as well as by publishing notice in the Yakima Herald-Republic on July 23, 2021 and posting land use action signs on the site on August 2, 2021 in accordance with YMC §16.08.018(D). The Hearing Examiner conducted the open record public hearing pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by YMC §15.20.040(C)(1)(f) and §16.08.018(G). (4) YMC §15.17.020 states that minor changes to approved Class (1), (2) or (3) uses may qualify for abbreviated review if they do not exceed certain listed criteria consisting of seven types of limitations on the nature of the change. The limitation prescribed by YMC §15.17.020(C) is that any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed 50% of the gross floor area. YMC §15.17.040(B)(1) provides that applications for modifications may be summarily and administratively reviewed by using the Type (1) review process plus the additional consideration of three specified criteria. The third criterion in YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) is that the proposed change in the site design or arrangement, in the determination of the planning division, will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. (5) YMC §15.17.040(C) provides that if in utilizing the Type (1) review process the proposed modification does not meet all of the requirements of section 15.17.040, it shall be denied and may be the subject of an application for review under the normal review provisions for the use. The normal review provisions for this use would be the Type (3) review provisions for elementary school uses in the Single-Family Residential(R-1)zoning district. Besides requiring public notice and an open record public hearing by the Hearing Examiner, Type (3) review of Class (3) uses defined in YMC §15.02.020 also requires the consideration of several criteria such as compatibility with the neighborhood and authorizes the imposition of conditions if they would adequately resolve difficulties related to compatibility. West Valley School District 5 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 ®O io INDEX 10 RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 OF YAKIMA Such alternatives are not available in the abbreviated, summary, administrative AMVING DIV. Type(1)Minor Modification process which according to YMC §15.17.040(C)must result in either approval or denial of the requested change. YMC §15.17.020 likewise provides that denial of requested changes under the abbreviated Type (1) Minor Modification procedure that do not meet the criteria must apply for review as a Class (1), (2) or (3) use or development. (5) YMC §16.08.018(A) provides that an Administrative Official's decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. YMC §16.08.018(C) states that all appeals shall specifically cite the action being appealed, the error(s) or issue(s) to be considered, and explain why the action is not consistent with the provisions of the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan, this title or other provisions of law. YMC §16.08.018(G)requires that testimony given during the appeal shall be limited to those points cited in the appeal application. YMC §16.08.020(A) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hear appeals de novo which means that open record appeal hearings shall be conducted. YMC §16.08.014 states that the appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate that there is at least one of four specified types of error in the decision of the Administrative Official. YMC §16.08.018(H) provides that decisions by the Hearing Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless appealed to the Yakima City Council in accordance with YMC §16.08.020(C), §16.08.025 and §16.08.030 which would result in a stay of actions of the Administrative Official in accordance with YMC §16.08.050. II. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's First Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official Committed an Error of Law in Partially Denying the Modification Application. (1) The appellant correctly points out that YMC §15.17.020(C)which allows any expansion of use area and structure not exceeding fifty percent of the gross floor area to be considered as a Minor Modification if it satisfies the additional criteria in YMC §15.17.040 is inapplicable to increases in site grading elevation even though grading is specifically included in the definition of a "use" in YMC §15.02.020. This contention is supported by the definition of "gross floor area" in YMC §15.02.020 and YMC §15.06.040(A). Gross floor area is defined as the total square West Valley School District 6 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX # Ak'\ RECEIVED AUG 2 6 202'( OTY OF footage of all floors in a structure which is to be determined in a specified manner PLANNING DIVA and which can only be applied to an increase in the site grading elevation of a use area by analogy. (2) The Administrative Official did in fact apply the potential type of Minor Modification described in YMC §15.17.020(C) by analogy for evaluation purposes to the appellant's requested increase in the site grading elevation of the site. She applied that provision to individual elevation increases in any of the contours that were compared rather than to the average percentage increase in elevation over the entire site (Document Index A-1,page 2 of the staffreport). The Planning Division's interpretation of that provision to allow consideration of some grading changes by analogy to constitute Minor Modifications if they also meet the additional criteria in YMC §15.17.040 was at most harmless error. (3) The Administrative Official's interpretation of YMC 15.17.020(C) did not prejudice the appellant. That is because the appellant's requested increase in site grading elevation could not otherwise be considered as a Minor Modification under any circumstances absent the use of that provision by analogy. The appellant could not point to any ordinance provision specifying how a percentage increase in grading elevation is to be determined by analogy. Applying YMC §15.17.020(C) to this situation by analogy also did not prejudice the appellant because the Administrative Official also went further and also considered the requested modification under the additional criteria of YMC §15.17.040. Consideration of the requested modification under the additional criterion of YMC 15.17.040(B)(1)(c) resulted in a determination that "The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project" (Document Index E-3 and G-4, page 6 of the decision). III. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's Second Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official's Finding that the As-Built Grading Would Be More Than a 50% Increase in Elevation is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. West Valley School District 7 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX # M-\ RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (1) The appellant correctly described "substantial evidence" as "evidence of a sufficient quantity to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true." Some cases refer to the fictitious person being persuaded as a "fair-minded person." E.g. Ostrum Mushroom Farm Co. v. Wash. State Dep't of Labor and Industries, 13 Wn.App.2d 262, 271, 463 P.3d 149, 154 (2020). (2)The appellant's uncontradicted evidence was to the effect that the average increase in the as-built site grading elevation across the entire site is 32%rather than in excess of the 50% referenced in YMC §15.17.020(C). That is because portions of the southern playfield were graded at an elevation one to three feet higher than approved by the City in 2020, while the finished elevation in other areas of the site is one foot lower than shown in the approved site plans (Document Index D-1,pages 9-10 of appellant's memorandum). (3) The Administrative Official did not use the average increase in site grading elevation in determining that the increase in site grading elevation exceeded 50%. She rather determined that the elevation of any contour line on the site plan for the modification request which exceeded by more than 50% the elevation of the contour line it crossed on the site plan previously approved with building permit B200126 in fact by analogy violated the 50% limitation in YMC §15.17.020(C) required for administrative approval as a Minor Modification. (Document Index A- 1,page 3 of the staff report). (4) In this regard it is difficult to apply YMC §15.17.020(C) by analogy to an increase in the site grading elevation of a site because an increase in gross floor area would be determined by considering the total square footage increase in floor area in all applicable locations throughout a building without being an average increase or being an increase that is exceeded only in certain areas. Here the adverse impacts of the project cited by adjacent residents consist mainly of an increase in site grading elevation in the areas relatively near adjacent residences which diminish the effectiveness of their perimeter sitescreening as a visual buffer between the school and their residential uses of different intensity contrary to YMC §15.07.010. (5)Interpreting YMC §15.17.020(C)to mandate consideration of the average increase in the site grading elevation across the entire site would result in consider- ation of areas away from the adjacent neighbors that would not be relevant to their concerns and would ignore the full extent of any increases in the site grading West Valley School District 8 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School DOC. APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIM PLANNING D V. elevation that are near enough to the adjacent neighbors to significantly diminish the effectiveness of their sitescreening. The Administrative Official's approach and determination as to the applicability by analogy for evaluation purposes of YMC §15.17.020(C) focused upon the adverse impacts reported by neighbors rather than upon the average increase in site elevation which was not the problem reported by the neighbors. Her determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record which consists of (i) the differences between the contour lines on the site plan submitted for the modification application and the contour lines on the site plan previously approved for the building permit and (ii) the written comments, photographs, illustrations and testimony of adjacent neighbors which have been submitted for the record of this de novo open record hearing appeal procedure. (6) Even if the Administrative Official should have utilized the average increase in site grading elevation across the entire site, again any error was harmless. The failure of the increase in site grading elevation to satisfy the percentage limitation in YMC §15.17.020(C) was not the Administrative Official's only basis for refusing to approve the requested increase in the site grading elevation as a Minor Modification. A second and independent basis for refusing to summarily approve the increase in site grading elevation administratively as a Minor Modifi- cation was her determination that it creates an adverse impact of the project so as to be disqualified from approval as a Minor Modification under the third criterion prescribed by YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) (Document Index E-3 and G-4, page 6 of the decision). IV. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's Third Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official's Finding that the As-Built Grading Would Cause an Adverse Effect is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. (1) YMC §15.17.040(B) provides in part that applications for modifications may only be administratively and summarily reviewed using the Type (1) review process if in the determination of the Planning Division, it will not create or West Valley School District 9 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DQC. NOEX PCfrC -1 RCEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. YMC §15.02.020 defines the Planning Division as the Department of Community Development of the City of Yakima and the Administrative Official as the duly appointed City of Yakima Director of Community Development. Here the Director of Community Development specifically determined that the site grading elevation does in fact create an adverse impact of the project that prevented it from being processed administratively by the summary Minor Modification process. Her specific determination in regard to the adverse impact of the site grading elevation was as follows: "The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project. The new grade is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown on the grading plans submitted with B200126. The City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners which prompted the Building Official to issue a stop work order. The WVSD held a neighborhood meeting on June 14, 2021 to hear the concerns and questions of neighbors. Multiple emails and phone calls were received by various City staff both prior and subsequent to the meeting about site grading and its negative impact on adjacent property owners." (Document Index E-3 and G-4,page 6 of the decision). (2) The Administrative Official's determination relative to the Minor Modification requirement of YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) was based upon her personal knowledge of neighbors' concerns relayed to the Planning Division by emails and phone calls and expressed at the neighborhood meeting held on June 14, 2021, which she attended. YMC §15.17.020 and §15.17.040(C) state that the effect of that determination is in this situation to require consideration of the requested modification of the site grading elevation by means of an application for Type (3) review rather than by means of the abbreviated, summary, administrative Type (1) Minor Modification review process. (3) The appellant correctly points out that the City's Surface Water Engineer determined that the as-built conditions at the school would not cause erosion or drainage problems. That does not mean, however, that the increase in site grading elevation to a significantly higher elevation than what was approved would not create other problems. The most obvious adverse impact from such an increase in West Valley School District 10 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School DOC APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 X RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. the site grading elevation is described in the Planning Division staff report as follows: "Because the elevation changes by a few feet in some locations, this reduces the effectiveness of the view-obscuring sitescreening material the school district agreed to install upon an existing six-foot-tall fence." (Document Index A-1, page 3 of the staff report). (4) The Administrative Official's decision approved the requested Minor Modification for six-foot-tall view-obscuring fencing along the south and southeast perimeter of the site. The Administrative Official's decision contains a reference to one of the purposes of sitescreening set forth in YMC §15.07.010. One of the purposes of sitescreening is to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity such as between school playgrounds/playfields and adjacent residences. (Document Index E-3 and G-4, page 3). Increases in site grading elevations can reduce the effectiveness of the six-foot-high view-obscuring fencing to varying degrees depending upon where those increases in elevation are located. (5) Since YMC §16.08.020(A)provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hear appeals de novo at an open record hearing, the written comments, photographs, illustrations and testimony presented for the appeal must be considered in deciding whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Administrative Official's determination to the effect that the increase in site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project so as to preclude its administrative approval summarily as a Minor Modification. Additional evidence presented for the record of this proceeding relative to the adverse impacts of the increase in site grading elevation includes evidence to the effect that (i) the building permit approval included regrading the south and east playgrounds/playfields to raise their elevation from one to four feet over what existed at that time (Document Index F-1 and F-5) and (ii) the additional subsequent increase in the site grading elevation of three to four feet more only 20 to 40 feet from the south and east property lines is now enough for some of the adjacent residents to see people over a six-foot-high view- obscuring fence from the waist up and to allow people to see into their yards and windows so as to create adverse impacts to some of the adjacent residents' privacy, security,personal safety,property damage and/or property values (Document Index F-1, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6 and F-7). The testimony presented at the hearing by an adjacent property owner was consistent with his written comments, and he again West Valley School District 11 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX # '1 RECEIVED 16 AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. indicated that the neighbors should be compensated for the adverse impacts to their property caused by the increase in the site grading elevation if that change is approved (Testimony of John Manfredi; Document Index F-5). The written evidence, photographs, illustrations and testimony in the record as to adverse impacts due to the increase in site grading elevation is not speculative because it is based on already as-built elevations rather than on possible future impacts of possible future elevations. (6) The written comments and testimony of adjacent neighbors that were submitted for the record of this proceeding as Document Index F-1, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6 and F-7 in and of themselves constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of the Administrative Official to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation of the site creates an adverse impact of the project. This determination under the plain language of YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) is solely hers to make because this is an abbreviated, summary, administrative Minor Modifi- cation process. This Minor Modification process does not involve determinations as to credibility, compatibility or the imposition of conditions to resolve difficulties related to the compatibility of a proposal which are involved by definition per YMC §15.02.020 in the consideration of Class (3) uses by Type (3) review. The Minor Modification process is rather a summary process which must result in either approval or denial based in part upon a determination of the Planning Division. That determination here is supported by substantial evidence. V. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's Fourth Ground for this Appeal to the Effect that the City Exceeded Its Authority in Requiring the School District to Regrade the Site. (1) The language of the Administrative Official's decision following her denial of the requested increase in site grading elevation as a Minor Modification accurately describes what will result if the applicant/appellant should fail to be successful in an appeal of the Administrative Minor Modification decision and/or should fail to obtain approval of the increase in the site grading elevation of the site through the Type (3) review process. Absent success in pursuing one or both of those alternatives set forth in YMC §16.08.025 and §16.08.030 and/or YMC West Valley School District 12 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School DOC. APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX k' v 1F r ® ED AUG 262021 Y Of YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. §15.17.020 and §15.17.040(C), it is true that the applicant/appellant will be required to regrade the site consistent with grading contours shown on the elevation site plan submittal for B200126 because that is the most recent City approval of the grading contours of the site. If that becomes a requirement, the requirement would be attributable to the appellant's action in increasing site grading elevations of the site beyond what the City had approved rather than attributable to any action by the City. (2) The nexus and proportionality test do not apply to this situation because the Administrative Official's decision does not require an exaction or any mitigation measures, but rather leaves unaffected the grading contour requirements of the approved 2020 building permit which was not appealed and which will remain as the grading contour requirements for the site if the Administrative Official's decision is not changed as a result of the appeal process and/or the Type (3) review process. VI. The Hearing Examiner's Conclusions as to the Appellant's Grounds for this Appeal; (1) The Administrative Official did not commit an error of law in partially denying the modification application. (2) The Administrative Official's finding that the as-built grading would be more than a 50% increase in elevation at some places on the site where contour lines of the site plan submitted with the modification application cross contour lines of the site plan approved for building permit B200126 is supported by substantial evidence. (3) The Administrative Official's finding to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project is supported by substantial written, photographic, illustrative and oral evidence which is contained within the record of this proceeding. (4) The City did not exceed its authority in requiring the School District to regrade the site because that is already required by the approved building permit site plan for B200126 which was not appealed. It is not a new requirement imposed by the Administrative Official. It is rather an existing building permit requirement that West Valley School District 13 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 Doe. INDEX REQEWED AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV.. could still be eliminated by a successful appeal of the Administrative Official's decision or could still be eliminated or modified through Type (3) review. (5)Due to the summary nature of the Minor Modification process,the written and oral evidence submitted at the hearing in favor of approving the Minor Modification which has all been reviewed and considered by the Hearing Examiner cannot here result in a reversal of the Administrative Official's decision because it fails to satisfy the appellant's burden to prove at least one of the four specific grounds required for a successful Appeal of a Minor Modification even though it may be persuasive in other contexts. (6) The consequence of a failure to satisfy all of the criteria for a Minor Modification is that the applicant/appellant can apply for Type (3) review of the modification request for an increase in the site grading elevation of the site. That type of review would involve notice and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner or Pro Tem Hearing Examiner. During that type of review, the written comments and testimony of those in favor of the modification of the site grading elevation that were presented for this Appeal, as well as additional written comments and testimony, could be presented and be considered under different criteria than are required for the administrative approval of a Minor Modification. If this modification request is set for a Type (3) review hearing in the future, the Planning Division may consider assigning that review to the Pro Tem Hearing Examiner since a third review of the site features for this new school could involve argument as to the intent and effect of this Hearing Examiner's two prior decisions in that regard which in turn might give rise to the need to address an appearance of fairness assertion or issue that could possibly be raised at the beginning of a future hearing. (7) If the appellant applies for Type (3) review of the requested increase in the site grading elevation of the site and/or appeals this decision within the requisite fourteen days of mailing this decision, then the increase in site grading elevation will not immediately become a code compliance issue due to the stay prescribed by YMC §16.08.050. But otherwise the Administrative Official's requirement to regrade the site consistent with grading contours shown in the building plan submittal for B200126 will become a code compliance issue since the grading contours on that building plan submittal are currently the only grading contours that have been approved by the City. West Valley School District 14 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School oC. APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX RECEIVED 19 AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (8)This Appeal decision may be further appealed to the Yakima City Council within the time period and in the manner required by applicable City ordinance provisions. VII. Hearing Examiner's Appeal Decision (APP#001-21). The Hearing Examiner's decision relative to this Appeal is as follows: (1) The portion of the Administrative Official's administrative determination to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation shown on the site plan for the modification application does not satisfy all of the criteria for approval of a Minor Modification is affirmed and the Appeal from that portion of the Minor Modification decision is denied. (2) The portion of the Administrative Official's said decision which requires the applicant/appellant to regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in the building site plan submittal for B200126 is also affirmed subject to the right of the applicant/appellant set forth in YMC §15.17.020 and §15.17.040(C) to apply for a Type (3) Major Modification and/or the right of the applicant/appellant set forth in YMC §16.08.025 and §16.08.030 to appeal this decision to the Yakima City Council within fourteen days of mailing this decision in accordance with applicable City ordinance provisions. DATED this 26th day of August, 2021. /3-4.-1. . Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner West Valley School District 15 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX # kPc 20 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL [DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21, APP#001-21) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER BB Appeal to City Council Applications DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# BB-1 Appeal Application—Apple Valley Elementary (APP#008-21) 09/10/2021 21 CITY OF YAKIMA CODE ADMIN. DVIISION SEP 10 202f �►■■ LAND USE APPLICATION 0 REL'VD F�AxF.) El�r/■RV* i 0 PAID F'1r I 1.1b, CITY OF YAKIMA,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEW RECEIVED ,t�� Girl or rAKri.A rl CE N P a 17 n i n g 129 NORTH SECOND STREET,2ND FLOOR,YAKIMA,WA 98901 PHONE: (509)575-6183 EMAIL:askplanningeryakimawa.gov S EE INSTRUCTIONS--PLEASE READ FIRST Please type or print your answers clearly. 1 ® 2021 Answer all questions completely_ Ifyou have any questions about this form or the application process,please ask a Planner. Rcnteml/e( q, YAKIMA bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted.The Planning Division cannot acce� nt OF application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid.Filing fees are not refundable.This application consists of three parts. PARRANING DIV, GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART III—CERTIFICATION are on this page.PART Il contains additional information specific to your appeal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. PART I—GENERAL INFORMATION 1.Appellant's Name:Dr.Peter Finch Information: Mailing Address:8902 Zler Road City:Yakima St: WA Zip: 98908 Phone: ( 509 )972-6007 E-Mnil:iinchp@wvsd208.org ***Any additional appellant parties may be listed on a separate page*** 2.Site Address of the Proposal Being Appealed:7 N.88th Ave.,Yakima,WA PART II—SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION(SEE ATTACHED SHEET) PART Ill—CERTIFICATION 3.I certify that the information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. cTh 7).—A' Cr-- //VW Appellant's Signature Date FILE/APPLICATION(S)#: Ay V o g^2-\ DATE FEE PAID: RECEIVED BY: OUNT PAID: RECEIPT NO: I -to Aosz c ,, 34to ,0 0 , Revised 4/2019 Page 13 DOC. INDEX 22 RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA AWE srl`irk, PLANNING DNV. A111 ■ILIA. Supplemental Application For: 1,►0111,. APPEAL mA Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Chapter 15.16/Chapter 16.08 P PART II—SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION 1.THIS APPLICATION IS AN APPEAL OF: ❑ Administrative Official's Decision ❑✓ Hearing Examiner's Decision ❑ Subdivision Administrator's Decision ❑ SEPA Determination ❑ Other: 2.FILE NUMBER(S)OF PROPOSAL BEING APPEALED:APP#001-21,MOD#021-21 3.DESCRIPTION OF ACTION BEING APPEALED: The School District challenges the Hearing Examiner's August 26.2021 decision in APP#001-21 to affirm the Administrative Official's partial denial of the School District's Modification Application in MOD#21-21.The Modification Application requested approval of as-built elevations that are an increase over the elevations the City of Yakima approved as part of the School District's building permit fore replacement of Apple Valley Elementary School. See attached for more detailed explanation. 4. REASON FOR APPEAL-Describe the specific error(s)or issues(s)upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan,The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance,or other provisions of law. (Reference the section,paragraph,and page of the provision(s)cited.) (Attach if lengthy): See attached. Revised 4/2019 Page 14 DOC. INDEX 23 Cr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BEFORE THE YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL 13 14 In the matter of the Appeal of: 15 APP#001-21,MOD#21-021 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO. 208,a political subdivision of the NOTICE OF APPEAL 18 State of Washington, 19 20 Appellant, 21 22 V. 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA,a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 31 32 West Valley School District No.208 (the"School District")files this Notice of 33 34 Appeal to the Yakima City Council("City Council")for review of the City of Yakima 35 36 Hearing Examiner's Decision,APP#001-21 ("Hearing Examiner Decision"),to uphold the 37 Administrative Official's denial of the School District's Application for Modification, 38 39 MOD#21-021 ("City Decision").The School District states and alleges as follows: 40 41 1. The subject Modification Application proposed to add a 5-foot walking path 42 around the perimeter of the playfields,to change the backstop and goal locations,to reduce 43 44 the amount of asphalt in the playground,to approve the as-built increased site elevations, 45 46 and to install site-screening in certain locations. On June 30,2021,the City issued its 47 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104 2 Fax: 206.3$y1194 INDEX ;d# RECEIVED4 SEP 1 0 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 1 decision on the School District's Request for Modification. City Decision at 1. The City 2 approved the walking path,revised backstop and goalpost locations,the reduction of asphalt 4 for the playground, and the installation of site screening. City Decision at 1. However,the 5 6 City denied the School District's request to approve the as-built grading on the basis that the 7 8 as-built site grading shown in the modification application is in"excess of a 50%increase in 9 elevation from what was shown with the B200126 submittal in several locations,not 10 11 meeting the standard for a modification." City Decision at 1. Additionally,the City found 12 13 that the increase in site grading"does create an adverse impact"because"the City received 14 15 numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners"about"its negative impact 16 on adjacent property owners." City Decision at 6. The Hearing Examiner affirmed the 17 18 City's decision, stating that the Administrative Official did not err in partially denying the 19 20 modification application. Hearing Examiner Decision at 13. 21 22 2. Appellant West Valley School District No.208 ("School District") is a 23 public-school district operating in Yakima, Washington. Appellant's business address is 24 25 8902 Zier Road, Yakima,Washington 98909. 26 27 3. Attorneys for the Appellant are Kristine R. Wilson and Julie Wilson- 28 McNerney,Perkins Coie, 1201 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-3099. 29 30 4. Attached to this Notice of Appeal as Exhibit A is the originally appealed- 31 32 from decision of the Administrative Official("City Decision"),dated June 30,2021 and as 33 34 Exhibit B, is the Hearing Examiner's Decision,dated August 26,2021,that is the subject of 35 this appeal (the"Hearing Examiner's Decision"). Attached as Exhibit C is a statement from 36 37 the appellant in accordance with Yakima Municipal Code("YMC") 16.08.025.A.3. 38 39 5. Appellant has standing to initiate this appeal as a party of record per YMC 40 16.08.025.A. Appellant in this matter is the applicant whose modification request was 41 42 denied by the City of Yakima("City")and who now is appealing the Hearing Examiner's 43 44 decision to affirm the City's denial of the School District's modification request. 45 46 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—2 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104.2 Fax: 206.359.900b0c IN ) # 0,-1 25 RECEWED SEP g 0 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, 1 6. Appellant is appealing the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the grounds that 2 3 the Hearing Examiner exceeded his authority in issuing the Decision;the Hearing Examiner 4 committed errors of law; and the findings,conclusions or decision prepared by the Hearing 5 6 Examiner are not supported by substantial evidence in the following respects: 7 8 a. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law by finding that the 9 Administrative Official correctly applied by analogy YMC 15.17.020.C's criteria to the 10 11 School District's request that the City approve the as-built site grading. Hearing Examiner 12 13 Decision at 7. YMC 15.17.020.0 allows the City to approve as a Minor Modification any 14 15 expansion of use area or a structure not exceeding 50%of the gross floor area. YMC 16 15.17.020.0 does not speak to changes in site elevation. The Hearing Examiner also erred 17 18 in finding that the City's interpretation of YMC 15.17.020.0 did not prejudice the School 19 20 District. 21 b. The HearingExaminer's findingthat the Administrative Official was justified 22 23 in her site elevation increase calculations—wherein the Administrative Official considered 24 25 only the increased elevations at the playfields rather than the average increase in elevation 26 27 across the site as a whole—is not supported by substantial evidence. Hearing Examiner 28 Decision at 8-9. The uncontroverted evidence in the record demonstrates that the average 29 30 increase in grade is only 32%across the entire site from the permit set to the as-built 31 32 conditions. The School District's use of the average increase in elevation across the site as a 33 34 whole is consistent with YMC 15.17.020. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law 35 36 in upholding the Administrative Official's application by analogy of YMC 15.17.020.0 to 37 only those areas of the site that pertained to the adverse impacts reported by neighbors. 38 39 Hearing Examiner Decision at 9. The Hearing Examiner also erred in finding that the City's 40 calculation of the site elevation increase did not prejudice the School District. 41 42 c. The Hearing Examiner's Decision to uphold the Administrative Official's 43 44 finding that the as-built grading would cause an adverse effect is not supported by 45 46 substantial evidence. The City's record consistently demonstrates that the site grading 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—3 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 DO 153770104.2 # u,-1 SEP 4 m, CITY OF Ykitli�,: ',N ANNNING Div 1 would not have an adverse effect and that the grading met code requirements. YMC 2 3 11.04.010 adopts Appendix J of the 2018 Washington State Building Code. Sections J108.3 4 and J109.4 of the Washington State Building Code indicate that"adverse effects"to 5 6 adjacent properties include only slope stability,drainage, and potential erosion problems 7 8 resulting from the grading. Yet,the City's only stated basis for denying the School 9 District's modification request—and the Hearing Examiner's basis for affirming the 10 11 Administrative Official's finding—was neighbors' concerns regarding the aesthetic and 12 13 visual impacts of the higher playfield elevation on their adjacent properties. See Hearing 14 15 Examiner Decision at 10. But impacts to aesthetics and visual quality are an improper basis 16 to support an"adverse effects"finding pursuant to the Washington State Building Code. By 17 18 upholding the Administrative Official's finding on the basis of the neighbor's aesthetics and 19 20 visual concerns,the Hearing Examiner improperly applied a higher standard to the School 21 District's modification request than would have been applied to a gradingpermit for the 22 q pP � 23 same work. The City's record shows that grading would not have adverse effects based on 24 25 the environmental review,and the City's surface water engineer's analysis shows that the 26 27 site does not create any site stability,erosion,or drainage impacts to adjacent properties. 28 Because there are no slope stability or erosion concerns resulting from the increased 29 30 playfield elevation,the Hearing Examiner's determination that the grading would result in 31 32 adverse effects is not supported by substantial evidence. 33 34 d. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law in affirming the 35 Administrative Official's application of a higher standard to the denial of the grading 36 37 modification than would have been applied to the initial grading permit review. 38 39 e. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law and exceeded his authority 40 in holding that the School District must either successfully appeal the Administrative Minor 41 42 Modification decision, or successfully obtain approval of the grading increase through a 43 44 Type(3)review process. Hearing Examiner Decision at 12. The School District went 45 46 through the Type(3)review process for the demolition and elementary school rebuilding 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—4 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104.2 DOC. Fax: 206.359.9000 INDEX # f1�-1 27 RECEWED SEP 1 ® 2021 CITY OF YAKIIVIA PLANNING DIV. 1 project, as this proposed use triggers a Type(3)review process. See YMC 15.15.020. Mere 2 3 changes in site elevation should not require a whole new Type(3)review process and a 4 separate approval on the same scale as the entire school rebuilding project. 5 6 f. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law and exceeded his authority 7 8 in affirming the Administrative Official's determination that the School District may be 9 required to regrade the site. Hearing Examiner Decision at 12-13. The Hearing Examiner 10 11 held that the"nexus and proportionality test" does not apply here because the Administrative 12 13 Official's decision"leaves unaffected the grading contour requirements of the approved 14 15 2020 building permit which was not appealed and which will remain as the grading contour 16 requirements for the site." Hearing Examiner Decision at 13. However,the Hearing 17 18 Examiner failed to consider the significant adverse effect on the School District,the 19 20 taxpayers,and the elementary school students by requiring the School District to regrade the 21 22 site consistent with the approved 2020 building permit grading plans. By so holding,the 23 Hearing Examiner(and the Administrative Official)deemed that the handful of neighbors' 24 25 aesthetic concerns trump the exorbitant cost of regrading the site both to the School District 26 27 and to the City taxpayers. Accordingly,the imposition of a requirement to regrade the site is 28 contrary to the nexus and proportionality test. The City may only impose requirements that 29 30 are proportionate to the impacts of the proposed action. Therefore,the Hearing Examiner 31 32 and Administrative Official lack authority to require the school district to regrade the site. 33 34 7. Appellant seeks the following relief from the City Council: 35 a. For an Order reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision with respect to 36 37 grading. 38 39 b. For such other and further relief as the City Council deems just and equitable. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—5 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104.2 DOC. Fax: 206.359.9000 INDEX # '- t RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, 1 2 3 4 DATED: September 10,2021 5 K st lc R. Wilson W. A No. 33152 6 in is . Wilson-M ern y, WSBA No.46585 7 Pe cis Coie LLP 8 12( Third Avenue 9 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 10 Phone: 206.359.8000 11 Fax: 206.359.9000 12 KRWilson@perkinscoie.com 13 JWilsonMcNerney@perkinscoie.com 14 15 Attorneys for Appellants West Valley School 16 District No. 208 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—6 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104.2 DO" Fax: 206.359.9000 INDEX RECEIVED SEP 0 ZU`'I CITY OF YRKiM,: PLANNING DIV 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certifyunder penaltyof perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 3 P J rY � 4 the date indicated below,I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF 5 6 APPEAL to be served on the following persons via the methods indicated below: 7 8 9 City of Yakima 0 Via U.S.Mail, 1st class,postage prepaid 10 Community Development Department 0 Via Legal Messenger 11 129 N.2nd Street,2nd Floor 0 Via Facsimile 12 Yakima, WA 98901 0 Via Overnight Mail 13 ❑ Via email 14 15 16 DATED this 10th day of September,2021 at S (tic, Washington. 17 18 19 20 Cheryl Robert•on. Legal Practice 21 Assistant 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—7 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104.2 Fax: 206.359.9000 DOC. INDEX # el RECEIVED SEP fl 03 2021 `.,ITY OF YAKIMA 9I.ANNING DIV. EXHIBIT A DOC. INDEX RECEIVED 31 SEP 10 2021 �.,,�■„�� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF YAKIMA Joan Davenport,AICP,Director PLANNING DIV. AM RIO& Planning Division ann g Joseph Calhoun,Manager 129 North Second Street,2nd Floor,Yakima,WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov•www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA FINDINGS of FACT, CONCLUSIONS, &DECISION for REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION File Number: MOD#021-21 APPLICANT: West Valley School District do Angela Von Essen APPLICANT ADDRESS: 8902 Zier Rd., Yakima, WA 98908 PROPERTY OWNER: West Valley School District#208 PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS: 8902 Zier Rd., Yakima,WA 98908 PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 181319-42006&-42022 DATE OF REQUEST: May 28, 2021 DATE OF DECISION: June 30, 2021 STAFF CONTACT: Eric Crowell,Associate Planner I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Modification to the final site plan of CL3#010-19 to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, regrading of the site, and installation of sitescreening in some locations, at the site of a new elementary school in the R-1 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF DECISION:The Modification request for the five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of site screening are approved. The Modification request for re-grading of the site is denied. III. FACTS: A. Processing 1. The application for a Modification was received on May 28, 2021. 2. Additional drawings and an updated narrative were received on June 21, 2021. 3. An additional drawing showing added sitescreening was received on June 23, 2021. 4. The application was deemed complete for processing on June 30, 2021. 5. This application is being processed under the provisions of Ch. 15.17 (Modifications to Existing or Approved Uses or Development). YakN.. Doc. 20151994 INDEX REC 1VED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA B. Applicable Law: PLANNING DIV, 1. Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: a. Modification of(Use or Development) Defined: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.02.020, "Modification (of use or development)" means any change or alteration in the occupancy, arrangement, placement or construction of any existing use, structure, or associated site improvement, and any change or alteration of land. b. Use Defined: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.02.020, "Use" means the activity or purpose for which land or structures or a combination of land and structures is designed, arranged, occupied, or maintained together with any associated site improvements. This definition includes the construction, erection, placement, movement or demolition of any structure or site improvement and any physical alteration to land itself, including any grading, leveling, paving or excavation. "Use" also means any existing or proposed configuration of land, structures, and site improvements, and the use thereof. c. Submittals: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.17.040(A), applications for modification shall follow the submittal requirements for Type(1) review. In addition,for an approved Class (2) or(3)use or development,the applicant shall submit both the site plan previously approved by the reviewing official and a new site plan showing the location, size, and type of modification proposed by the applicant. d. Limits of Expansion Under Modification: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.17.020, minor changes to existing or approved Class (1), (2) or(3) uses or development may qualify for abbreviated review under the provisions in this chapter, if they meet the criteria listed below. Overlay districts shall not increase the level of review for the provisions of this chapter. Modifications not meeting the criteria below must apply directly for review as a Class(1), (2)or(3) use or development. i. The modification will not increase residential density that would require an additional level of review; ii. The modification will not increase the amount of parking by more than ten percent or twenty spaces (whichever is least), except that the amount of parking for controlled atmosphere and cold storage warehouses may be increased by up to twenty spaces.This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; iii. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area.The expansion of an existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; iv. The modification will not increase the height of any structure; v. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 DOC" 2 INDEX # Ots- I RECtIVED SEP �� 2021 vi. The modification will not add a drive-thru facility; and t;ITY YAKIMq PLANNING i71V. vii. The modification does not include hazardous materials. e. Review: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.17.040(B), applications for modifications may be administratively and summarily reviewed using the Type (1) review process, in addition to the following criteria: I. Any proposed change in the site design or arrangement: - Will not change or modify any special condition previously imposed under Class (2)or(3) review; - Will not adversely reduce the amount of existing landscaping or the amount or location or required sitescreening; and - In the determination of the Planning Division, it will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. ii. All proposed new structures, site improvements, or structural alterations to existing structures or site improvements comply with the development standards of YMC Ch. 15.05 through 15.08, except as approved under the adjustment or variance provisions. f. Sitescreening—Purpose: Pursuant to YMC 15.07.010, the purpose of this chapter is to: establish sitescreening standards to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity, streets and structures; reduce erosion and stormwater runoff; protect property values; and eliminate potential land use conflicts by mitigating adverse impacts from dust, odor, litter, noise, glare, lights, signs, water runoff, buildings or parking areas. IV. FINDINGS:The Administrative Official makes the following findings: A. The subject property is dassified as Elementary and Middle School, a Class(3) permitted use in the R-1 zoning district(YMC§ 15.04, Table 4-1, Permitted Land Uses). The project was originally approved under CL3#010-19. B. Regarding soil and terrain, the Environmental Checklist(SEPA#038-19) noted that "approximately 15,000 cubic yards of grading and excavation would occur during project construction. The site is anticipated to be a net balance and no significant amounts of imported or exported soils are anticipated? C. Status of Environmental Work—the following summary was provided by the Department of Ecology: 1. It has been estimated that there are approximately 58,000 acres of lead and arsenic impacted soil in Yakima County alone and 187,588 acres impacted state wide. One of the strategies widely used in Washington State and acceptable to both Ecology and Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority(YRCAA) is capping of lead and arsenic containing soils with hardscape (asphalt or concrete)or some combination of fabric, clean soil, and mulches like bark or rock. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 3 ©OC. DEX 34 RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 2. In 2012 as part of an Ecology funded project and consistent with an Ecology YAKIMA accepted practice, the lead and arsenic containing soil in the grass-surfaced ';.�Fi�pllllG A[II_ areas at the Apple Valley Elementary site was covered by fabric and about eight inches of clean soil before grass was re-established.Areas of lead and arsenic containing soil located under buildings, parking lots and sidewalks were not disturbed during the 2012 project. 3. The 2019/2020 Apple Valley Elementary project included demolition of existing buildings and regrading of the site to facilitate the new elementary school building construction and associated stormwater management.As the new construction would disturb lead and arsenic containing soils previously capped by the 2012 Ecology lead project, the District's environmental consultant, Fulcrum Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Fulcrum), notified both the Ecology and the YRCAA that work would occur on the Apple Valley Elementary School site and reviewed the intended mitigation plan for regrading and re-capping the site with fabric and clean soil or hardscape consistent with Ecology's 2012 mitigation work. 4. Both worker and community protection measure were developed as a portion of the soil mitigation plan and was incorporated into the project specifications for the contractors to follow during construction. Contractor dust control and stormwater measures during lead and arsenic soil moving tasks has been monitored by Fulcrum and have been within the pre-project identified tolerances. 5. Construction on the Apple Valley Elementary project is nearing completion. Following is a summary of current conditions: a. One stockpile of lead and arsenic soil remains onsite and is being used to finish the elevation of soil located beneath the fabric cap. Some surplus soil from this stockpile maybe removed from the site. The stockpile has been characterized and was below the dangerous waste threshold. b. All lead and arsenic contaminated soil was removed from stormwater infiltration areas. c. Lead and arsenic contaminated soil remaining in building footprint, asphalt parking, or concrete side walk areas have been capped with gravel and either concrete or asphalt. d. Lead and arsenic contaminated soil remaining grass or landscaping areas is currently being covered with an orange geotextile fabric and clean soil. e. Following clean soil placement, either sod will be added to the grass surfaced areas. D. This modification is being requested in order to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, modified site grading, and installation of sitescreening in some locations. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 DOC 4 INDEX # - 1 RECEIVED 35 SEP 1 0 202! CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. E. Modification to Permitted Development and Uses Regulated. Pursuant to YMC§ 15.17.020,the proposal complies with the following criteria in order to be considered a modification: 1. The modification will not increase residential density that would require an additional level of review. Staff Response:Not applicable;it is not a residential use. 2. The modification will not increase the amount of parking by more than ten percent or twenty spaces (whichever is least), except that the amount of parking for controlled atmosphere and cold storage warehouses may be increased by up to twenty spaces. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. Staff Response: No additional parking is being proposed. 3. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area. The expansion of an existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. Staff Response: The school building and grounds are not being expanded from what was previously approved, as all proposed site modifications are within the Apple Valley school parcels. The number of playfields is being increased from two to three, an increase of 50 percent, meeting the standard for modification. The addition of the five-foot paved path around a portion of the perimeter and the reduction in playground asphalt will result in a cumulative decrease of 6 percent for overall impervious lot coverage, meeting the standard for a modification. Grading is included in the definition of"Use"and is therefore subject to review under the Modification criteria. On-site grading has changed significantly from the grading contours submitted with the Building Permit(B200126). The new contour lines shown on the revised Modification Site Plan and narrative submitted with this application are in excess of a 50%increase in elevation from what was shown with the B200126 submittal in several locations, not meeting the standard for a modification. 4. The modification will not increase the height of any structure. Staff Resnse: The school was approved for a variance(VAR#004-19)to exceed the 35-foot height limitation in the R-1 zoning district, but no other structures am proposed that exceed the approved 44-foot height. 5. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 Da . 5 INDEX # es -t RECEIVED 36 SEP 0 2021 CITY OF YAKItv,. PLANNING DIV Staff Response: Previous modifications(MOD#026-18, MOD#031-18) were for the placement of portable classrooms, which were eliminated with the construction of the new school. 6. The modification will not add a drive-thru facility. Staff Resp vise: No drive-thru facility is being added, 7. The modification does not include hazardous materials. Staff Response: The proposed modification does not introduce additional soil containing hazardous materials. See analysis provided above for on-site conditions related to soil remediation and capping under the Department of Ecology Guidelines. F. The proposed modification complies with all other development standards of the R-1 zoning district. G. The proposal will not change or modify any special condition previously imposed under the previous land use review by the Hearing Examiner in 2020. H. The proposal will not significantly reduce the amount of the existing landscaping. It will not reduce the amount or location of the existing required sitescreening.While an Administrative Adjustment(ADJ#027-19)was approved, waiving the requirement that view-obscuring material be added to the existing chain link fence,the applicant has agreed to add view-obscuring material to a portion of the fence along the east and south property lines. I. The proposed asphalt path, additional field, relocated backstop, and additional sitescreening will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts of the project. J. The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project. The new grade is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown on the grading plans submitted with B200126. The City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners which prompted the Building Official to issue a stop-work order. The WVSD held a neighborhood meeting on June 14, 2021 to hear the concerns and questions of neighbors. Multiple emails and phone calls were received by various City staff both prior and subsequent to the meeting about site grading and its negative impact on adjacent property owners. K. Development Service Team Review: A Development Service Team(DST) meeting was not held for technical review of the project. The following comment was received from Randy Meloy, Surface Water Engineer: 1. Per your request I went out to Apple Valley Elementary and walked around the entirety of the path to assess the possibility of drainage impacts. The asphalt path is about five feet wide and is located close to the school's fence along the perimeter of their parcel. The cross slope of the path is generally flat, with some areas gently sloped towards the grass and other areas gently sloped towards the West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 DCC. 6 INDEX #1212.11_ RECEIVED 37 SEP 0 2021 L;i i Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. fence. it is my opinion that there would be no drainage impact on the surrounding parcels due to this paved path being close to the fence. The only possible scenario where I could see there being any kind of drainage issue would be on the south side if the school overwatered with the sprinklers, and because the main grassy area is elevated, you could get runoff from the sloped grassy areas making its way towards the perimeter. If that happened there is still a ten foot separation between the school's fence and the neighbor's fences. Much of the runoff would infiltrate into the ground in this area. This is assuming there would be some problem with the school irrigation and that is unlikely. Along the east side of the school there is a small gravel berm between the path and the fence which would help to contain any runoff that might get there. Again, I would-not anticipate any issues there. Last night and this morning there was a decent amount of rainfall at the school, and while walking the path I looked for signs of erosion and did not find any. This path is only five feet wide and It is my opinion that it will not cause any drainage problems. V. CONCLUSIONS: A. The Administrative Official has reviewed the addition of a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sitescreening in some locations against the standards and requirements for a Modification under YMC Ch. 15.17 and has concluded that they are consistent with said standards and requirements. B. The proposed site grading is not consistent with the standards and requirements for a Modification under YMC Ch. 15.17. C. All other development standards of the R-1 zoning district will be met. D. The revised site plans submitted on June 21 and 23, 2021 shall serve as the final site plans for items approved under this Modification. VI. DECISION: The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Modification application (MOD#021-21)to add a five-foot-wide walking path, increase the number of fields from two to three, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of additional fencing to an existing Class (3) use is approved, and authorizes the issuance of the permit(s) based upon the above findings and conclusions and subject to the Building Official's determination of compliance with all building codes. The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Modification application (MOD#021-21)for site grading is denied, and requires the applicant to regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in the building plan submittal (B200126). Entered this 30th day of June, 2021,pursuant to the authority granted under YMC Ch. 15.17. This decision constitutes the final zoning review and is hereby granted and forwarded to the Building Official. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 DOC 7 INDEX itf2 I R CEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. This zoning decision is valid for one year from this date unless appealed under the Yakima Municipal Code. The zoning decision may be extended one time up to one additional year prior to the expiration date, as set forth in YMC § 15.12.060. This zoning decision is not a construction permit and does not in and of itself authorize any use to be established, constructed, made or implemented without a construction permit issued by the Building Official and the conditions pending have been completed. This zoning decision shall expire if: a)a construction permit and/or business license for the approved project is required but not issued within one year from the date of issuance of this final decision; b)the construction permit and/or business license is issued but allowed to expire; or c)the project is modified and a new zoning decision is issued. The issuance of any permit,subsequent permit inspection,land use decisions, or other related applications by the City of Yakima shall not be construed as an approval for work to be performed in violation of any government(Federal,State or Local)order to cease or limit construction activities during the COVID-19 emergency period outlined in such order. OIL Joa► 'savenport,AICP, Co unity Development Director APPEAL Pursuant to YMC 15.17.040 and 15.17.050, uses or developments denied under this chapter may submit applications for review under the normal review provisions for the use. Decisions by the planning division regarding approval or denial of administrative modifications may be appealed as prescribed by the applicable review. All appeals shall be filed within fourteen days following the mailing of the final decision by the Administrative Official or designee.Appeals must be submitted in writing to the City of Yakima, Community Development Department; 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima,WA 98901. If a final decision does not require mailing, the appeal shall be filed within fourteen days following the issuance of the final decision. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 ., 8 INDEX 39 RECEIVED SEP j 0 2021 Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. EXHIBIT B DO;. INDEX RECEIVED �,��,� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /A'I I%% Joan Davenport,AICP,Director SEP 1 0 2021 CITY Of Yan P a n n i Planning Division CITY OF YAKIIVIM n g Joseph Calhoun,Manager PLANNING DIV 129 North Second Street,2nd Floor,Yakima,WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov•www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION DATE: August 27,2021 TO: Applicant,Appellant, SEPA Agencies,Adjoining Property Owners &Parties of Record SUBJECT: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Decision FILE#(S): APP#001-21,MOD#021-21 APPLICANT: West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary School APPELLANT: West Valley School District PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. On August 26, 2021,the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his decision on APP#001- 21, an appeal of the Administrative Official's Decision for MOD#021-21, a modification to an existing site plan at Apple Valley Elementary in the R-1 zoning district.Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.The appellant may apply for a Type(3)Major Modification and/or has the right as set forth in YMC 16.08.025 and YMC 16.08.030 to appeal this decision to the Yakima City Council within fourteen days of mailing this decision in accordance with the applicable City provisions. For further information or assistance, you may contact Associate Planner Eric Crowell at (509) 575-6736 or email to: cric.crowell{cOyakimawa.gov. Edc. 771. C.A. Eric Crowell Associate Planner Date of Mailing:August 27,2021 Enclosures:Hearing Examiner's Decision Yakima 100 11 lit DOC. 1994 2015 INDEX I - 1 41 RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 YAKIM City of Yakima, Washington PLAN OF DIVA Hearing Examiner's Decision RECEIVED August 26,2021 SEP 10 2021 In the Matter of an Appeal by the ) CITY OF YAKIMA West Valley School District of an ) PLANNING DIV. Administrative Official's Decision ) APP#001-21 Regarding One of Five Requests ) MOD#021-21 For a Minor Modification to the ) City's Approved Site Plan for the ) Apple Valley Elementary School ) A. Introduction. The main procedural aspects of the open record public hearing that was conducted by the Hearing Examiner on August 12, 2021, may be summarized as follows: (1) The Administrative Official, City of Yakima Community Development Director Joan Davenport, issued a decision on June 30, 2021, relative to a request for the Minor Modification of the site plan previously approved for the Apple Valley Elementary School. The decision approved as a Minor Modification the addition of a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sight-screening in some locations which were four of the modified features shown on the revised site plans submitted on June 21 and June 23, 2021 (Document Index B-3 and G-3). The decision did not approve as a Minor Modification the increase in elevation of grading contours of portions of the site beyond what the City had previously approved for building permit B200126 in 2020. That denial was based on a finding that the increase in site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project (Document Index E-3 and G-4). (2) A courtesy copy of the Administrative Official's decision was sent to West Valley School District 1 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX 42 RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 UITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. adjacent property owners who had emailed concerns to the City about the EIVED in elevation of the site (Testimony of Joan Davenport). A section at the end of the decision entitled "APPEAL" set forth instructions as to how decisions by 8.1acpo 2021 Planning Division regarding approval or denial of administrative modifications may be appealed within fourteen days. West Valley School District(hereafter"WV31T 5 OF YAKIMA appealed the Administrative Official's denial of the increase in the site grakNNING DIV elevation of the playgrounds and playfields as a Minor Modification. There is no indication in the record that anyone appealed the changes that were approved as part of the Minor Modification request. If those aspects of the Minor Modification were appealed, they were not included within this Appeal proceeding and are not before the Hearing Examiner as part of this Appeal. (3)Testimony of City Associate Planner Eric Crowell recommended that the Appeal be denied and that the Administrative Official's failure to approve the requested increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification of the approved site plan be affirmed for reasons set forth in his staff report (Document Index A-1). Testimony in favor of denial of the Appeal and affirmance of the Administrative Official's decision was also presented by City Attorney Sara Watkins;by Community Development Director Joan Davenport; and by adjacent property owner John Manfredi. (4) Testimony in favor of the Appeal to authorize the increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification was submitted by appellant's attorney Julie A. Wilson-McNerney of the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP; by the Project Architect at Design West Architects, Matthew Whitish, AIA; by the Bond Oversight Committee Chairman, Peter Marinace; and by a parent of two Apple Valley Elementary School students, Chris Jevne. (5) Written comments in favor of the Appeal seeking approval of the requested increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification were submitted by appellant's attorneys,Kristine R. Wilson and Julie A. Wilson-McNerney of Perkins Coie LLP (Document Index D-1, G-2, H-5 and H- 6); by appellant's Acting Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Peter Finch (Document Index D-1); by a commenter who described herself as a taxpayer,Michelle Mueller (Document Index F-2); by a parent of an Apple Valley Elementary School student, Jamie Mathews (Document Index H-1); by a West Valley resident, Ryan K. Mathews (Document Index H-3); by a resident living across Barge Street north of the school, Oscar Rodriguez (Document Index H-7); and by the Bond Oversight West Valley School District 2 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 NDE r 43 RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 WY OF YAKIM PLANNING DIVA Committee Chairman,Peter Marinace(Document Index H-8). RECEIVE (6) Written comments in opposition to the Appeal and in favor of affirming the Administrative Official's decision were submitted by Associate Planner Eric SEP 0 7n Crowell (Document Index A-1); by Administrative Official Joan Davenport (Document Index H-4); by adjacent resident Julia Ericson (Document Index F-1); CITY OF YHKd6 by adjacent resident Stuart McCurdy (Document Index F-3); by adjacent residents PLANNING f Kevin and Melanie Cox (Document Index F-4); by adjacent residents John and Candace Manfredi (Document Index F-5 and H-2); by adjacent resident Thela McCurdy (Document Index F-6); and by adjacent residents Erasmo and Lorena Carranza (Document Index F-7). (7) Extensive written, photographic, illustrative and oral evidence was presented in this matter. Any attempt to summarize the evidence that was relative to the grounds set forth for this Appeal could not as a practical matter include all of the many points in their context that were submitted as evidence, but anyone interested in reviewing all of the evidence in its full context may do so by reviewing the documents submitted for this record and by viewing the hearing on the City's website entitled "yakimawa.gov"by clicking on"City Council" and then on "City Council Videos" and then on "City of Yakima Hearing Examiner 8/12/2021."The Hearing Examiner has more than once reviewed all of the written,photographic and illustrative evidence, as well as all of the testimonial evidence presented at the hearing. The following Findings, Conclusions and Decision are the result from that review and consideration of all of the evidence in the record and presented at the hearing which pertains to the stated grounds for this Appeal. These Findings, Conclusions and Decision have been issued within ten working days of the date of the open record public hearing as required by Subsections 16.08.018(G) and 16.08.020(C)of the Yakima Municipal Code(YMC). B. Basis for Decision.. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site on August 10, 2021, without anyone else present; his consideration of the staff report, the appeal information, the exhibits, the testimony and other evidence presented at the open record public hearing on August 12, 2021; and his consideration of the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code West Valley School District 3 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 0C. c VEX RECE% ' 44 SEP 10 26't1 /ECEIVED CITY OF YAttilvtr AUG 2 6 2021 PLANNING Olt► r kk YAKIMA L.ANNING DIV. (YMC), which apply to the Appellant's grounds for appeal;the Hearing Examiner makes and issues the following Findings, Conclusions and Decision: FINDINGS I. Background of Appeal. The background facts pertinent to this appeal may be summarized as follows: (1) When the City investigated a complaint regarding the construction of a walking pathway at Apple Valley Elementary School, it found that the school and parking areas had been constructed in accordance with the site plan that was approved on April 7,2020 for the building permit(B200126),but it was determined that the playground areas, fields and pathway were in some areas one to three feet higher than shown on the approved site plan. A stop work order was placed on the playground and playfield portions of the project on May 26, 2021. WVSD applied for a modification of the approved site plan on May 28, 2021 which would add the pathway that had been constructed around the south and east perimeter of the school site. The City recommended during a virtual meeting with WVSD on June 4,2021 that WVSD meet with the concerned neighbors to hear their comments. After WVSD sent email notices to neighbors on June 8, 2021, it held a meeting with neighbors to hear their concerns on June 14, 2021. The City's Community Development Director who is the Administrative Official,Joan Davenport,attended that meeting and heard neighborhood concerns, including concerns about the increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the playground and playfields at issue in this Appeal. She also visited the school campus. On June 21, 2021, an amended application was submitted to also modify backstop and goalpost locations for the playfields, to slightly reduce the asphalt area for the playground, to change some of the fencing and to allow the grading of the playfields to remain at the as- built elevations rather than at the previously approved elevations.The City Planning Division determined that the application was complete and the Administrative Official issued the decision relative thereto on June 30, 2021 (Document Index H-4 and E-3). West Valley School District 4 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 C. INDEX RECE ED 45 SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA RECEIVED PLANNING DIV AUG 2 6 �021 Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (2) The decision approved as a Minor Modification the five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfields, the revised backstop and goalpost locations, the reduction in asphalt for the playground, and the installation of sitescreening,but it did not approve as a Minor Modification the as-built increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the playground and playfield areas of the site. (3)West Valley School District timely appealed the latter aspect of the Minor Modification decision on July 14, 2021. Public notice of the Appeal hearing set for August 12, 2021 was given by mailing notice to the parties of record and the applicant/appellant on July 23,2021, as well as by publishing notice in the Yakima Herald-Republic on July 23, 2021 and posting land use action signs on the site on August 2, 2021 in accordance with YMC §16.08.018(D). The Hearing Examiner conducted the open record public hearing pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by YMC §15.20.040(C)(1)(f)and §16.08.018(G). (4)YMC §15.17.020 states that minor changes to approved Class (1), (2)or (3) uses may qualify for abbreviated review if they do not exceed certain listed criteria consisting of seven types of limitations on the nature of the change. The limitation prescribed by YMC §15.17.020(C) is that any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed 50% of the gross floor area. YMC §15.17.040(B)(1) provides that applications for modifications may be summarily and administratively reviewed by using the Type(1)review process plus the additional consideration of three specified criteria. The third criterion in YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) is that the proposed change in the site design or arrangement, in the determination of the planning division, will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. (5) YMC §15.17.040(C) provides that if in utilizing the Type (1) review process the proposed modification does not meet all of the requirements of section 15.17.040, it shall be denied and may be the subject of an application for review under the normal review provisions for the use. The normal review provisions for this use would be the Type (3) review provisions for elementary school uses in the Single-Family Residential(R-1)zoning district. Besides requiring public notice and an open record public hearing by the Hearing Examiner, Type (3) review of Class (3) uses defined in YMC §15.02.020 also requires the consideration of several criteria such as compatibility with the neighborhood and authorizes the imposition of conditions if they would adequately resolve difficulties related to compatibility. West Valley School District 5 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 J** • INDEX 46 RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA AUG 2 6 2021 PLANNING DIV. Y OF YAKIMA LANNING Such alternatives are not available in the abbreviated, summary, administrative DIV. Type(1)Minor Modification process which according to YMC §15.17.040(C)must result in either approval or denial of the requested change. YMC §15.17.020 likewise provides that denial of requested changes under the abbreviated Type (1) Minor Modification procedure that do not meet the criteria must apply for review as a Class(1), (2)or(3)use or development. (5)YMC §16.08.018(A)provides that an Administrative Official's decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. YMC §16.08.018(C) states that all appeals shall specifically cite the action being appealed, the error(s) or issue(s)to be considered, and explain why the action is not consistent with the provisions of the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan, this title or other provisions of law. YMC §16.08.018(G)requires that testimony given during the appeal shall be limited to those points cited in the appeal application. YMC §16.08.020(A) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hear appeals de novo which means that open record appeal hearings shall be conducted. YMC §16.08.014 states that the appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate that there is at least one of four specified types of error in the decision of the Administrative Official. YMC §16.08.018(H) provides that decisions by the Hearing Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless appealed to the Yakima City Council in accordance with YMC §16.08.020(C), §16.08.025 and §16.08.030 which would result in a stay of actions of the Administrative Official in accordance with YMC §16.08.050. II. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's First Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official Committed an Error of Law in Partially Denying the Modification Application. (1)The appellant correctly points out that YMC §15.17.020(C)which allows any expansion of use area and structure not exceeding fifty percent of the gross floor area to be considered as a Minor Modification if it satisfies the additional criteria in YMC §15.17.040 is inapplicable to increases in site grading elevation even though grading is specifically included in the definition of a "use" in YMC §15.02.020. This contention is supported by the definition of "gross floor area" in YMC §15.02.020 and YMC §15.06.040(A). Gross floor area is defined as the total square West Valley School District 6 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX P3-1 47 RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA AUG 2 6 2021 PLANNING DIV. CITY OF YAKIMA footage of all floors in a structure which is to be determined in a specified mannerPl'ANNING DIV. and which can only be applied to an increase in the site grading elevation of a use area by analogy. (2)The Administrative Official did in fact apply the potential type of Minor Modification described in YMC §15.17.020(C)by analogy for evaluation purposes to the appellant's requested increase in the site grading elevation of the site. She applied that provision to individual elevation increases in any of the contours that were compared rather than to the average percentage increase in elevation over the entire site(Document Index A-1,page 2 of the staff report).The Planning Division's interpretation of that provision to allow consideration of some grading changes by analogy to constitute Minor Modifications if they also meet the additional criteria in YMC §15.17.040 was at most harmless error. (3) The Administrative Official's interpretation of YMC 15.17.020(C) did not prejudice the appellant. That is because the appellant's requested increase in site grading elevation could not otherwise be considered as a Minor Modification under any circumstances absent the use of that provision by analogy. The appellant could not point to any ordinance provision specifying how a percentage increase in grading elevation is to be determined by analogy. Applying YMC §15.17.020(C) to this situation by analogy also did not prejudice the appellant because the Administrative Official also went further and also considered the requested modification under the additional criteria of YMC §15.17.040. Consideration of the requested modification under the additional criterion of YMC 15.17.040(B)(1)(c) resulted in a determination that "The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project" (Document Index E-3 and G-4,page 6 of the decision). III. The Hearing Examiner's Finding, as to the Appellant's Second Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official's Finding that the As-Built Grading Would Be More Than a 50% Increase in Elevation is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. West Valley School District 7 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 Doc. INDEX n9,- I 48 RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKINMA CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. PLANNING DIV. (1) The appellant correctly described"substantial evidence" as"evidence of a sufficient quantity to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true." Some cases refer to the fictitious person being persuaded as a"fair-minded person." E.g. Ostrum Mushroom Farm Co. v. Wash. State Dep't of Labor and Industries, 13 Wn.App.2d 262, 271, 463 P.3d 149, 154 (2020). (2)The appellant's uncontradicted evidence was to the effect that the average increase in the as-built site grading elevation across the entire site is 32%rather than in excess of the 50% referenced in YMC §15.17.020(C). That is because portions of the southern playfield were graded at an elevation one to three feet higher than approved by the City in 2020, while the finished elevation in other areas of the site is one foot lower than shown in the approved site plans (Document Index D-1,pages 9-10 of appellant's memorandum). (3) The Administrative Official did not use the average increase in site grading elevation in determining that the increase in site grading elevation exceeded 50%. She rather determined that the elevation of any contour line on the site plan for the modification request which exceeded by more than 50%the elevation of the contour line it crossed on the site plan previously approved with building permit B200126 in fact by analogy violated the 50% limitation in YMC §15.17.020(C) required for administrative approval as a Minor Modification. (Document Index A- 1,page 3 of the staff report). (4) In this regard it is difficult to apply YMC §15.17.020(C)by analogy to an increase in the site grading elevation of a site because an increase in gross floor area would be determined by considering the total square footage increase in floor area in all applicable locations throughout a building without being an average increase or being an increase that is exceeded only in certain areas. Here the adverse impacts of the project cited by adjacent residents consist mainly of an increase in site grading elevation in the areas relatively near adjacent residences which diminish the effectiveness of their perimeter sitescreening as a visual buffer between the school and their residential uses of different intensity contrary to YMC §15.07.010. (5)Interpreting YMC §15.17.020(C)to mandate consideration of the average increase in the site grading elevation across the entire site would result in consider- ation of areas away from the adjacent neighbors that would not be relevant to their concerns and would ignore the full extent of any increases in the site grading West Valley School District 8 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX 49 RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA AUG 2 6 2021 PLANNING DIv. QiTY OF PI.ANNING p VA elevation that are near enough to the adjacent neighbors to significantly diminish the effectiveness of their sitescreening. The Administrative Official's approach and determination as to the applicability by analogy for evaluation purposes of YMC §15.17.020(C) focused upon the adverse impacts reported by neighbors rather than upon the average increase in site elevation which was not the problem reported by the neighbors. Her determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record which consists of (i) the differences between the contour lines on the site plan submitted for the modification application and the contour lines on the site plan previously approved for the building permit and (ii) the written comments, photographs, illustrations and testimony of adjacent neighbors which have been submitted for the record of this de novo open record hearing appeal procedure. (6) Even if the Administrative Official should have utilized the average increase in site grading elevation across the entire site,again any error was harmless. The failure of the increase in site grading elevation to satisfy the percentage limitation in YMC §15.17.020(C)was not the Administrative Official's only basis for refusing to approve the requested increase in the site grading elevation as a Minor Modification. A second and independent basis for refusing to summarily approve the increase in site grading elevation administratively as a Minor Modifi- cation was her determination that it creates an adverse impact of the project so as to be disqualified from approval as a Minor Modification under the third criterion prescribed by YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) (Document Index E-3 and G-4, page 6 of the decision). IV. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's Third Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official's Finding that the As-Built Grading Would Cause an Adverse Effect is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. (1) YMC §15.17.040(B) provides in part that applications for modifications may only be administratively and summarily reviewed using the Type (1) review process if in the determination of the Planning Division, it will not create or West Valley School District 9 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX # i36-I RECE!tl ED 50 SEP 10 2021 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA AUG 2 6 2021 PLANNING DIV. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. YMC §15.02.020 defines the Planning Division as the Department of Community Development of the City of Yakima and the Administrative Official as the duly appointed City of Yakima Director of Community Development. Here the Director of Community Development specifically determined that the site grading elevation does in fact create an adverse impact of the project that prevented it from being processed administratively by the summary Minor Modification process. Her specific determination in regard to the adverse impact of the site grading elevation was as follows: "The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project. The new grade is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown on the grading plans submitted with B200126. The City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners which prompted the Building Official to issue a stop work order.The WVSD held a neighborhood meeting on June 14, 2021 to hear the concerns and questions of neighbors. Multiple emails and phone calls were received by various City staff both prior and subsequent to the meeting about site grading and its negative impact on adjacent property owners." (Document Index E-3 and G-4,page 6 of the decision). (2) The Administrative Official's determination relative to the Minor Modification requirement of YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) was based upon her personal knowledge of neighbors' concerns relayed to the Planning Division by emails and phone calls and expressed at the neighborhood meeting held on June 14, 2021,which she attended. YMC §15.17.020 and §15.17.040(C)state that the effect of that determination is in this situation to require consideration of the requested modification of the site grading elevation by means of an application for Type (3) review rather than by means of the abbreviated, summary, administrative Type (1) Minor Modification review process. (3)The appellant correctly points out that the City's Surface Water Engineer determined that the as-built conditions at the school would not cause erosion or drainage problems. That does not mean, however, that the increase in site grading elevation to a significantly higher elevation than what was approved would not create other problems. The most obvious adverse impact from such an increase in West Valley School District 10 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 �y, DOCK INDEX # - 1 RECEIVED 51 SEP 1 0 20?1 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMii. AUG 2 G 2021 PLANNING DIV CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIY. the site grading elevation is described in the Planning Division staff report as follows: "Because the elevation changes by a few feet in some locations,this reduces the effectiveness of the view-obscuring sitescreening material the school district agreed to install upon an existing six-foot-tall fence." (Document Index A-1,page 3 of the staff report). (4) The Administrative Official's decision approved the requested Minor Modification for six-foot-tall view-obscuring fencing along the south and southeast perimeter of the site. The Administrative Official's decision contains a reference to one of the purposes of sitescreening set forth in YMC §15.07.010. One of the purposes of sitescreening is to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity such as between school playgrounds/playfields and adjacent residences. (Document Index E-3 and G-4, page 3). Increases in site grading elevations can reduce the effectiveness of the six-foot-high view-obscuring fencing to varying degrees depending upon where those increases in elevation are located. (5)Since YMC §16.08.020(A)provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hear appeals de novo at an open record hearing, the written comments, photographs, illustrations and testimony presented for the appeal must be considered in deciding whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Administrative Official's determination to the effect that the increase in site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project so as to preclude its administrative approval summarily as a Minor Modification. Additional evidence presented for the record of this proceeding relative to the adverse impacts of the increase in site grading elevation includes evidence to the effect that (i) the building permit approval included regrading the south and east playgrounds/playfields to raise their elevation from one to four feet over what existed at that time (Document Index F-1 and F-5) and (ii) the additional subsequent increase in the site grading elevation of three to four feet more only 20 to 40 feet from the south and east property lines is now enough for some of the adjacent residents to see people over a six-foot-high view- obscuring fence from the waist up and to allow people to see into their yards and windows so as to create adverse impacts to some of the adjacent residents' privacy, security,personal safety,property damage and/or property values (Document Index F-1, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6 and F-7). The testimony presented at the hearing by an adjacent property owner was consistent with his written comments, and he again West Valley School District 11 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED 52 RECEIVED SEP 11 0 2021 AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKtMi PLANNING DIV CITY P.ANF YAKIMA indicated that the neighbors should be compensated for the adverse impacts to their property caused by the increase in the site grading elevation if that change is approved (Testimony of John Manfredi; Document Index F-5). The written evidence, photographs, illustrations and testimony in the record as to adverse impacts due to the increase in site grading elevation is not speculative because it is based on already as-built elevations rather than on possible future impacts of possible future elevations. (6) The written comments and testimony of adjacent neighbors that were submitted for the record of this proceeding as Document Index F-1, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6 and F-7 in and of themselves constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of the Administrative Official to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation of the site creates an adverse impact of the project. This determination under the plain language of YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c)is solely hers to make because this is an abbreviated, summary, administrative Minor Modifi- cation process. This Minor Modification process does not involve determinations as to credibility, compatibility or the imposition of conditions to resolve difficulties related to the compatibility of a proposal which are involved by definition per YMC §15.02.020 in the consideration of Class (3) uses by Type (3) review. The Minor Modification process is rather a summary process which must result in either approval or denial based in part upon a determination of the Planning Division. That determination here is supported by substantial evidence. V. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's Fourth Ground for this Appeal to the Effect that the City Exceeded Its Authority in Requiring the School District to Regrade the Site. (1) The language of the Administrative Official's decision following her denial of the requested increase in site grading elevation as a Minor Modification accurately describes what will result if the applicant/appellant should fail to be successful in an appeal of the Administrative Minor Modification decision and/or should fail to obtain approval of the increase in the site grading elevation of the site through the Type (3) review process. Absent success in pursuing one or both of those alternatives set forth in YMC §16.08.025 and §16.08.030 and/or YMC West Valley School District 12 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DQC. NDEX # v36-1 53 DECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2021 AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA kal'Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. PLANNING DIV. §15.17.020 and§15.17.040(C),it is true that the applicant/appellant will be required to regrade the site consistent with grading contours shown on the elevation site plan submittal for B200126 because that is the most recent City approval of the grading contours of the site. If that becomes a requirement, the requirement would be attributable to the appellant's action in increasing site grading elevations of the site beyond what the City had approved rather than attributable to any action by the City. (2)The nexus and proportionality test do not apply to this situation because the Administrative Official's decision does not require an exaction or any mitigation measures, but rather leaves unaffected the grading contour requirements of the approved 2020 building permit which was not appealed and which will remain as the grading contour requirements for the site if the Administrative Official's decision is not changed as a result of the appeal process and/or the Type(3)review process. VI. The Hearing Examiner's Conclusions as to the Appellant's Grounds for this Appeal. (1) The Administrative Official did not commit an error of law in partially denying the modification application. (2) The Administrative Official's finding that the as-built grading would be more than a 50%increase in elevation at some places on the site where contour lines of the site plan submitted with the modification application cross contour lines of the site plan approved for building permit B200126 is supported by substantial evidence. (3)The Administrative Official's finding to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project is supported by substantial written, photographic, illustrative and oral evidence which is contained within the record of this proceeding. (4) The City did not exceed its authority in requiring the School District to regrade the site because that is already required by the approved building permit site plan for B200126 which was not appealed. It is not a new requirement imposed by the Administrative Official. It is rather an existing building permit requirement that West Valley School District 13 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC, INDEX RECL JED 54 SEP 10 7 fl ; RECEIVED CITY OF YANK - PLANNING Div AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV.. could still be eliminated by a successful appeal of the Administrative Official's decision or could still be eliminated or modified through Type(3)review. (5)Due to the summary nature of the Minor Modification process,the written and oral evidence submitted at the hearing in favor of approving the Minor Modification which has all been reviewed and considered by the Hearing Examiner cannot here result in a reversal of the Administrative Official's decision because it fails to satisfy the appellant's burden to prove at least one of the four specific grounds required for a successful Appeal of a Minor Modification even though it may be persuasive in other contexts. (6) The consequence of a failure to satisfy all of the criteria for a Minor Modification is that the applicant/appellant can apply for Type (3) review of the modification request for an increase in the site grading elevation of the site. That type of review would involve notice and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner or Pro Tem Hearing Examiner. During that type of review, the written comments and testimony of those in favor of the modification of the site grading elevation that were presented for this Appeal, as well as additional written comments and testimony, could be presented and be considered under different criteria than are required for the administrative approval of a Minor Modification. If this modification request is set for a Type (3) review hearing in the future, the Planning Division may consider assigning that review to the Pro Tem Hearing Examiner since a third review of the site features for this new school could involve argument as to the intent and effect of this Hearing Examiner's two prior decisions in that regard which in turn might give rise to the need to address an appearance of fairness assertion or issue that could possibly be raised at the beginning of a future hearing. (7) If the appellant applies for Type (3) review of the requested increase in the site grading elevation of the site and/or appeals this decision within the requisite fourteen days of mailing this decision, then the increase in site grading elevation will not immediately become a code compliance issue due to the stay prescribed by YMC §16.08.050. But otherwise the Administrative Official's requirement to regrade the site consistent with grading contours shown in the building plan submittal for B200126 will become a code compliance issue since the grading contours on that building plan submittal are currently the only grading contours that have been approved by the City. West Valley School Dis riot 14 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOff•. INDEX 55 RECEIVED RECEIVER AUG 2 6 2021 CITY Of YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (8)This Appeal decision may be further appealed to the Yakima City Council within the time period and in the manner required by applicable City ordinance provisions. VII. Hearing Examiner's Appeal Decision (APP#001-21). The Hearing Examiner's decision relative to this Appeal is as follows: (1)The portion of the Administrative Official's administrative determination to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation shown on the site plan for the modification application does not satisfy all of the criteria for approval of a Minor Modification is affirmed and the Appeal from that portion of the Minor Modification decision is denied. (2)The portion of the Administrative Official's said decision which requires the applicant/appellant to regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in the building site plan submittal for B200126 is also affirmed subject to the right of the applicant/appellant set forth in YMC §15.17.020 and §15.17.040(C)to apply for a Type (3) Major Modification and/or the right of the applicant/appellant set forth in YMC §16.08.025 and §16.08.030 to appeal this decision to the Yakima City Council within fourteen days of mailing this decision in accordance with applicable City ordinance provisions. DATED this 26th day of August, 2021. Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner West Valley School District 15 . Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 ice. INS 56 RECEIVED SEP 1 ® 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. EXHIBIT C Doc. INDEX 57 RECEIVED SEP 10 2Q2f CITY OF YAKIMA 1 PLANNING DIV. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BEFORE THE CITY OF YAIOMA CITY COUNCIL 13 14 In the matter of the Appeals of: 15 APP#001-21,MOD#021-21 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO.208,a political subdivision of the DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH 18 State of Washington, 19 20 Appellant, 21 22 v. 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA,a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 31 32 33 I,Dr.Peter Finch,declare and state as follows: 34 35 1.. I am over the age of eighteen years,make this declaration on personal 36 knowledge of the facts stated herein, and competentto testify. g am 39 2. I am currently the Superintendent of Schools for the West Valley School 41 District. I previously served as an Assistant Superintendent at the West Valley School 42 43 District from 2001 until 2021. 44 45 46 47 DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH— 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153805538.1 DQC. Fax: 206.359.9000 INDEX y., # 1�V -I 58 RECEIVE( SEP 1 0 2021 CITY OF YAKIMr, PLANNING DIV 1 3. I have read the West Valley School District's appeal of the Hearing 2 3 Examiner's August 26,2021 decision in APP#001-21,which affirms the Administrative 4 5 Official's partial denial of MOD#021-21,and I believe the contents of the appeal to be true. 6 7 I declare that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and 8 9 subject to the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. 0 11 12 13 Dated this 10th day of September,2021, at Yakima,Washington. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 qeS—\-7 21 22 - 23 Dr. Peter Finch, Superintendent 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH—2 Perkins Cole LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153805538.1 DOC. Fax: 206.359.9000 INDEX RECEIVED 59 SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 4 5 the date indicated below,I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing 6 7 DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH to be served on the following persons via the 8 9 methods indicated below: 10 11 City of Yakima ❑ Via U.S. Mail, 1st class,postage prepaid 12 Community Development Department [1 Via Legal Messenger 13 129 N. 2nd Street,2nd Floor 0 Via Facsimile 14 Yakima,WA 98901 ❑ Via Overnight Mail 15 ❑ Via email 16 17 18 19 DATED this 10th day of September,2021 at Seat le,Washington. 20 21 22 23 Cheryl Roberts n, Legal Practice 24 Assistant 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ; 47 DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH—3 Perkins Cole LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 DC. Fax: 206.359.9000 153805538.1 I NDEX 60 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21, APP#001-21) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER CC Appeal Responses & Appellant Rebuttal DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# CC-1 Response to Appeal—John and Candace Manfredi 10/13/2021 CC-2 Appellant's Memorandum—West Valley School District 10/15/2021 61 RECEIVED 1 OCT 1 5 2021 2 3 CITY OF YAKIMA 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BEFORE THE CITY OF YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL 13 14 In the matter of the Appeal of: 15 APP#001-21, MOD#021-21 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO.208,a political subdivision of the APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM OF 18 State of Washington, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 19 SUPPORT OF APPEAL 20 Appellant, 21 22 v. 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA,a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 31 32 33 West Valley School District No.208 (the"School District")submits the following 34 35 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its above-captioned Administrative 36 37 Appeal to the Yakima City Council("City Council"). The School District challenges the 38 39 City of Yakima Hearing Examiner's Decision,APP#001-21 ("Hearing Examiner's 40 41 Decision"or"Decision")to uphold the Administrative Official's denial of the School 42 43 District's Application for Modification,MOD#21-021 ("City Decision"),which requested 44 45 approval of as-built elevations for the replacement of Apple Valley Elementary School that 46 47 are a 32% increase over the elevations the City of Yakima("City")approved as part of the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE 1201 Third Avenue OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 1 Seattle,WA98 1 01-3 099 Phone: 206.3r�C99 153676057.3 Fax: 206.35rT.9 RI" INDEX r �,�� L :El:D OCTi. RE202( COMMCu rYOpOp ENT 1 School District's building permit. The Decision is clearly erroneous,inconsistent with 2 3 applicable law,not supported by substantial evidence, and exceeded the Hearing Examiner's 4 5 authority. The Hearing Examiner erred in upholding the City's application by analogy of a 6 7 modification standard pertaining to gross floor area to an elevation change to find that the 8 9 School District's request did not meet the criteria for a modification. Furthermore,the 10 11 Hearing Examiner's findings that the elevation changes constitute a more than 50%increase 12 13 over the previously approved plans and that the grading change would cause an adverse 14 15 effect to adjacent property owners are not supported by substantial evidence. The Hearing 16 17 Examiner also committed an error of law by affirming the City's misapplication of the law 18 19 by holding the modification request to a higher standard than the initial grading permit. 20 21 Finally,the Hearing Examiner committed an error of law and exceeded his authority in 22 23 holding that the School District must regrade the site unless the School District either 24 25 successfully appeals the Administrative Minor Modification Decision or successfully 26 27 obtains approval of the grading increase through a Type (3)review process. The School 28 29 District requests that the City Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decision with respect 30 31 to grading. 32 33 I. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON 34 35 In support of its appeal,the District relies upon all the documents filed with the City 36 37 of Yakima in the records for File Nos.APP#001-21 and MOD#021-21. 38 39 II. RELIEF REQUESTED 40 41 Consistent with YMC 16.08.014 and 16.08.030.F,the School District requests that 42 43 the Hearing Examiner's Decision with respect to grading be reversed because the Decision 44 45 is clearly erroneous, inconsistent with applicable law,not supported by substantial evidence, 46 47 and exceeded the Hearing Examiner's authority. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 2 Seattle,WA98101-3099 . DOC. Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 63 RECEIVED OCT 15 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T 1 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 3 The City Council reviews appeals of a Hearing Examiner's decision as a closed 4 5 record appeal based upon the material in the record before the Hearing Examiner;no new 6 evidence is presented. YMC 16.08.030.D. The City Council may"affirm the decision of 7 8 9 the examiner,remand the matter back to the hearing examiner with appropriate directions,or 10 11 may reverse or modify the hearing examiner's decision." YMC 16.08.030.F. To meet its 12 13 burden of proof,the Appellant must demonstrate at least one of the following: 14 15 1. The decision-maker. . . exceeded his or her jurisdiction or 16 authority; 17 18 2. The decision-maker failed to follow applicable procedures 19 in reaching the decision; 20 21 3. The decision-maker committed an error of law;and/or 22 23 4. The findings,conclusions or decision prepared by the 24 decision-maker are not supported by substantial evidence. 25 26 YMC 16.08.014. 27 28 29 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 30 31 A. The Project 32 In February 2019, voters in the School District's boundaries approved a$59 million 33 34 bond to replace Apple Valley and Summitview Elementary Schools to provide more 35 36 capacity to reduce overcrowding. Declaration of Dr. Peter Finch, filed on July 14,2021 37 38 (hereinafter"Finch Decl."),¶3. On October 23,2019,the School District submitted a Class 39 40 3 Review application(CL3#010-19, VAR#004-19,ADJ#027-19, and CAO#027-19)to the 42 City to completely replace the Apple Valley Elementary School on the same site.1 Id. at 8, 43 44 45 1 The permitting and SEPA process for the school replacement project was completed in two 46 phases. In 2019,the City conducted an environmental review under the State Environmental Policy 47 Act, Chapter 43.2I C RCW("SEPA")for the demolition of the existing school building and issued a MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 3 DOC„ Seattle,WA98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX2 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEWD OCT 15 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 Ex.A at 3. The School District proposed the construction of a new 60,000-square-foot 2 3 elementary school building in the R-1 zoning district with 147 parking spaces,a playground, 4 5 and two playfields. Id. The application included requests for a variance to exceed the 6 7 building height limitation in this zoning district;a critical areas review due to the site being 8 9 in a wellhead protection area;and an administrative adjustment to waive the site-screening 10 11 requirement that would impose a 6-foot view-obscuring fence, installation of a digital sign 12 13 and wall signs that are not otherwise allowed in residential zoning districts,and to adjust the 14 15 maximum height for signs set back more than 15 feet from the right-of-way. Id. at 3-4. The 16 17 City completed SEPA review for the school construction and issued a Determination of 18 19 Non-Significance on January 22,2020. Id. at 4. The SEPA checklist submitted for the 20 21 project did not identify any environmental impacts associated with site grading. Id. at¶ 10, 22 23 Ex.C at Attachment 1. The Hearing Examiner approved this application with conditions on 24 25 February 28,2020. Id. at¶8, Ex.A at 23-25. 26 27 B. The Permits and Permit Process 28 29 On April 7, 2020,the City approved Building Permit B200126 and the associated 30 31 plan set,which included an overall grading plan for the entire site. Finch Decl.,¶4. The 32 33 2020 approved grading plan included proposed elevations for the southeastern corner of the 34 35 site that ranged from 1266 feet above sea level(ASL)near the southern fenceline to 1276 36 37 feet ASL at the playfield at the northeastern corner of the site. Finch Decl.,¶ 11, Ex. D. 38 39 Throughout the course of the project,the School District worked with the Washington State 40 41 Department of Ecology on contamination issues at the site and to implement a clean cap 42 43 44 Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, which included mitigation measures related to 45 removing contaminated building materials, conducting work under the Model Toxics Control Act to 46 address contamination on the site prior to development, and compliance with Yakima Regional 47 Clean Air Agency requirements. Finch Decl.,¶9, Ex. B at 6. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 4 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 DOC. Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 i GO' Z RECAVED OCT 15 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOP WENT 1 over contaminated soil that would be protective of human health and the environment. City 2 3 Decision at 3-4. When construction at the site was completed,the finished elevations at the 4 5 site ranged from 1266 feet ASL near the southeastern fenceline to 1276 feet ASL at the 6 7 northeastern corner of the site,but certain portions of the southern playfield were graded at 8 9 an elevation 1 to 3 feet higher than approved by the City in 2020. Finch Decl.,¶¶ 11-12, 10 11 Exs. D-E. However,the finished elevation in other areas of the site is 1 foot lower than 12 13 shown in the approved plans.Id. 14 15 In late May 2021,the School District submitted a Modification Application to the 16 17 City in accordance with Chapter YMC 15.17 to add a 5-foot walking path around the 18 19 perimeter of the playfields,to change the backstop and goal locations,to reduce the amount 20 21 of asphalt in the playground,to approve the as-built increased site elevations that were a 22 23 32% increase in elevation from the plan sets approved as part of the building permit, and to 24 25 install site-screening in certain locations. City Decision at 1. The City would not deem the 26 27 School District's application complete until the School District held a public meeting to 28 29 obtain public comment on June 14,2021. Finch Decl.,¶6. At the public meeting, 30 31 neighbors expressed concerns about the height of the southern playfield and concerns that 32 33 people using the playfields would be able to see into their backyards. Finch Decl.,It 7. In 34 35 response to public comments,the School District included as part of its Modification 36 37 Application the installation of view-obscuring material to a portion of the fencing along the 38 39 east and southern property lines adjacent to the neighboring residences. City Decision at 6. 40 41 C. The City Decision 42 43 On June 30,2021,the City issued its decision on the School District's Request for 44 45 Modification. City Decision at 1. The City approved the walking path,revised backstop 46 47 and goalpost locations,the reduction of asphalt for the playground, and the installation of MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ie Seattle,WA98101-3099 APPEAL— 5 DOC. Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 NDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 66 OCT 15 20'i YAKIM COMMUNITYCITYOF DEVELO MENT site screening. City Decision at 1. However,the City denied the School District's request to 2 3 approve the as-built grading on the basis that the final site grading shown in the modification 4 5 application is in"excess of a 50%increase in elevation from what was shown with the 6 7 B200126 submittal in several locations,not meeting the standard for a modification." City 8 9 Decision at 1. Additionally,the City found that the increase in site grading"does create an 10 11 adverse impact"because"the City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent 12 13 property owners"about"its negative impact on adjacent property owners." City Decision at 14 15 6. 16 17 The City's surface water engineer conducted a site visit at Apple Valley Elementary 18 19 School while the City reviewed the Modification Application,after the final grading was in 20 21 place,and following a period of rain. City Decision at 7. The surface water engineer noted 22 23 no signs of erosion. City Decision at 7. The City's engineer also concluded that there 24 25 would be no drainage impact on the surrounding properties from the paved path. Id. 26 27 Indeed,the engineer noted that the 28 29 only possible scenario I could see there being any kind of 30 drainage issue would be on the south side if the school 31 overwatered with the sprinklers,and because the main grassy 32 area is elevated,you could get runoff from the sloped grassy 33 areas making its way to the perimeter. If that happened there 34 is still a ten foot separation between the school's fence and the 35 neighbor's fences. Much of the runoff would infiltrate into the 36 ground in this area. This is assuming there would be some 37 problem with the school irrigation and that is unlikely. Along 38 the east side of the school there is a small gravel berm 39 between the path and the fence which would help to contain 40 any runoff that might get there. Again, I would not anticipate 41 any issues there. 42 43 44 45 46 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 6 Seattle,WA98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 DOC. Fax 206.359.9000 153676057.3 INDEX RECIVED OCT T 5 20,t CI iY Of V5LL20 COMMUNITY OLVLLUp IENr 1 Id. Despite the engineer's analysis,the City denied the School District's grading request 2 3 and required the School District to"regrade the site consistent with grading contours as 4 5 shown in the building plan submittal(B200126)." City Decision at 7. 6 7 D. The Hearing Examiner's Decision 8 9 The School District appealed the City Decision to the Hearing Examiner. An open 10 11 record public hearing of the appeal was held on August 12,2021. Hearing Examiner's 12 13 Decision at 3. On August 26,2021,the Hearing Examiner issued his Decision,which 14 15 upheld the City Decision. Id. at 15. Specifically,the Hearing Examiner affirmed the 16 17 Administrative Official's determination"that the increase in site grading elevation shown on 18 19 the site plan for the modification application does not satisfy all of the criteria for approval 20 21 of a Minor Modification"because drawing an analogy between the minor modification 22 23 provisions in the code applicable to increases in gross floor area of an entire building to 24 25 elevation changes in one particular area of a site constituted at most harmless error. Id. at 7- 26 27 9, 15. The Hearing Examiner also upheld the Administrative Official's finding that the 28 29 increased grading at the playfields would result in adverse impacts to the neighbors because 30 31 people on the playfields could look down into the neighbors' yards and windows. Id. at 11. 32 33 The Hearing Examiner also affirmed the Administrative Official's determination that the 34 35 School District would be required to"regrade the site consistent with grading contours as 36 37 shown in the [original]building site plan" subject to the School District's right to apply for a 38 39 Type(3)Major Modification and/or to appeal the decision to the City Council. Id. at 15. 40 41 E. School District's Cost to Comply 42 43 As Matt Whitish testified at the hearing, re-grading the elevated portion of the site as 44 45 the City is now requiring will result in a significant amount of re-work and additional costs. 46 47 To re-grade the site, clean topsoil will have to be removed and stockpiled. New irrigation MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 7 Seattle,WA 9 8 1 01-3 099 DOC. Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 REIVED OCT 1 g 2121 CITY OF YAKIM COMMUNITY DEVEEO MEM. 1 piping will have to be removed and replaced entirely. A layer of marker fabric is installed 2 3 under the clean topsoil to mark the separation between clean and contaminated soils. This 4 5 marker fabric will have to be removed and replaced entirely. Contaminated soil will then 6 7 need to be excavated and exported to a landfill. Completing this work with contaminated 8 9 soils cannot occur while children are occupying the school. Once the new subgrade is 10 11 established, new marker fabric and new irrigation will have to be installed. Finally,the 12 13 clean topsoil will need to be placed, as well as new sod. The School District's contractor 14 15 estimates that this work will cost the School District upwards of$1 million. 16 17 V. LEGAL ARGUMENT 18 19 A. The Hearing Examiner Committed an Error of Law in Affirming the 20 Administrative Official's Denial of the Modification Application 21 22 The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law by finding that the Administrative 23 24 Official correctly applied by analogy YMC 15.17.020.C's criteria to the School District's 25 26 request that the City approve the as-built site grading and that at most,the Administrative 27 28 Official's application of the law was harmless error. See Hearing Examiner's Decision at 7. 29 30 YMC 15.1 7.020.0 allows the City to approve as a Minor Modification any expansion of use 31 32 area or a structure not exceeding 50%of the gross floor area. YMC 15.17.020.0 does not 33 34 speak to changes in site elevation. 35 36 Under the City's process for modification applications,"minor changes to existing or 37 38 approved Class(1), (2)or(3)uses or development may qualify for abbreviated review" 39 40 under Chapter 15.17 YMC. YMC 15.17.020. A change may be approved through a 41 42 modification if,among other things, 43 44 C. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed 45 fifty percent of the gross floor area.The expansion of an 46 existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit 47 when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue r' Seattle,WA 98101-3099 APPEAL— 8 DO � Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 IND;"Iy Z Fax: 206.359.9000 rik 69 RECEIVED OCT 15 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all 2 previous modifications since the last normal review[.] 3 4 YMC 15.17.020.C. YMC 15.02.020 defines"use"to include"the construction, erection, 5 6 placement, movement or demolition of any structure or site improvement and any physical 7 8 9 alteration to land itself, including any grading, leveling, paving or excavation." Although 10 grading is covered in the definition of a"use" under the code, YMC 15.17.020 focuses on 11 12 "an expansion of use area"and whether that expansion exceeds 50%of the gross floor area. 13 14 In finding that the Administrative Official correctly applied YMC 15.17.020.0 to 15 16 17 deny the grading modification,the Hearing Examiner committed two errors of law. First, 18 the Hearing Examiner concluded that YMC 15.17.020.0 applied by analogy to the School 19 20 21 District's "requested increase in the site grading elevation of the site." Hearing Examiner's 22 23 Decision at 7. However, this finding assumes that an increase in finished elevation is an 24 25 "expansion of use area." A minor change in grading elevation does not constitute an 26 27 expansion of the grading area. The area re-graded as part of the project did not change and 28 therefore was not expanded. And even if an increase in elevation were to fall within an 29 30 31 "expansion of use area," such an expansion is limited to no more than 50%ofthe gross floor 32 area. Per YMC 15.02.020 and 15.06.040.A, 33 34 35 "gross floor area"means the total square footage of all floors 36 in a structure as measured from the interior surface of each 37 exterior wall of the structure and including halls, lobbies, 38 enclosed porches and fully enclosed recreation areas and 39 balconies,but excluding stairways,elevator shafts, attic space, 40 mechanical rooms,restrooms, uncovered steps and fire 41 escapes,private garages, carports and off-street parking and 42 loading spaces. Storage areas are included in gross floor area. 43 44 Grading elevations do not fall within the definition of gross floor area. Yet, in upholding the 45 46 City's denial of the grading modification,the Hearing Examiner reasoned that the City 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 9 Doi.. Seattle,WA98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057,3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 # cc-Z RECEIVb OCT 15 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPWENT 1 correctly applied the 50%threshold in YMC 15.17.020.0 to an increase in grading 2 3 elevation,and as discussed in more detail below,correctly calculated the increase in grading 4 5 elevation by focusing only on specific areas of the site that were the subject of the 6 7 neighbors' complaints. 8 9 Second,the Hearing Examiner committed an error of law in upholding the 10 11 Administrative Official's application by analogy of YMC 15.17.020.0 to only those areas of 12 13 the site that pertained to the adverse impacts reported by neighbors. Hearing Examiner's 14 15 Decision at 9. The City reviewed individual elevation increases within new contour lines 16 17 submitted with the Modification Application rather than the average percentage increase in 18 19 grading over the entire site. Hearing Examiner's Decision at 7. Based on these individual 20 21 elevation increases within the contours,the City concluded that those new contours"are in 22 23 excess of a 50%increase in elevation from what was shown with the B200126 submittal in 24 25 several locations, not meeting the standard fora modification." City Decision at 5. The 26 27 Hearing Examiner held that the City's finding was justified because the neighbors' concerns 28 29 regarding the increased elevation only applied to the portion of the school adjacent to their 30 31 property, and in any event, even if the City had erred, such error was harmless. Id. at 7-9. 32 33 However, as Mr. Whitish testified at the hearing,the City's errors in this case are not 34 35 harmless—the School District will likely incur$1 million in costs to regrade the playfields. 36 37 Moreover,the City Code provides no support for the calculations the City completed here. 38 39 Even if the gross floor area criteria could be applied to an elevation change,the Code does 40 41 not allow the City to calculate a percentage increase by focusing on one area of the site. If 42 43 anything,the City should have followed the guidance of the gross floor area criteria and 44 45 looked at grading increases across the site as a whole, instead of impermissibly focusing on 46 47 one part of the site. If the City had completed the calculation correctly,the City would have MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA98101-3099 APPEAL— 10 DOC. Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 GG'Z 71 RECEIVFO OCT 1 g 2J2 CITY OF V4KIM COMMUNITY DEW LO MENT 1 found that the elevation changes across the entirety of the Apple Valley Elementary School 2 3 site only constitute a 32% increase over the elevations approved in the building permit—a 4 5 percentage well under the 50%threshold for denying a modification application. The 6 7 Hearing Examiner's Decision should be reversed and the modification granted. 8 9 B. The Findings of Fact Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence 10 11 The Hearing Examiner's finding that the Administrative Official was justified in her 12 13 site-elevation-increase calculations and that site grading would have an adverse effect are 14 15 not supported by substantial evidence. The Hearing Examiner's Decision must be supported 16 17 by substantial evidence that the Administrative Official was justified in how she decided to 18 19 calculate the site elevation increase. "Substantial evidence"is evidence of a"sufficient 20 21 quantity to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true." Isla Verde Intl 22 23 Holdings v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 751-52, 49 P.3d 867(2002). As demonstrated 24 25 below,the record does not support a finding that grading elevations are 50%higher than the 26 27 approved plans. Further,the City's record consistently demonstrates that the site grading 28 29 would not have an adverse effect and that the grading met code requirements. 30 31 1. The finding that the Administrative Official was justified in 32 calculating that as-built grading would be more than a 50% 33 increase in elevation is not supported by substantial evidence. 34 35 The Hearing Examiner's finding that the Administrative Official was justified in her 36 3.7 site elevation increase calculations—wherein the Administrative Official considered only 38 39 the increased elevations at the playfields rather than the average increase in elevation across 40 41 the site as a whole—is not supported by substantial evidence. Hearing Examiner's Decision 42 43 at 8-9. The Hearing Examiner specifically found that the uncontroverted evidence in the 44 45 record demonstrates that the average increase in grade is only 32%across the entire site 46 4.7 from the permit set to the as-built conditions. Id. at 8. And the Hearing Examiner concedes MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 11 Seattle,WA98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 ���" Fax 206.359.9000 153676057.3 INDEX # V A- Z RECEIVE7g OCT 15 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 that were this application looking at an increase in gross floor area,the City would have 2 3 looked to an increase in the total square footage of a building as a whole and not particular 4 5 areas of a building. Id. However,the Hearing Examiner discounts this evidence, saying that 6 7 while"it is difficult to apply YMC § 15.17.020(c)by an analogy to site grading elevation," 8 9 such an application by analogy was appropriate because looking at the site as a whole 10 11 "would result in consideration of areas away from the adjacent neighbors that would not be 12 13 relevant to their concerns." Id. The City's calculation and the Hearing Examiner's decision 14 15 impermissibly cherry pick the elevation increases that are the subject of the adjacent 16 17 neighbors' concerns. Calculating site elevation increases in this way is not allowed under 18 19 the City's Code, is not supported by substantial evidence,and does not constitute harmless 20 21 error. The School District will incur$1 million to re-grade the site because,as described 22 23 below,the City has chosen to hold the School District to a higher standard for approving 24 25 changes in elevation than if the District had applied for a grading permit in the first instance. 26 27 2. The Hearing Examiner's finding to uphold the Administrative 28 Official's determination that the as-built grading would cause an 29 adverse effect is not supported by substantial evidence. 30 31 The City's record consistently demonstrates that the site grading would not have an 32 33 adverse effect and that the grading met code requirements. For the City to approve a 34 35 modification request,the"proposed change in the site design or arrangement"must not"in 36 37 the determination of the planning division . . . create or materially increase any adverse 38 39 impacts or undesirable effects of the project." YMC 15.17.040.B.1.c. However,this 40 41 provision of the code imposes a greater burden on an applicant seeking an approval ofa 42 43 grading modification by incorporating more stringent standards than those required by the 44 45 City's grading code. 46 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 12 DO. Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 # 2' RECEIVED 73 OCT 15 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 The Yakima Code incorporates the 2018 Washington Building Code,which 2 3 addresses what constitutes an adverse impact to adjacent properties from grading. YMC 4 5 11.04.010, 11.04.J103.2. Sections J108.3 and J109.4 of the 2018 Washington Building 6 7 Code indicate that"adverse effects"to adjacent properties from the grading include only 8 9 slope stability, drainage, and potential erosion problems. Yet,the City's only stated basis 10 11 for denying the School District's modification request—and the Hearing Examiner's basis 12 13 for affirming the Administrative Official's finding—was neighbors' concerns regarding the 14 15 aesthetic and visual impacts of the higher playfield elevation on their adjacent properties. 16 17 See Hearing Examiner's Decision at 10. But impacts to aesthetics and visual quality are an 18 19 improper basis to support an"adverse effects"finding pursuant to the Washington State 20 21 Building Code. By upholding the Administrative Official's finding on the basis of the 22 23 neighbor's aesthetics and visual concerns,the Hearing Examiner improperly applied a 24 25 higher standard to the School District's modification request than would have been applied 26 27 to a grading permit for the same work. 28 29 The record shows that grading would not have adverse effects based on the City's 30 31 environmental review. Rather,the City's own engineer determined that the as-built 32 33 conditions at the school would not cause site stability, erosion,or drainage problems. City 34 35 Decision at 6-7. And neither of the City's SEPA approvals for the Apple Valley Elementary 36 37 School project identify any impacts associated with grading. Neither does the SEPA 38 39 checklist for the school construction, which indicates that 15,000 cubic yards of grading and 40 41 excavation would occur and that"the site is anticipated to be a net balance and no 42 43 significant amounts of imported or exported soils are expected." Finch Decl.¶8, Ex.A, 44 45 Attach. 1 at 6. Because there are no slope stability or erosion concerns resulting from the 46 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 13 DOLe. Seattle,WA9 8 1 01-3 099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 CA/-2 RECEIVED74 OCT152021 COMMON!rY DEVELOPMENT increased playfield elevation,the Hearing Examiner's determination that the grading would 2 3 result in adverse effects is not supported by substantial evidence. 4 5 C. The Hearing Examiner Committed an Error of Law in Affirming the 6 Administrative Official's Application of a Higher Standard to the Denial 7 of the Grading Modification than Would Have Been Applied to the 8 Initial Grading Permit Review 9 10 In the underlying City Decision,the Administrative Official exceeded her authority 11 12 in applying a higher standard to the denial of the grading modification than would have been 13 14 applied to the initial grading permit review. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of 15 16 law and exceeded his authority in affirming this application of a higher standard. Reading 17 18 YMC 15.17.040.B.1.c's provision allowing denial of a modification upon the finding of any 19 20 new negative impact to aesthetics or visual quality,as the City and Hearing Examiner have 21 22 done here, is too expansive of a reading of the City's authority. Because the site design or 23 24 arrangement changes that are reviewed in the modification application process will by their 25 26 nature involve visual changes, it cannot be the case that any visual changes disliked by the 27 28 community is a sufficient reason to deny a modification application. 29 30 A modification application for grading should not be held to a higher standard of 31 32 review than the initial grading review. No significant adverse environmental effects were 33 34 identified in the SEPA review, and the 2018 Washington State Building Code does not 35 36 identify visual changes as an adverse impact to adjacent properties. Yet,the City denied the 37 38 School District's modification application on the basis that it would create a new visual 39 40 impact. This is not the standard under SEPA,nor the 2018 Washington State Building 41 42 Code. See RCW 43.21 C.060; Sections J108.3 and J109.4 of the 2018 Washington Building 43 44 Code. 45 46 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 14 Seattle,WA98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 DOC1. Fax: 206.359.9000 INDEX 'l y0 pECElvu d OCr 15 YE MA zoz1 Nr T COMMC oPMaNr 1 The Hearing Examiner also committed an error of law and exceeded his authority in 2 3 holding that the School District must either successfully appeal the Administrative Minor 4 5 Modification decision, or successfully obtain approval of the grading increase through a 6 7 Type(3)review process. Hearing Examiner's Decision at 12. The School District went 8 9 through the Type(3)review process for the demolition and elementary school rebuilding 10 11 project, as this proposed use triggers a Type(3)review process. See YMC 15.15.020. Mere 12 13 changes in site elevation should not require a whole new Type(3)review process and a 14 15 separate approval on the same scale as the entire school rebuilding project. 16 17 As the Hearing Examiner himself noted,the grading for Apple Valley Elementary 18 19 School was approved via Building Permit No. B200126. "Actions on building permits have 20 21 been characterized by [the State Supreme Court] as ministerial determinations." Chelan Cty. 22 23 v.Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 929, 52 P.3d 1 (2002);Mission Springs,Inc. v. City ofSpokane, 24 25 134 Wn.2d 947, 960, 954 P.2d 250(1998)(quoting, among others,State ex rel. Craven v. 26 27 City of Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 23,27, 385 P.2d 372(1963)("[T]he acts called upon by relators 28 29 to be done when they asked for a building permit under the city zoning regulations and 30 31 building code were not discretionary but ministerial ... Once [the proposed structure 32 33 complies with zoning regulations] and the appropriate fee tendered by the applicant,the 34 35 building department must issue the building permit.")). "In the eyes of the law the applicant 36 37 for a grading permit, like a building permit, is entitled to its immediate issuance [of the 38 39 grading permit] upon satisfaction of relevant ordinance criteria and the State Environmental 40 41 Policy Act of 1971." Mission Springs,Inc., 134 Wn.2d at 960. 42 43 Here,the School District submitted its building permit application,the application 44 45 was deemed complete,the SEPA review identified no adverse effects as a result of the 46 47 elevation changes at the site, and the building permit issued. The City had no discretion to MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 APPEAL— 15 ®O � Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 # GC-2- 76 RECEIVED OCT Y 202} CO Y OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOP!?ENT 1 deny the grading shown in the plan sets based on the concerns of neighbors. Denial of a 2 3 grading permit or building permit based on the neighbors' aesthetics and visual concerns 4 5 would not have been warranted through the City's building permit process. In other words, 6 7 the City could not have denied the School District's building permit if the District had 8 9 proposed the current elevations at the site at the time the building permit was issued. The 10 11 modification criteria as applied here turn a ministerial act by the City into a discretionary act 12 13 by taking into account aesthetic and visual concerns pertaining to the increased elevation at 14 15 the site. Similarly,the Hearing Examiner's Decision turns the ministerial act of approving a 16 17 building permit into a discretionary Type(3)approval that allows for public notice and 18 19 comment and a public hearing. See YMC 15.15.040. Public notice and comment are not 20 21 aspects of the building permit process. The City should not be allowed to hold a change in 22 23 elevation to a higher standard than would have applied to the original building permit. The 24 25 Hearing Examiner and Administrative Official exceeded their jurisdiction in denying the 26 27 modification permit and requiring the School District to apply for a Type(3)permit. 28 29 D. The Hearing Examiner Committed an Error of Law and Exceeded His 30 Authority in Affirming the Administrative Official's Determination That 31 the School District May Be Required to Regrade the Site 32 33 Requiring the School District to incur$1 million in expenses to regrade the site to 34 35 address the concerns ofa handful of neighbors is not proportionate to the aesthetic and 36 37 visual impacts claimed by the neighbors. Yet,the Hearing Examiner rejected this argument. 38 39 The Hearing Examiner held that the"nexus and proportionality test"does not apply here 40 41 because the Administrative Official's decision"leaves unaffected the grading contour 42 43 requirements of the approved 2020 building permit which was not appealed and which will 44 45 remain as the grading contour requirements for the site." Hearing Examiner's Decision at 46 47 13. However,the Hearing Examiner failed to consider the significant adverse effect on the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 16 Seattle,WA 9 8 1 01-3 099 ®OCR Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 # GC.-Z 77 RECEIVED OCT 15 204i CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT 1 School District,the taxpayers, and the elementary school students by requiring the School 2 3 District to regrade the site consistent with the approved 2020 building permit grading plans. 4 5 By so holding,the Hearing Examiner(and the Administrative Official)deemed that 6 7 aesthetic concerns of a handful of neighbors trump the exorbitant cost of regrading the site 8 that both the School District and the City taxpayers will incur. Accordingly,the imposition 10 11 of a requirement to regrade the site is contrary to the nexus and proportionality test,which 12 13 requires that City may only impose requirements that are proportionate to the impacts of the 14 15 proposed action. 16 17 To impose a requirement that the School District regrade the site,the City and 18 19 Hearing Examiner must comply with state limitations on project regulations and exactions 20 21 found under the Washington State Constitution. See Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, 146 Wn.2d at 22 23 759(mitigation for all land use regulatory exactions must be reasonably necessary as a 24 25 direct result of the proposed development);Honesty in Envtl.Analysis and Legislation 26 27 (HEAL) v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 96 Wn.App.522,534,979 P.2d 28 29 864 (1999)(rough proportionality requirements limit local governments to imposing 30 31 mitigation measures that are roughly proportionate to the impact they are trying to mitigate). 32 33 The City and Hearing Examiner have failed to so comply. The School District should not be 34 35 asked to regrade the site to an elevation that is 1 to 3 feet less in certain places to address 36 37 concerns from neighboring property owners over aesthetic and visual quality issues. Such a 38 39 requirement is not proportionate to the alleged impact created by the increased elevation. 40 41 The Hearing Examiner and Administrative Official lack authority to require the School 42 43 District to regrade the site. 44 45 46 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 17 Seattle,WA98101-3099 �O�■ Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 # GG-2 78 OCT 1 �A LULL CITY KIM 1 VI. CONCLUSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEII 2 3 For the aforementioned reasons,the City Council should reverse the Hearing 5 Examiner's Decision with respect to grading and approve the as-built site elevations for 6 7 Apple Valley Elementary School. 8 9 10 11 DATED: October 15,2021 12 Kristin ' Wilson, WS .33152 13 Julie A. {son-McNern- SBA No.46585 14 Perkins ,ie LLP 15 1201 Th d Avenue 16 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 17 Phone: 206.359.8000 18 Fax: 206.359.9000 19 JWilsonMcNerney@perkinscoie.com 20 21 Attorneys for Appellants West Valley School 22 District No. 208 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 18 Seattle,WA 98 1 01-3 099 DOC. Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 79 RECEIVED OCT 15 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 4 5 the date indicated below, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing 6 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 8 9 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL to be served on the following persons via the methods 10 11 indicated below: 12 13 Joan Davenport,AICP,Community 0 Via U.S. Mail, 1st class,postage prepaic. 14 Development Director ❑x Via Legal Messenger 15 City of Yakima, Department of Community 0 Via Facsimile 16 Development ❑ Via Overnight Mail 17 129 N. 2nd Street ❑ Via email 18 Yakima, WA 98901 19 20 21 DATED this 15th day of October, 2021 at Seattle, Washington. 22 23 n 24 (25 Cheryl Rob rtson, Legal Practice 26 Assistant 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue APPEAL— 19 � .. Seattle,WA98101-3099 W Phone: 206.359.8000 153676057.3 INDEX Fax: 206.359.9000 80 October 13, 2021 To: Yakima City Council c/o Joan Davenport AICP, Community Development Director RECEIVED City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 N. 2nd Street OCT I 2021 Yakima, WA 98901 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: John and Candace Manfredi Subject: Testimony opposing APP#008-21, West Valley School District#208 Dear Council, Who we are: We are a neighbor, living immediately south of the Apple Valley School south playground. We built our home here in 2005. We have been adversely impacted by the 4' playground grade raise. We are submitting testimony opposing this appeal, APP#008-21. We would like the Council to know that we voted "yes", for three Apple Valley School replacement bond issues. Our "yes" votes were consistent with our lifelong support of public schools. In fact, we have voted "yes" for every school levee and every school bond for our 52 year voting history, in Denver, Billings, Klamath Falls, and in Yakima since 1984. West Valley School District illegal violations: In their 2020 and 2021 Apple Valley School construction, the District intentionally built large grade raises on the south and east playgrounds. These grade raises violated legal commitments of their own December 30, 2019 Public Review Document and the March 2, 2020 Hearing Examiner's Decision. The District also violated their own building permit drawing B200126, approved April 7, 2020. Throughout the playground construction, and since, the District has refused to admit their violations. City Administrative Officer and Hearing Examiner have both recognized these grade raises are violations, and decided against the District in MOD#021-21 and APP#001-21. Adverse impacts from violations: We have been adversely impacted by the District's 4' playground grade raise built immediately north of our residential property. Other neighbors south and east of the playground have also been adversely impacted by the District's grade raise. The adverse impacts include: lost view, lost privacy, personal safety, nuisance and reduced property value. Throughout their work, and since, the District has refused to recognize these adverse impacts. The City Administrative Officer and the Hearing Examiner have both recognized the adverse impacts, and decided against the District in MOD#021-21 and APP#001-21. DOC. 1 INDEX 81 Our proposed resolution: Considering all issues relevant to this current appeal, we believe the City Council will decide against the District. However, we propose a better resolution. In our previous testimony for APP#001-21, and in our additional testimony, below, we propose that adverse impacts of the District's grade raises be mitigated. Please see our Summary statement on page 5 below. We thank the Council members for considering our testimony, and our proposed resolutiElvED OCT 1 a 2021 Sincerely, CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT John and Candace Manfredi Previous Testimony For Council reference, below is a list of our previous testimony.The City told us they will forward our previous testimony on MOD#021-21 and APP#001-21 to the Council. Testimony supporting the school replacement project: December 30, 2019 Notice of Application, Environmental Review, & Public Hearing March 2, 2020 Notification of Hearing Examiner's Decision Testimony opposing the illegal grade raise: June 30, 2021 Findings of Fact, Conclusions, & Decision, MOD#021-21 Aug 26, 2021 Hearing Examiner's Decision, APP#001-21 Additional Testimony on Specific Articles of the District's Appeal, APP#008-21: Our additional testimony on APP#008-21 follows on pages 3—5 below. DO . Ilya 2 CG— DECEIVED O C T I 2021 Additional Testimony on Specific Articles of the District's Appeal, APP#008-21:noMmCuNlryCUEV fop MENT Appellant articles 6.a. and parts of 6.b. state: "YMC 15.17.020.0 does not speak to changes in site elevation. We agree. Our previous written testimony under APP#001-21 stated the subject YMC does not apply to grade raises; it only applies to "gross floor area". Under that same appeal,the Hearing Examiner also found no analogy between gross floor area and grade raise; his Decision found that the YMC 15.17.010.0 only applies to "gross floor area" and not to grade raises. His decision also explained that the Appellant's 32%average grade raise considers areas away from the neighbors, and is therefore irrelevant to neighbor's concerns. He also stated that grade raises much larger than 132%, located near neighbor's lots do cause impact. 150%and 132% grade raise issues are both irrelevant to the current Appeal APP#008-21. Appellant article 6.b. states: "the average increase in grade of 32%across the entire site . . . as a whole is consistent with YMC 15.17.020". This statement is wrong. Below is a list of YMC subparts and what they cover.The term "grade raise" is not used in any subpart. In engineering and construction, grade raises are earth embankment and are within a reasonable definition of a structure.There are many examples of embankments as structures, or part of structures, typically designed by engineers. For example earth dams, dikes and levees, elevated roads, bridge and overpass abutments, buildings built into sloped terrain or built on engineered earth fills. In Mod#021-21 and APP#001-21 the Administrative Officer and Hearing Examiner should have considered that earth grade raises are within the definition of structures. If grade raises are considered a structure, then subpart D applies. YMC 15.17.020A "residential density" YMC 15.17.020B "parking" YMC 15.17.020C "gross floor area" YMC 15.17.020D "height of structure" YMC 15.17.020E "cumulative effects" YMC 15.17.020F "drive-thru facilities" YMC 15.147.020 "hazardous materials" By the grade/structure analogy, YMC 15.17.020D says: "The modification will not increase the height of any structure", i.e. "will not increase the height of any grade".Therefore the District's grade increases specifically violate article YMC 15.17.020D.The District's arguments in their Article 6.a. and b. of their current appeal, APP#008-21, are either wrong, irrelevant or self-defeating. Appellant article 6.c. says "adverse effect is not supported by substantial evidence." We strongly disagree with this statement. In our written testimony for APP#001-21 we stated adverse impacts include lost view, lost security, lost privacy, nuisance, and reduced property values. The City's Administrative Official and the Hearing Examiner both recognized adverse impacts, and the Hearing Examiner added "personal safety" as an adverse impact (see HE Decision, 08/26/21, page 11). The appellant says that adverse effects are limited to slope stability, drainage, and potential erosion problems. That is a ridiculous limitation. Adverse effects can include hundreds of categories and issues.This is why projects undergo Type (3) public review including many categories and issues that can cause adverse impacts. Grade raises violated the 2019/2020 Public Review Document, HE Decision of Feb 2020, and permit drawing B200126, and those violations have caused adverse impacts on neighbors. First, may we address the issue of drainage which the District says is not in violation. Refer to our previous written testimony for APP#001-21, where we explained that along the east side of the playground the contractor did not correctly build a drainage Swale. We also explained that the City's Surface Water Engineer DQC- 3 INDEX # cc - I RECEIVED OCT was wrong, and why he was wrong.The HE's site visit and Decision APP#001-21 did not understand ur 13' 2021 explanation of the drainage violation, and he did not see that the drainage violation, an incorrectly bey OF YAKIMA drainage swale, still exists. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Second, may we address violations and adverse impacts from the grade raise itself. Our previous testimony for APP#001-21 explained that adverse effects (or adverse impacts) on neighbors come from the District intentionally violating their own 2019/20 Public Review Document and HE Decision of Feb 2020.There is no question that the District violated provisions in those 2019 and 2020 Documents by raising the grade and blocking views across the S and E playgrounds. There is no question that those District violations caused adverse impacts on the neighbors.There is also no question that the District has purposely refused to look at or acknowledge the adverse impacts. Our previous written testimony on APP#001-21, explains the step-by- step grade raise work and chronology, in laborious detail.We also explained the adverse impacts on neighbors; please take time to read this previous testimony.The City in MOD#021-21, and the HE Decision in APP#001-21, also clearly understood that neighbors have adverse impacts, as both documents affirm and refer to them multiple times. It is worth restating here that grade raises violated the District's own 2019/20 Public Review Document and 2020 HE Decision (written by Gary Cuillier), and also violated the District's own permit drawing B200126.All the violations were deliberately done by the District in step-by-step fashion over a period of months, and are now disclaimed by the District. We would like to elaborate on the adverse impact of"personal safety" which the HE recognized in his 08/26/21 decision, page 11. In our view this safety impact applies to neighbors because people standing on the grade raises can more easily see into our back yards and homes. Neighbors are less safe in our own back yards and homes because of this. Some of us are now considering installing security cameras. Personal safety can also apply to school children playing on the downslope of grade raises, because school staff standing on the flat portion of the playgrounds, can no longer see children playing on the downslopes. It can also apply to criminals who can hide on the downslopes, out of school yard view and out of neighbor's view.The grade raise downslopes around the playgrounds outer perimeter, together with the school's chain link property fence with slats, create a hiding area for criminal mischief. In past years, when the playground was flat, anyone on the playground could see anyone else. No one could hide on the playground. In the past we could see across the playground, and often called Yakima Police to report suspicious evening activity in the schoolyard, and even on the school roof. In the past 15 years, after calling Yakima Police,we sometimes observed police cars driving and spotlighting across the schoolyard, all of which could be easily seen. The grade raise has created hiding areas along the South and East perimeter of the school yard. Hiding areas are contrary to new design recommendations for schools, parks, and public grounds; designs now discourage hiding areas. In summary,grade raises have caused definite adverse impacts to the residents, possible adverse impacts to the school building and to school children's safety, and may facilitate criminal activity. Appellant article 6.e. objects to the HE proposal of a Type (3) review for the grade raises, because the original project went through a Type (3) review in 2019/2020. The HE proposed a Type (3) review for the grade raises because he actually presided over the 2019/2020 public Type (3) review, and he knows that review did not address grade raises for the S and E playgrounds. Actually the 2019/2020 public review clearly portrayed that the S and E playgrounds would "remain" and "be maintained";those terms were used nine times in the District's public review document. Neighbors clearly understood from the 2019/2020 public review and 2020 HE decision that the S and E playgrounds would remain the same as they had been for decades;that meant no grade raises. In APP#001-21,the HE also explains that a Type(3) review is needed for the grade raises because grade raises have caused adverse impacts. Refer to our previous written testimony for APP#001-21 which explains that grade raises were not in the 2019/2020 Type(3) public review. DQC. 4 # -1 RECEIVED 84 OCT 18 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA Appellant article 6.f. reargues "nexus and proportionality. In his Decision on APP#001-21,the HE sad DEVELOPMENT the District's previous testimony on nexus and proportionality. Our previous written testimony on APP#001-21 recognized the practical reasons for considering the cost to lower the grade vs the cost to pay neighbors for damages. We suggested that the District estimate the cost to lower the grade. In their oral testimony for APP#001-21 the District did so, presenting an estimate of$1 million. We believe that is a reasonable estimate, and agree with the District, objecting to such a high expenditure. That is why our previous testimony, on APP#001-21, proposed damage settlements for each neighbor based on their individual adverse impacts. Please refer to our previous written testimony. There are two additional reasons that we prefer damage settlements to lowering the grade. First, we, and all the neighborhoods adjacent and downwind of the school yard, suffered blowing dust from the schoolyard work almost daily for the spring, summer and fall months of construction, 2020 and 2021. Hundreds of days and mornings we found layers of dust on our patio, autos, garage, siding and windows, and inside our homes. In those two years, we spent dozens of hours cleaning up this dust and are tired of doing so. We cannot bear another summer of dust, for the grade to be lowered. Second,the District has been prejudicing parents, neighbors and district citizens against us "handful of neighbors" as their appeal calls us.This prejudice is totally unfair. We "handful of neighbors" are also district taxpayers and we personally voted "yes"three times,for three school replacement bond issues. We "handful of neighbors" also cringe at spending$1 million dollars to lower the grade. We like school children, and hate that the District is trying to blame us for defending ourselves against adverse impacts caused by their illegal grade raises. This is misplaced blame, blame shifting and bullying. We "handful of neighbors" have done nothing wrong. We did not author, and then violate,the public review documents and building permit. We did not deliberately raise the grade, step by step over months. We did not cause adverse impacts on ourselves. We know the District's strategy of shifting blame is working, because several neighbors have asked us not to oppose the appeal. Other neighbors no longer wave to us, or greet us in the friendly way they had for the past 15 years. So we don't want to force $1 million dollars to be spent, we don't want to suffer more dust, and don't want to be blamed for both. We would prefer mitigation. Summary In summary, the District's grade raise work violated their own public hearing documents and Hearing Examiner's Decision that enabled the school replacement project, and they violated their own building permit. These violations caused adverse impacts. The Administrative Official and Hearing Examiner, both denied the Districts request to approve grade raises, because of the violations, and because there were adverse impacts on neighbors. We believe there is a better solution to grade raise violations than to spend $1 million to lower the grade. The District could settle their adverse impacts on those neighbors, who are "party of record" in this appeal, by paying damages for adverse impacts. This would require a case by case determination of impacts and damages, and for some neighbors may include the cost of selling and moving. We ask the City Council to allow the District time and opportunity to negotiate damage settlements with those neighbors who are "parties of record" to this appeal. If settlements can be made, those neighbors could disclaim their adverse impacts. Without adverse impacts, the City Council could approve the District's appeal. This would be much cheaper, easier and cleaner than forcing a $1 million expenditure of District tax money to lower playground grades. It would also avoid wasting more time and money by the District, City, and neighbors, in another appeal to Yakima County Superior Court. DOC. 5 INDEX # 85 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21 APP#001-21) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER A Staff Report DOC DOCUMENT DATE `INDEX# _ A-1 Staff Report 08/05/2021 86 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT #: a ■i' % Joan Davenport, AICP, Director o L._ Planning Division PCITY OF YAKIAM1A a n n 1 n g Joseph Calhoun, Manager 129 North Second Street, 2"d Floor,Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL'S DECISION for REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION FILE NUMBER(S): APP#001-21, MOD#021-21 APPLICANT: West Valley School District do Peter Finch PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. PROPERTY OWNER: West Valley School District#208 TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 181319-42006 & -42022 DATE OF REQUEST: May 28, 2021 DATE OF COMPLETE APP: June 30, 2021 DATE OF DECISION: June 30, 2021 DATE OF APPEAL: July 14, 2021 DATE OF RECOMMENDATION: August 12, 2021 STAFF CONTACT: Eric Crowell, Associate Planner I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Appeal of the decision for a Modification denying the regrading of the site in the R-1 zoning district. II. FACTS: A. Processing 1. In response to a zoning ordinance violation reported on May 25, 2021 (Code Compliance Case CA211326), the application for a Modification was received on May 28, 2021, which proposed to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, regrading of the site, and installation of sitescreening in some locations, at the site of a new elementary school in the R-1 zoning district, which was originally approved by the Hearing Examiner on February 28, 2020 under CL3#010-19. 2. The application was deemed complete for processing on June 30, 2021 3. This application was processed under the provisions of Ch. 15.17 (Modification), specifically the provisions that allow abbreviated review by the administrative official (minor modification). DOIC. Yakima INDEX 4� 2015 1994 87 4. The Administrative Official issued a Notice of Decision on June 30, 2021, approving the request for the five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sitescreening, but denied the request for regrading concluding that the proposed increase in site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project. 5. On July 14, 2021, a timely appeal was filed by West Valley School District. 6. Public Notice: Pursuant to YMC § 16.08.018 —Appeal of the Administrative Official's Decision: a. The subject site was posted with land use action signs on August 2, 2021; b. On July 23, 2021, a Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing was sent to parties of record, the applicant, and the appellant that set the hearing date of August 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.; and c. On July 23, 2021, a legal notice was provided in the Yakima Herald-Republic. B. Hearing Examiner Authority: In accordance with YMC § 16.08.018(G), the Hearing Examiner may affirm or reverse, wholly or in part, or modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination, and to that end shall have all the power of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. III. APPEAL RESPONSE: A. Appeal: The appellant provides the following statements (staff response is in italics) 1. The Administrative Official Committed an Error of Law in Partially Denying the Modification Application. YMC§ 15.17.020 (C) states that "any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area." The appellant states that the regrading should not be subject to this 50 percent maximum since the limit is based on the gross floor area, which they argue should not be applied to use area. While in this situation the use area does not involve gross floor area as defined by the zoning ordinance, this standard is used for evaluation purposes. Otherwise, Ch. 15.17 would in effect be limited to modifications involving changes in building area and parking supply, of which this proposal is not concerned with such site improvements. A previously approved use that does not comply with the modification criteria allowing abbreviated review must instead apply for full land use review for a proposed modification—in this case a new Type (3) Review. INEX # ® A 1 West Valley School District APP#001-21 2 88 Further, the Administrative Official also reviews whether the proposed change "will create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project,"per YMC§ 15.17.040(B)(1)(c). Whether there is a material increase in the adverse impacts is to be determined by the planning division under the YMC. 2. The Findings of Fact Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. 1. The Finding that the as-built grading would be more than a 50% increase in elevation is not supported by substantial evidence. While it is true that in some areas the height increased and in others it decreased, the average change in elevation was not used to determine that the modification exceeded 50 percent. Any contour whose height change was identified as exceeding 50 percent of the height of a contour it crossed that was approved on the original building plan was determined as having violated the 50 percent limit. The Administrative Official compared the contour lines submitted by Appellant with tis building permit to the contour lines shown on the revised Modification Site Plan. Based on the contour lines provided in these two documents, the Administrative Official determined that there were areas where the height change in grading exceeded the 50% threshold. There is no language in the code indicating that averaging is a correct method to determine the 50% threshold. 2. The finding that the as-built grading would cause an adverse effect is not supported by substantial evidence. In addition to the quantitative criteria, YMC § 15.17.040 (B) also provides that a proposed modification "will not adversely reduce the amount of existing landscaping or the amount or location of required sitescreening"and "in the determination of the planning division, it will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project." Because the elevation changes by a few feet in some locations, this reduces the effectiveness of the view-obscuring sitescreening material the school district agreed to install upon an existing six-foot-tall fence. 3. The City Exceeded Its Authority in Requiring the School District to Regrade the Site. Appellant applied for a minor modification to allow it to keep the grading the same as built, which was not compliant with the building permit issued in 2020. The Administrative Official denied the application. The Administrative Official is not requiring any regrading, rather is requiring that the grading be consistent with the approved building permit. Due to the Appellant's grading outside the permitted levels in the 2020 permit, the on-site elevation changed significantly from what was on the previously DOC. West Valley School District INDEX APP#001-21 1 3 89 approved building plans to what was constructed on-site. The appellant states that "no substantial evidence has been provided to demonstrate the nexus or proportionality between probable impacts of the proposed action and the requirement that the School District regrade the site."Based on the extent of the new grading, the City denied the minor modification to the grading of the site, and the City is not requiring any mitigation or other action inconsistent with the approved building permit.' Applications not meeting the criteria may apply directly for review as a Class...(3) use or development to seek modifications to their development plans or permits. IV. CONCLUSIONS: A. The appellant has not submitted any new evidence that demonstrates that the regraded elevation and terrain is consistent with the modification criteria allowing for abbreviated review of minor modification requests, of Ch. 15.17, including limits of expansion and impacts on sitescreening. B. As this is an open record public hearing, new evidence may be presented up to the date of the public hearing, however any new evidence shall be related to the points raised in the appeal application. C. The Hearing Examiner has the jurisdiction to render a final decision on this matter. V. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the City of Yakima recommends denial of the Appeal (APP#001-21) and retention of the Modification decision (MOD#021-21). 1 Appellant argues that the decision by the administrative official to uphold the original building permit plans rather than to allow Appellant to simply conform those plans to what was built on-site is subject to a nexus and proportionality analysis.The City disagrees.Appellant chose to grade the ballfields in a way that violated its approved 2020 building permit. Requiring compliance with the original building permit does not constitute an exaction and the City is not requesting mitigation or other measures outside of the original building permit requirements;it is denying the minor modification request."[T]he nexus and rough proportionality rules do not apply to outright denial of a project...."Honesty in Environmental Analysis and Legislation(HEAL)v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management,96 Wn.App.522,534,979 P.2d 864(1999), citing City of Monterey v.Del Monte Dunes at Monterey,Ltd., 526 U.S.687,703, 119 S.Ct. 1624(1999)("The rule ...was not designed to address,and is not readily applicable to,the much different questions arising where...the landowner's challenge is based not on excessive exactions but on denial of development.We believe,accordingly,that the rough-proportionality test of Dolan is inapposite tcaiy,g such as this one."). West Valley School District IN® x APP#001-21 1 4 90 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MO[)#021-21 APP#001-21) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER B Maps DOC I DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# B-1 Final Site Plan for CL3#010-19 03/10/2020 B-2 Site Plans for Modification MOD#021-21 05/26/2021 I _ B-3 Revised Site Plans for Modification MOD#021-21 06/21/2021 91 I 1 I 1; 4 -1.:i 4 Y' ---r.__ '7': 1_1 11!A:. �:,. - -..... .: 7..- n ._ Fi — _, xa=r•A Q— -}r. pi �'l ,' w pJ i ly s7 l 1111111 111111111111] 111111 111 l r. ' ' xi 1 +�i ? .y) / nini ;il 'ilf — 1 1 �� 1` C % •— ., Imo' f I. .Herr �r.r Pt; i �" — ,T A r nor -<< �\\\ 1 S°; r'-^ y r i..f�f R4 " Y -o- 2 ,I 1.,,,,\\7:....__ t "......."............."..7.,,,,,,,,,,,,,z, ., j I (]-) . , • I f 1 f i i 0 1Ny n' ''e;�N neon 0. op C m • �^ s >N ^=o AggE e i1 .� m . c P A gaga E a !p K a - F v Ni s v I6I; 1" R g X 1 n HO PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY J-U-eENGINEERS,NyC. 3 i R NV p 291O W,Cleanvaler Ave. i mm :5 w S WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT ��� senezol �(1�5T lIpLLEy a $ ;<Q f' 9 g 7 NNwlw wk _�Kennewick,WA 99338 ` £a AN^^^� ESTNUT ASS 11/O/�• •ANIMA,wn•NINGTON eeeue rev .... ...... INDEX 92 ' I m I . I o I n n� WI 1 ij.,i �� 1�{Ilff • I y C ��i�� ,4.:_AVE %' :ice• ,. .Y�k-4-• •:; - Imp _ - ~irk' on _,.._ _ •.07:,I' r//~ rfir ti-`��,�- +,6li i:�" �����-'��,�- _ w N �� �� [ 'ter ,���...�� _ - 6. 7,:,..,_ C ■ r1 1; i' tit;....,41,101`,Wf.. ..411.!-_,Wa—"1-Nf.41.....MPr W:71 V tik,.k&v. A . ritii- gt 110." ," ili‘ i ii r*-71:1;i1P, rr 1 !rIPT ' 4 .. 49/ ' .,7".!-..-.5.TF- i,--- •lin�... .1kil � r1 it al Is*#,, Aqpr x 1:. yi ldfU t� INI ��`.y, . •p ---‘i iliffil , . I { 'yL' t m� !` 1 1I I .1 IL��701,Ma• 1F .Atirl'I...L YI, •,it 1 I f 4r -'-, r .stisti\fl i ,i: _ f C:.-6'.. --... E �# i ,i1 II1 - I' tr f rl 'I� III,, `'' :. \` 4.6 I { 11 "II 11 I-- 1 t,,__ 111 11 Chi 91,11 1:, ;� ai f !I' 4.. - r°41114 lie i • :1:4,k1K,,I,'34; 1, _„01,4 ti , ... • W i j r CI s eF = 1 5R 0 74 f �}j ,pn Sri ; 5 N -xis qg �♦-� Q�_�— L _ - �E. 0 lilt —�'L-- it �Ft= NH Yp . ifl n .. PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY y l� J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC, s i aNm ,, ti WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT ` 2etoW AYe0mier Ave , tl 1 y�D2 IOC. G �I P , ,.r,.r..re ,.,.,e,e.. . NUB 11e29, I w.�._ I'll i= � pjI 2� 1 Kennewick,' WA 99336 . rgrq,� i 1 ei{!d t'i ••tea z� 'scNootn L ��:;`.."o• �.:e."d°;� T INDEX . o I - I I n I :1 93 II I I 4 • 1 4 'I 1 ... f`L .4 iy../ -/ . •r� .. - 14; _ q 111111 1111111 111111IIl1111I111U -7.-/ (~ - w . F 3 ' L 1 ` II i cai III ' 1 x `GG� I rn a ?fiii:.::i� 'il p A 7 :0_ Ili t ..7)I r i. ". 4 I „1:-. Q 1 I. { } 0 / AL< 1 a E ' t L/ o o , -I 2 2 �E 14' t A �'pJlrll/. i7.7.7.74 1 Si p O =1: 1- N. -,i. IC i F., I li: ., :' — 1 ' 11/4, III J0 0 ( :� ,1 t 4 y s , F 1 I Fti/•rG4 .r� •� IE • ( , 1 RECONSTRUCT EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO SE fi FT TALL WITH SITE OBSCURING VINYL PRIVACY SLATS EXTEND TO 3RD ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE FROM TNE SOUTH 000o @ O oo O;'r a o Z Z� z!ao g N=fiE wa co €^ on v D N$s. s 1 :GC a a —lzl 110 g5 11�rOO N . n N J-U-B ENGINEERS,rrC. "� a O PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY y '�LyaylaDP LT.L>:r7U HC NI 2B10 W.Clearwater Ave, m M P WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT Suiie tot 'y gI '_•_• - C v g i S • APPLE V.LLEY-7 EB N AVE iu �w Wit NM 11L+ va+uL.ti�lf 9;; �'iR�'� �� .....,.. 1 9 DOC. Zr - = ANDEX s I e I ' I o I f• 1 1 n I r - , FI - i. 1 FI*` ' 11 I • f �m I • m a- I ; i Ai �I1r iI u - TIC f . I I_________7444_1 A h� ri._I j 'xwr-_�_.s---�-'-�ii--"'! 'ray=�= '.'r'�__'.E"--.;.•:-..s���r- �tE.�.'as - 5. --nr,•, - .�_a ""ween.yy--""'_ ,ref+Alle f, _ti l r,... _yam, L. li f 1 `. . w T I f 1 .. � � r. s — IIIijil f af - f i) Ill II #f F• f ui 1 _ I, __ A • (`jar; — 0 I 1 r `1 ��� I$ fr !1 , -- y . 4 i i eE �/ f 1 � ®K �� �F _. Is . •1 f 1 i1 I VAS T x ° 11 .. I1 ' �� , f `/ • r r • V. II f 1 L-1 § it „, /11.4 11 U V I 1 i �� - i m ■ • — pp I 111111 \\\ 7� 0 K In z m tt e 0 0 o o z< 4 tf 31 V! LLJJ ��s Ew. m - R � 1 n 4 1 �iL T ,J ,iii b .r1 <" t 4' 1 i 0 'i.- i 1 i I 1408. 4— • 1 I •I o 04 : ® ® i}F r Er1 '1 1li- fi T O r & il rw. IE A11 I 1 k I t 1 1 if j 1 I ) I0 ( ' Eli ) I it-- . ill i— .0 t • S . q t I I i1 TI i 1 I I jf f n I . I ( r1 e O m A:, g 9 R o -n U. m rn g" n v DOLT• 48•6N 1$ �d 3 e J)OO m INDEX 0 � —� II 'd. - n ' LT 1 PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC, ��moo vEsT r=3 N' WEST VALLEY Z . 5TT s `o' ��� F�. 8ua (I "RT�" A i1t�,' '�.9703 .� I.. p I vx•vyM1m V. T +. I A �I:w.r...r.•.S=....,... 5. ) s I '5 I . I -, I i •••• * ; i [%3• i 1 • -4 lir I 1 iv I 11.11 I A i i .1 -1 - .••• ' .,•,L- _____1.....L._ 1 )- '- - f)il, f,1 ‘.::_.• 1 . '''''ii-L.. . , _......• :-_-_-_-.--=,:_-_-_-_=:" ._,‘-_-_:..-...--_,_-.-_:::::r._--,4'__,.1_.__:;—______. ....._______ q ______ .,........,_„_k _. ' . \ i _ :timW — — — _ . :41::::.:'' -- ' • . S 0 ! ! 11 11.Z5 A Dal 1 I . 77) i_111111111i111111111111111t1 "11 , ek • X ." i \.........._ I _ ? II 1 1 ir .:— • r ._ ; _._ ,, ,_ . .. . .i30 I. I 1' 5.•,'- -----r-^:-.,---______ _.1 , -,—_ ill .. LI •1 ) E•"Yr F; I •. 1. .4: • I Z' ,i' ••• i 1 . ,. 7 :I L;.:1 'II r,,,i • v rrg" -\\_, tn.:.1 i . li rn rn I - ` I .._ 0 0 0 ° ° 2,1-!Im.g maser 488. ,,,:: -,-< 31114 f4 r 1 m,..' . ; 1 ; .--. ... 'Ill 0 ,----.. E ' / C''''''.%- ,--__:j7-0,777221; p'A ,c; Ki /...:5.A I. I. i.. , _1 o "0 -11 [ - 1 e:. I I , 1 0 ‘ I,1 -I • . I .8130. .61113. EB _AA • i . - 0 •• '' \ 110 II . 1 , . .s• 1 ft / 1 — ) .1107' , ! - E i 1 • t I I 1 2 . 1\r 0 ( ,,___ • j 1 1 ; •••.re''= ir:. !1 1 :'..L....„..,... _ __,I t C' _..../ 1 i i 1 If .... _ ...-r•-•--,•- 4.—------- -Ila•- .1---2-1. • 4 x=e=">-:-1-r - ----1.- -27"1.1441-1---.•=71 , - .„,,•,:;',. :.--- = -----,- - ---- 1 ! 7 I . i ! , , il 8 'C, O@1P r2i<1 0 c --I qo [ -‹ 0 2- _ I yrgn,E,i'?r<,„g,1an-.1ql- ..J DOC. ee ii.E. n-1 R... INDEX 'I' 0 8 rcl pt., ''-. rJ,. 4. - - gli or o ry lin _*-- , ,I, i, i . i 5m • 1 w= Tr, 1111f Z ra' q i 41 i•'.: H # ..4 a) PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. DtacitiN MT CI ..pii.ifil c.---- 2810 W.Clearwater Ave. It ii,ir, 9 Z WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT ti.,.., , Juj3), i k x 5 NIL -"""•—• --- Suite b , .gF I .,4 APTUF VALIMI•TM AVM ,4 ... ,,...,.........._ Kennewick.WA 99336 I T 1 -..........-- 0 z I- r'I 2.milIVICI,.'MS W CM UT rm./.WRIM01.170..I •r...- Ph°.508 763 2. wnwel,core weweereweice.......cwweeeetwe........... L. -- 87 I n I a 1 . I ' I 1 z ' I m 1 n t v t n I , I n I OR ,ice,; rIIL. ?Is 101110 N �i1, t ,.. sr-. t f; 0 ; 1 ,,1 ,I „ , , ' $ I Let! 4 111111,, .....16.,,,, ,..v, . : .m2_ ,. . II: 11 F i _ 1 n tg li I . i I , yl- Y 2 m � Illi'' � I !' I _IY • Z Fv p }. I / 1 -rrr _1 1;;lls .. — m � , a 11 � j� +'; t_ u I iit 'u 1 1 O ;r iI. Y ' .T N K yjmt It [ i ' .0 e ii t. VD ; r' ' s9Pl'+Q r� mA K+I It : I s 1- hr; � " 1 i ,-,y €.Q F�2 9ROn _FA C _ IT PF ' i 41 t - Rpp1 4 rI `= -.1v6 i . g§.1 \ % .: HL,.. . : 1$-`;i - 18/ Y P 21! n u 8 :z Q 7 a ' aaa1A -il, i 4h • )1 : il 4„6- .... Cm m DOC. _. t„ , #_1:2=Zz.......... . C) PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY _ ',I;ENGINEERS,INC. ) Q X 281O W.Clearwater Ave ��-`��` �� ': WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT �, V., 1 Suite 201 �{ � n i NI 1 1 N �� Kennewick,WA 99336 •11^plppl,ptrlN p �.i.: _., p Y.4t VhlLCY.i MIJtin 1,' Oa fv.0Nllw.0191 1,CN111 �'' Y.NMII,WINNINOMN. ,M em . p I— '1 1 a 1 In T -, 1 n =1a�.� n =,. — a T I m I I 0 I m t I n I 97 F1 _:r F E 1 i • El ' -,LT . 1441- All 111 RI ! 01 i'' 1 —r is. -_ - t -L" N 88rR AYE,,,...........4.7..........b 7 .S �J•t"..I � ._- - _ + �..-.... .rra+..r.r.r�..�' - - .• wv.u.^� m-prasre.er,S-+[��w 1-czs .;-• SITYt iSirw. _ �� '�� It-Tz • ems.?4iairm.-'s3^•t• i• =ii.M` ,r4, F d : 1I1 A ` .ill .moil \ \i ;' • I d`/ ? if] ....... ,...wrids-sarsrLLl�..w......*...iisf.� a .r�._ i _ } i%i:•: .. i �T�v� r�r SSffrr ' t A •i]ilir;���r.' i 1 ' tr= Q b i11/JfQarl a i i iiiiiil I: ."-.P7-.r''''''-i:'.:i- ee;-==1.?.! ' i Ajitf.ir -.' . - ' • a -'19S1 1 1 • tit A v:;:i . rr? 4111fr-:---..--- liV. � ' 777 rb- i . 1-Irga:MIFF.. I Xigni.0 4 •• •• .All 1 ii t T. `,�,p II , i i i I . !a-� a 'arI MI PI 0. ; 1 J 11111 m• • C) � I e.r 1►:<.•. ....� ,7.mm ■ .Z7 fin j i lljl O '' todk ; y f��'�� -.ter:• --_ /,- �� i \\\ l f113B. i 11 i 1 i 1 � B I�B:7��' a.,rp/'� -i K 'I * Lt : 1 '' I \ 4 -. 1I , - '; &fl ?` Y���xxr--���- f,Ewr';• - •1 i \� ' l ; 1 Erg- I " ...z.......4 ' ' I I 11 1 14i ! ii' I 1 "4' 4\` - \ _\ -_�,® l'I'1 IIli i ,-..:6_. _\,,iii \ .,,----' . 1 ii_. - n 4 • , II BEI----e ® ii I Pill ` e ��._. pT II 1 1 ••• . Kik- 11 ' 1 ,Elt, I!.. i 1\!!___.: \ „, ‘ /1 /, ' 4. 1111 ,IldiN.lia.:-.. ("-,?' PT. '. I i' \ X ..'‘... '-------- a'".:. IV El ' a 'I I II l L L l • •• . v �'` '1 L la En atilt- r 1r: :IA S1/ l , '' l.N In 41,40 y.2',�I I a 1 /n l�.iii. ■, • 'S \ /HI 111 ill , ` I, '� 1 ' lIN Iq II 1 � ' ,,` `4‘ I a \ dk :till1i i . -i '4r. '' ,11 .1 i a 1 •'4 + 11i IIII ' I - iii 4. - .. Z 4 a' - g II'+ w—v.--�vl v. = „. r.-`I--.v.—w w-• Ye 1 4, �14 s M cn = Dc�e. z INDEX o m CD -n NI m p N ; 111;� � �' � € 2 g. o a aaa i r Ary F c; s' IAMil jL 6 lil 1 1 1 1 ''l r•E 1/1•I'll 8G' * 4 and a egR ii aye LESEIMIEST n D v PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. a ti "' WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT �'' un zaio W.cleanvaier 99336 Sx 4 L �Ml � sek.WA TIL, rj E F1,; AN ":..:p;'"a�"" . =s i p APPLE VALLEY.TN EETM _ Kennewick,WA 3p Cr) �` .UMMITWEW-!]OI WCNEsi pryam 509]032tJa 111��� q 9 Y YAKIMA,VIA MIN.TON A 7i .._.. i xxw.AL corn .w,+w.�.e:..1... r rs I n I 0 I I I * I a •�I.•. _ I • I ' I e 1 1 * r n 1 98 : [ • _ � :_*i I@ 2 m it / ; 2 $ A ID a -y-- _1— — —'-r+ +eS�IqT'W- VE — — — — — — • • tt• iF !+ ffil 1 I P m lli "plod • ru e� .ovaaaa3ocaaDma9aae3o} IV:::. 7,� • m o 1 ' o l_ ! I 4� `i 1 � - . '3 i - k ' Q fiat:.' . : . •- • / kl: e . �~ �w iy q a 4 r I� ■ • a ■ •+ 0 f Q 1 y 1,� — Avr - 7*-1 i re- ,0 14 .,1•5 Ilig. - W - I4 M1 000 ® 00000 .. 000 .• 00I �4' -. i . 11fitg , it1111 • • •• • rimm J. i , t , Tg - ati § En . . . . .1— '• Ii 1 / 11Hiliiiihgqi * I - RpRpRppppRpRRpp RIB ----- � ; o - a a a a a a a a s a a a a a aflk ) 1 ER ° ala— 441 iglAP g ; nc s ®0 ill l yelm �- C o - 5 - all@s s trF Ix, 11Ig 1 ti • 'O __ 41 b1 , - E,' R 2 i: ,Mm'vg,2 -wdomli- 1 - .. qna - 1 \IF „, „ Le ,♦ �oe �� u ) (CD ;Y4C) lid � pdil p Lr j a Wg IIg � - p I a r :T n -• g xs I ea r _ rn e . _ GPO f ', i r.— CD - 8 - aX I DOG. �_Cri . m rn r INDEX z --I T PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY " �( ter-. 'o "' WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT �E� y�` v5 ds EO , R . N�DE`I� r Q •rk vnucrixurx• \"�% ,....-». F•� m .IAMIN,W NO.W NUM ' - ' 'J MUM,Wx.MNOlOx9 aM a I • I 1 1 o I 0 I .w I ° 1 . 99 . , -.__ _ —NDHTH B JH AVE.___—_- - _�.. ! - _ r _� e 1 1 Ti o• , -,.• . t1 1�' 4Y.. ,,,. • . &,:, - n p °; r QOO•. Yy r;°.. .--ram.-.--:—.�.i... .ate ' .-_�"--•- n F °lw,^ - � p_ 'Z = . .'TJ O n ".'Jo � -I ND I rriG I+ _ ft" T77T17 D g 4 ,G _ fir...- H 1 O C m 9 0 IMillir • I. M—I 7' mom 11 1 ; 4 m .1 S si — 1 C.-------‘-- 1 $ 1 a 1 �E,. 11 04 E t l \\ 1 \ . >E 11 q .. N LJ - 1C4) f (DOO ® + 000 OOOO % OOC 1 6 " 1 1 p T g 13 . ' z ; 4 8 DOC. 1 I 1 INDEX PPMPPMPPPPPPIN , # Z 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 •, 8 8 8 -, & g v PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY <' . DESIQ'I WEST v 0,20 z , N S WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT c'�� � MacKay Sposito irn I �� O =' Cilia s`^ ��: ate: ' : N G� m 101100000w"w:wan' !hf' K"0°r %x! «. r... a 1 a 1 I a I a 1 I G I 1-Q8I ... 1'4 s A • r A 4. le _ , ..r_:. ,,,,_____ _ ' . Y a . * n Y i NOPP488711AVE.xxx x .r _ _ m ems.-+ s. .... o �—s F , a a a I a - t - a a N �'9. ,� r > la a- 0 ® 0 o O F o I dj .1 • o — Q O .• r ` ` III i 7Tll/)////f/f/f —— 9_ 1� �`f — I 1 a 11i : IP 11 '0rya� z ifs/)l�/i•SI 0. I .> °P % t 9 C. 2 J[7) • I — — — ;, f// /I!/////lf I - !• - _ 1 C7 r 1 1 1P 19 5l li q .Z x 3> m J " i _ G > do 13 D v- i -oD m m - -z-I I c'• a + —. 31 o M ® ' _ ; IR ® EH 1 'N DO ET o t o a a m z I A i-11 .1,._.i (4) 9 0 (- . • III 411511 SO !i rigg!hiJ1i {Cs NE BAi : _'' ji 1 o 1 ...-- I I; i 1 ; IA 1 1.1 :i H Lf • Air.— " _ ia -- 1 [--. 7 PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY C""'� NM[V g 'yyv z p a WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4>'` MacKay.Sposlto y § p A�DESIGN WEST Q HZ . 1 O ..na V,r.r.•1MNIM' , rYN9•� _ iga•oa�U E$i g SQ$_ _ o •I au.imnftw.uoewCanr f, ,!" I, 3 ' — > al 1 o 1 ' a 1 . I • 1 o III m - I - 1 I . I - I I ' 101 ' O r NORTH NTH AVE, — ; .1, ti Iiiill tl 11 11 / 1 t 1 ki __ ,i :,.‘t,r‘ , `7"‘ `,7; .- m w m s' l irl' � ' J I I I I d ill I I I I " s " , ! Q: e { I I II i I . l � I I � 4 I I (• I n1 a n h a a � k n � � I I . , „ ,.: _ . , " 1 . ,1 ,..,....0A0 ,(2) . -- ,. A. -- - ` ar _ f— I I ' 0 ® 0 e O P o e I _�,_3T� 1 m rr p .e 777 III I a g g Iii - I .!, S i -I w G rJ @1 ® - i I '1 0....e. f ii .w. on o o l - ,c(i_:) 0 14343,9s. c g 1 - z q —�° �� �- - -fie Xi .: li 1 41_r, -‹ rn ' ' ❑ . s I ' rn I i 6 ft' 1,...g ,,, 0 I , d . :: 4: ra- to- d ►'d do 1 Z ir--11 ' in a /I c� ©O I s E �I 3STI x9� a�� sy Rz < 11 �, ( Jitii rl 125Aperyq8 z 14%\ I -L is €illur �' � i. �' 4cpmi �111p $ pfl yPp Cn Tx [1- �1��E�ii 9 �- �$ } - ,:, • r . g\J\\\\1 — sag= i S Ili fIIV 4A ig 1 —s 3 k41 li sus l! � .� I i i Va ®C I I z = o o m . r 2 INDEX ' ,i, o 1m 7 a t1 (1 Q I o-i # — I g $ 9 € g 4 ~ 1 $ q ` ' I Yea I — a5 E . - 5-.o s 1 1 oi),_„. 111'.y' ,I . C-' A PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY ;r"f`G, Me DESIGN WEST O r%G1 A o WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT a" t �s MadC.yaSposlto 5T AL M v^, -, =. y N .es.. 4•I .>n �... «r s x _ 711C: p euennumcw-eeoew exe.l y'w. , .7 y W t f r T . " I u I �� o Flo_ •,�..,�.��az � _ 102 _1 I. I . I a I . 1 w I t I n 1 - 41 ft D4. yr . - .l.-._. ... ^—__. __ .r . ,I.M .AW ,xR.��i� • ? �_ _�_ti__.- F r r.r.rr.„l—.. — • �L y f Jgl I _ wx . 0 t cn - N, m� ❑ m ;I[m����rr'p� D r � ‘41 i "}F7 '4 4,11 L7 m .f. J Q �y . :.fie _.. ME —. : ,` 0 1 - • 1 i S I 1 RESIDENTIAL R-I 1 fa Ia 1 Y 1 A a g" 908000 Q� £g3 _ 11r �S h ,,z zg'mN oa0 i r r - I ''il - _- 1;' t.t.A§"a'0 i 0 to �i Fr W ~ I j yma 5S'r.c m R`:2 m 5 . .� Ya¢ El ii cz ..-.• 3S t �. ie goy go.'1_ n s r J I G r. 8 > R k 8 a m APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY a U-BENGINEERS.He NV g; e2 (Tam) 201 rgve. EmilFqkmlEsY _ (�/� sidle zm Q oAm 3 KannewicN,WA 99336 ■f 3 ao""""""'"'^iOi Y `•I 711C: ��. t . I n -, u r...n . n t �.`mw iG"' �gy I i t I I INDEX e- l 103 . ril K ; •. !'� _ 1m. ,, 1 • v 'I f r r r _--. ,y' ' . N�,i-f.;...�..• <Y a•t VI til..YX., .{ G{�••G�:;a�— i I N E6M AVE .. ��I...� ` �_L_ip, minilliplipt. . _____,.,,,,„ , Ijor .. 4: , d. , - _ `• err- i i.).. lilt �il vim` �n �i0 �� , 4--\--. _ 111 yI_ , I AI: 44k, . i 1 , 1. .,iii 1 . i is .', '- .:..• ,t,,. .., . -14 , , ..., _ 3i or i .. I I r ---0,,-47t-_,;;;,„—„—::„„:„:::. r k.. i ,,,, 1 Plilni.aLl:14:1. `r-, , . s ,, i . /- 1, , r: Ii,... tl �. 1 %J- 1 'I. m '11. 11 ._ VII1 , n r r r �1' :C7{ ryy Trm 1--- .70 y� I. n 0 B •+ ilk ,• boD. j + . _L; 1:it . 1 [ t r, (ID' .. . , 'I, '..1,-04,:.[,,___,:, ,,, Ilk 1.1 '-- ° .a3 ia.\ :._.1 y }tilt ® l / , ,1 .- r I . lonor t 1 ► _ --• c I' it t::::::::. ns 1`Io\,\1111:J 111 ` • ._._ . 0 I v T 1 i Nlui , a : 1 �4- n " is ;1 �. ____ ___ ,..mow_. =- -------- ------ _ - . 1 • •iF "9� c� i A= �n=o =ono w b , m 1 , o oNm a n0gp i▪ 7 z o n 1 J-U-I3 E,gWEERS.INC. 1 00 PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY /� ` 21110 W Clearwater Ave b 4 �� - u i v ==A a 4 o WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT tv`k / e Su,,,:,z IF T I!RLLEy i 4_1 A�d., . > N "_ l•., 111 Ken ewlck,WA 99338 k + d[� VALLEYWE 'fir a YAxlrnA ex �Tox eeao6 AVE CHESTNUT ~ I��ti woK~.. ''''' �" "'�^'T=1"ar DOC . I o �wa1'IN r. I o I IT t ` I '. I ' . NDEX 1r 104 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21, APP#001-21) EX I I IBIT LIST CHAPTER C DST Comments DOC DOCUMENT I DATE INDEX## C-1 DST Comments 06/14/2021 105 Crowell, Eric To: Davenport, Joan Subject: RE:Apple Valley Elementary Path From: Meloy, Randy RECEIVED Sent: Monday,June 14, 2021 11:01 AM To: Davenport,Joan <Joan.Davenport@yakimawa.Rov> Subject:Apple Valley Elementary Path JUN 14 >2O21 CITY OF YAKIMA Joan, PLANNING DIV. Per your request I went out to Apple Valley Elementary and walked around the entirety of the path to assess the possibility of drainage impacts.The asphalt path is about five feet wide and is located close to the school's fence along the perimeter of their parcel.The cross slope of the path is generally flat, with some areas gently sloped towards the grass and other areas gently sloped towards the fence. It is my opinion that there would be no drainage impact on the surrounding parcels due to this paved path being close to the fence.The only possible scenario where I could see there being any kind of drainage issue would be on the south side if the school overwatered with the sprinklers, and because the main grassy area is elevated,you could get runoff from the sloped grassy areas making its way towards the perimeter. If that happened there is still a ten foot separation between the school's fence and the neighbor's fences. Much of the runoff would infiltrate into the ground in this area.This is assuming there would be some problem with the school irrigation and that is unlikely. Along the east side of the school there is a small gravel berm between the path and the fence which would help to contain any runoff that might get there. Again, I would not anticipate any issues there. Last night and this morning there was a decent amount of rainfall at the school, and while walking the path I looked for signs of erosion and did not find any.This path is only five feet wide and it is my opinion that it will not cause any drainage problems. Thank you Randy Meloy, P.E. Surface Water Engineer City of Yakima (509) 576-6606 DOC. INDEX # L- I 106 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21, APP#001-21) EXHIBIT LIST C I IAPTER I) Applications 111011 DOCUMENT DATE D-1 Application for Appeal of MOD#021-21 07/14/2021 •e - 107 CITY OF YAKIMA CODE AnMIN,DIVISION T =rrr vv..% LAND USE APPLICATION JUL. 14 121 4,1■iI1\\ • 77 '. 'V CITY OF YAKIMA,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM a'>REC'VD FAXEC PI car%;�t YA+;,M� PAID a n n I n g 129 NORTII SECOND STREET,2ND FLOOR,YAKIMA,WA 98901 FYI PHONE: (509)575-6183 EMAIL;ask.planning@yakimawa,gov INSTRUCTIONS—PLEASE READ FIRST Please type or print your answers clearly. Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process,please ask a Planner. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing ice paid.Filing fees are not refundable.This application consists of three parts. PART I- GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART III -CERTIFICATION are on this page.PART II contains additional information specific to your appeal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. PART I—GENERAL,INFORMATION 1.Appellant's Name: Dr. Peter Finch Information: Mailing Address: 8902 Zier Road City: Yakima St:1WA Zip: 98908 Phone: ( 509 )972-6007 E Mail finchp@wvsd208.org ***Any additional appellant parties may be listed on a separate page**" 2. Site Address of the Proposal Being Appealed: 7 N.88th Ave.,Yakima,WA PART 11—SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION(SEE ATTACHED SHEET) PART ill—CERTIFICATION 3.I certify that the information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. X16 ItSP4c.7 July 14,2021 Appellant's Signature , g Datl, FILE/APPLICATION(S)#: /` P4 00 I _2 l DATE FEE PAID: ItFtCEIVED BY: .tt OUNT PAID; RECEIPT NO: /41-1 w2� OSC. 5go to O C -Z1 , 6oZ\�3 Doc. INDEX Revised 4/2019 Page 13 108 war !IIS 1 t 1A,t. Supplemental Application For: AIMll APPEAL piry h n I n d Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Chapter 15.16/Chapter 16.08 PART II--SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION 1. THIS APPLICATION IS AN APPEAL OF: ❑✓ Administrative Official's Decision ❑ Hearing Examiner's Decision ❑ Subdivision Administrator's Decision ❑ SEPA Determination RECEIVED El Other: JUL 1 4" 2021 CITY Of YAKIMA 2. FILE NUMBER(S)OF PROPOSAL BEING APPEALED: MOD#021-21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION BEING APPEALED: The School District challenges the Administrative Official's June 30,2021 decision in MOD#021-21 to deny the School District's Modification Application,which requested approval of as-built elevations that are an increase over the elevations the City of Yakima approved as part of the School Districts building permit for replacement of Apple Valley Elementary School. See attached for more detailed explanation. 4. REASON FOR APPEAL -Describe the specific error(s) or issues(s)upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan, The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance,or other provisions of law. (Reference the section,paragraph,and page of the provision(s)cited.) (Attach if lengthy): See attached. DOC. INDEX Revised 4/2019 Page 14 109 1 THE HONORABLE GARY CUILLIER 2 3 4 RECEIVED 5 6 JUL 14 2021 7 8 CITY OF YAKIMq 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 11 12 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA 13 14 In the matter of the Appeals of: 15 MOD#21-021 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO. 208, a political subdivision of the NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL 18 State of Washington, 19 20 Appellant, 21 22 V. 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA, a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 • 31 32 West Valley School District No. 208 (the"School District") for its Notice of 33 34 Administrative Appeal to the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner for review of the 35 Administrative Official's Decision upon consideration of an Application for Modification 36 37 from the School District, states and alleges as follows: 38 39 1. The subject Modification Application proposed to add a 5-foot walking path 40 around the perimeter of the playfields,to change the backstop and goal locations, to reduce 41 42 the amount of asphalt in the playground, to approve the as-built increased site elevations, 43 44 and to install site-screening in certain locations. On June 30, 2021, the City issued its 45 46 decision on the School District's Request for Modification. Decision at 1. The City 47 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— DOC. Perkins Coie LLP 1 INDEX 1201 Third Avenue # �. Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153042450.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 1 1 o JUL 1 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 approved the walking path, revised backstop and goalpost locations,the reduction of asphalt 2 3 for the playground, and the installation of site screening. Decision at 1. However, the City 4 denied the School District's request to approve the as-built grading on the basis that the as- 5 6 built site grading shown in the modification application is in"excess of a 50%increase in 7 8 elevation from what was shown with the B200126 submittal in several locations, not 9 meeting the standard for a modification." Decision at 1. Additionally, the City found that 10 11 the increase in site grading "does create an adverse impact"because "the City received 12 13 numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners" about"its negative impact 14 15 on adjacent property owners." Decision at 6. 16 2. Appellant West Valley School District No. 208 ("School District") is a 17 18 public-school district operating in Yakima, Washington. Appellant's business address is 19 20 8902 Zier Road, Yakima, Washington 98909. 21 22 3. Attorneys for the Appellant are Kristine R. Wilson and Julie Wilson- 23 McNerney, Perkins Coie, 1201 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-3099. 24 25 4. Attached to this Notice of Administrative Appeal as Exhibit A is the 26 27 appealed-from decision of the Administrative Official ("Decision"), dated June 30, 2021 and 28 as Exhibit B, a statement from the applicant in accordance with Yakima Municipal Code 29 30 ("YMC") 16.08.018.C. 31 32 5. Appellant has standing to initiate this appeal as a party of record per YMC 33 34 16.08.018.A. Appellant in this matter is the applicant whose modification request was 35 denied by the City of Yakima("City"). 36 37 6. Appellant is appealing the Decision on the grounds that the Administrative 38 39 Official exceeded her authority in issuing the Decision; the Administrative Official 40 committed an error of law; and the findings, conclusions or decision prepared by the 41 42 Administrative Official are not supported by substantial evidence in the following respects: 43 44 a. As described in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 45 46 Support of Notice of Administrative Appeal, the Administrative Official committed an error 47 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—2 DOC. Perkins Coie LLP INDEX 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3099 1 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 153042450.1 RECEIVED 111 JUL 1 4 2021 YAKIMA COMMCITYUNITYOF DEVELOPMENT of law by finding that the as-built elevations did not meet the criteria for a modification 2 3 because the elevations were in excess of a 50% increase in elevation from the building 4 permit submittal. MOD#021-21 at 5. In arriving at this determination, the City applied 5 6 YMC 15.17.020.C's criterion that"any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed 7 8 fifty percent of the gross floor area." Id. The City incorrectly applied the law in finding that 9 the as-built site grading is not consistent with the standards for a modification under Chapter 0 11 YMC 15.17. 12 13 b. As described in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 14 15 Support of Notice of Administrative Appeal, the Administrative Official's finding that the 16 as-built grading would be more than a 50% increase in elevation(MOD#021-21 at 5) is not 17 18 supported by substantial evidence. Assuming arguendo, that the 50%threshold in YMC 19 20 15.17.020.0 applicable to gross floor area increases applies to elevation changes, the City's 21 22 record does not support the finding that the grading changes exceed the 50%threshold. 23 Instead,the City's record demonstrates that the average increase in grade is only 32% across 24 25 the entire site from the permit set to the as-built conditions. 26 27 c. As described in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 28 Support of Notice of Administrative Appeal, the Administrative Official's finding that the 29 30 as-built grading would cause an adverse effect is not supported by substantial evidence. The 31 32 City's record consistently demonstrates that the site grading would not have an adverse 33 34 effect and that the grading met code requirements. For the City to approve a modification 35 36 request, the "proposed change in the site design or arrangement"must not"in the 37 determination of the planning division . . , create or materially increase any adverse impacts 38 39 or undesirable effects of the project." YMC 15.17.040.B.1.c. The City found that the 40 increase in elevation"does create an adverse impact of the project"because the "new grade 41 42 is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown" on the approved 43 44 grading plans. MOD#021-21 at 6. The City cites to "concerns"raised by adjoining property 45 46 owners about"its negative impact on adjacent property owners." Decision at 6. These 47 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—3 DOC. Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue INDEX Seattle,WA 98101-3099 1)— I Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 153042450.1 RECEIVEE2 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT concerns and negative impacts are unidentified in the decision. The City's record shows that 2 3 grading would not have adverse effects based on the environmental review, the City's 4 surface water engineer's analysis that the site does not create any erosion or drainage 5 6 impacts, and the School District's agreement to mitigate aesthetic and visual impacts by 7 8 installing view-obscuring material on fencing on the east and south sides of the school. 9 d. As described in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 0 11 Support of Notice of Administrative Appeal, the Administrative Official exceeded her 12 13 authority in applying a higher standard to the denial of the grading modification than would 14 15 have been applied to the initial grading permit review. 16 e. As described in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 17 18 Support of Notice of Administrative Appeal,the Administrative Official exceeded her 19 20 authority in requiring the school district to regrade the site because the requirement is 21 22 contrary to the nexus and proportionality test. The City found that the increase in site 23 grading "does create an adverse impact"because "the City received numerous phone calls 24 25 and emails from adjacent property owners" about "its negative impact on adjacent property 26 27 owners." MOD#021-21 at 6. Because the as-built grading was deemed to be a 50% 28 increase over the elevations the City had previously approved and because the grading 29 30 creates an adverse impact, the City denied the School District's grading request and required 31 32 the School District to "regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in the 33 34 building plan submittal (B200126)." MOD#021-21 at 7. Even if there were adverse 35 impacts from the as-built elevation,the imposition of a requirement to regrade the site is 36 37 contrary to the nexus and proportionality test. The City may only impose requirements that 38 39 are proportionate to the impacts of the proposed action. No substantial evidence has been 40 provided to demonstrate the nexus or proportionality between probable impacts of the 41 42 proposed action and the requirement that the School District regrade the site. Therefore, the 43 44 Administrative Official's lacks the authority to require the school district to regrade the site. 45 46 7. Appellant seeks the following relief from the Hearing Examiner: 47 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL --4 DOC. Perkins Coie LLP INDEX 1201 Third Avenue n Seattle, WA 98101-3099 — Phone: 206.359.8000 153042450.1 'Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED113 JUL 1 4 2021 • CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a. For an Order reversing the Modification Decision and granting the School 2 3 District's Modification Application with respect to grading. 4 b. For permission to amend this Notice of Administrative Appeal based upon 5 6 the record; 7 8 c. For such other and further relief as the Hearing Examiner deems just and 9 to equitable. 11 12 13 14 DoouStgned by: 16 DATED: July 14, 2021 58831288FAFC4EA. 17 Kristine R. Wilson, WSBA No. 33152 18 Julie A. Wilson-McNerney, WSBA No. 46585 19 Perkins Coie LLP 20 1201 Third Avenue 21 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 22 Phone: 206.359.8000 23 Fax: 206.359.9000 24 JWilsonMcNerney@perkinscoie.com 25 26 Attorneys for Appellants West Valley School 27 District No. 208 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 DOC. 44 45 INDEX 46 47 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—5 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153042450.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 114 RECEIVED • JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 3 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 4 the date indicated below, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF 5 6 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL to be served on the following persons via the methods 7 8 indicated below: 9 10 City of Yakima ❑ Via U.S. Mail, 1st class, postage prepaid 11 Community Development Department 0 Via Legal Messenger 12 129 N. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor 0 Via Facsimile 13 Yakima, WA 98901 0 Via Overnight Mail 14 ❑ Via email 15 16 17 18 DATED this 14th day of July, 2021 at Seattle Washington. 19 ,Q Le, 21 22 Cheryl Robertson, Legal Practice 23 Assistant 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 DOC. 44 45 INDEX 461 47 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL —6 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153042450.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 115 RECEIVED JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT A DOC. INDEX #_ „ ., *�.� DL.ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVE—OPMENT 116 #,I■ t�'t Joan Davenport, AICP, Director Valkc�rY of Y•ir Planning Division Panning Joseph Calhoun, Manager 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor,Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov• www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA FINDINGS of FACT, CONCLUSIONS, & DECISION for REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION File Number: MOD#021-21 APPLICANT: West Valley School District do Angela Von Essen APPLICANT ADDRESS: 8902 Zier Rd., Yakima, WA 98908 PROPERTY OWNER: West Valley School District#208 PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS: 8902 Zier Rd., Yakima, WA 98908 RECEIVED PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 181319-42006 &-42022 JUL 1 4 2021 DATE OF REQUEST: May 28, 2021 DATE OF DECISION: June 30, 2021 CITY OF YAK�Mq STAFF CONTACT: Eric Crowell, Associate Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Modification to the final site plan of CL3#010-19 to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, regrading of the site, and installation of sitescreening in some locations, at the site of a new elementary school in the R-1 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Modification request for the five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of site screening are approved. The Modification request for re-grading of the site is denied. III. FACTS: A. Processing 1. The application for a Modification was received on May 28, 2021. 2. Additional drawings and an updated narrative were received on June 21, 2021. 3. An additional drawing showing added sitescreening was received on June 23, 2021. 4. The application was deemed complete for processing on June 30, 2021. DOC. INDEX 5. This application is being processed under the provisions of Ch. 15.17 (Modifications to Existing or Approved Uses or Development). Yakima �Yrdi 2015 1994 117 B. Applicable Law: 1. Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: a. Modification of(Use or Development) Defined: Pursuant to YMC § 15.02.020, "Modification (of use or development)" means any change or alteration in the occupancy, arrangement, placement or construction of any existing use, structure, or associated site improvement, and any change or alteration of land. b. Use Defined: Pursuant to YMC § 15.02.020, "Use" means the activity or purpose for which land or structures or a combination of land and structures is designed, arranged, occupied, or maintained together with any associated site improvements. This definition includes the construction, erection, placement, movement or demolition of any structure or site improvement and any physical alteration to land itself, including any grading, leveling, paving or excavation. "Use" also means any existing or proposed configuration of land, structures, and site improvements, and the use thereof. c. Submittals: Pursuant to YMC § 15.17.040 (A), applications for modification shall follow the submittal requirements for Type (1) review. In addition, for an approved Class (2) or(3) use or development, the applicant shall submit both the site plan previously approved by the reviewing official and a new site plan showing the location, size, and type of modification proposed by the applicant. d. Limits of Expansion Under Modification: Pursuant to YMC § 15.17.020, minor changes to existing or approved Class (1), (2) or(3) uses or development may qualify for abbreviated review under the provisions in this chapter, if they meet the criteria listed below. Overlay districts shall not increase the level of review for the provisions of this chapter. Modifications not meeting the criteria RECEIVED below must apply directly for review as a Class (1), (2) or (3) use or development. lu1. 1 4 ZOZ1 i. The modification will not increase residential density that would require an E CIS O f YAKIMp additional level of review; COMM" DEVELOPM"41 ii. The modification will not increase the amount of parking by more than ten percent or twenty spaces (whichever is least), except that the amount of parking for controlled atmosphere and cold storage warehouses may be increased by up to twenty spaces. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; iii. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area. The expansion of an existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; iv. The modification will not increase the height of any structure; v. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; DOC. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary INDEX MOD#021-21 2 # v- ` 118 vi. The modification will not add a drive-thru facility; and vii. The modification does not include hazardous materials. e. Review: Pursuant to YMC § 15.17.040 (B), applications for modifications may be administratively and summarily reviewed using the Type (1) review process, in addition to the following criteria: i. Any proposed change in the site design or arrangement: - Will not change or modify any special condition previously imposed under Class (2) or (3) review; - Will not adversely reduce the amount of existing landscaping or the amount or location or required sitescreening; and In the determination of the Planning Division, it will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. ii. All proposed new structures, site improvements, or structural alterations to existing structures or site improvements comply with the development RECEIVED standards of YMC Ch. 15.05 through 15.08, except as approved under the adjustment or variance provisions. JUL 1 4 2021 f. Sitescreening—Purpose: Pursuant to YMC 15.07.010, the purpose of this CITY OF YAKIMA chapter is to: establish Sitescreening standards to provide a visual buffer COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT between uses of different intensity, streets and structures; reduce erosion and stormwater runoff; protect property values; and eliminate potential land use conflicts by mitigating adverse impacts from dust, odor, litter, noise, glare, lights, signs, water runoff, buildings or parking areas. IV. FINDINGS: The Administrative Official makes the following findings: A. The subject property is classified as Elementary and Middle School, a Class (3) permitted use in the R-1 zoning district (YMC § 15.04, Table 4-1, Permitted Land Uses). The project was originally approved under CL3#010-19. B. Regarding soil and terrain, the Environmental Checklist (SEPA#038-19) noted that "approximately 15,000 cubic yards of grading and excavation would occur during project construction. The site is anticipated to be a net balance and no significant . amounts of imported or exported soils are anticipated." C. Status of Environmental Work—the following summary was provided by the Department of Ecology: 1. It has been estimated that there are approximately 58,000 acres of lead and arsenic impacted soil in Yakima County alone and 187,588 acres impacted state wide. One of the strategies widely used in Washington State and acceptable to both Ecology and Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA) is capping of lead and arsenic containing soils with hardscape (asphalt or concrete) or some combination of fabric, clean soil, and mulches like bark or rock. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary DOC. MOD#021-21 INDEX 3 # 119 2 In 2012 as part of an Ecology funded project and consistent with an Ecology accepted practice, the lead and arsenic containing soil in the grass-surfaced areas at the Apple Valley Elementary site was covered by fabric and about eight inches of clean soil before grass was re-established. Areas of lead and arsenic containing soil located under buildings, parking lots and sidewalks were not disturbed during the 2012 project. 3. The 2019/2020 Apple Valley Elementary project included demolition of existing buildings and regrading of the site to facilitate the new elementary school building construction and associated stormwater management. As the new construction would disturb lead and arsenic containing soils previously capped by the 2012 Ecology lead project, the District's environmental consultant, Fulcrum Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Fulcrum), notified both the Ecology and the YRCAA that work would occur on the Apple Valley Elementary School site and reviewed the intended mitigation plan for regrading and re-capping the site with fabric and clean soil or hardscape consistent with Ecology's 2012 mitigation work. 4. Both worker and community protection measure were developed as a portion of the soil mitigation plan and was incorporated into the project specifications for the contractors to follow during construction. Contractor dust control and stormwater measures during lead and arsenic soil moving tasks has been monitored by Fulcrum and have been within the pre-project identified tolerances. 5. Construction on the Apple Valley Elementary project is nearing completion. Following is a summary of current conditions: a. One stockpile of lead and arsenic soil remains onsite and is being used to finish the elevation of soil located beneath the fabric cap. Some surplus soil RECEIVED from this stockpile maybe removed from the site. The stockpile has been characterized and was below the dangerous waste threshold. JUL 1 41 2021 b. All lead and arsenic contaminated soil was removed from stormwater CITY OF YAKIMA infiltration areas. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT c. Lead and arsenic contaminated soil remaining in building footprint, asphalt parking, or concrete side walk areas have been capped with gravel and either concrete or asphalt. d. Lead and arsenic contaminated soil remaining grass or landscaping areas is currently being covered with an orange geotextile fabric and clean soil. e. Following clean soil placement, either sod will be added to the grass surfaced areas. D. This modification is being requested in order to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, modified site grading, and installation of sitescreening in some locations. DOC West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary ' MOD#021-21 INDEX 4 120 E. Modification to Permitted Development and Uses Regulated. Pursuant to YMC § 15.17.020, the proposal complies with the following criteria in order to be considered a modification: 1. The modification will not increase residential density that would require an additional level of review. Staff Response: Not applicable; it is not a residential use. 2. The modification will not increase the amount of parking by more than ten percent or twenty spaces (whichever is least), except that the amount of parking for controlled atmosphere and cold storage warehouses may be increased by up to twenty spaces. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. Staff Response: No additional parking is being proposed. 3. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area. The expansion of an existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. Staff Response: The school building and grounds are not being expanded from what was previously approved, as all proposed site modifications are within the Apple Valley school parcels. The number of playfields is being increased from two to three, an increase of 50 percent, meeting the standard for modification. t2ECEIVE® The addition of the five-foot paved path around a portion of the perimeter and the . 2021 reduction in playground asphalt will result in a cumulative decrease of 6 percent for overall impervious lot coverage, meeting the standard for a modification. CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Grading is included in the definition of"Use"and is therefore subject to review under the Modification criteria. On-site grading has changed significantly from the grading contours submitted with the Building Permit(B200126). The new contour lines shown on the revised Modification Site Plan and narrative submitted with this application are in excess of a 50% increase in elevation from what was shown with the B200126 submittal in several locations, not meeting the standard for a modification. 4. The modification will not increase the height of any structure. Staff Response: The school was approved for a variance (VAR#004-19) to exceed the 35-foot height limitation in the R-1 zoning district, but no other structures are proposed that exceed the approved 44-foot height. 5. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. DOC. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary INDEX MOD#021-21 # V- 1 5 121 Staff Response: Previous modifications (MOD#026-18, MOD#031-18) were for the placement of portable classrooms, which were eliminated with the construction of the new school. 6. The modification will not add a drive-thru facility. RECEIVED Staff Response: No drive-thru facility is being added.. JUL 14 2021 7. The modification does not include hazardous materials. CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNI FY DEVELOPMENT Staff Response: The proposed modification does not introduce additional soil containing hazardous materials. See analysis provided above for on-site conditions related to soil remediation and capping under the Department of Ecology Guidelines. F. The proposed modification complies with all other development standards of the R-1 zoning district. G. The proposal will not change or modify any special condition previously imposed under the previous land use review by the Hearing Examiner in 2020. H. The proposal will not significantly reduce the amount of the existing landscaping. It will not reduce the amount or location of the existing required sitescreening. While an Administrative Adjustment (ADJ#027-19) was approved, waiving the requirement that view-obscuring material be added to the existing chain link fence, the applicant has agreed to add view-obscuring material to a portion of the fence along the east and south property lines. I. The proposed asphalt path, additional field, relocated backstop, and additional sitescreening will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts of the project. J. The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project. The new grade is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown on the grading plans submitted with B200126. The City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners which prompted the Building Official to issue a stop-work order. The WVSD held a neighborhood meeting on June 14, 2021 to hear the concerns and questions of neighbors. Multiple emails and phone calls were received by various City staff both prior and subsequent to the meeting about site grading and its negative impact on adjacent property owners. K. Development Service Team Review: A Development Service Team (DST) meeting was not held for technical review of the project. The following comment was received from Randy Meloy, Surface Water Engineer: 1. Per your request I went out to Apple Valley Elementary and walked around the entirety of the path to assess the possibility of drainage impacts. The asphalt path is about five feet wide and is located close to the school's fence along the perimeter of their parcel. The cross slope of the path is generally flat, with some areas gently sloped towards the grass and other areas gently sloped towards the West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary DOC MOD#021-21 INDEX 6 # -\ 122 fence. It is my opinion that there would be no drainage impact on the surrounding parcels due to this paved path being close to the fence. The only possible scenario where I could see there being any kind of drainage issue would be on the south side if the school overwatered with the sprinklers, and because the main grassy area is elevated, you could get runoff from the sloped grassy areas making its way towards the perimeter. If that happened there is still a ten foot separation between the school's fence and the neighbor's fences. Much of the runoff would infiltrate into the ground in this area. This is assuming there would be some problem with the school irrigation and that is unlikely. Along the east RECEIVED side of the school there is a small gravel berm between the path and the fence which would help to contain any runoff that might get there. Again, i would not JUL 1 2021 anticipate any issues there. CITY OF YAKIMA Last night and this morning there was a decent amount of rainfall at the school, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT and while walking the path i looked for signs of erosion and did not find any. This path is only five feet wide and it is my opinion that it will not cause any drainage problems. V. CONCLUSIONS: A. The Administrative Official has reviewed the addition of a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sitescreening in some locations against the standards and requirements for a Modification under YMC Ch. 15.17 and has concluded that they are consistent with said standards and requirements. B. The proposed site grading is not consistent with the standards and requirements for a Modification under YMC Ch. 15.17. C. All other development standards of the R-1 zoning district will be met. D. The revised site plans submitted on June 21 and 23, 2021 shall serve as the final site plans for items approved under this Modification. VI. DECISION: The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Modification application (MOD#021-21) to add a five-foot-wide walking path, increase the number of fields from two to three, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of additional fencing to an existing Class (3) use is approved, and authorizes the issuance of the permit(s) based upon the above findings and conclusions and subject to the Building Official's determination of compliance with all building codes. The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Modification application (MOD#021-21) for site grading is denied, and requires the applicant to regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in the building plan submittal (B200126). Entered this 30th day of June, 2021, pursuant to the authority granted under YMC Ch. 15.17,,; This decision constitutes the final zoning review and is hereby granted and forwarded to the Building Official. DOC. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary INDEX MOD#021-21 7 123 This zoning decision is valid for one year from this date unless appealed under the Yakima Municipal Code. The zoning decision may be extended one time up to one additional year prior to the expiration date, as set forth in YMC § 15.12.060. This zoning decision is not a construction permit and does not in and of itself authorize any use to be established, constructed, made or implemented without a construction permit issued by the Building Official and the conditions pending have been completed. This zoning decision shall expire if: a) a construction permit and/or business license for the approved project is required but not issued within one year from the date of issuance of this final decision; b)the construction permit and/or business license is issued but allowed to expire; or c) the project is modified and a new zoning decision is issued. The issuance of any permit, subsequent permit inspection, land use decisions, or other related applications by the City of Yakima shall not be construed as an approval for work to be performed in violation of any government(Federal, State or Local) order to cease or limit construction activities during the COVID-19 emergency period outlined in such order. Joa avenport, AICP, Co unity Development Director APPEAL Pursuant to YMC 15.17.040 and 15.17.050, uses or developments denied under this chapter may submit applications for review under the normal review provisions for the use. Decisions by the planning division regarding approval or denial of administrative modifications may be appealed as prescribed by the applicable review. All appeals shall be filed within fourteen days following the mailing of the final decision by the Administrative Official or designee. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the City of Yakima, Community Development Department; 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA 98901. If a final decision does not require mailing, the appeal shall be filed within fourteen days following the issuance of the final decision. RECEIVED JUL Y 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary DOC. MOD#021-21 INDEX 8 124 EXHIBIT B RECEIVED JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOC. INDEX 125 THE HONORABLE GARY CUILLIER 2 RECEIVED 3 4 5 JUL 1 4 2021 6 7 CITY OF YAKIMA 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 10 11 12 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA 13 14 In the matter of the Appeals of: 15 MOD#021-21 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO. 208, a political subdivision of the DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH 18 State of Washington, 19 20 Appellant, 21 22 v. 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA, a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 31 32 33 I, Dr. Peter Finch, declare and state as follows: 34 35 1. I am over the age of eighteen years, make this declaration on personal 36 knowledge of the facts stated herein, and am competent to testify. 38 39 2. I am currently the Acting Superintendent of Schools for the West Valley 40 41 School District. I have served as an Assistant Superintendent at the West Valley School 42 43 District since 2001. 44 45 3. I have read the appeal of the City of Yakima's partial denial of MOD#021-21 46 47 and believe the contents to be true. DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH— 1 DOC. Perkins Coie LLP INDEX 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3099 hone: 206.359.8000 153055648.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 126 1 declare that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and 2 3 subject to the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. 4 5 6 7 Dated this 14th day of July, 2021, at Yakima, Washington. 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Dr. Peter Finch,Acting Superintendent 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RECEIVED 25 26 27 JUL 1 4 2021 28 29 CITY OF YAKIMA 30 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 DOC45 46 INDEX 47 # DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH—2 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153055648.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 127 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 4 5 the date indicated below, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing 6 7 DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH to be served on the following persons via the 8 9 methods indicated below: 10 11 City of Yakima 0 Via U.S. Mail, 1st class, postage prepaid 12 13 Community Development Department ❑x Via Legal Messenger 13 129 N. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor 0 Via Facsimile 14 15 Yakima, WA 98901 0 Via Overnight Mail 15 16 0 Via email 17 18 19 DATED this 14th day of July, 2021 at Seattle, ashington. 20 �(jfte' ,( 23 I Cheryl Rober son,Legal Practice 24 Assistant 25 26 27 28 29 RECEIVED 30 31 32 JUL 1 4 2021 33 CITY OF YAKIMA 34 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 DOC• 46 INDEX 47 P- L DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH—3 Perkins Cole LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153055646,1 Fax: 206.359.9000 128 1 THE HONORABLE GARY CUILLIER 2 3 RECEIVED 4 5 E. 6 JUL 1 zit 2021 7 8 CITY OF YAKIMA 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 11 12 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA 13 14 In the matter of the Appeals of: 15 MOD#021-21 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO. 208, a political subdivision of the APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM OF 18 State of Washington, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 19 SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE 20 Appellant, APPEAL 21 22 v. 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA, a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 31 32 33 West Valley School District No. 208 (the"School District")submits the following 34 35 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its above-captioned Administrative 36 Appeal to the Cityof Yakima HearingExaminer. The School District challenges the 37 pp g 38 39 Administrative Official's June 30, 2021 decision,MOD#021-21, ("Decision")to deny the 40 ' 41 School District's Modification Application, which requested approval of as-built elevations 42 for the replacement of Apple ValleyElementarySchool that are a 32%increase over the 43 p pp 44 45 elevations the City of Yakima("City") approved as part of the School District's building 46 47 permit. The Decision is clearly erroneous, inconsistent with applicable law,not supported MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DOC. Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE 1201 Third Avenue OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 1 INDEX EXn Seattle,WA 98101-3099 -\ Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 129 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 by substantial evidence, and exceeded the City's authority. The City erred in applying a 2 3 modification standard pertaining to gross floor area to an elevation change to find that the 4 5 School District's request did not meet the criteria for a modification. Furthermore,the 6 7 City's findings that the elevation changes constitute a more than 50% increase over the 8 9 previously approved plans and that the grading change would cause an adverse effect to 10 ' 11 ' adjacent property owners are not supported by substantial evidence. The Decision requires 12 13 the School District to regrade the site consistent with the grading depicted on the previously 14 15 approved site plans—an expensive endeavor that will delay the opening of the playfields in 16 17 time for students' arrival in the 2021-2022 school year and that is not proportionate to the 18 19 alleged adverse impacts associated with the increased elevation. The City exceeded its 20 21 authority in requiring the School District to regrade the site. The School District urges the 22 23 Hearing Examiner to reverse the City's Decision denying the modification approval for the 24 25 as-built grading and to approve said modification. 26 27 I. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON 28 29 In support of its appeal,the District relies upon all the documents filed with the City 30 31 of Yakima in the record for File No. MOD#021-21 and the Declaration of Dr. Peter Finch 32 33 filed herewith. 34 35 II. RELIEF REQUESTED 36 37 Consistent with YMC 16.08.018.G,the School District requests that the City's 38 39 Decision be reversed and that the School District's Modification Application be approved 40 41 because the Decision is clearly erroneous, inconsistent with applicable law, not supported by 42 43 substantial evidence, and exceeded the City's authority. 44 DOC. 45 INDEX 46 47 #i 9'\ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—2 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 130 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 HI. STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 The Hearing Examiner reviews appeals of an Administrative Official's decision de 3 4 novo. YMC 16.08.020.A. The Hearing Examiner may"affirm or reverse, wholly or in part, 5 6 or modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination, and to that end shall have all 7 8 the powers of the officer from whom the appeal was taken." YMC 16.08.018.G. To carry its 9 10 11 burden of proof,the Appellant must demonstrate at least one of the following: 12 13 1. The decision-maker . . . exceeded his or her jurisdiction or 14 authority; 15 16 2. The decision-maker failed to follow applicable procedures 17 in reaching the decision; 18 19 3. The decision-maker committed an error of law; and/or 20 21 4. The findings, conclusions or decision prepared by the 22 decision-maker are not supported by substantial evidence. 23 24 YMC 16.08.014. 25 26 27 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 29 29 The Project 30 In February 2019,voters in the School District's boundaries approved a$59 million 31 32 bond to replace Apple Valley and Summitview Elementary Schools to provide more 33 34 capacity to reduce overcrowding. Declaration of Dr. Peter Finch, filed on July 14,2021 35 36 (hereinafter"Finch Decl."),¶3. On October 23, 2019, the School District submitted a 37 38 Class 3 Review application(CL3#010-19, VAR#004-19,ADJ#027-19, and CAO#027-19) 39 40 to the City to completely replace the Apple Valley School District on the same site.' Id. at¶ 41 42 43 1 The permitting and SEPA process for the school replacement project was completed in two 44 phases. In 2019,the City conducted an environmental review under the State Environmental Policy 45 Act,Chapter 43.21 C RCW("SEPA")for the demolition of the existing school building and issued a 46 Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance,which included mitigation measures related to 47 removing contaminated building materials,conducting work under the Model Toxics Control Act to MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ®OC Perkins Cole LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—3 INDEX Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Q 1 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 131 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8, Ex. A at 3. The School District proposed the construction of a new 60,000-square-foot 2 3 elementary school building in the R-1 zoning district with 147 parking spaces, a playground, 4 5 and two playfields. Id. The application included requests for a variance to exceed the 6 7 building height limitation in this zoning district; a critical areas review due to the site being 8 9 in a wellhead protection area; and an administrative adjustment to waive the site-screening 10 11 requirement that would impose a 6-foot view-obscuring fence, installation of a digital sign 12 13 and wall signs that are not otherwise allowed in residential zoning districts, and to adjust the 14 15 maximum height for signs set back more than 15 feet from the right-of-way. Id. at 3-4. The 16 17 City completed SEPA review for the school construction and issued a Determination of 18 19 Non-Significance on January 22, 2020. Id. at 4. The SEPA checklist submitted for the 20 21 project did not identify any environmental impacts associated with site grading. Id. at¶ 10, 22 23 Ex. C at Attachment 1. The Hearing Examiner approved this application with conditions on 24 25 February 28, 2020. Id. at 118,Ex. A at 23-25. 26 27 A. The Permits and Permit Process 28 29 On April 7,2020,the City approved Building Permit B200126 and the associated 30 31 plan set, which included an overall grading plan for the entire site. Finch Decl.,¶4. The 32 33 2020 approved grading plan included proposed elevations for the southeastern corner of the 34 35 site that ranged from 1266 feet above sea level (ASL)near the southern fenceline to 1276 36 37 feet ASL at the playfield at the northeastern corner of the site. Finch Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. D. 38 39 Throughout the course of the project, the School District worked with the Washington State 40 41 Department of Ecology on contamination issues at the site and to implement a clean cap 42 43 over contaminated soil that would be protective of human health and the environment. 44 45 46 address contamination on the site prior to development, and compliance with Yakima Regional 47 Clean Air Agency requirements. Finch Decl.,¶9,Ex.B at 6. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DOC Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—4 I�®�� Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Q- 1 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 132 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Decision at 3-4. When construction at the site was completed, the finished elevations at the 2 3 site ranged from 1266 feet ASL near the southeastern fenceline to 1276 feet ASL at the 4 5 northeastern corner of the site,but certain portions of the southern playfield were graded at 6 7 an elevation 1 to 3 feet higher than approved by the City in 2020. Finch Decl.,¶¶ 11-12, 8 9 , Exs. D-E. However,the finished elevation in other areas of the site is 1 foot lower than 10 11 shown in the approved plans.Id. 12 13 In late May 2021,the School District submitted a Modification Application to the 14 15 City in accordance with Chapter YMC 15.17 to add a 5-foot walking path around the 16 17 perimeter of the playfields,to change the backstop and goal locations,to reduce the amount 18 19 of asphalt in the playground,to approve the as-built increased site elevations, and to install 20 21 site-screening in certain locations. Decision at 1. The City would not deem the School 22 23 District's application complete until the School District held a public meeting to obtain 24 25 public comment on June 14, 2021. Finch Decl.,¶6. At the public meeting,neighbors 26 27 expressed concerns about the height of the southern playfield and concerns that people using 28 29 the playfields would be able to see in their backyards. Finch Decl.,¶7. In response to 30 31 public comments,the School District included as part of its Modification Application the 32 33 installation of view-obscuring material to a portion of the fencing along the east and 34 35 southern property lines adjacent to the neighboring residences. Decision at 6. 36 37 B. The Land Use Decision 38 39 On June 30, 2021,the City issued its decision on the School District's Request for 40 41 Modification. Decision at 1. The City approved the walking path, revised backstop and 42 43 goalpost locations, the reduction of asphalt for the playground, and the installation of site 44 45 screening. Decision at 1. However,the City denied the School District's request to approve 46 47 the as-built grading on the basis that the final site grading shown in the modification MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DOC. Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF N D EX 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA .359.83099 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—5 ,'{�' 9- 1 Phone: 206359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 133 JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 application is in"excess of a 50%increase in elevation from what was shown with the 2 3 B200126 submittal in several locations,not meeting the standard for a modification." 4 5 Decision at 1. Additionally,the City found that the increase in site grading "does create an 6 7 adverse impact"because "the City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent 8 9 property owners"about"its negative impact on adjacent property owners." Decision at 6. 10 it The Decision does not specify the concerns upon which the City determined that the as-built 12 13 grading would cause an adverse impact. 14 15 The City's surface water engineer conducted a site visit at Apple Valley Elementary 16 17 School while the City reviewed the Modification Application, after the final grading was in 18 19 place, and following a period of rain. Decision at 7. The surface water engineer noted no 20 21 signs of erosion. Decision at 7. The City's engineer also concluded that there would be no 22 23 drainage impact on the surrounding properties from the paved path. Id. Indeed,the 24 25 engineer noted that the 26 27 only possible scenario I could see there being any kind of 28 drainage issue would be on the south side if the school 29 overwatered with the sprinklers, and because the main grassy 30 area is elevated,you could get runoff from the sloped grassy 31 areas making its way to the perimeter. If that happened there 32 is still a ten foot separation between the school's fence and the 33 neighbor's fences. Much of the runoff would infiltrate into the 34 ground in this area. This is assuming there would be some 35 problem with the school irrigation and that is unlikely. Along 36 the east side of the school there is a small gravel berm 37 between the path and the fence which would help to contain 38 any runoff that might get there. Again, I would not anticipate 39 any issues there. 40 41 42 I Despite the engineer's analysis,the City denied the School District's grading request and 43 44 required the School District to "regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in 45 C. 46 the building plan submittal(B200126)." Decision at 7. INDEX 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Cole LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—6 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 134 RECEIVED JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA 1 V. LEGAL ARGUMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 3 A. The Administrative Official Committed an Error of Law in Partially 4 Denying the Modification Application 6 The Administrative Official committed an error of law by finding that the as-built 7 elevations did not meet the criteria for a modification because the elevations were in excess 8 9 of a 50%increase in elevation from the building permit submittal. Decision at 5. In arriving 10 11 at this determination,the City applied YMC 15.17.020.C's criterion that"any expansion of 12 13 use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area." Id. Finished 14 15 grading elevations are not expansions based on gross floor area. The City incorrectly 16 17 applied the law in finding that the site grading is not consistent with the standards for a 18 20 modification under Chapter YMC 15.17. 21 22 Under the City's process for modification applications, "minor changes to existing or 23 24 approved Class (1), (2)or(3)uses or development may qualify for abbreviated review" 25 under Chapter 15.17 YMC. YMC 15.17.020. A change be approved through a 26 Pmay pP g 228 modification if, among other things, 29 30 C. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed 31 fifty percent of the gross floor area. The expansion of an 32 existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit 33 when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are 34 met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all 35 previous modifications since the last normal review[.] 36 37 YMC 15.17.020. YMC 15.02.020 defines "use"to include"the construction, erection, 38 39 40 placement, movement or demolition of any structure or site improvement and any physical 42 alteration to land itself, including any grading, leveling,paving or excavation." Although 43 grading is covered in the definition of a"use" under the code, YMC 15.17.020 focuses on 44 45 "an expansion of use area" and whether that expansion exceeds 50%of the gross floor area. 46 p p 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DOC Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF INDEX 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—7 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 135 JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 In applying YMC 15.17.020.0 to deny the grading modification,the City committed 2 3 an error of law in two respects. First,the City concluded that an increase in finished 4 5 elevation is an"expansion of use area." The Decision clearly states that the"school 6 7 building and grounds are not being expanded from what was previously approved, as all 8 9 proposed site modifications are within the Apple Valley school parcels." Decision at 5. A 10 11 minor change in grading elevation does not constitute an expansion of the grading area. The 12 I 13 area re-graded as part of the project did not change and therefore was not expanded. 14 15 Second, even if an increase in elevation falls within an"expansion of use area,"such an 16 17 expansion is limited to no more than 50%of the gross floor area. Per YMC 15.02.020 and 18 19 I 15.06.040.A, 20 21 "gross floor area"means the total square footage of all floors 22 in a structure as measured from the interior surface of each 23 exterior wall of the structure and including halls, lobbies, 24 enclosed porches and fully enclosed recreation areas and 25 balconies,but excluding stairways,elevator shafts, attic space, 26 mechanical rooms,restrooms, uncovered steps and fire 27 escapes,private garages, carports and off-street parking and 28 loading spaces. Storage areas are included in gross floor area. 29 30 31 Grading elevations do not fall within the definition of gross floor area. Yet, in denying the 32 33 grading modification,the City applied the 50%threshold in YMC 15.17.020.0 to an 34 35 increase in grading elevation,and as discussed in more detail below,miscalculated the 36 37 increase in grading elevation. Furthermore,the City's Decision does not calculate total 38 39 square footage of all floors in the structures at the elementary school and compare that 40 41 square footage to the increase in elevation. Instead,the City reviewed the"new contour 42 43 lines" submitted with the Modification Application and incorrectly concluded that those new 44 45 contours "are in excess of a 50% increase in elevation from what was shown with the 46 47 B200126 submittal in several locations,not meeting the standard for a modification." MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DO Perkins Cole LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—8 INDEX Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 136 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 Decision at 5. The City committed an error of law in concluding that a modification was not 2 3 available to approve the as-built elevations by applying a percentage increase threshold 4 5 applicable to gross floor area to an elevation change. 6 7 B. The Findings of Fact Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence2 8 9 The Administrative Official's Decision must be supported by substantial evidence 10 11 that the modification request meets the standards and requirements for approving a 12 13 modification and by substantial evidence that demonstrates nexus and proportionality 14 15 between clearly identified adverse impacts and the decision made. See YMC 16.08.014; 16 17 YMC 15.17.040, YMC 15.17.020;Honesty in Envtl. Analysis and Legislation (HEAL) v. 18 19 Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 96 Wn. App. 522, 534, 979 P.2d 864 20 21 (1999). "Substantial evidence"is evidence of a"sufficient quantity to persuade a reasonable 22 23 person that the declared premise is true." Isla Verde Intl Holdings v. City of Camas, 146 24 25 Wn.2d 740, 751-52, 49 P.3d 867 (2002). As demonstrated below,the record does not 26 27 support a finding that grading elevations are 50%higher than the approved plans. Further, 28 29 the City's environmental documents, the SEPA Checklist and the DNS, do not identify 30 31 grading-related impacts to adjacent properties. 32 33 1. The finding that the as-built grading would be more than a 50% 34 increase in elevation is not supported by substantial evidence. 35 36 Assuming arguendo,that the 50%threshold in YMC 15.17.020.0 applicable to gross 37 38 floor area increases applies to elevation changes,the City's record does not support the 39 40 finding that the grading changes exceed the 50%threshold. Instead,the City's record 41 42 demonstrates that the average increase in grade is only 32%across the entire site from the 43 44 ' permit set to the as-built conditions. The grading plan approved by the City in 2020 45 46 2 Because the City has not yet produced the administrative record in this proceeding,the 47 School District wishes to reserve opportunity to supplement this Memorandum prior to the hearing. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DOC. Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF NDEX 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—9 # Seattle,WA 98101-3099 �-- I Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 137 JUL 1 4 2021 • CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 included proposed final elevations at the edges of the site that are exactly the same as the as- 2 3 built elevations. Finch Decl., ¶¶ 11-12, Exs. D-E. Portions of the southern playfield were 4 5 graded at an elevation 1 to 3 feet higher than approved by the City in 2020. Id. However, 6 7 the finished elevation in other areas of the site is 1 foot lower than shown in the approved 8 9 plans. Id. Taking into account that some areas of the site have a lower elevation than 10 11 originally proposed,the changes in grading across the site constitute a 32%increase in 12 13 elevation; not the 50%the City found. The City's finding that the grading elevations had 14 15 increased by more than 50%is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 16 17 2. The finding that the as-built grading would cause an adverse 18 effect is not supported by substantial evidence. 19 20 The City's record consistently demonstrates that the site grading would not have an 21 22 adverse effect and that the grading met code requirements. For the City to approve a 23 24 modification request,the"proposed change in the site design or arrangement"must not"in 25 26 the determination of the planning division . . . create or materially increase any adverse 27 28 impacts or undesirable effects of the project." YMC 15.17.040.B.1.c. The City found that 29 30 the increase in elevation"does create an adverse impact of the project"because the"new 31 32 grade is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown" on the approved 33 34 grading plans. Decision at 6. The City cites to "concerns"raised by adjoining property 35 36 owners about"its negative impact on adjacent property owners." Decision at 6. These 37 38 concerns and negative impacts are unidentified in the decision. The neighbors raised 39 40 concerns over aesthetic and visual impacts associated with the increased site grading during 41 42 public meetings. Finch Decl. ¶7. The City Code does not include a specific requirement 43 44 that impacts to aesthetics and visual quality be assessed when analyzing impacts associated 45 46 with a modification application. Instead,the City Code incorporates the 2018 Washington 47 DOC. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND INDEX Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF ,# 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 10 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 138 JUL 1 4 2021 CffY OF Y1KIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Code, which addresses what constitutes an adverse impact to adjacent properties 2 3 from grading. YMC 11.04.010, 11.04.J103.2. Sections J108.3 and J109.4 of the 2018 4 5 Washington Building Code indicate that revised grading can harm adjacent properties if the 6 7 revised grading changes drainage patterns or by causes unstable slopes. Here,the City's 8 9 own engineer determined that the as-built conditions at the school would not cause erosion 10 11 or drainage problems. Decision at 6-7. There is no substantial evidence in the record to 12 13 support an adverse effect finding in this case. 14 15 Neither of the City's SEPA approvals for the Apple Valley Elementary School 16 17 project identify any impacts associated with grading. Neither does the SEPA checklist for 18 19 the school construction, which indicates that 15,000 cubic yards of grading and excavation 20 21 would occur and that"the site is anticipated to be a net balance and no significant amounts 22 23 of imported or exported soils are expected." Finch Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A, Attach. 1 at 6. No 24 25 significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the SEPA checklist for prepared for school 26 27 construction. Finch Decl.¶ 8,Ex. A, Attach. 1. To the contrary,the analysis concluded that 28 29 "views of the site would generally remain similar to the existing conditions and would be 30 31 reflective of the existing school uses on the site." Finch Decl.¶8, Ex. A,Attach. 1 at 20. A 32 33 minor increase of 1 to 3 feet in elevation does not change this analysis. The City's finding 34 35 that the increased elevation would create an adverse impact is not supported by substantial 36 37 evidence.3 38 39 3 Furthermore,the City cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly. The Administrative 40 Official exceeded her authority in applying a higher standard to the denial of the grading 41 modification than would have been applied to the initial grading permit review. Reading YMC 42 15.17.040.B.1.c's provision allowing denial of a modification upon the finding of any new negative 43 impact to aesthetics or visual quality,as the City has done here,is an expansive reading of the City's 44 authority. Because the site design or arrangement changes that are reviewed in the modification 45 application process will by their nature involve visual changes, it cannot be the case that any visual 46 changes disliked by the community is sufficient reason to deny a modification application. A 47 modification application for grading cannot be held to a higher standard of review than the initial MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND PerkinsDOC" Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF INDEX 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 11 , Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 139 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 C. The City Exceeded Its Authority in Requiring the School District to 2 Regrade the Site 3 4 Even if there were adverse impacts from the as-built elevation,the imposition of a 5 6 requirement to regrade the site is contrary to the nexus and proportionality test. The City 7 8 may only impose requirements that are proportionate to the impacts of the proposed action. 9 No substantial evidence has been provided to demonstrate the nexus or proportionality 10 11 between probable impacts of the proposed action and the requirement that the School 12 13 District regrade the site. "The rough proportionality requirement limits the extent of the 14 15 mitigation measures, including denial,to those which are roughly proportional to the impact 16 17 they are designed to mitigate." HEAL, 96 Wn. App. at 534. In this case,to require the 18 19 School District to regrade the entire site when the School District is close to applying for a 20 22 final Certificate of Occupancy would not meet the proportionality test. 23 24 To impose a requirement that the School District regrade the site,the City must 25 26 comply with state limitations on project regulations and exactions found under the 27 28 Washington State Constitution. See Isla Verde Intl Holdings, 146 Wn.2d at 759(mitigation 29 30 for all land use regulatory exactions must be reasonably necessary as a direct result of the 31 32 proposed development);HEAL, 96 Wn. App. at 534 (rough proportionality requirements 33 34 limit local governments to imposing mitigation measures that are roughly proportionate to 35 36 the impact they are trying to mitigate). The City has failed to so comply. As described 37 38 above in Sections V.B.1 and V.B.2,the City's Decision completely fails to identify the 39 40 adverse impacts that would require the School District to regrade the site. The School 41 42 grading review. No significant adverse environmental effects were identified in the SEPA review, 43 and the 2018 Washington State Building Code does not identify visual changes as an adverse impact 44 to adjacent properties. Yet,the City denied the School District's modification application on the 45 basis that it would create a new visual impact,and in doing so exceeded its authority. This is not the 46 standard under SEPA,nor the 2018 Washington State Building Code. See RCW 43.21C.060; 47 Sections J108.3 and J109.4 of the 2018 Washington Building Code. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DOC. Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF INDEX 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3099 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 12 # Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 140 1 District should not be asked to regrade the site to an elevation that is 1 to 3 feet less in 2 certain places to address speculative concerns from neighboring property owners over 3 4 aesthetic and visual quality issues. Such a requirement is not proportionate to the alleged 5 6 impact created by the increased elevation. As demonstrated in the record,the School 7 9 District has addressed the neighbors' concerns by agreeing to install opaque fencing along 10 the south and eastern edges of the playfields to mitigate any aesthetic and visual quality 11 12 issues. Decision at 6. The City lacks authority to require the School District to regrade the 13 14 15 site. 16 VI. CONCLUSION 17 18 The City's denial of the grading modification is based on errors of law and fact. The 19 20 Hearing Examiner should reverse the City's Decision and approve the as-built site 21 22 elevations for Apple Valley Elementary School. 23 24 DocuSlpned by: 25 26 DATED: Jul Y 14,2021 Eitdoit, �I�"��"r�U^ '""I 27 5611_3+2A8PaPe4E.4 28 Kristine R. Wilson,WSBA No. 33152 29 Julie A. Wilson-McNerney, WSBA No. 46585 30 Perkins Coie LLP 31 1201 Third Avenue 32 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 33 Phone: 206.359.8000 34 Fax: 206.359.9000 35 JWilsonMcNerney@perkinscoie.com 36 37 Attorneys for Appellants West Valley School 38 District No. 208 39 40 41 I RECEIVED 42 43 JUL 1 4 2021 44 45 CITY OF YAKIMA 46 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND C. Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF INDEX 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 13 # 1r) .` Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 141 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 4 5 the date indicated below, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing 6 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 8 9 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL to be served on the following persons via the methods 10 11 indicated below: 12 13 City of Yakima 0 Via U.S. Mail, 1st class,postage prepaid 14 Community Development Department ❑x Via Legal Messenger 15 129 N. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor 0 Via Facsimile 16 Yakima, WA 98901 0 Via Overnight Mail 17 ❑ Via email 18 19 20 21 DATED this 14th day of July, 2021 at Seattle, Washington. 22 (-?r 23 4 I( 24 L'1/fr 25 Cheryl Robert on, Legal Practice 26 Assistant 27 28 RECEIVED 29 30 31 c 'JUL 1 4 2021 32 33 CITY OF YAKIMA 34 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 35 36 37 38 39 40 ' 41 42 43 44 DOC. 45 INDEX 47 47 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 14 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153072733.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 142 1 THE HONORABLE GARY CUILLIER 2 3 4 RECEIVED 5 JUL 14 2021 8 9 CITY OF YAKIMA 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11 12 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA 13 14 In the matter of the Appeals of: 15 MOD#021-21 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO. 208, a political subdivision of the DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH 18 State of Washington, IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM OF 19 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 20 Appellant, SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF 21 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL 22 v. 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA, a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 31 32 33 I, Dr. Peter Finch, declare and state as follows: 34 35 1. I am over the age of eighteen years, make this declaration on personal 36 37 knowledge of the facts stated herein, and am competent to testify. 38 39 2. I am currently the Acting Superintendent of Schools for the West Valley 40 41 School District. I have served as an Assistant Superintendent at the West Valley School 42 43 District since 2001. 44 DOC 45 INDEX 46 > D-1 47 �J DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH ISO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO NOTICE OF Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL— 1 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153055652.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 RECEIVED 143 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 3. In February 2019,voters in the School District's boundaries approved a$59 2 3 million bond to replace Apple Valley and Summitview Elementary Schools to provide more 4 5 capacity to reduce overcrowding. 6 7 4. On April 7, 2020, the City approved Building Permit B200126 and the 8 9 associated plan set, which included an overall grading plan for the entire site. 10 11 5. In May 2021, the School District submitted a Modification Application to the 12 13 City to add a 5-foot walking path around the perimeter of the playfields, to change the 14 15 backstop and goal locations, to reduce the amount of asphalt in the playground, to approve 16 17 the as-built increased site elevations, and to install site-screening in certain locations. 18 19 6. The City would not deem the School District's modification application 20 21 complete until the School District held a public meeting to obtain public comment on June 22 23 14, 2021. 24 25 7. At the public meeting, neighbors expressed concerns about the height of the 26 27 southern playfield and concerns that people using the playfields would be able to see in their 28 29 backyards. 30 31 8. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Notification of 32 33 Hearing Examiner's Decision in File Nos. CL3#010-19, VAR#004-19, ADJ#027-19, and 34 35 CAO#027-19, with attachments, dated March 2, 2020. 36 37 9. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Mitigated 38 39 Determination of Non-Significance, File No. SEPA#035-19, dated December 10, 2019. 40 41 10. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Application, 42 43 Environmental Review, and Public Hearing in File Nos. CL3#010-19, VAR#004-19, 44 45 ADJ#027-19, and CAO#027-19, dated December 30, 2019. 46 DOC. 47 INDEX DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH ISO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES ISO NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—2 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153055652.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 144 11. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Overall Grading Plan 2 3 approved by the City of Yakima in 2020. 4 5 12. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the As-Built Grading Plan 6 7 submitted to the City of Yakima with MOD#021-21. 8 9 10 11 I declare that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and 12 13 subject to the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. 14 RECEIVED 15 16 JUL 1 4. 2021 17 Dated this 14th day of July, 2021, at Yakima, Washington. 18 CITY OF YAKIMA 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 21 22 23 4 24 : 25 26 27 Dr. Peter Finch,Acting Superintendent 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 DOC. 45 INDEX 46 47 # DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH ISO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP AUTHORITIES ISO NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—3 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153055652 1 Fax: 206.359.9000 145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 4 5 the date indicated below, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing 6 7 DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH to be served on the following persons via the 8 9 I methods indicated below: to t l City of Yakima ❑ Via U.S. Mail, 1st class, postage prepaid 12 Community Development Department 1 Via Legal Messenger 13 129 N. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor 0 Via Facsimile 14 Yakima, WA 98901 0 Via Overnight Mail 15 ❑ Via email 16 17 18 19 DATED this 14th day of July, 2021 at Seattle Washington. 20 21 22cyLe„,,,e 23 Cheryl Ro rtson, Legal Practice 24 Assistant 25 26 RECEIVED 27 28 29 n "JUL 1 4 2021 30 31 CITY OF YAKIMA 32 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 DOC. 4546 INDEX 47 # 9-1 DECLARATION OF DR. PETER FINCH ISO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Perkins Coie LLP I AUTHORITIES ISO NOTICE OF 1201 Third Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—4 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153055652 1 Fax: 206.359.9000 146 RECEIVED ',JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT A DOC. INDEX 17-- 1 Arai 11111101. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN`t' }»"■ ■``1..11t Joan renport, AICP, Director 147 cITY o•'1� Planning Division P a n n n g Joseph Calhoun,Manager 129 North Second Street, 21'd Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning(Oyakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa,gov/services/planning NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION DATE: March 2, 2020 TO: Applicant, Adjoining Property Owners & Parties of Record SUBJECT: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Decision FILE#(S): CL3#010-19, VAR#004-19, ADJ#027-19, CAO#027-19& SEPA4038-19 APPLICANT: West Valley School District PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N 881h Ave On February 28, 2020, the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his decision on CL3#010-19, VAR#004-19, ADJ#027-19 & CAO#027-19, a proposal to construct a new 60,000 sq ft elementary school building in the R-1 zoning district with 147 parking spaces and other associated site amenities and improvements. This request includes a variance to exceed the building height limitation of 35 ft in this zoning district to allow a height of 44 ft, a critical areas review due to the site being in a wellhead protection area, and an administrative adjustment for the following: request to waive the sitescrcening requirement that would impose a 6-ft view- obscuring fence, installation of a digital sign and wall signs which are.not otherwise allowed in residential zoning districts, and adjust the maximum height of 10 ft for signs set back more than 15 ft from the right-of-way to allow a height of 11 ft 6 inches, The application was reviewed at an open record public hearing held on February 13, 2020. Enclosed is a copy of the I tearing Examiner's Decision, Any part of the Hearing Examiner's decision may be appealed to the Yakima City Council. Appeals shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the date of mailing of this notice and shall be in writing on forms provided by the Planning Division. The appeal fee of$340 must accompany the appeal application. For further information or assistance, you may contact Associate Planner Eric Crowell at (509) 576-6736 or email to: cric.crowellr iivakimawa.bov, RECEIVED AL 1 4 2021 r CITY OF YAKIMA Eric Crowell COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Associate Planner Date of Mailing: March 2,2020 Enclosures: Hearing Examiner's Decision DO . VVOW.p INDEX cad # �7'� ._.. 1111. 2015 199,1 148 RECEIVED City of Yakima, Washington FEBS 2020 Hearing Examiner's Decision 0$TY OF YAKIMK PLANNING DIV, February 28, 2020 in the Matter of an Application for ) A Class (3) School Use, a Variance, ) Administrative Adjustments and ) CL(3)#010-19 Critical Areas Review Submitted by: VAR#004-19 ) ADJ#027-19 West Valley School District ) SEPA#038-19 ) CAO#027-19 To Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary ) RECEIVED School, Associated Parking Lots and ) Other improvements in the R-1 Zone ) 'JUL 1 4 2021 To be Located at 7 North 88th Avenue ) CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Introduction. The introductory findings relative to the public hearing process for this application may be summarized as follows: (1) The open record public hearing for this application was held on February 13, 2020. (2) The thorough staff report presented by Associate Planner Eric Crowell recommended approval of this application subject to conditions. (3) Testimony in favor of the application which described reasons for the requested Variance and Administrative Adjustments was presented by the applicant's representative for this application, Matt Whitish of Design West Architects. He described details of the application which will result in substantial improvements to West Valley School District 1 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School To be Located at 7 North 88`1'Avenue CL(3016-19;VARtf004-19;ADJN027-19; DOp SEPAM038-19;and CA00027-19 INDEX 149 various aspects of the current elementary school facility and which have been designed to promote compatibility with surrounding land uses. (4) One written public comment was submitted. No other testimony was presented for or against the application at the public hearing. (5) This decision has been issued within ten business days of the open record public hearing. B. Summary of Decision. The Hearing Examiner approves this application for the reasons and subject to the conditions set forth in Eric Crowell's staff report. C. Basis for Decision. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site with no one else present on February 10, 2020; his consideration of the staff report, exhibits, testimony and other evidence that was presented at an open record public hearing on February 13, 2020; and his review of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (Plan 2040) and the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC); the Hearing Examiner makes the following: RECEIVED FINDINGS 'JUL 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Property Owner. The property owner is the West Valley School District, 8902 Zier Road, Yakima, Washington 98908. 11. Apt>«licant. The applicant is West Valley School District c/o Angela Von Essen, 8902 Zier Road, Yakima, Washington 98908. RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2020 West Valley School District 2 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School CITY OF YAKIMA To be Located at 7 North 88'h Avenue PLANNING DIV, CL(3)11010-19;VARH004.19;ADJ#027-19; SEPA11038-19;and CAO11021-19 DOC INDEX RECEIVEt1oo JUL 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELQrMENT III. Location. The location of Apple Valley Elementary School is 7 North 88 Avenue, Yakima, Washington. The Assessor's tax parcel numbers for the site are 1 8 1 3 1 9-42006, 42020 and 42021. IV. Application. The main aspects of the application are summarized as follows: (1) The West Valley School District proposes a complete replacement of the Apple Valley Elementary School building with new parking lots on the existing site located on the east side of North 88th Avenue at 7 North 88th Avenue. The new elementary school would be financed by a bond issue that was voted on and approved by the community. (2) The applications for a Type (3) Review, a height Variance, Administrative Adjustments and Environmental Review were received on October 23, 2019. The application for Critical Areas Review was received on December 18, 2019. The applications were deemed complete for processing on December 20, 2019. The applications are being processed under the provisions of YMC Chapter 15.15 (Type (3) Review), Chapter 15.21 (Variances), Chapter 15.10 (Administrative Adjustment of Standards), Chapter 6.88 (Environmental Review) and Chapter 15.27 (Critical Areas). Pursuant to YMC Chapter 1,43, the Hearing Examiner has the authority to make a decision on matters prescribed by YMC Title 15. (3) This site previously underwent a separate Environmental Review for the demolition of the existing school (SEPA#035-19), which was approved for a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on December 10, 2019, and was not appealed. The existing school building has been demolished as of the date of the public hearing. (4) The testimony at the hearing indicated that the proposed new building would be approximately 60,500 square feet in size with approximately 150 parking spaces. A Variance has been requested to allow a small portion of the building to be 44 feet high in order to allow at least 80 rooftop HVAC units to be maintained by use of a stairwell and an elevator and in order to also allow parapets to be used to help conceal that rooftop equipment from view on a roof that would otherwise comply with the 35-foot height limitation in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. RECEIVED West Valley School District 3 (FEB 2 8 20?0 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School To be Located at 7 North 88'1'Avenue CITY Of YAKIMA 0.(3)#OI0-19;VA1t#004-19;ADA/027-19: PLANNING DIV. SGPA0038-19;and CAO#027.19 DOC. INDEX # RECEI D JUL 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (5) An Administrative Adjustment has been requested to allow a digital sign for the school that would be located in the .R-1 zoning district more than fifteen feet from the public right-of-way to exceed the maximum height of ten feet by one foot, six inches and to allow wall signage on the building to identify the school and the location of the gymnasium and library. (6) An Administrative Adjustment has also been requested to allow the existing fencing to remain in place to avoid having to remove the existing fencing of adjacent residential uses and to avoid losing visibility of school property provided by existing chainlink fencing that would be lost by installation of new six-foot-high view-obscuring fencing. V. Notices. Notices of the February 13, 2020, open record public hearing were provided in the following manners: Posting of a land use action sign on the property: October 11, 2019 Mailing of hearing notice to owners within 300 feet: December 30, 2019 Publishing of hearing notice in the Yakima I lerald-Republic: December 30, 2019 VI. Environmental Review. The main aspects of the environmental review process for this application may be summarized as follows: (1) This project was reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act because it involves the construction of more than 12,000 square feet of building area and more than 40 paved parking spaces and as such exceeds the City's flexible threshold for SEPA established in Chapter 6,88 of the Yakima Municipal Code. Notice of SEPA review was mailed on December 30, 2019, and no public comments were received within the comment period ending on January 21, 2020. (2) A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City of Yakima SEPA Responsible Official on January 22, 2020. This determination was based on SEPA guidelines. No appeals of the DNS were filed during the appeal period that ended on February 5, 2020. RECEIVED West Valley School District 4 FIB 2 8 2020 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School CITY Of YAKIMA To be Located at 7 North 8811'Avenue PLANNING DIV. CL(3)#1010-19;VAR#004-19;ADJ##1127-19: SEPAa038-19;and CAO#0Z7-19 DOC. INDEX # b- RECEIVED 152 JUL ! 42021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VII. Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. This proposal was exempt from Concurrency Analysis because it does not access or have direct frontage upon the City arterial street system. However, the applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis for the new school which indicated that under both existing and future conditions the four observed intersections all currently operate at LOS C or better and will operate at LOS D or better in the future with or without the construction of the new school. VIII. Zoning and Land Uses. The zoning of the subject 10.37-acre site is Single- Family Residential (R-1) and its former and proposed land use is as an elementary school facility with associated parking areas and playground areas. Surrounding properties are all within the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and have the following current land uses: Location Land Uses North Vacant lot South Detached Single-Family Dwellings East Detached Single-Family Dwellings West Common Wall Attached Single-Family Dwellings, Detached Single-Family Dwellings and Two-Family Dwellings IX. Class (3) Review Criteria. The Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions are required to set forth specific reasons and ordinance provisions demonstrating that his decision satisfies the following requirements set forth in Subsections 15.04.020(C) and 15.15.040(E) of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC): RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2020 West Valley School District 5 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School CITY OF YAKIMA To be Located at 7 North 8Eld' Avenue PLANNING DIV. CL(3)11010-19;VA10004-19;ADJ#027-19: SEPA#03849;and CAO#021-19 DOC. INDEX • RECEIVED 153 JUL . 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (1) Compliance and Compatibility with Policies and Development Criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 designates the subject property as being suitable for Low Density Residential development. The following Goal and Policy apply to this proposal: (a) Goal 2.3: Preserve and enhance the quality, character, and function of Yakima's residential neighborhoods. (b) Policy 2.3.6: Allow some compatible nonresidential uses in residential zones, such as appropriately scaled schools, churches, parks, and other public/com- munity facilities, home occupations, day care centers, and other uses that provide places for people to gather. Maintain standards in the zoning code for locating and designing these uses in a manner that respects the character and scale or the neighborhood. The applicant's Type (3) Review narrative indicates that the new elementary school facilities would replace an elementary school building with a new elementary school building that would be nearly twice the size of the former one. The building would be located on property away from existing residences so as to respect the character and scale of the neighborhood. It would have separate bus loading and student drop-off parking areas and lanes which would improve traffic circulation in and out of the site. That feature would minimize vehicles parking or waiting in line on nearby streets so as to enhance the quality, character and function of the neighborhood and so as to be in compliance and compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan 2040. (2) Compliance and Compatibility with the Intent and Character of the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The proposed new Apple Valley Elementary School facility would be compliant and compatible with the intent and character of the R-1 zoning district set forth in YMC §15.03.020(B) to accommodate West Valley School District 6 RECEl"VEr Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB2 f} ZU2U To be Located at 7 North 88'h Avenue CL(30010-19;VAR#004-19;ADJ#027-19: SEPA#038-19;and CAO#027-19 DOC. CITY OF YAKItyt,l PLANNING DIV INDEX RECEIVED154 JUL 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT public uses which arc compatible with the district and serve the residents of the district. The new facility would be more compatible with the district, due to its design, than the facility that it would replace and would continue to serve the residents of the district. The proposed replacement elementary school facility would also be compliant and compatible with the intent of the R-1 zoning district set forth in YMC Table 4-1 in YMC Chapter 15.04 which lists Elementary, Middle and High Schools as Class (3) uses in the R-1 zoning district so long as the proposed facility satisfies the criteria for approval of a Class (3) use and for approval of the requested height Variance, the requested Administrative Adjustments and the requested Critical Areas Review. (3) Compliance with the Provisions and Standards Established in the Zoning Ordinance. Applicable zoning ordinance provisions and development standards established in the zoning ordinance include the following: (a) Parking Spaces: YMC Table 6-1 in YMC §15.06.040 requires elementary schools to provide three parking spaces for each classroom (here 81 parking spaces), or one parking space for every three seats (54-inch bench-type seating) in the assembly area (here 75 parking spaces), whichever is greater. Here approximately 150 parking spaces arc proposed which is considerably more than the required number of parking spaces. (b) Landscapinv. of' Parking Lots: YMC §15.06.090(A) requires parking lots with five or more spaces to have landscaping which totals 10% of the total parking area. This landscaping area may be included to satisfy the lot coverage requirements of YMC Table 5-1. YMC §15.06.090(C) also requires that one tree from an approved list be planted for every 15 single-row parking stalls or every 30 double-row parking stalls within a parking lot, (c) Lighting of Parking Lots: YMC §15.06.100 requires that lighting shall be provided to illuminate any off-street parking or loading space used at night. When lighting is provided, YMC §15.06.100 requires that the lighting be directed to reflect away from adjacent and abutting properties. Parking lots West Valley School District 7 RECEIVED Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School To be Located at 7 North 88"' Avenue FEB 2 8 2020 C1.(3)010-19;VAR11004-19; ADJ#027-19: SCPA00038-19;and CA0027-19 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. RECEIVED 155 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT adjacent to residential districts or uses must he designed with down-shielding and luminaries that create no lighting pollution upon adjacent properties. A photo- metric lighting plan is required for any parking lot located adjacent to or abutting residential properties. (d) Lot Coverage: YMC Table 5-1 in YMC Chapter 15.05 allows 60% lot coverage in the R-1 zoning district. Following final build out of the new school with associated parking lots and other improvements, the total impervious surface of the subject property will be approximately 49%. (e) Setbacks: YMC Table 5-1 in YMC Chapter 15.05 requires a front building setback of at least 45 feet from the centerline of rights-of-way and at least 20 feet from the property line; a rear building setback of at least 15 feet from the property line; and side building setbacks of at least 5 feet from the property lines. Since the footprint of the previous school was on a single parcel, the new school will have to be able to fit within Assessor's parcel number 181319-42020 or a Short Plat Exemption will be required in order to modify the lot lines. (f) Sitescreening: YMC Table 7-1 in YMC §15.07.050 requires site- screening Standard C along the north, south and east property lines and site- screening Standard A (or a higher standard) along the west property lint. YMC §15.07.040(A) states that sitescreening Standard C is a six-foot-high view- obscuring fence made of wood, masonry block or slatted chainlink and that sitescreening Standard A is a ten-foot-wide landscaped planting strip with trees at twenty-foot to thirty-foot centers, shrubs and groundcover. YMC §1,5.07.060 states that sitescreening Standard A shall apply wherever sitescreening is required under YMC Table 7-1 and the adjoining land use is separated from the proposed use or development by a collector or local access street. The applicant has requested an Administrative Adjustment of this standard to allow the existing combination of sitescreening standards to remain in place to avoid the need to replace existing fencing of neighboring residences and to preserve the visibility of areas of the school site that is currently provided by the existing chainlink fencing. The written comment from two neighbors also favored this adjustment. (g) Public facilities: City of Yakima sewer and water are available. The property is accessed by North 88th Avenue which is a Local Access street. YMC §15.05.020(J) requires new sidewalk along the frontage of a site where, as here, a West Valley School District 8 RECEIVED Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB 2 8 202Il To be Located at 7 North 88'1'Avenue CL(3)#010-I9;VARtl004-19:ADJ4027-19: CITY OF YAKit SEPAN038.19;and CAO027-19 DO C, PLANNING DIV INDEX RE(NWED jU� 2021 coMMur i�-�o���co MENT sidewalk exists within 200 feet of the development on the same side of the street. Curb, gutter and sidewalk must be installed along the North 881h Avenue frontage of the site as a part of the construction of the new school facility. Public facilities improved in accordance with the conditions required by this decision will be adequate to serve the new school facility. (4) Compliance with Additional Development Standards Established in the Zoning Ordinance and in other Applicable Regulations. Additional development standards established in the zoning ordinance and in other applicable regulations cited in comments of City departments at a Development Services Team meeting held on November 5, 2019, and in written comments from public agencies with an interest in the proposed development include the following: (a) Code Administration: Section 507 and Appendix B of the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC) provide that additional fire hydrant(s) may be required depending on the size and Type of Construction of the proposed building(s) and availability and fire flow of existing public fire hydrants. The final site plan will need to reflect the location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants, if any. A State licensed architect is required to be in responsible charge for the design of buildings over 4,000 square feet, and shall be responsible for all submittals related to the project. These findings are not intended to be an exhaustive review of this proposal. (b) Engineering: This project will require an ENG permit and a Street Break permit for all work within the right of way. (c) Surface Water: Surface water comments are as follows: (i) As this project involves clearing or grading one acre or more, a Large Project Stormwater Permit shall be required from the applicant which requires drainage plan(s) and calculations; a stormwater main- tenance agreement and plan; proof that the maintenance agreement was recorded in the Yakima County Auditor's Office; a Construction Storm- water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or Erosivity Waiver which shall be reviewed and approved by the Surface Water Engineer prior to any RECEIVED West Valley School District 9 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB 2 8 2O2U To be Located at 7 North 88" Avenue C1.(3)I1010-19;VAR#004-19; ADJ#927-19; CITY OF YAKIMA $:PA#038-19;and CAOM027-19 DOC. PLANNING DIV. INDEX 1 RECEIVE!? JUL57 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT grading or construction; in lieu of turning in a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, the applicant can satisfy this requirement by obtaining a Construction Stormwater General Permit through the Wash- ington State Department of Ecology, in which case a copy of the signed General Permit shall be delivered to the Surface Water Engineer; and a narrative explaining how Core Elements 1-8 are being satisfied. (ii) Grading and/or building permits shall not be issued without the project site first passing an erosion control inspection. (iii) Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/ storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pur- suant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be completed by a licensed Professional Engineer and then be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. (iv) In accordance with the August 2019 edition of the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SMMEW), Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells constructed on or after February 3, 2006 are considered new and must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) 60 days prior to construction. UIC wells that receive polluted runoff shall retain the larger of the 100-year 3-hour and 100-year 24-hour storms and shall be designed for treatment using Table 5.23 of the SMMEW. (d) Wastewater: Sewer connection to be made per YMC and City Sewer standards. (e) Nob Hill Water Association: The developer will need to contact Nob Hill Water Association for a cost estimate for meter upgrades and location. Backflow protection will be required. (I) Washington State Department of Ecology: The Washington State Department of Ecology submitted comments on January 16, 2020, to the effect that if the project anticipates disturbing ground with the potential for stormwater discharge off-site, the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit is recommended. This permit requires that the SEPA checklist fully disclose anticipated activities including building, road construction, and utility place- ments. Obtaining a permit may take 38-60 days. The permit requires that a West Valley School District to RECEIVED Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB8 2020Ta be Located at 7 North 8$�11 Avenue CL(3)1/010-19;VARii004-I9;AIJii027-19: CITY OF YAKIMA and CAOil027,19 DEC. PLANNING DIV. INDEX RECEIVED 158 JUL 1 4 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) shall be prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface water and storm drains by stormwater runoff. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. In the event that an unpermitted Stormwater discharge does occur off site, it is a violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control and is subject to enforcement action. More information on the stormwater program may be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/vet/stormmwater/construction/. Please submit an application or contact Lloyd Stevens, Jr. at the Department of Ecology, 509- 574-3991 with questions about this permit. (g) Washington State Department of Health: The Washington State Department of Health indicated on December 30, 2019, that its comments previously submitted in relation to the demolition of the existing Apple Valley Elementary School are also submitted in response to the NOA/ODNS for the replacement project. While a critical areas permit due to the wellhead protection area is noted in the NOA, the SEPA checklist does not identify the critical area (Question 13.8.g), so just reiterating for the record. The City may also wish to consider supplemental information provided in our December 5 email. The project site is not only within but takes up a large portion of the wellhead protection area (WHPA) associated with a Group A public water system which is also shown as high susceptibility area. The southwest corner of the site is closest to the wellhead. As such, various portions of the site are classified as being in Wellhead Protection Zones 1, 2, and 3 under YMC §15.27.820(A)(1), and the project is subject to review under the CARAs provisions (Part 8) of Chapter 15.27 YMC, but the SEPA checklist does not identify the critical area. (h) Public Comments from Two Neighbors: Neighboring property owners John and Candice Manfredi by letter received on January 23, 2020 expressed support for the applicant's request to leave the existing perimeter fencing in lieu of site-obscuring fencing; support for the applicant's requested sign adjustments to allow postings of interest to the neighborhood; and support for the applicant's requested height adjustment to accommodate the pleasing architectural appear- ance of the building. The letter requested that stormwater drainage facilities be designed and located far enough north of the south property line to prevent water from seeping onto adjacent residential ground surfaces or crawl spaces; requested RECEIVED West Valley School District 11 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEBZU III To be Located at 7 North Se' Avenue CL(3)#010-19;VAR#004-19;ADJ#027-19: CITY OF Yfil(Itt,r SEPA#038-19;and cAo#027-19 DOG. PLANNING Div INDEX # - ‘?-1 RcIVED 'JUL 1 : 2021 CITY C. COMMA!Ty Lk, that curb, gutter and sidewalks be completed with the school work rather than deferred until later; requested that the District honor a previous July 15, 2019, petition from 60 property owners requesting that a list of names and phone numbers of responsible District and contractor staff be provided or posted who could be contacted 24/7 to report dust problems and/or that the SEPA document require mailing same to surrounding residents. The Planning Division responded to the effect that the applicant will be required to comply with all stormwater regulations required by the City and the Department of Ecology, including a Large Project Stormwater Permit requiring drainage plans and adherence to the August 2019 edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington; that new curb, gutter and sidewalk construction will be required commensurate with the construction of the new school; and that the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency which regulates dust within the City submitted comments relative to the demolition work which are applicable to the construction and which include the requirement for agency approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to the start of any construction work. The City's final SEPA document was issued prior to receipt of this letter and was not appealed by the February 5, 2020, deadline. X. Variance Review Criteria. The applicant is requesting a Variance from the building height standard prescribed by YMC Table 5-1 in YMC Chapter 15.05. The requested Variance is to allow a maximum building height of 44 feet in excess of the 35-foot standard in the R-1 zoning district for about 8% of the roof area in order to conceal at least 80 rooftop HVAC units on the roof and to allow an elevator and internal stairwell. YMC Chapter 15.21 allows the Hearing Examiner to vary the strict appli- cation of zoning ordinance requirements. The six criteria for a Variance set forth in YMC §15.21,030 are all satisfied so as to allow for approval of the requested building height Variance for the following reasons: (1) That granting the variance will be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise RECEIVED West Valley School District 12 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB 2 8 20211 To be Located at 7 North 88`1'Avenue CL(3)11010-19;VAR004-19;ADJ#027-19: CITY OF YAKINrr3 s( PA11038-19;and CAO0027-19 DOC. PLANNING DIV. INDEX RELIVED JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA Ch lacll detrimental to the public welfare. The applicant's narrative establishes thee fact �)iffVELOPMENT this criterion is satisfied because only about 8% of the entire flat (low slope) roof area would be higher than the 35-foot standard in the R-1 zoning district and because the extra height in limited locations would serve the aesthetic purpose of helping to conceal mechanical equipment on the roof from view with parapet walls and also to allow access to the roof for maintenance by means of an internal stairwell and elevator to the roof. This limited deviation from the building height standard for aesthetic purposes would be consistent with the intent of the R-1 zoning district to allow public uses that mitigate potential impacts to adjacent residences. That being the case, the requested height Variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. (2) That granting the variance will not permit the establishment of any use not permitted in a particular zoning district. Granting of this Variance will not permit the establishment of any use not permitted in this zoning district. An elementary school is a Class (3) use in the R-1 zoning district which may be allowed following a public hearing. In addition, the proposed facility would replace an elementary school which has been recently demolished. (3) That unique circumstances exist, There must exist special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the findings, applicable to the land or structures for which the variance is sought. The special circumstances or conditions must be peculiar to such land or structures and not generally applicable to land or structures in the neighborhood. The special circumstances or conditions must also be such that the strict application of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of such land or structure. The site's use as an ele- mentary school is unique among its neighbors because other adjacent properties arc primarily residential which do not require a structure of this height in order to accom- plish its intended use and be aesthetically pleasing. A 44-foot building height for about 8% of the roof area would allow for an internal stairwell and an elevator to maintain rooftop 11VAC units and parapets to conceal them which are reasonable uses of the elementary school building that would not be allowed under a strict application of YMC Title 15. (4) That an unnecessary hardship exists. It is not sufficient proof of hardship to show that lesser cost would result if the variance were granted. Furthermore, the hardship complained of cannot be self-created; nor can it be RECEIVED West Valley School District 13 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School EH 2 8 ZV?li To be Located at 7 North 88'1'Avenue CL(3)#010-19;VAK#004-19;ADJ#027-19: CITY OF YAKIIIM SEPA#038-19;and CAO#027-19 PLANNING Div. DOC. INDEX b`\ __ REC VED JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT established on This basis by one who purchases without knowledge of the restrictions. It must result from the application of this title to the land or structure. It must be suffered directly by the property in question, and evidence of variance granted under similar circumstances shall not be considered. Neither noncon- forming uses nor neighboring lands or structures, nor buildings in other zoning districts, shall be considered as controlling factors for the issuance of a variance. Denial of the requested building height Variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant because there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the inability to access the roof of the building by means of a stairwell and elevator in order to maintain at least 80 rooftop HVAC units would be a necessary hardship. There was no objection by any agency or by any member of the public to the stairwell or elevator that would be used to maintain rooftop 1IVAC units or to the limited use of parapets to help conceal them. Evidence of Variances granted under similar circumstances, evi- dence of nonconforming uses, evidence of neighboring lands or structures and evidence of buildings in other zoning districts will not be the basis for granting the Variance. (5) That granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or structure. The use of rooftop IIVAC units, of an internal stairwell and elevator to maintain them and of parapets to help conceal them from view are reasonable uses of the proposed school building which necessitate the requested height Variance. (6) That the variance as granted by the hearing examiner is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose. All the evidence presented at the hearing was to the effect that rooftop mechanical equipment is necessary for the reasonable use of the proposed elementary school and that a height of 44 feet for approximately 8% of the proposed school roof is the minimum height needed for both an internal stairwell and elevator and parapets to maintain and help conceal the mechanical equipment. The requested Variance would therefore under the undisputed evidence of this matter be the minimum Variance that would accomplish the purpose of the proposed school building. XI. Administrative Sien Adjustment. YMC §15.10.020 provides flexibility by allowing certain development standards in YMC Chapters 15.05 through 15.08 to be administratively adjusted. A particular standard may be reduced or modified so long as the reviewing official determines that the adjustment is consistent with the purpose of RECEIVED West Valley School District 14 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEE 2 8 2020 To be Located at 7 North 88'1' Avenue CL(3)#010-19;VAlt#004-19;AII)J#027-19; CITY OF YAKIMA SEPA#038-19;and CAO#027-19 DCC. PLANNING DIV 1ND .X RECEIVED 162 JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT the zoning ordinance, is consistent with the intent and purpose for the standard and will accomplish one or more of five objectives. The five criteria listed in YMC §15.10.020 apply, or do not apply, to the proposal in the following ways: (1) Allow buildings to be sited in a manner that maximizes solar access: This criterion does not apply since it is not the purpose of the proposed digital sign and wail signage to maximize solar access to the sign or to any other building, (2) Allow zero lot line or common wall construction in conformance with the provisions of this title: This criterion does not apply since no zero lot line construction is proposed. (3) Coordinate development with adjacent land uses and physical features: YMC §15.08.135(C) does not allow digital signs within the R-1 zoning district unless a location Administrative Adjustment is allowed pursuant to YMC §15.08.170(B) and (C). YMC Table 8-3 relative to Sign Height and Setbacks for freestanding signs allows a maximum sign height of 5 feet where the setback from a right-of-way is 15 feet or less and 10 feet where the setback is more than 15 feet from a right-of-way. Here the proposed digital sign would be located in an R-1 zoning district and would be 11 feet 6 inches high in a location that would be more than 15 feet from a public right-of-way. The sign would have 14 square feet of digital electronic message center (EMC) area subject to the EMC requirements set forth in YMC §15.08,135 with an internally illuminated area above that, which size would comply with the sign size limitations of YMC §15.08.135(A) and YMC Table 8-2. Despite the proposed digital sign location and height deviations from prescribed sign standards and the proposed wall signage to identify the school and the location of the gymnasium and library, the signage would coordinate the principal elementary school use of the parcel with adjacent land uses by helping inform the public about school-related events and activities, as well as by helping the public be aware of the location of the gymnasium and library which are available for after-hours use by the public. The slightly greater height of the sign would allow the bottom of the sign to be 8 feet above ground level so as to be visible from the street without obstructions and so as to allow people to walk under it. (4) Permit flexibility of design and placement of structures and other site improvements: The proposed digital sign would permit flexibility in the design and type of the signage by more effectively advising parents, students, relatives, friends and other motorists of programs, activities and events at the elementary school. The RECEIVED West Valley School District 15 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB To be Located at 7 North 881h Avenue 2a20 CL(3)MO10-19;VARMU04-19;ADJ#027-19: VA Y OF YAKIMA SEPAa0J8-19;and CA011027-19 DOC. PLANNING DIV. INDEX RC VD 163 JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT proposed digital signagc location within an R-1 zoning district at a height of slightly more than 10 feet and the proposed wall signage would also be consistent with other existing and permitted signage on other elementary school grounds within the City, the most recent such approvals being for Garfield Elementary School, for Nob Hill Elementary School and for Summitview Elementary School. (5) Allow development consistent with a specific sub-area plan: This criterion does not apply since no sub-area plans exist to address this area. The requested location and height of signage would be consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to allow compatible nonresidential public uses in the R-1 zoning district; would be consistent with the objectives of the sign location and height standards to require uses in the R-1 zoning district to be compatible with residential uses and to be limited in scale to their principal uses; and would accomplish two of the five objectives for Administrative Adjustments even though only one of those live objectives must be served in order to approve the requested Administrative Adjustments for the proposed digital and wall signage. XII. Administrative Sitescreenina Adjustment. As indicated in the previous section, YMC §15.10.020 provides flexibility by allowing certain development standards in YMC Chapters 15.05 through 15.08 to be administratively adjusted. A particular standard may be reduced or modified so long as the reviewing official determines that the adjustment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance, is consistent with the intent and purpose for the standard and will accomplish one or more of five objectives. The five criteria listed in YMC §15.10.020 apply, or do not apply, to the proposal in the following ways: (1) Allow buildings to be sited in a manner that maximizes solar access: This criterion does not apply since it is not the purpose of the proposed sitescreening RECEIVED West Valley School District 16 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School is� 2 Fl 2020 1'o be Located at 7 North 88 Avenue C143)#010-19;VAR#004.19;ADJ#027-19: DOC. CITY OF YAKIMA SEPA038-19;and CAO#027-19 INDEX DX PLANNING DIU. 164 RECEIVED JUL 14 2021 CITY O adjustment to maximize solar access to any buildings. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (2) Allow zero lot line or common wall construction in conformance with the provisions of this title: This criterion does not apply since no zero lot line construction is proposed. (3) Coordinate development with adjacent land uses and physical features: The applicant's narrative indicates that existing fencing is installed around the entire property at all R-1 properties. The only comments from neighbors favored retention of the existing fencing rather than new site-obscuring fencing. No request to replace existing fencing was submitted in writing or by testimony of adjacent homeowners. The evidence rather indicated that maintaining the existing fencing around the school would best coordinate development of the new school with adjacent land uses because that would maintain fencing already installed around the site which has served the purpose of sitescreening for many years and because that would avoid unnecessarily using funds which could instead be used for other purposes. This is especially the case because the new school building would be located on the property 130.5 feet away from the nearest property line even though the standard side yard building setback in the R-1 zoning district is only 5 feet and because the visibility allowed by existing chainlink fencing would not be allowed by installation of a new six-foot-high view-obscuring fence which is opposed by the only commenting neighbors. (4) Permit flexibility of design and placement of structures and other site improvements: Allowing the existing fencing would permit flexibility of' design and placement of structures and other site improvements where requiring new fencing would be opposed by the only commenting neighbors and would not allow them to have a view across the school property which they now have and prefer to maintain. (5) Allow development consistent with a specific sub-area plan: This cri- terion does not apply since no sub-area plans exist to address this area. The requested adjustment of sitescreening standards so as to allow the existing fencing around the site to remain in place would be consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to allow compatible nonresidential public uses in the R-1 zoning district; would be consistent with the objectives of sitescreening provisions to protect existing uses from visual and other impacts created by new uses where the only RECEIVE[ West Valley School District 17 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB 2 8 2020 To be Located at 7 North 8811' Avenue CL(30010-19;VAR#004-19;ADJ027-19: CI ry OF Y SEPA# ®OC. AKIi11M 038-19;and CAO#027-19 PLANNING DIV. INDEX RECMED JUL 14 2021 commenting neighbors prefer to have a view across the school property, wG 8111.is a\c��a G u�i 11 replacement use and where the distance to the new school building helps to protect adjacent land uses from visual impacts; and would accomplish two of the five objectives for Administrative Adjustments even though only one of those five objectives must be served in order to approve the requested Administrative Adjustment for the existing fencing to continue to serve as sitescrccning. XIII. Critical Areas Review: Compliance with Critical Areas Ordinance provisions involve the following considerations and findings: (1) Critical Area Development Authorization Required: Pursuant to YMC §15.27.300(A), no new development, construction or use shall occur within a designated critical area without obtaining a development authorization in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, except for those provided for in YMC §15,27.303. (2) Wellhead Protection Areas: Pursuant to YMC §15.27.810(B), the CARA map includes those wellhead protection areas for which the City of Yakima has maps. Wellhead protection areas are required for all Class A public water systems in the state of Washington. The determination of a wellhead protection area is based upon the time of travel of a water particle from its source to the well. Water purveyors collect site- specific information to determine the susceptibility of the water source to surface sources of contamination. Water sources are ranked by the Washington State Depart- ment of I-lcalth with a high, moderate or low susceptibility to surface contamination. Wellhead protection areas are defined by the boundaries of the 10-year time of groundwater travel, in accordance with WAC 246-290-135. Iior purposes of this chapter, all wellhead protection areas shall be considered highly susceptible. (3) Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Classification: YMC §15.27.820(A)(1), provides that critical aquifer recharge areas are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water. Wellhead protection involves the manage- ment of activities that have a potential to degrade the quality of groundwater produced by a supply well. The City is classified into four wellhead protection zones that are RECEIVED West Valley School District 18 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB 2 8 2020 To be Located at 7 North 88th Avenue CL(3)#(110-19;VAR#004-19;AUJU027-19: DOC. CITY OF YAKIMA SEPAl1038-19;and CA0 O27-19 PLANNING DIV INDEX RECEIVq6 JUL 14 2021 CITY .1 A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to Group A and Group B water source wells within the City limits, and are designated using guidance from the Washington Department of I lealth Wellhead Protection Program pursuant to Chapter 246-290 WAC. (4) Wellhead Protection Zones: Wellhead Protection Zone 1 represents the land area overlying the six-month time-of-travel zone of any Group A water source well and/or land area overlying any Group B wellhead protection area. Wellhead Protection Zone 2 represents the land area that overlies the one-year time-of-travel zone of any Group A water source well, excluding the land area contained within Wellhead Protection Zone 1, Wellhead Protection Zone 3 represents the land area that overlies the five-year and ten-year time-of-travel zones of any Group A water source well, excluding the land area contained within Wellhead Protection Zone l or 2. Wellhead Protection Zone 4 represents all the remaining land area in the City not included in Wellhead Protection Zone 1, 2 or 3. (5) Wellhead Protection Zone Performance Standards: Pursuant to YMC 15.27.820(C)(4): (a) Activities may only be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer and that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer. (b) Any uses or activities which involve storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances shall comply with the standards that apply to the wellhead protection zone in which they are located. Residential uses of hazardous materials or deleterious substances are exempt from certain standards. (c) If a property is located in more than one wellhead protection zone, the Director of Community Development shall determine which standards shall apply based on an assessment evaluation of the risk posed by the facility or activity. The assessment evaluation shall include, but not be limited to: (i) the location, type, and quantity of the hazardous materials or deleterious substances on the property; (ii) the geographic and geologic characteristics of the site; and (iii) the type and location of infiltration on the site. RECEIVED F 2 8 2020 West Valley School District 19 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School CITY OF YAK G lMA I North OhTo be Located at 7 Oh AvenueDOC, CL(3)#010-19;VAR#004.19;ADJ#027-19: INDEX SEPA#038-19;and CAO#027-19 RECEIVED 167 JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (d) Development within Wellhead Protection Zone l or 2, as well as any facility or activity existing as of adoption of this title within which hazardous materials or other deleterious substances are present, shall implement the relevant performance standards as described in YMC §15.27.820(C)(4)(a) - (j). (6) Determination: Consistent with YMC §15.27.031(C)(2), the Administrative Official here reviewed the available information pertaining to this proposal and made a determination that "Critical Areas was present, but there is no impact." (7) Wellhead Protection Zones 1 and 2: Pursuant to YMC §15.27.820(C)(4)(j), all development or redevelopment shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality and quantity, as approved by the Director of Community Develop- ment, such as biofiltration swales and use of oil-water separators, BMPs appropriate to the particular use proposed, clustered development and limited impervious surfaces. (8) Wellhead Protection Zone 3: Pursuant to YMC §15.27.820(C)(5), develop- ment within Wellhead Protection Zone 3 shall implement appropriate BMPs and calmly with the performance standards for vehicle fueling, maintenance and storage areas; loading and unloading areas; well construction and operation; fill materials; cathodic protection wells; and underground hydraulic elevator cylinders in applicable subsections in subsection (C)(4) of this section. (9) Standard Development Permit Required: Per YMC §15.27.309, it has been determined that a Standard Development Permit is required. (10) Criteria Satisfied: This proposal satisfies the following criteria necessary to grant the development authorization that arc prescribed by YMC §15.27.311 entitled "Authorization Decisions—Basis for Action": (a) Impact of the project to critical area features on and abutting property: The impact to critical area features will be minimal as long as the construction of the new school takes into consideration the wellhead protection area that is located on the subject property. (b) Danger to life or property that would likely occur as a result of the project: The school will be located within a wellhead protection area. There are no flood hazard or habitat concerns such as f1oodplains or wetlands. RECEIVED FEB 2 ZU2U West Valley School District 20 CITY OF YAKINMA Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School PLANNING DIV To be Located at 7 North 8$"'Avenue C1.(30010-19;VAR#004-19; ADJ#027.19: DOC. SEPA#038-19;and CAO#027-19 INDEX RECEIVED 168 'JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (c) Compatibility of the project to critical area features: Pursuant to YMC §15.27.820(B), construction of the school is not an activity prohibited from taking place within a wellhead protection area. (d) Conformance with applicable development standards: All applicable standards of YMC Chapter 15.27 will be met. (c) Compliance with flood hazard mitigation requirements of YMC §15.27.400 through §15.27.436: The subject property is not located within a flood hazard area. (f) Adequacy of the information provided by the applicant or available to the division_ The application submitted is adequate for review. XIV. Consistency of the Proposed Use with Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan under the Criteria Required by YMC 416.06.02013. Compliance with YMC §16.06.020B is determined by consideration of the following factors: (1) The types of land uses permitted at the site. The proposed new elementary school facility is a Class (3) use in the R-1 zoning district that is permitted at the site if the applicable criteria for a Class (3) use with a building height Variance, Admin- istrative Adjustments and Critical Areas Review are satisfied, as is the case here. (2) The density of residential development or the level of development such as units per acre or other measures of density. Residential density is not being increased and the proposed new elementary school facility will be consistent with the 60% lot coverage density limitation for the R-1 zoning district. (3) The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities. Infrastructure and public facilities are available and adequate for the proposed elementary school facility, particularly with the conditions required for this proposal. (4) The characteristics of the development relative to applicable develop- ment regulations. Since the criteria are satisfied for a building height Variance, Administrative Sign Adjustments, an Administrative Sitescrcening Adjustment and RECEIVED West Valley School District 21 H l3 2 f MU Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School To be Located at.7 North 88(11 Avenue CITY OF YAKIMA C143)010-19;VARI004-19;ADN1027-19: PLANNING DIV. sEPA*{038-19;and CAO#027-19 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED 169 'JUL 14 2021 CITY OF Y:,•,::MA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Critical Areas Review, the proposed elementary school facility would be consistent with those and other development regulations. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing Findings, the Hearing Examiner reaches the following Conclusions: (1) The Ilcaring Examiner has jurisdiction to approve Class (3) use applications, Variances and Administrative Adjustments under the circumstances prescribed by the zoning ordinance, which circumstances warrant approval of this Class (3) use; approval of the requested Variance to allow a building height of 44 feet rather than 35 feet for approximately 8% of the roof area; approval of the requested Administrative Sign Adjustments to allow a digital sign for the new school in the R-1 zoning district, to allow it to be 11 feet 6 inches high and to allow wall signage on the building for identification; approval of the requested Administrative Sitescreening Adjustment to allow existing fencing to serve as the sitescreening for the new school; and approval of the Critical Areas Determination, all subject to the conditions set forth below. (2) Public notice requirements have been satisfied. (3) SEPA review resulted in the issuance of a Determination of Nonsignificance on January 22, 2020, which became final without any appeals. (4) The proposed new elementary school facility was exempt from Concurrency Analysis since it does not access or have direct frontage upon the City arterial street system, but a Traffic Impact Analysis for the new school was nevertheless conducted which determined that the four observed intersections all currently operate at Level of Service C or better and will in the future all operate at Level of Service D or better with or without the construction of the new school. (5) This proposed new elementary school facility can be adequately conditioned by the conditions set forth below so as to ensure compatibility, compliance and consistency with the objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan and with the West Valley School District 22 RECEIVED Rebuild Apple Valley lsletnentary School To be Located at 7 North 88"'Avenue FEB 2 8 202Q CL(3)M010-19;VARlf004-19;ADJNO27-19: OFY�1KlIV1A SEPAN038-19;and CAON027-19 DOC . CITY INDEX PLANNING DIV. RECEIVED JUL 104 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT intent, the character, the provisions and the development standards of the zoning district and of the zoning ordinance, including the Variance, Administrative Adjustment and Critical Areas provisions thereof (6) As conditioned, this proposal satisfies all of the criteria for approval of a Class (3) use, for approval of a building height Variance, for approval of Administrative Sign Adjustments, for approval of an Administrative Sitescreening Adjustment and for a finding of compliance with Critical Areas regulations. (7) Pursuant to YMC §15.15.060, no use requiring review by the Hearing Examiner shall be entitled to a development permit until and unless the Hearing Examiner approves a final site plan and issues a zoning decision. The zoning decision is not a building or development permit, and does not by itself authorize the construction or occupancy of any use or structure. (8) The Hearing Examiner's decision is valid for one year from the date the decision is mailed, and the zoning decision for which the appeal period lapses without an appeal shall automatically expire and terminate one year from the date of mailing this decision pursuant to the situations described in YMC §15.12.060(A). (9) This decision may be appealed to the Yakima City Council within the time and in the manner required by applicable City ordinance provisions. DECISION The proposed Class (3) use consisting of the replacement of Apple Valley Elementary School and associated parking lots and other improvements; the requested building height Variance to allow the new building to be 44 feet in height at approximately 8% of the roof area; the requested Administrative Sign Adjustments to allow a digital sign in the R-1 zoning district, to allow it to be approximately 11 feet 6 inches high and to allow wall signage identifying the school and the location of the RECEIVED West Valley School District 23 FEB e 8 2020 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School To be Located at 7 North 88'1'Avenue crrY OF YAKIMA CL(3)0010-19;VAlV OO4-19;ADM/027-19: DOC. PLANNING DIV, SEPA4038-19;and CA0a027-19 INDEX RECEIVEigi 'JUL 14 2021 CITY OF Y\KIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT gymnasium and library; the requested Administrative Sitescreening Adjustment to allow the existing fencing around the school site to serve as the sitescreening; and the requested determination of compliance with Critical Areas regulations, which requests are all described in the applications designated CL(3)#010-19, VAR#004-19, ADT#027- 19, SEPA#038-19 and CAO#027-19, are APPROVED subject to the following conditions: (1) Additional fire hydrant(s) may be required, depending on the size and type of construction of the proposed building(s), and availability and fire flow of existing public fire hydrants; (2) A State licensed architect is required to be in responsible charge for the design of buildings over 4,000 square feet, and shall be responsible for all submittals related to the project; (3) Stormwater shall be retained on-site and any applicable permits shall be obtained; (4) Any applicable permits from the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency shall be obtained; (5) New curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed along the North 88`I' Ave- nue frontage of the site; (6) Development plans shall be consistent with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Wellhead Protection Zone; (7) One tree for every 15 single-row parking stalls or every 30 double-row parking stalls shall be planted within the parking lot; (8) Lighting shall be installed for the parking lot if it will be used at night; (9) A photometric lighting plan shall be submitted; (10) A Short Nat Exemption shall be submitted to adjust or merge lot lines if RECEIVED West Valley School District 24 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School FEB 202G To be Located at 7 North 88 Avenue CL(3)H010-19;VAR#004-1.9;ADJ O27-19: DOCK CITY OF YAKlMA SEPAN038-19;and CAON027-19. INDEX PLANNING DIV. JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT any part of the new school crosses Assessor's parcel number 1 8 1 3 1 9-42020 or fails to comply with building setback requirements on that parcel; (11) A revised site plan shall display the following: (a) The location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants, if any; (b) One tree for every 15 single-row parking stalls or every 30 double- row parking stalls within the parking lot; and (c) All parcel numbers and their respective boundary lines on the subject parcel. (12) Compliance with all other applicable City, State and Federal regulations is required except as varied or adjusted by this decision. DATED this 28th day of February, 2020. Gary M. hillier, Hearing Examiner RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2020 West Valley School District 25 Rebuild Apple Valley Elementary School CITY OF YAKIMA To be Located at 7 North 88`1'Avenue PLANNING OIV. CL(3)010-19;VAR/M(14-19;ADJ#027.19: DOC. SEPA�l038-19;21nd CA[}1i427-19 INDEX 173 RECEIVED 'JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT B OOC. INDEX RECEIVED �,�, „� Ulf .RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVIL PMEN1' 174 #,11 ��lt Joan Davenport, AICP, Director JUL 1 4 2021 [.�l 'IMA Planning Division CITY Li, ,,;I(IMA a Joseph Calhoun, Manager COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 129 North Second Street,2id Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON December 10, 2019 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of Apple Valley Elementary School, including three buildings totaling approximately 31,670 gross square feet of building space and the existing parking area comprised of 54 parking stalls. Existing play areas and play structures are also proposed to be removed during demolition of this site which is located in the R-1 zoning district Future development of the new school is not connected to this demolition project and would be the subject of a separate permit process and associated SEPA Checklist, LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. PARCEL NUMBER: 181319-42006, -42020, & -42021 PROPONENT: West Valley School District clo Ahgela Von Essen PROPERTY OWNER: West Valley School District LEAD AGENCY: City of Yakima FILE NUMBER: SEPA#035-19 DETERMINATION: The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES: This Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is hereby conditioned upon the following mitigated measures, as authorized under WAC 197-11-660 and Yakima Municipal Code YMC § 6.88.160, and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which contains goals, policies, and regulations which provide substantive authority to require mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). I. FINDINGS A. Project History 1. A Pre-Application Meeting was held with the applicant and the Development Services Team (DST) on August 13, 2019. 2. On October 9, 2019, West Valley School District submitted an Environmental Review (SEPA#035-19) requesting approval for the demolition of Apple Valley Elementary School and its associated parking at 7 N. 88th Ave. in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. 3. Review of the demolition of the existing school and the proposed construction of a Yakima MI °OAP 1I I I J., INDEX au1s 1994 RECEIVED 175 JUL 14 2021 new school were divided into two processes by request of the applicant, CITY OF YAKIMA B. Development Services Team (DST) Comments COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. On November 20, 2019, the Washington State Department of Ecology provided written comments which stated: a. Hazardous Waste & Toxic Reduction The Environmental Checklist indicates lead-containing materials are present. If the structure or its lead-bearing components designate as dangerous waste under Chapter 173-303 Washington Administrative Code, all related debris must be managed appropriately and cannot be disposed of as municipal trash, Additional information on lead in dangerous waste is available on the Department of Ecology website: http://www.ecy.wa.govlprogramslhwtrldangermat/lead,html. Mercury-containing fluorescent lamps that designate as dangerous waste may be managed as dangerous waste or universal waste under Washington Administrative Code 173-303-573. For more information, refer to Ecology's publication Universal Waste Rule for Lamps: https.//fortress wa.gov/ecy/publications/summmypages/98407c.html. The "Mercury-Containing Lights - Proper Disposal"law, Chapter 70.275 RCW, requires that all persons, residents, government, commercial, industrial, and retail facilities and office buildings must recycle their end-of-life mercury. containing lights. This includes mercury-containing lamps that do not designate as dangerous waste, often called "green tip" lights. Although green tip lights may pass dangerous waste testing, they still contain mercury. Disposal to landfills is prohibited for all mercury-containing lights. Some of the other building materials that can pose a risk to human health and the environment if not managed separately can Include: • Electronic equipment • Self-luminous exit signs • Mercury switches in light switches or thermostats • Batteries from emergency lights, exit signs, security systems, and alarms • Lighting ballasts • PCB caulking • Refrigerants from air conditioning systems (this was addressed in the checklist) •Asbestos (this was addressed in checklist) For compliance assistance, please contact Tami Applebee, Dangerous Waste Inspector, at 509-457-7147 or tami.applebee[c evc.wa.gov. b. Toxics Clean-Up The facility addressed in this proposal is on Ecology's Hazardous Site List, Ecology Facility/Site ID# 3464749, TCP Cleanup Site ID# 882. The Site is ranked 3. Hazardous substances may be present at the site in amounts and/or concentrations likely to affect human health or the environment, Site cleanup may be required in the future by Ecology Under the Model Toxics Control Act. Site characterization and/or cleanup may be desirable prior to site alteration or development. DOC. West Valley School District—Apple Valley Elementary INDEX SEPA#035-19 h 2 JUL6 1 4 2021 If you have any questions or would like to respond to these Toxics Clears DF YAKIMA ,14P;NITY DEVELOPMENT comments, please contact Valerie Bound at 509-454-7886 or email at valerie.bound ct ecv wa.gov. c. Water Qualitv—Project with Potential to Discharge Off-Site If the project anticipates disturbing ground with the potential for storm water discharge off-site, the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit is recommended. This permit requires that the SEPA checklist fully disclose anticipated activities including building, road construction and utility placements. Obtaining a permit may take 38-60 days. The permit requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) shall be prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface water and storm drains by stormwater runoff. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. In the event that an unpermitted Stormwater discharge does occur off-site, it is a violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control and is subject to enforcement action. More information on the stormwater program may be found on Ecology's stormwater website at: http://www.ecv.wa.clov/programstwaistormwater/constructioni. Please submit an application or contact Lloyd Stevens, Jr. at the Dept. of Ecology, 509-574-3991, with questions about this permit. 2. On November 21, 2019, the Washington State Department of Health provided written comments which stated: a. Critical Areas. The project site is not only within but takes up a large portion of the wellhead protection area (WHPA) associated with a Group A public water system (see details below), which is also shown as high susceptibility area. The SW corner of the site (shown in red) [refers to a map in an email that may be viewed in the project file]is closest to the well head. As such, various portions of the site are classified as being in Wellhead Protection Zones 1, 2, and 3 under YMC 15.27.820.A.1, &the project is subject to review under the CARAs provisions (Part 8) of Chapter 15.27 YMC. The SEPA checklist (Q.B.8.h — p. 16, Appendix 1) does not identify the critical area. b. We note that the replacement development is to be done under a separate SEPA process; however, these same comments would apply to that project also. In consideration of work efficiency, perhaps the City & District could discuss whether it would be advantageous to prepare any critical areas work to encompass both projects. [Staff Note: The Critical Areas Review will be completed during the new school development process' 3. On December 3, 2019, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency provided written comments which stated: West Valley School District—Apple Valley Elementary DOC. SEPA#035-19 INDEX 3 RECEIVED JUL"i 4 2021 a Prior to demolishing any structures an asbestos survey must be done by aCITY OF YAKIMA certified asbestos building inspector; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT b. Any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition; c. A Notification of Demolition and Renovation (NODR) application must be filed and approved by YRCAA with the appropriate fees; d. Contractors doing demolition, excavation, clearing, construction, or landscaping work must file a Dust Control Plan with YRCAA and get approval, prior to the start of any work; e. Air emission impact from the development, during demolishing and construction must be addressed through proper planning and implementation; f. No air emissions shall be transported during demolishing and construction beyond the property boundary in a quantity that interferes unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of the property owner upon which the material may be deposited or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of any person or causes damage to any property or business; g. Soils in the school have been found to have high concentration of lead and arsenic. Therefore, generated dusts from handling and transportation of soils during demolishing and construction shall be limited to the specific working area and shall not be transported beyond the property boundary, at any time during demolishing and construction; and h. All methods applicable to dust control including, but not limited to truck wash-out and other similar methods are applicable and shall be implemented_ C. Public Comments 1. On November 8, 2019, a comment letter was received, providing the following written comments, with staff responses: a. "The City Notice, page 1, says a Dust Control Plan will be required. However West Valley School District (WV) Environmental Checklist items A.9 and 10, and their Attachment 1, do not mention a Dust Control Plan. On July 15, 2019, neighbors of Apple Valley School submitted a Dust Prevention Petition to WV, signed by 60 neighborhood residents. A copy of the petition is attached. WV has not yet replied to Item 2 of that petition. It asked WV to provide residents in neighborhoods near the school a written list with names and phone numbers of responsible District and contractor staff who will be available 24/7 so neighbors can call to report dust. We realize that demolition period will be mostly in wet weather, but we would still like WV to respect neighbors' petition request from the beginning of site work. Neighbors want this condition to apply to all work associated with the school replacement, 2019—2021. Of [course], the names and phone numbers will change as work proceeds with various contractors, Dust prevention is an important SEPA issue. So can the City make a SEPA condition that WV be required to provide neighbors with a 24/7 phone number and persons, throughout the 2019—2021 work period?" DOC. West Valley School District—Apple Valley Elementary INDEX 4 JUII.781. 4 2021 ,KIMA Staff Response: The Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency regulates dust in,thei r DEVELOPMENT city and has provided comments regarding the requirement for a Dust Control Plan. This MDNS is only for the demolition of the existing school, and therefore does not include requirements for new construction. b. "Environmental checklist item A.11 says existing parking lot pavement will be removed. This pavement and sidewalks were installed in 2012 with DOE (taxpayer) money, and are only 7 years old. We propose to keep as much of the parking lot intact as possible, Pavement could serve as a work vehicle cleaning area, to minimize tracking dirt onto 88th Avenue. Then most of the 2012 paving could be incorporated into the new parking lot so the taxpayers' 2012 investment is not wasted." Staff Response: The City will require the applicant to obtain a demolition permit prior to work occurring on the site, but otherwise has no control over the status of the existing parking lot. c. "Attachment 1, item B should mention the existing geotex and topsoil material installed in 2012 to cover most of the school yard area to contain led and arsenic contaminated subsoils, It is hard to imagine the demolition work will not disturb the topsoil and geotex. The 2012 work was done with taxpayer money; at a cost exceeding $1,000,000. WV should address preserving the geotex." Staff Response: The applicant shall comply with Department of Ecology requirements related to contaminated soil, but the City otherwise has no control over the status of the existing soil. d. "Attachment 1, B.1.e says there will be no fill or excavation as part of the demolition. It is hard to imagine no earthwork during the demolition work, unless existing footings, slabs, playground equipment, chips and buried utilities will not be excavated. If there will be excavation, fill or stockpiling, it should be done in a manner that will contain contaminated soils and prevent dust during work and non-work periods." Staff Response: The Demolition Permit required by the City of Yakima includes the removal of subsurface elements such as floors, walls, and utilities and their associated structures. e. "Attachment 1, item B.3.c should discuss protecting the existing storm water intakes and very large drywells from contamination by muddy runoff during construction. The intakes and drywell were constructed as part of the $1,000,000, 2012 work, mentioned above. They were installed to capture school storm water runoff which previously ran onto 88th Avenue and into Woodwinds West subdivision. These existing storm drainage features should be protected from damage and from contamination so they can continue to be used to captures stormwater runoff," Staff Response: This MDNS is only for the demolition of the existing school, and therefore does not include requirements for new construction. West Valley School District—Apple Valley Elementary DCC. SEPA#035.19 INDEX 5 Peck, 1 i/fD f. "Attachment 1, item 8.7. Arsenic and lead contaminated soil should be �1rr 4 2021 addressed. See comments [a, c, and d] above." Myj of �NIrY utfre, P Staff Response: The applicant shall comply with Department of Ecology MFNr requirements related to contaminated soil. g. 'WV has not signed acknowledged any of the submitted SEPA documents. It would seem they should sign." Staff Response: The cover sheet of the Environmental Checklist, not included in the Notice of Application, was signed by the West Valley School District. II. CONCLUSIONS: A. This Environmental Review is only for the demolition of the existing school. B. Environmental Review was required as the demolition exceeded the threshold for building size (more than 12,000 square feet) and the amount of parking (more than 40 spaces). C. The proposed new school at this site is being reviewed under a separate application. III. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES: A. Pursuant to the Washington State Department of Ecology: 1. If the structure or its lead-bearing components are designated as dangerous waste under Chapter 173-303 Washington Administrative Code, all related debris must be managed appropriately and cannot be disposed of as municipal trash; 2. Any mercury-containing lights shall be properly disposed of per 70.275 RCW; 3. As the subject property is listed on the Department of Ecology's Hazardous Site List, site cleanup may be required in the future under the Model Toxics Control Act, and site characterization and/or cleanup may be desirable prior to site alteration or development; 4. Stormwater shall be retained on-site during demolition and any applicable permits shall be obtained; and B. Pursuant to the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency; 1. Prior to demolishing any structures an asbestos survey must be done by a certified asbestos building inspector and any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition; 2. A Notification of Demolition and Renovation (NODR) application must be filed and approved by YRCAA with the appropriate fees; and 3. Contractors doing demolition, excavation, clearing, construction, or landscaping work must file a Dust Control Plan with YRCAA and get approval, prior to the start of any work. DOC. West Valley School District—Apple Valley Elementary INDEX SEPA#035-19 6 JU Sao CE This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment$419Ortihe '02, MDNS. ��� yq<r Responsible Official: Joan Davenport 47£i1/J PositionfTitle: SEPA Responsible Official Phone f5091 575-6183 Address: 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 7 Date: December 10, 2019 Signature ® You may appeal this determination to: n Davenport, Al , Director of Community Development, at 129 N. 2nd Street, Yaki , WA 98901. No later than: December 24, 2019. By method: Complete appeal application form and payment of$580.00 appeal fee. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the City of Yakima Planning Division to,read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. West Valley School District—Apple Valley Elementary DOC. SEPA#035-fie INDEX 7 181 RECEIVED "JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT C DOC. INDEX DEPAPTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a w S W% Joan L port, AICP, Director 182 �f l i b w ir,■ 1110k Planning Division JUL if P ICITY OF YAKIMA Joseph Calhoun,Manager 1�21 a n nIn g129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor,Yakima, WA 98901 COMMU T Y OF YAvi Jt�M ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning rYOEvEtO�MFN] NOTICE OF APPLICATION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, & PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 30, 2019 TO: SEPA Reviewing Agencies, Applicant, and Adjoining Property Owners FROM: Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director APPLICANT: West Valley School District(8902 Zier Rd., Yakima,WA 98908) FILE NUMBER: CL3#010-19, ADJ#027-19, VAR#004-19, SEPA#038-19, CAO#027-19 LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. TAX PARCEL NUMBER(S): 181319-42006, -42020, &-42021 DATE OF APPLICATION: October 23, 2019 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: December 20, 2019 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal to construct a new 60,000 sq.ft. elementary school building in the R- 1 zoning district with 147 parking spaces and other associated site amenities and improvements. This request includes a variance to exceed the building height limitation of 35 ft. in this zoning district to allow a height of 44 ft., a critical areas review due to the site being in a wellhead protection area, and an administrative adjustment for the following: request to waive the sitescreening requirement that would impose a 6-ft. view-obscuring fence, installation of a digital sign and wall signs which are not otherwise allowed in residential zoning districts, and adjust the maximum height of 10 ft.for signs set back more than 15 ft.from the right-of-way to allow a height of 11 ft. 6 in. DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY Pursuant to YMC § 16.06.020(A), the project considerations are determined to be consistent with applicable development regulations, as follows: 1. The type of land use: Elementary School is a Class (3) use in the R-1 zoning district. 2. Level of Development: 60,000 sq.ft. school with 147 parking spaces. 3. Infrastructure and public facilities:The subject property is able to be served by public streets,water, sewer, garbage collection, etc. 4. Characteristics of development: Two-story elementary school with 147 proposed parking spaces. The proposal shall adhere to all Title 12 and Title 15 development standards. Pursuant to YMC§ 16.06.020(B),the development regulations and comprehensive plan considerations are found to be consistent, as follows: 1. The type of land use: Elementary School is a Class (3) use in the R-1 zoning district. 2. Density of Development: N/A 3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public utilities: The subject property is able to be served by public facilities. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is to notify agencies with jurisdiction and environmental expertise and the public that the City of Yakima, Planning Division, has been established as the lead agency, under WAC § 197-11-928 for this project. The City of Yakima has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance(DNS) per WAC § 197-11-355. The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared. A copy of the subsequent SEPA threshold determination will be mailed to parties of record and entities who were provided this notice and may be appealed pursuant to YMC §6.88.170. Required Permits: The following local, state, and federal permits/approvals may or will be needed for this project: Building Permit, Grading Permit, Stormwater Permit, Street Break Permit Required Studies: N/A Existing Environmental Documents: None DOC. INDEX Yakima#4: .••• ••• '11111 2015 1994 ;iUL 8 4 2021 CITY a�rpl<iMa COMMUNl7Y DEI°PMENT Development Regulations for Project Mitigation and Consistency Include: the State EnvironmentaY Policy Act, the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, YMC Title 12—Development Standards, and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed project and its probable environmental impacts.There is a 20-day comment period for this review.This may be your only opportunity to comment. All written comments received by 5:00 p.m. on January 21, 2020, will be considered prior to issuing the final SEPA determination. This request requires that the Hearing Examiner hold an open record public hearing, which is scheduled for February 13, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., in the City of Yakima Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA. Any person desiring to express their views on the matter is invited to attend the hearing to provide testimony. Please reference file numbers (CL3#010-19, ADJ#027-19, VAR#004-19, SEPA#038-19, CAO#027-19) and applicant's name (West Valley School District — Apple Valley) in any correspondence you submit. You can mail your comments to: Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 N.2nd St.; Yakima, WA 98901 NOTICE OF DECISION Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue his decision within ten(10)business days.When available,a copy of the decision will be mailed to parties of record and entities who were provided this notice once it is rendered. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, City Hall—2nd Floor, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima,Washington. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please call Eric Crowell, Associate Planner, at (509) 576-6736, or email to: eric.crowell(nvakimawa.gov. Enclosed: Narratives, Project Descriptions, SEPA Checklist, Site Plan, and Vicinity Map DQC. INDEX y D_1� DEPQ P TMENTO DE DESARROLLO COMI r ITARIO Joan. ,enport, AICP, Directora R$Cl vED .0/I■■■M\' # ,11t Division de Planificacion JUL WW Joseph Calhoun, Gerente 20z� 1 PCITY OF YAKIMA 129 Norte Calle 2', 2°Piso,Yakima,WA 98901 CIT}, a n n n ask.planning@yakimawa.gov www.yakimawa.goviscrvices/planninsarg Gty,L�MP1 Pitovr AVISO DE APLICACION, REVISION AMBIENTAL,Y AUDIENCIA PUBLICA El Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario de la Ciudad de Yakima ha recibido una aplicaciOn por parte de un propietario/solicitante y este es un aviso sobre esa solicitud. Informacion sobre la ubicacion de la propiedad en cuestiOn y la solicitud es la siguiente: FECHA OTORGADA: 30 de diciembre, 2019 PARA: Agencias de Revision Ambiental, Solicitante y Propietarios Adyacentes DE: Joan Davenport,AICP, Directora de Desarrollo Comunitario SOLICITANTE: West Valley School District (8902 Zier Rd., Yakima, WA 98908) No. DE ARCHIVO: CL3#010-19,ADJ#027-19, VAR#004-19, SEPA#038-19, CAO#027-19 UBICACION: 7 N. 88th Ave. No. DE PARCELA(S): 181319-42006, -42020, &-42021 FECHA DE APLICACION: 23 de octubre, 2019 FECHA DE APLICACION COMPLETA:20 de diciembre, 2019 DESCRIPCION DEL PROYECTO: Propuesta para construir un nuevo edificio de 60,000 pies cuadrados para un escuela primaria en la zona residencial R-1 con 147 espacios de estacionamiento y mejoramientos asociados. Esta solicitud incluye un proceso de Variacion para exceder la limitaciOn de altura del edificio de 35 pies a 44 pies, una revision de aereas critica debido a que el sitio se encuentra en un area de protecciOn, y un ajuste administrativo para suspender el requisito de apantallamiento que impondria una cerca obstaculizada de 6 pies, instalaciOn de un letrero digital y letreros de pared que de otra manera no estan permitidos en zonas residenciales y un ajuste a la altura maxima de 10 pies para letreros a mas de 15 pies de la via publica para permitir una altura de 11 pies 6 pulgadas. DETERMINACION DE LA CONSISTENCIA: Conforme al COdigo Municipal YMC §16.06.020(A), las consideraciones del proyecto se determinan consistentes con las siguientes normas aplicables: 1. El tipo de uso terrenal: Escuela primaria es un uso Clase 3 en la zona residencial R-1. 2. Nivel de desarrollo: Escuela de 60,000 pies cuadrados con 147 espacios de estacionamiento. 3. Infraestructura e instalaciones publicas: La propiedad puede ser servida por Galles publicas, agua, drenaje, recoleccion de basura, etc. 4. Caracteristicas del desarrollo: Escuela primaria con 147 espacios de estacionamiento. La propuesta se adherira a todas las normas de desarrollo del Titulo 12 y Titulo 15. Conforme al COdigo Municipal YMC §16.06.020(B), los reglamentos de desarrollo y las consideraciones del plan comprehensivo son coherentes, de la siguiente manera: 1. El tipo del uso terrenal: Escuela primaria es un uso Clase 3 en la zona residencial R-1. 2. Densidad del desarrollo: N/A 3. Disponibilidad y adecuaciOn de infraestructura y servicios publicos: La propiedad puede ser servida por instalaciones pUblicas. AVISO DE REVISION AMBIENTAL: Esto es para notificar a las agencias con jurisdiccion y experiencia ambiental y al pUblico que la Ciudad de Yakima, Division de PlanificaciOn, se establece como la agencia principal, de acuerdo con la Ley Estatal de Politica Ambiental de Washington (SEPA) bajo WAC §197-11-928 para la revision de este proyecto. La Ciudad de Yakima ha revisado el proyecto propuesto para posibles impactos ambientales adversos y espera emitir una DeterminaciOn de No-Significancia (DNS) para este proyecto conforme al proceso DNS opcional en WAC § 197-11-355. La propuesta puede incluir medidas de mitigacion bajo los cOdigos aplicables y el proceso de revision del proyecto puede incorporar o requerir medidas de mitigaciOn independientemente de si se prepara un EIS (DeclaraciOn de Impacto Ambiental). Una copia de la determinaciOn de umbra) posterior se enviara a las personas y agencias que comentaron y que recibieron este aviso, y se puede apelar de acuerdo con el COdigo Municipal de Yakima YMC §6.88.170. DOC. INDEX Yakima # 1)-1 2015 1994 "E-LtIVED JUL .184 2021 COMMtOitTy of Harr oEVEL Permisos Requeridos: Los siguientes permisos/aprobaciones locales, estatales, y federales pueden o s k NT necesarios para este proyecto: Permiso de ConstrucciOn, Permiso de NivelaciOn Terrenal, Permiso de Aguas Pluviales, Permiso para Excavar en la Via Publica Estudios Requeridos: N/A Documentos Ambientales Existentes: Ninguno Los Reglamentos de Desarrollo para la Mitigacion y Consistencia de Proyectos Incluyen: La Ley Estate! de Politica Ambiental de Washington, La Ordenanza de Zonificacion del Area Urbana de Yakima, Los Estandares de Desarrollo del Titulo 12, y el Plan Integral del Area Urbana de Yakima. SOLICITUD DE COMENTARIOS ESCRITOS Y AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PUBLICA: Se anima a las agencias, tribus, y el publico a reviser y comentar sobre el proyecto y sobre sus probables impactos ambientales. Habra un periodo de veinte digs para hacer sus comentarios. Este podria ser su (Mica oportunidad para comentar. Todos los comentarios recibidos por escrito antes de las 5:00 p.m. el 21 de enero, 2020 seran considerados antes de emitir la decisiOn final sobre esta solicitud. Esta propuesta requiere una audiencia publica con registro abierto con el Examinador de Audiencias. Por to tanto, una audiencia publica se Ilevara a cabo el 13 de febrero, 2020 comenzando a las 9:00 a.m. en el Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Yakima ubicado en el 129 N 2nd Street,Yakima,WA.Se le invite a cualquier persona que desee expresar sus opiniones sobre este caso a asistir a la audiencia publica o a presentar comentarios por escrito. Por favor de hacer referencia al numero de archivo (CL3#010-19, ADJ#027-19, VAR#004-19, SEPA#038-19, CAO#027-19)o al nombre del solicitante(West Valley School District—Apple Valley)en cualquier correspondencia que envie. Por favor envie sus comentarios sobre esta propuesta a: Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 N.2nd St.,Yakima,WA 98901 AVISO DE LA DECISION FINAL: Despues de la audiencia publica, el Examinador de Audiencias emitira su decisiOn o recomendaciOn dentro de diez (10) dies habiles. Cuando la decisiOn final sea emitida, una copia sera enviada a las personas que mandaron comentarios o que recibieron este aviso. El archivo que contiene la aplicaciOn complete este disponible para inspecciOn publica en la Oficina de PlanificaciOn de la Ciudad de Yakima en el 129 al Norte la Calle 2da, Yakima,WA. Si tiene cualquier pregunta sobre esta propuesta, puede contactar a la Oficina de Planificacion al (509) 575-6183 o por correo electrOnico al: ask.planninq aavakimawa.gov Adjuntes: Narrativo, DescripciOn del Proyecto, Lista de SEPA, Plan de Sitio, Mapa DOC. INDEX # D-1 RECEIVED JUL 1 4 186 CITY OF YAKl.1"/i 1 OCT g 2019 COMMUNITy DFvf, V ni_ Supplemental Application For: PLANNING DI V. TYPE (3) REVIEW CITY OF AxfM! YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE,YMC CHAPTER 15.15 Panning PART II—LAND USE DESIGNATION 1,PROPOSED LAND USE TYPE: (As listed on YMC§ 15,04,030 Table 4-1 Permitted Uses) Schools:Elementary and Middle r _ _ PART III-ATTACHMENTS INFORMATION 1. SITE PLAN REQUIRED(Please use the attached City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist) 2.TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY(if required,see YMC Ch, 12,08,Traffic Capacity Test) 3.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST(if required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act) PART IV-WRITTEN NARRATIVE:Please submit a written response to the following questions. Use a separate sheet of paper if necessary. 1.Fully describe the proposed development,including number of dwelling units and parking spaces. If the proposal is for a business,describe hours of operation,days per week and all other relevant information related the business. Replacement of existing Elementary School and site amenities with new Elementary School and site Improvements. New facility to be 60,000 square feet,nearly 2x larger than the existing. Two separate parking lots are proposed with a bus loading lane and a separate student drop-off lane.A total of 147 parking spaces will be provided not to include bus and student drop-off lanes, 2. flow is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? Existing site Is already being used for an elementary school so Its use will remain unchanged. New building will be positioned In the same location as the existing to maintain the separation between the adjacent residential properties and the school. 3. What mitigation measures are proposed to promote compatibility? T Additional parking will be provided and drop off lanes Included to Improve traffic circulation In and out of the site. Building is located on property away from existing residences. 4.How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? Current zoning is R-1 and to remain unchanged. Use of site to remain unchanged-Elementary school. 5. How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? Neighboring properties are zoned R-1, Elementary schools are commonly located within residential neighborhoods to provide easy access for nearby students. 6.How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? The community passed a bond to construct a new elementary school on this site. Note: if you have any questions about this process,please contact us City of Yakima,Planning Division— 129 N,2nd St.,Yakima,WA or 509-575-6183 DOC. Revised 4/2019 INDEX Page I D- 1 RECEip 4 :1L1� '1111‘‘ Supplemental Application For: 2u2 lit ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUST tNT p n n a in g YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE,CHAPTER 15.10 PART H-APPLICATION INFORMATION I,TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS( at least one) RECEIVED ❑SETBACKS: Front Side _ Rear OCT ❑SiGNS:Height — Size _ y ❑ FENCES ❑ LOT COVERAGE SITESCRFENING P.ANN,N OF VA/villa 1' aQIV. ❑PARKING ❑OTHER 2,AMOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT 6ft Site Obscuring Fencing ± No existing fence revisions Zoning Ordinance Standard Proposed Standard Adjustment PART III—LAND USE DESIGNATION&REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS r 1. PROPOSED USE TYPE(As listed on Table 4-1 Permitted Lund Uses—See YMC 6 15.04.030) Schools:Elementary and Middle 2.SITE PLAN REQUIRED(Please use the attached Cif of Yakima Site Plan Checklist) PART IV-WRITTEN NARRATIVE:(Please submit a written response to the following questions) 1.ilow would the strict enforcement of the current standard affect your project? Existing fencing Is installed around the entire properly at all R-1 parcels. Each fence belongs to the residential homeowner and each fence varies In type from chain link to wood construction. Replacing all fences would be a difficult challenge as each home owner would have to agree to have their fence removed and open for a period of time while new fencing is constructed. Removing existing fencing around the entire site and installing 6-ft site obscuring fencing would have a significant cost impact to the project. 2. How is the proposal compatible with neighboring properties'? Have other adjustments been granted nearby? Neighboring properties are also R-1. Fencing exists around the entire property although it has never been entirely site obscuring. We are proposing the existing fencing remain in place, 3.How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? The current zoning is R-1 and elementary school use will remain unchanged. Existing fencing is not site obscuring. 4.How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? The current zoning Is R-1. Neighboring properties are R-1. Table 7-1 lists sitescreening as generally not required between adjacent R-1 zones. 5. How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? Site screening does not exist around the current school and does not appear to be in demand by the i ity. Using the taxpayer money elsewhere on the project would be more beneficial to the community. INDEX # D-1 Revised 4/2019 Page 14 t as RFCt/i/ 'O era■ww% Supplemental Application For: t 202, '" I j�� ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMLN /wr°�� iMA P a n F Y n g YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE,CHAPTER 15.10 kLppaENT PART II-APPLICATION INFORMATION I.TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS( ,!at least one) RECEVE. ❑SETBACKS:Front Side Rear NOV Q SIGNS: Height _ Size �i'f x Z0/9 ❑ FENCES El LOT COVERAGE ❑SITESCREENING '�Hi�N���Mh ❑PARKING 21 OTHER Wall Signs_ _ V 2.AMOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT Digital&Wall Signs Digital&Wall Signs not Allowed In R1 Allow Digital&Wall Signs in R1 Digital Signs: 10 ft Height t 11'-6"Height 1'-6" Zoning Ordinance Standard Proposed Standard Adjustment PART HI—LAND USE DESIGNATION&REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS 1. PROPOSED USE TYPE(As listed on Table 4-1 Permitted Land Uses-See YMC 6 15.04.030) Schools:Elementary and Middle 2, SITE PLAN REQUIRED(Please use the attached C'ily of Yakima Site Plan Checklist) PART IV-WRITTEN NARRATIVE:(Please submit'written responseso the folllowiing questions) 1.How would the strict enforcement of the current standard affect your project? Digital and Wall signage is not allowed In R-1 zones. An electronic readerboard Is wanted to communicate information about school related events to the community. Freestanding signage is limited in height to 10ft. Proposed digital readerboard design shows bottom of sign at 8'above grade and top of sign at 11'•6",which Is 1'-8"higher than the current standard allows. Keeping the bottom of the sign at 8'allows visibility from the road without obstructions and also allows clearance to walk under.Wall signage is critical to identifying the building name and entrances for Gym and Library 2. How is the proposal compatible with neighboring properties? Have other adjustments been granted nearby? Neighboring properties are also R-1 zones. It Is unknown if other adjustments have been granted nearby. Neighbors around the property are community members who are using the facility. The proposed signage provides communication to the neighbors. The Gym and Library are zoned for after-hours use. Including wall signage at these entrances makes them more Inviting to the public. 3.How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? The current zoning is R-1 where digital&wall signage Is not allowed. Proposed signage visible from the right-of-way for this project includes: (1) Digital Readerboard with internally illuminated sign above.Digital readerboard area proposed is 14 sf. (1) Fascia sign on main entry canopy constructed of fixed metal letters reading"APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY" (1) Fascia sign on side entry canopy to gymnasium constructed of metal letters reading"GYM" 4. How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? Use of property is for an Elementary School. Digital signage is common at Elementary Schools. Wall signage is also common to identify the school. 5.How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? The new elementary school is financed with a bond voted upon and approved by the community. This Is a public facility and communicating information about events occurring at the school to the community is beneficial in keeping the community Informed. Providing wall signage helps with identifying entrances used by the community after-hours. DOC INDEX Revised 4/2019 # D- 1 Page 14 Ial 189 1 4 in 1 5 it- - , Z f l-: g1 il ti ; ri. 0 11 -- �ti� 1 11 1 1] 5 i -1 I -1 () 1 N I. 1 ] If FA gM Z. .y H� � II Cn t 1 1___f_ ___. z " c T1_, r- ,?) I- M L < D ►p 1 m i om ral orb L ___ z mm 9 % t cm N\A D m /-• c9 xi z m -I rn CA 2 o -I1 A C _ INDEX m -C I 190 3._6~ a N .11 A z z 1 11 X < m D C A � a .. gail o m • z Q • r a A � X p I� I -st ,,,„8Irl 00 ri70 r o 00 rrio oc-? I���p CU A 8h �J� fly Z0 kj 0 a z-' ri O -' MKa. z� U por �� zz? [] > W m°' 0� 0 OC.r �N - n r-n 1 z 1 I --a l I 7 1 0 1 a 2 L v o u> rn.„ I i r -D Ul c,,(u7l A In m Z C = �a m r o Or- Sr) 41 S rn m Z n O r 0 lA r C U Ifn�h o 0 ?-n7C -n FJ -711 o m c, a r- o n a m -t ? mm n r �r'i m > N G in r rM co -i z �p D N y c� Z • in Q En- rrol r�1 \ \ 62 \ . \ w `O • 3. t,.. DOC. xit 01.. INDEX 0 # D-1 RECEIVED 191 Supplemental Application For: IT �a Ec �.. awe% CITY Of y'.:. f+ ��V � # 1a alw%. VARIANCE COMMurviry a-vLiul ;o C� CITY OF YAKIMA YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE,CHAPTER 15.21 r� 2 Panning CiTy of mom PLANNING ow PART II-APPLICATION INFORMATION 1.TYPES OF VARIANCE( at least one) ❑Lot Size j ®Building Height I 0 Sign 0 Critical Areas ❑Other Variance Is From YMC 1 5 . 0 5 . 0 2 0 2,AMOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT 35 FT ± 44 FT _ — 9 FT Zoning Standard Proposed Standard Amount of Variance 3.PROPOSED USE:(Must Be Taken From YMC Ch,15.05,Table 5-1) Schools: Elementary and Middle 4.LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY:(Attach if lengthy) PART IQ-REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS SITE PLAN REQUIRED:(Please use the City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist,attached) PART IV-WRITTEN NARRATIVE:(Please submit a written response to the following Items) A variance shall be granted only when the applicant demonstrates that the variance will not be contrary to the public interest, is not self-created, and that practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship will result if it is not granted, The applicant must clearly establish and substantiate that the request for variance conforms to all the requirements: I.Would granting the variance be consistent with the general purpose and intent and not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? A height variance is requested to help hide mechanical equipment on the roof from view with parapet walls and also to provide access to the roof for maintenance via an internal stair and elevator to the roof. in total,only 8%of the entire roof would be above the 35ft height restriction.Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Flat (low-slope) roofs are designed to keep the overall building height down,but the scale of the building requires some features to exceed the current standards far height, 2. Would granting the variance permit the establishment of a use not permitted in a particular zoning district? The height increase has no effect on the use of the building. The building Is designed to be an elementary school, 3,Does a unique circumstance exist that is not generally applicable to land or structures in the neighborhood? The scale of an elementary school provides unique conditions not typically experienced In other buildings allowed in the R-1 zone. Most structures In the R-1 zone are residences. The scale of a new elementary school makes the 35-ft height restriction more difficult to achieve. Screening HVAC equipment requires parapets to be elevated to nearly 35ft, As architectural features,the main entry and(3)other small roofs exceed the 35ft threshold by nearly 3ft. For roof access to maintain HVAC equipment, (1)stairwell requires a roof at 40ft height and an elevator up to a height of 44ft. 4.Would the strict application of the provisions deprive the applicant of reasonable use of such land or structure? Strict application would prevent safe access to the roof via an internal stairwell or elevator. Many HVAC rooftop units will be located on the roof making access to the roof critical for maintenance staff. DOC��yy��++ . INDEX p -1 Revised 4/2019 Page 14 192 PART IV-WRITTEN NARRATIVE(CON'T):(Please submit a written response to the following Items) 5,Does an unnecessary hardship exist? No p RECEIVED ■�CMMVED JU;9 rr 6, What is the minimum variance needed? Y c. () " �U� 9 FT Maximum Height increase In R-1 zone for elementary school. CO CN D YAK? ' NG KIMq MMU EVEL.PME Nt 7.Is the property located in the Floodplain or Airport Overlay? NO THE BELOW QUESTIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO VARIANCES LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLATN AND.AIRPORT OVERLAYS 8.Will the proposed variance Or development result in an increase of danger to life and property due to flooding or airport conflicts? N/A 9.Please provide an explanation of the importance of the services provided by the proposed use to the community. N/A 10.Please provide an explanation of why the proposed development needs a waterfront or airport location. N/A 11.Arc there other locations for the proposed use,which are not subject to flooding or airport hazards? N/A 12. Please provide an explanation of how the proposed use is compatible with existing and anticipated development in the area. N/A 13. Please explain the relationship of the proposed use,to the airport master plan and floodplain management program. N/A DOC. INDEX ' D-1 Revised 4/2019 Page 1 5 193 4,i11 an':% Critical Areas identification Form CITY OF YAKIMA,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT crrrorr�IMA P a n n ng 129 NORTH I SECOND STREET,2ND FLOOR,YAKIMA,WA 98901 VOICE: (509)575-6183 EMAIL: usk.plunning@yaldmawa.gov This form is intended to provide a sufficient level of information that, when combined with a site inspection, the Administrative Official can make an informed detennination as to whether or not critical areas are present on the site, and whether or not the proposed activity will impact those critical areas, A 'fires" response to any single question on the identification form does not necessarily indicate that further critical area review is required, The Administrative Official will evaluate all the information provided on the form,in conjunction with the information provided with the Initial permit application,to determine if further investigation is needed and whether completion of a critical area report is warranted In some instances, a preliminary report prepared by an environmental professional may be appropriate. If a buffer reduction is necessary for your project,a separate review will he required and a separate fee will he charged. Some of the questions listed here require locating the project area on reference maps. The City of Yakima has various maps on file, i.e. the FEMA trloodplain Map. Maps from other federal, stale, and local agencies may also be used us indicators. PART II-APPLICATION INFORMATION RCG'!VED A. Project Information _ F 1. Name of project. L 1 4 2021 eittOn Apple Valley Elementary School Project CITy of COMmtifvt v U4�---f 2. Name and address of applicant. ioF _ 8 20/9 West Valley School District No.208(WVSD)8902 Zier Road,Yakima,WA 98908 bilY OP )"A A1tAl/ly� 44 3. Name and address of individual completing the identification form and their 10. environmental/technical expertise/special qualifications. Jeff Ding,Planner EA Engineering,Science and Technology 2200 6th Avenue,Suite 707,Seattle,WA 98121 4. Date the identification form was prepared. December 17,2019 5. Location of the proposed activity(street address and legal description). 7 N 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA 98908(NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 19,Township 13N, Range 18 E WM). 6. Give a brief,complete description of the proposed activity,including extent of proposed activities, and impervious surface areas. The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing school buildings and relocation of the existing portable buildings to allow for the construction of a new two-story, approximately 60,300 sq.ft.elementary school building. Parking areas would be provided along the northern and western edges of the site.Grass open areas would be retained along the southern and eastern edges of the site.Impervious surfaces with the project would be similar to those currently on the site (buildings, parking areas,paved play areas,walkways)and the amount of impervious surface on the site would increase from approximately 30 percent of the site to approximately 48 percent of the site, 7. Describe the limits of the project area in relation to the site(for example, "the project area will extend to rfwithin 50 feet of the north property line'),including the limits of proposed clearing and construction activity, The proposed school building would be located In the central portion of the site(approximately 45 feet from the west property line and 50 feet Irani the north property line).Parking areas would be located adjacent to the western edge of the site(arid approximately 15 fent from the south property lino)and near the northern edge of the site(approximately 15 feet from the north property line). Existing grass areas would be retained adjacent to the southern and eastern edges of the site. DOC. Revised 4/2019 Page I 1 INDEX 194 B. General Questions That May Be Applicable To All Areas 1. What is the U.S.Department of Agriculture soil classification of the soil found on site? The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services classifies the soils as Cowiche loam across the majority of the site, with Harwood loam In the northeast portion of the site(see the Geotechnical Report Included with the SEPA Checklist). 2. What types of soils are found on the site(for example,clay, sand,gravel, peat, muck)? Soils on the site consist of an upper layer of fill atop native silly soil overburden overlying the local sedimentary unit of the Ellensburg Formation(see the Geotechnical Report Included with the SEPA Checklist)., 3.What types of vegetation are found on site? Cattail, buttercup, bulrush,skunk cabbage,water lily,eelgrass,milfoil? Existing grass open areas are located along the eastern and southern portion of the site.Seven existing trees are located surrounding the existing school building,including five trees within the existing courtyard and two trees adjacent to the existing parking lot, 4. Describe any vegetation proposed to be planted as part of the project. New landscaping and planting areas would be provided on the site as part of development and would be consistent with City of Yakima requirements,including Yakima Municipal Code Section 15.06.090.The existing grass open areas along the eastern and southern portions of the site would also be retained. 5. Give a brief,complete description of existing site conditions,including current and past uses of the property as well as adjoining land uses. The existing site contains the current Apple Valley Elementary School which is comprised of three buildings and three portable classroom buildings.An existing parking lot is located along the western edge of the site.Paved play areas are located adjacent to the existing building.Grass open space areas are located along the eastern and southern edges of the site. Existing adjacent land uses Include the Cross Church and single family residences. 6. Will the project include installation of an on-site septic system? No,the project would not install any on-site septic systems. 7. What is the proposed timing and schedule for all multi-phased projects? Demolition is anticipated to begin In the end of 2019 followed by site preparation and construction.Building occupancy Is anticipated to occur in April 2021. • 8. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or related activity? If yes,explain. The are no plans for future additions or further development of the site. 9, Have any critical areas or protection easements been recorded on the title of the property or adjacent properties? There are no critical areas easements or protection easements on the property.Access,utility and irrigation easements are located adjacent to portions of the south property line. 10. Will your project require review under the State Shoreline Management Act or the State Environmental Policy Act? The project is not subject to review under the State Shoreline Management Act.A SEPA Environmental Checklist has been submitted for the project. xi. is the site within the 100-year flood plain on flood insurance maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA),or on other local flood data maps? 'The site is not located within a 100-year flood plain. R�CE1VE11 RECEIVED rlVl1 t02i DOC. DEC .� , Revised 4/2019 ®EX > Qit pa, I q CITY CF „ . INDEX 1' IlN YAnit'�n OMMUNITY Dl;�Et.c; aa� � 195 12. Describe any surface water and watercourses, including intermittent streams, drainage channels, ditches, and springs, located on site or within one-half mile of the site. If appropriate, provide the names of the water bodies to which the streams flow. The Congdon Canal Is the closest surface water body to the site and is located more than 600 feet to the southeast of the project site. 13, Indicate the topography of the site (shallow areas often retain water and may be wetlands, although wetlands may also occur on slopes). The majority of the site is generally flat with a slight slope near the north edge of the site.The steepest slope on the site is approximately 15 percent. 14. How will stormwater from the project be managed? The proposed stormwater management system for the site would include drainage basins and underground stormwater drainage structures generally located along the south portion of the site.Stormwater management would be consistent with applicable provisions of the Yakima County Regional Stormwater Manual. 15. Is development proposed to be clustered to reduce disturbance of critical areas? The development has not been clustered to reduce disturbance to critical areas.However,development has been designed to retain existing grass areas along the southern and eastern edges of the site. 16. Will this project require other government approvals for environmental impacts? ❑ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) ❑Water quality certification [(Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology)). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Ecology). ❑Municipal or health district wastewater/septic approval (Ecology). ❑Water Use Permit; Certificate of Water Right(Ecology). ❑U.S. Army Corps Section 404 or Section 10 Permits. ❑Forest Practices Permit(Washington State Department of Natural Resources(DNR)). ❑Aquatic Lands Lease and/or Authorization(DNR). ❑Shoreline development, conditional use, or variance permit(local jurisdiction). 0 Other C. Available Information 1. Has a critical area review, or other environmental review,been conducted for another project located on or adjacent to the site? List any environmental information known to have been prepared,or expected to be prepared, relating to this proposal or project area. A SEPA Checklist was completed for the demolition and construction of the proposed project,including a Geotechnical Report,a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet,a Hazardous Building Materials Survey Report,and a Traffic Impact Analysis Report. D. Wetlands 1. Is there any evidence of ponding on or in the vicinity of the site? There is no evidence of ponding on or In the vicinity of the site. 2. Does the proposed activity or construction involve any discharge of'waste materials or the use of hazardous substances? The project would not discharge waste materials or hazardous substances. E?!:CL 1VED RECEIVED U� 2021 oF1. Revised 4/2019 CiTy OF y �i 20/ti Page 15 DOC. coMMU�wT,DEV Kf m,4 airy INDEX u y w''' r P NNING�lii�p # Q-1 196 I . Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 1. What is the permeability (rate of infiltration) of the soils on the site? (Note: General information for this question and the following question can be found in the Guidance Document for the Establishment of Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Ordinances, 2000, Ecology Publication #97-30). Three soil infiltration test pits were completed as part of the Geotechnical Report.Test pits P1 and P2 were located in the south portion of the site and had an infiltration rate of 0,84 Inches/hour and 2,4 inches/hour, respectively.Test pit P3 was in the northeast portion of the site and had an infiltration rate of 0.79 inches/hour, 2. What is the annual average precipitation in the area? The average annual precipitation for the City of Yakima is approximately 9 inches. 3. Is there any evidence of groundwater contamination on or in the vicinity of the site? There is no evidence of groundwater contamination on or in the vicinity of the site. However,soil sampling for the Geotechnical Report Identified levels of lead and arsenic above the MTCA levels.A remediation plan would be completed 4. Is there any groundwater information available from wells that have been dug in the vicinity? If so,describe, including depth of groundwater and groundwater quality. Groundwater was not encountered in the geotechnical borings which were completed to a depth of 13 feet bgs.The Ecology Well Log database indicates that the depth Of groundwater in the site vicinity is approximately 40 feet bgs. 5. Does the proposed activity or construction involve any discharge of waste materials or the use of hazardous substances? The project would not discharge waste materials or hazardous substances. F. Frequently Flooded Areas I. Is the site,or a portion of the site,at a lower elevation than surrounding properties? No,the site and surrounding areas are generally flat. G. GeologicaI Hazard 1. Generally describe the site: Flat,rolling,hilly,steep slopes, mountainous,other. The site and surrounding areas are generally flat. 2. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill material. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of grading and excavation would occur during construction.The site is anticipated to be a net balance and no significant amounts of imported or exported soils are anticipated. 3. What is the steepest slope on the property? The steepest slope is approximately 15 percent. 4. Is the area mapped by Ecology (Coastal Zone Atlas) or the Department of Natural Resource (slope stability mapping) as unstable ("U" or class 3), unstable old slides ("UOS" or class 4), or unstable recent slides("URS" or class 5)? No,the area is not mapped as unstable. 5. Is the area designated as quaternary slumps,earthflows, mudflows, lahars, seismic hazard, or landslides on maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey or Dept.of Natural Resources? No,the area is not designated as ileattampty slumps,earthflows, VdC s,lahers,seismic hazard or landslide hazards, [[ E:VED MI 7 A 2021 18 2019 DOC. Revised 4/2019 CITY F YAKIMA COMMUNITY OCITY Alf!l17�DEVCIt)t�M Nfi y Page 16 INNZX PLANNING ,` D-1 197 6. Is there any indication of past landslides,erosion,or unstable soils in the vicinity? The is no indication of past landslides,erosion or unstable soils on the site 7. Is erosion likely to occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? Temporary erosion Is possible with any construction activity but TESC measures would minimize potential Impacts, 8. Are soils proposed to be compacted? Some level of soil compaction may occur during the construction process but would be in accordance with applicable City of Yakima standards and regulations. 9. Are roads,walkways,and parking areas designed to be parallel to natural contours? The proposed north parking lot would be parallel to the natural contours of the site.The proposed west parking lot would run perpendicular to the natural contours. H. Habitat 1. List any birds, mammals, fish, or other animal species found in the vicinity of the site, including those found during seasonal periods. Birds and small mammals tolerant of developed areas are known to be in the vicinity of the site,including squirrel,mouse, rat,opossum,raccoon,crow,sparrow,robin,and starling. 2. Is the site or areas in the vicinity used for commercial or recreational fishing, including shellfish? The site is not in the vicinity of commercial or recreational fishing areas. 3. Is the area designated an Area of Special Concern under on-site sewage regulations to protect shellfish or the general aquatic habitat? The site is not designated as an Area of Special Concern under on-site sewage regulations. 4. Are any natural area preserves or natural resource areas located within 500 feet of the site? There are no natural area preserves or natural resource areas within 500 feet of the site. 5. Is the site part of a migration route? The site is not part of a migration mute. 6. Are any priority habitat areas, as shown on maps published by the WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, within one-half mile of the site? If so, describe type of habitat and distance from project area. There are no priority habitat areas in the vicinity of the site 7. Are any of the following located on or adjacent to the site? D Aspen stands ❑ Estuary and estuary like areas 0 Juniper savannah ❑ Caves 0 Marine/estuarine shorelines ❑ Prairies and steppe p Cliffs ❑ Vegetative marine/estuarine areas 0 Riparian areas ❑ Shrub-steppe 0 Old-growth/mature forests 0 Instream habitat areas ❑ Snags or logs 0 Oregon white oak woodlands 0 Rural natural open spaces ❑ Talus ❑ Freshwat weCDnds and fresh ❑Urban natural open spaces deepwater RECF!%!'n Revised 4/2019 JUL 4 2021 DEC ,1. 8 2019 Page 17 DOC. YAKIMA CITY OF YgtlmK PLA � '��� COMMUNITYCITYOF pE�ELOPMENT PLANNING DIV ' D_1 198 8. Does the proposal involve any discharge of waste materials or the use of hazardous substances? The project would not discharge waste materials or hazardous substances. 9. What levels of noise will be produced from the proposed activity or construction? Short-term construction-related noise would occur during the development of the proposed project and would be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance.Subsequent to construction,noise from the school would be similar to existing conditions and would include human voices and vehicles travelling to and from the site. 10. Will light or glare result from the proposed activity or construction? At times,area lighting may be necessary during construction to meet safety requirements.Light and glare from the proposed project would be similar to the existing school and Include interior and exterior building lighting,as well as vehicle headlights.Lighting levels may be slightly higher due to increased building space but would not be significant. Ill. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS I. Are there any existing environmental documents for the subject property? 2. Provide a detailed site plan which includes all the required items on the Site Plan Checklist, along with the extent and nature of on-site and off-site Critical Areas and the relationship of the project to those Critical Areas. RECEIVED RECEIVED JUL 14 2021 • Clryc. 'I[.r' y r; ni9 CDMM NITyQ�y�LUf6iir:;. &;I I Y Ui YAKIMA PLAl(JIN1; ll111 DOC. Revised 4/2019 Page 18INDEX D-1 199 �:�1�� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) P a Y OI YAKIMA K g (AS TAKEN FROM WAC 197-11-960) YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.88 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance,minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the _probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal, INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable"or"does not apply"only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknpwn. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal,even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land.Attach any additional information that will help you describe your proposal or its environmental effects,The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. _ USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS For non-project proposals(such as ordinances,regulations,plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS(part D).Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words"project","applicant",and"property or site"should be read as"proposal,""proponent,"and"affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B —Environmental Elements — that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal, A.BACKGROUND INFORMATION.(To be completed by the applicant.) Rr , 1. Name Of Proposed Project(If Applicable): Apple Valley Elementary School Project �f r 2. Applicant's Name&Phone: 2 j <(r1', West Valley School District No. 208(WVSD) _ Wilily {STY YHttIMA 3. Applicant's Address: N DIV. 8902 Zler Road,Yakima,WA 98908 4. Contact Person&Phone: Rob Gross.Sr. Project Manager CBREIHeery. 1212 North Washington Street, Suite 210,Spokane,WA 99201.509-498-1712. 5. Agency Requesting Checklist: City of Yakima 6. Proposed Timing Or Schedule(Including Phasing,If Applicable): Demolition could begin in approximately November 2019,followed by site preparation and construction.Building occupancy is anticipated In approximately April 2021. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion,or further activity related to or connected with this proposal?If yes,explain: No future plans for further development of the project site are proposed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,or will be prepared,directly related to this proposal: IGeotechnical Site investigation Report(GN Northern, Inc.,2019);Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet(EA Engineering,2019); Hazardous Building Materials Inspection Report(Fulcrum Environmental Consulting,2019);and, (Transportation Technical Report (Transpo Group,2019). Revised 4/2019 D C' Page 14 INDEX # D-1 200 A.BACKGROUND INFORMATION(To be completed by the applicant.) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal?If yes,explain: A demolition permit Is currently being reviewed by the City of Yakima for the project.There are no known other applications that are pending approval for the Apple Valley Elementary School Project site. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,If known: Demolition Permit;Type 3 Review Application;Building Permit;Mechanical Permits;Electrical and Fire Alarm Permits;Drainage' and Sewer Permit;Comprehensive Drainage Control Plan Approval;Drainage Control Plan with Construction Best Management Practices, Erosion and Sediment Control Approval;Grading/Shoring Permit;Tree Removal Authorization; Street Use and Construction Use Permit(temporary—construction related);Street Use and Utility Permit 11. Give a brief,but complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal.You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.(Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.): The proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project Is Intended to address current over-crowded conditions In the existing facility and upgrade the quality of the student learning environment at the school.The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing buildings and relocation of the existing portable buildings to allow for the construction of a new two-story elementary school building.The approximately 60,300 gsf building would contain approximately 24,110 gsf of classroom space (approximately 23 classrooms), 11,770 gsf of common areas, 1,440 gsf of offices,and 22,990 gsf of other space.The proposed addition would increase the student capacity of the school from an existing capacity of 232 students(current enrollment of approximately 367 students)to a new capacity of 550 students.Play areas would located adjacent to the building. Existing grass open areas would continue to remain to the east and south of the building. Visitor parking and parent drop off/pickup would be located along the western edge of the site;staff parking and bus loading/unloading would be located at the north edge. 12. Location of the proposal.Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project,including a street address,if any,and section,township,and range,if known.if a proposal would occur over a range of area,provide the range or boundaries of the site(s).Provide a legal description,site plan,vicinity map,and topographic map,if reasonably available.While you should submit any plans required by the agency,you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist: The proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project site is located at 7 N 88th Avenue,The project site is generally bounded by open grass area,single family residences,and the Cross Church to the north;single family residences to the east and to the south;and N 88th Avenue and single family residences to the west. RECEIVED RECEIVED OCT 2�8 201s rJUL 14 2021 CITy OF YAKIMA PLANNIMq ryv �IrtY CI ll' COMMUNITY DEVI:jPcrF'�.L`;. DOC. INDEX D-1 Revised 4/2019 Page 15 201 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) EARTH 1. General description of the site(✓one): 0 flat ❑ rolling ❑ hilly 0 steep slopes ❑ mountainous ❑ other:_ 2. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? See Attachment 1. 3. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example,clay,sand,gravel,peat,muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. See Attachment 1. 4. Are there surface Indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?If so,describe. See Attachment 1. 5. Describe the purpose,type,total area,and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling,excavation, and grading proposed.Indicate source of fill. See Attachment 1. 6. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use?If so,generally describe. See Attachment 1. 7. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example,asphalt or buildings)? See Attachment 1 8. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if any: See Attachment 1. AIR I. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction,operation,and maintenance when the project is completed? If any,generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. See Attachment 1, 2, .Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?if so,grike� uy�describe. See Attachment 1. V RECEI VE 'JULD 14 2021a Cr 3 See Attachment 1.Tres to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if ar'OMMUN+nUpEVh7t1 `� 201y o� PLANNING Div A Revised 4/2019 D 'C• Page 16 INDEX 202 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) SURFACE WATER 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. See Attachment 1. 2, Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes,please describe and attach available plans. See Attachment 1. 3, Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.Indicate the source of fill material. See Attachment 1. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known, See Attachment 1. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain?If so,note location on the site plan. See Attachment 1. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. See Attachment 1. GROUND WATER 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so,give a general description of the well,proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well.Will water be discharged to groundwater?Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. See Attachment 1. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the systems the number of such systems,the number of houses to be served(If applicable),or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. RECEN'ED See Attachment 1. ��=k�E�VED JUL DOC. 2021 OCT 3 2019 rl. CITY OF A CITY. TF _ T.. I COMMUNiry DEVCLCPivi�YAKIM Iy lAi IA,1Ie 1f iN1 f, 111t1 Reviscd 4/2019 Page 17 203 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) WATER RUNOFF(INCLUDING STORM WATER) 1. Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal,if any(include quantities,if known).Where will this water flow?Will this water flow into other waters?If so,describe. See Attachment 1. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe. See Attachment 1. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns In the vicinity of the site?If so,describe. See Attachment 1. 4. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water,and drainage pattern impacts,if any: See Attachment 1. PLANTS -1. Check(/)types of vegetation found on the site: Deciduous Trees: Evergreen Trees: Wet Soil Plants: Water Plants: Other: ❑Alder ❑Fir 0 Cattail ❑Milfoil ®Shrubs ❑Maple 0 Cedar 0 Buttercup ❑Eelgrass ®Grass ❑Aspen 0 Pine 0 Bullrush 0 Water Lily ❑Pasture ®Other 0 Other ❑Skunk Cabbage ❑Other 0 Crop Or Grain 0 Other ❑Orchards,vineyards,or other permanent crops ❑Other types of vegetation 2. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? See Attachment 1. ReCEivEQ 3. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. OCT , 3 1(J 19 See Attachment 1. CITY OF YAKiMi4 PLANNING Div 4. Proposed landscaping,use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: See Attachment 1. REC,trvra 5. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. JUL 1 4 2021 See Attachment 1. COMMUr Or Nr�'Y Dtvc�t.. DOC. Revised 4/2019 INDEX Page 18 D-,1 204 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) ANIMALS 1. List any birds or other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds:hawk, heron, eagle, ,songbirds, other: mammals:deer, bear, elk, beaver, other. ,fish:bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: See Attachment 1. 2. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. See Attachment 1. 3. Is the site part of a migration route?if so,explain. See Attachment 1. 4. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any: See Attachment 1. 5. List any Invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. See Attachment 1. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 1. What kinds of energy(electric,natural gas,oil,wood stove,solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,manufacturing,etc. See Attachment 1. 2. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,generally describe. See Attachment 1. DOC. INDEX D-1 3. What kinds of energy conservation features arc Included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce orr control energy impacts,if any: RECEIVED See Attachment 1. RECEIVED 'JULOCT J 3 ZU19 toMANIVA M cf/YdF Revised 4/2019 Page 19 205 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal?If so,describe. See Attachment 1. 2, Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. See Attachment 1. 3. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. See Attachment 1. 4, Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored,used,or produced during the project's development or construction,or at any time during the operating life of the project. See Attachment 1. 5. Describe special emergency services that might be required. See Attachment 1. 6, Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any; See Attachment 1. NOISE 1. What types of noise exist in the area,which may affect your project(for example: traffic,equipment,operation,other)? See Attachment 1. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic,construction,operation,other)?Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. See Attachment 1. RECEIVED JUG 14 202 OCT 2, S 2019 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any: ITY � 1`-� AA COMM - A CO DEVtLUr';,,,_ NM .877 O 01 See Attachment 1. C.Y�ti��Yo Revised 4/2019 t 4DEX Page I 10 D A 206 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) LAND AND SHORELINE USE 1. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties?If so,describe. See Attachment 1. 2. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal,if any?If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? See Attachment 1. 3. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations,such as oversize equipment access,the application of pesticides,tilling,and harvesting?if so,how: See Attachment 1. 4. Describe any structures on the site. See Attachment 1. 5. Will any structures be demolished?If so,what? See Attachment 1. 6. What is the current zoning classification of the site? See Attachment 1. 7. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? See Attachment 1. RECEIVED B. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Ju, 1 See Attachment 1. 2021 EOM CII1I`?� . 9. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county?if so,specify. NHI11IIIIIYyLk See Attachment 1. 10.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? REL.EIVED See Attachment 1. OCTS8 2019 1 I,Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? CITY OF YAKIMA See Attachment 1. PLANNING OIV. Revised 4/2019 ®QCi°' Page 11 INDEX D-1 207 B, ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) LAND AND SHORELINE USE 12. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any. See Attachment 1. 13. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans,if any: See Attachment 1. 14. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance,if any: See Attachment 1. HOUSING — 1. Approximately bow many units would be provided,if any?Indicate whether high,middle,or low-income housing. See Attachment 1. 2, Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated?Indicate whether high,middle,or low-income housing. See Attachment 1. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any: See Attachment 1. AESTHETICS 1. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed? See Attachment 1. RF CPlvFr 2. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? See Attachment 1. OCr 8 211:'9 Ciril PLANNOV 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,if any: V r See Attachment 1. rJUL 1 4 202 f CITY o COMMUNITY i , DOC. - . ,-•01 Revised 4/2019 INDEX Page 112 -1 208 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) LIGHT AND GLARE 1. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?What time of day would it mainly occur? See Attachment 1. 2. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? See Attachment 1. 3. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? See Attachment 1. 4. Proposed measures to reduce or control fight and glare impacts,if any: See Attachment 1. RECREATION - -- - - - - - — - - — -- r 1. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? See Attachment 1. 2. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?If so,describe. See Attachment 1. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant,if any: See Attachment 1. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION 1. Are there any buildings,structures,or sites,located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national,state,or local preservation registers located on or near the site?If so,specifically describe. See Attachment 1. RECENED REM/re; ®�� 'JUL 1 4 2021 2019 YQF YAKIM CITY OF (�T ,q COMMUNITY DFV.: Revised 4/2019 INDEX Page 113 #_D-1 209 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION 2. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries.Arc there any material evidence,artifacts,or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. See Attachment 1. 3, Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss,changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. See Attachment 1. TRANSPORTATION 1. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system.Show on site plans,if any. See Attachment 1. 2. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? See Attachment 1. 3. How many parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? See Attachment 1. 4. Will the proposal require any new or Improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian bicycle or state transportation facilities,not including driveways?If so,generally describe(indicate whether public or private). See Attachment 1. 5. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail,or air transportation? If so,generally describe. See Attachment 1. 6. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal?If known,indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks(such omm rciai and non-passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? ncCEIVED RFCi: I� See Attachment 1. �C� Z0�9 rJUL 14 21M CITY of VAK,MA PLANNING Dty, Cm'OF YAKIMA DOC. COMMUNITY DEv i NIENT Revised 4/2019 INDEX Page 114 D 210 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS(To be completed by the applicant) TRANSPORTATION 7. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area?if so,generally describe: See Attachment 1. 8. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any: See Attachment 1. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit,health care,schools,other)?If so,generally describe: See Attachment 1. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any. See Attachment 1. UTILITIES 1. Check(✓)utilities currently available at the site: electricity ®natural gas m water ® refuse service ®telephone sanitary sewer❑septic system (]other_ 2. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See Attachment 1. RECE C. SIGNATURE(To be completed by the applicant.) CO/y art, o. The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relyitteetn; to make its decision. et) 19/11 October 10,2019 OCT Property Owner or Agent Signature Date Submitted Q r fit'1� , PLANINGKlI Jeff Ding Planner, EA Engineering,Science and Technology, Inc.,PB d/�l Name of Signee Position and Agency/Organization PLEASE COMPLETE SECTION"D"ON THE NEXT PAGES IF THERE IS NO PROJECT RELATED TO THIS Eti *ONMENTAL REVIEW Revised 4/2019 INDEX Page 115 D- 1 211 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS QNIX(to be completed by the applicant) Because these questions arc very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions,be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities that would likely result from the proposal,would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. _Respond briefly and in general terms. I. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;production,storage,or release of toxic or hazardous substances;or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,animals,fish,or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants,animals,fish,or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated(or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,wilderness,wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,historic or cultural sites,wetlands,floodptains,or prime farmlands? RECEIVED OCT23 209 CITY OF YAKIMA Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: R.ANNING DIV. • RECEPVD F 1UL14 ?u?l ciry 13cC. LummuNi i Revised 4/2019 INDEX kagel i 6. # D-1 212 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS ONLY(to be completed by the applicant) 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,including whether It would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)are: 7, Identify,If possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local,state,or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. RECEIVED OC r 2 8 Ii)1q CITY OF YAMNIA PLANNING DIv. RECEIVED r'JUL 14 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELONI,: OOC. Revised 4/2019 INDEX Page 117 213 ATTACHMENT '1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST for the proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project prepared by l[AET 111:11.1Ey- vo SCHOOL DISTRICT October 2019 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, inc., PBC GN Northern, Inc. Fulcrum Environmental Consulting The Transpo Group. FIECEIVE(J REC °CT 2019 Doc. TY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. INDEX Comm 214 PREFACE The purpose of this Environmental Checklist is to Identify and evaluate probable environmental Impacts that could result from the Apple Valley Elementary School Project and to identify measures to mitigate those impacts. The Apple Valley Elementary School Project would involve demolition of the existing school buildings and development of a new two-story, approximately 60,300 gross square foot(gsf)elementary school building to address current over- crowded conditions in the existing facility and upgrade the quality of the student learning environment at the school. The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)1 requires that all governmental agencies consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before the proposal is decided upon. This Final Environmental Checklist has been prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act; the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 198.4, as amended (Chapter 197-11, Washington Administrative Code); and the Yakima Municipal Code (6.88), which Implements SEPA. This document is intended to serve as SEPA review for site preparation work, budding construction, and operation of the proposed development comprising the Apple Valley Elementary School Project. Analysis associated with the proposed project contained in this Environmental Checklist is based on Schematic Design plans for the project, which are on-file with the West Valley School District and the City of Yakima. While not construction-level detail, the schematic plans accurately represent the eventual size, location and configuration of the proposed project and are considered adequate for analysis and disclosure of environmental impacts. This Environmental Checklist is organized into three major sections. Section A of the Checklist (starting on page 1) provides background information concerning the Proposed Action (e.g., purpose, proponent/contact person, project description, project location, etc.). Section B (beginning on page 5) contains the analysis of environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project, based on review of major environmental parameters. This section also Identifies possible mitigation measures. Section C (page 28) contains the signature of the proponent, confirming the completeness of this Environmental Checklist. Project-relevant analyses that served as a basis for this Environmental Checklist include: the Geotechnical Site Investigation Report(GN Northern, Inc.,2019),the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet(EA Engineering,2019),the Hazardous Materials Building Inspection Report(Fulcrum Environmental Consulting, 2019), and the Traffic Impact Analysis Report(Transpo Group, 2019). These reports are included as appendices to this SEPA Checklist RECEIVED DCC. OCT 2 3 2019 INDEX D _ _ PLANNING(W�A RECEIVER Chapter43.21C.RCW rJUL 1 4 2021 ciTr o>` Environmental Checklist COMMUNITY D 1, I Apple Valley Elementary School Project 215 Table of Contents A. BACKGROUND 1 1. Name of Proposed Project: 1 2. Name of Applicant: 1 3. Address and Phone Number of Applicant and Contact Person. 1 4. Date Checklist Prepared 1 5. Agency Requesting Checklist 1 6. Proposed Timing or Schedule(Including phasing, if applicable): 1 7. Future Plans. 2 8. Additional Environmental Information 2 9. Pending Applications 2 10. Government Approvals or Permits 2 11. Project Description 3 12. Location of the Proposal. . 4 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 5 1. Earth 5 2. Air 7 3. Water B 4. Plants 11 5. Animals 12 6. Energy and Natural Resources 13 7. Environmental Health 13 8. Land and Shoreline Use 16 9. Housing 19 10. Aesthetics 19 11. Light and Glare 20 12. Recreation 21 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation 22 14. Transportation 23 15. Public Services 26 16. Utilities 26 C. SIGNATURES 28 REFERENCES 29 FIGURES 30 APPENDICES 34 RECEIVED DOC• DCT 2 g 2018sztato INDEX CITY OF r ' -1 PiANNIIV(3 IDIV.A Fw JUL Y 4 20ZV cOM cr7 YAi�;Ai MUNr C� .� n'pEvEIUr�l �;� Environmental Checklist li Apple Valley Elementary School Project 216 PURPOSE The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help identify impacts from the proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts, if possible) and to help make a SEPA threshold determination. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proposed Project: Apple Valley Elementary School Project 2. Name of Applicant: West Valley School District No. 208 (WVSD) 3. Address and Phone Number of Applicant and Contact Person: Rob Gross Senior Project Manager CBRE I Heery 1212 North Washington Street, Suite 210 Spokane, WA 99201 509.496.1712 4. Date Checklist Prepared October 10, 2019 5. Agency Requesting Checklist City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 6. Proposed Timing or Schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Apple Valley Elementary School Project that is analyzed in this Environmental Checklist involves demolition, site preparation work, construction, and operation of the project. Demolition is anticipated to begin in November 2019 and would be followed by site preparation and construction of the new building, Building occupancy is anticipated to occur In April 2021. DOC. RECEIVED RECEIVED INDEX OCT # D- 1 2 3 2019 JUL 1 4: 2021 CITY� E fN7t, CITY OF YAKIMA Environmental ChecklistPLA OOMMUNI>rY DEVELOPMENT Apple Valley Elementary School Project 217 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No future plans for further development of the project site are proposed. 8. List any environmental Information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal: • Geotechnical Site Investigation Report(GN Northern, Inc., 2019); • Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet(EA Engineering, 2019); • Hazardous Building Materials Inspection Report (Fulcrum Environmental Consulting, 2019); • Traffic Impact Analysis Report(Transpo Group, 2019). 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: A demolition permit is currently being reviewed by the City of Yakima for the project. There are no known other applications that are pending approval for the Apple Valley Elementary School Project site. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known: City of Yakima Permits/approvals associated with the proposed project, including: - Type 3 Review Application - Demolition Permit - Building Permit - Mechanical Permit - Plumbing Permit - Electrical Permit Fire Code Permit - Sewer Permit - Water Connection Permit - Stormwater Permit RECEIVED - Grading/Shoring Permit - Tree Removal Authorization OC T 2 Z01�- Excavation Permit—Street Break �� N p� WA Department of Ecology —AlV - NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit RECEIVED DOC. - INDEX 7 QM 14 2021 D-1 '—""""" CITY OF YAKIMA Environmental Checklist COMMUNITY DEVELOPMC iT Apple Valley Elementary School Project 218 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Existing Site Conditions The proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project site Is located in the western portion of the City of Yakima (see Figures 1 and 2). The school campus is generally bounded by open grass area, single family residences, and the Cross Church to the north; single family residences to the east and to the south; and N 88th Avenue and single family residences to the west. The existing single-story Apple Valley Elementary School contains approximately 31,670 gsf of building space, including approximately 16,350 gsf of classroom space, 6,900 gsf of common space, 1,185 gsf of offices, and 7,220 gsf of other space. The school Is comprised of three buildings that are centrally located on the site, including a gymnasium building, a library building, and an office building (classroom are located within the library building and the office building). Three portable classroom buildings are also located to the southeast of the existing buildings. Existing play areas are located to the northwest and northeast of the existing buildings. Open grass areas are located to the south of the buildings and include a backstop for baseball/softball use and soccer goals; additional open grass area is located along the eastern edge of the site A parking lot is located to the west of the buildings, adjacent to N 880 Avenue, and includes space for approximately 55 vehicles. School bus loading and unloading also occurs in this area adjacent to the buildings. The existing Apple Valley Elementary School has a capacity for approximately 232 students; however, current enrollment for the existing school is approximately 367 students (West Valley School District, 2019). It should be noted that to accommodate construction activities with the project, Apple Valley Elementary has temporarily moved to the West Valley freshman campus until the proposed project is operational. Proposed Project The proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project is intended to address current over-crowded conditions in the existing facility and upgrade the quality of the student learning environment at the school. The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing buildings and relocation of the existing portable buildings to allow for the construction of a new two-story elementary school building that would be centrally located on the school campus (see Figure 3). The approximately 60,300 gsf building would contain approximately 24,110 gsf of classroom space (approximately 23 classrooms), 11,770 gsf of common areas, 1,440 gsf of offices, and 22,990 gsf of other space. The proposed addition would increase the student capacityof'tie school RECEIVED Environmental Checklist ,li;f.:3( ;. r 3 Apple Valley Elementary Sch9, rrr,�']",per OCT 2 3 2019 JUL 14 2021 D - CITY OF YAKIM'A CITY CV -- (COMMUNITY DE, 219 from an existing capacity of 232 students to a new capacity of 550 students. Table 1 provides a summary of existing and proposed building area for the school. Table 1 Existing and Proposed Building Area Existing Proposed Classroom 16,347 gsf 24,110 gsf Common Areas 6,916 gsf 11,766 gsf Offices 1,185 gsf 1,437 gsf Other 7,222 gsf 22,987 gsf Total 31,670 gaf 60,300 gsf Source:Design West Architects,2010.. Multiple play areas would be provided adjacent to the new building. A kindergarten playground would be located to the east of the building. Two playground areas, a basketball court and other hard surface play areas would also be located to the south and southeast of the building. Existing grass open areas would continue to remain to the east and south of the building; grass areas to the south and southeast of the building Would be able to be utilized for baseball/softball and soccer. Visitor parking and parent drop off/pickup would be located along the western edge of the site, adjacent to N 88th Avenue;approximately 64 parking stalls would be provided within this area. Staff parking and bus loading/unloading would be located to the north of the building with access via N 88th Avenue; approximately 86 parking stalls would be located in this area. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient Information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). The proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project site is located at 7 N 88th Avenue. The project site is generally bounded by open grass area, single family residences, and the Cross Church to the north; single family residences to the east and to the south; and N 88th Avenue and single family residences to the west. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 for vicinity maps of the project site RECEIVED FECENED COB. OCT $8 2019 INDEX Y OF YAKIMA JUL 14 2021 D 1 PLANNING DIV. COMMuniln YAKimA rev cvl;Ml Nr Environmental Checklist 4 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 220 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS RECEIVED 1. Earth OCT 2 $ 2019 a. General description of the site (circle one): (fly l; Elat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, PIANNEy:KNGE/KINIADIV. other:The majority of the Apple Valley Elementary School Project site Is generally flat with a slight slope near the north edge of the site. RECEIDb. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent .JUG21slope)? EppMENT The overall vertical change of the school campus is approximately 25 feet from north to south.The steepest slope on the site is approximately 15 percent and located to the north of the existing buildings (GN Northern, 2019). c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Three exploratory borings were completed on the site as part of the Geotechnical Report prepared by GN Northern for the project (see Appendix A for further details). Explorations were completed to a depth ranging from 11 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface. Soils on the site generally consisted of an upper layer of fill atop native silty soil overburden overlying the local sedimentary unit of the Ellensburg Formation.Native soils were typically classified as sandy silt that appear medium dense. Silty sand with gravel Was encountered beneath a thin gravel unit and the upper fill soils in the southern portion of the site. C9MM UNIIY The project site does not contain any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no indications or history of unstable soils on the site or in the site vicinity, According to the City of Yakima's GIS Maps, there are no geologic hazards on or immediately adjacent to the site(City of Yakima, 2019). DOC. INDEX D- 1 Environmental Checklist �5 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 221 e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities and total RECEIVED affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. OCT 2.8 2i11,9 Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of grading and excavation would ciry OF YAKIMA occur during project construction. The site is anticipated to be a net PLANNING DIV. balance and no significant amounts of imported or exported soils are anticipated. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? RECEnito if so, generally describe. CAA: Temporary erosion is possible in conjunction with any construction implementation of a Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control (TESC)activity. Site work would expose soils on the site, but theCtiMM�jN N � ��� plan and best management practices (BMPs) during construction that �pMNT are Consistent with City of Yakima standards would mitigate any potential impacts. Once the project is operational, no erosion is anticipated. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with Impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Under the current conditions, approximately 30 percent of the school campus is covered with impervious surfaces, including buildings, paved play areas,walkways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces. With the completion of the project, approximately 48 percent of the campus would be covered with impervious surfaces. New impervious surfaces would primarily consist of the building, paved play areas, walkways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The proposed project would comply with the applicable provisions of Yakima Municipal Code Section 7.82 — Construction Stormwater Runoff, including the provision of a construction stormwater pollution prevention plan which includes elements to minimize erosion, stabilize soils and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs DOC. INDEX # D- 1 Environmental Checklist 6 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 222 Z. Air RECEIVED a. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal OCT 2 3 2019 (Le,, dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, CITY OF YAKIMA generally describe and give approximate quantities If known. PLANNING DIV. During construction, the Apple Valley Elementary School Project could result in temporary increases In localized air emissions associated with particulates and construction-related vehicles. It is RECEIVED anticipated that the primary source of temporary, localized increases in,_ air quality emissions would result from particulates associated with r demolition, on-site excavation and site preparation. While the potential JUL 1 4 2Q2t for Increased air quality emissions could occur throughout the construction process, the timeframe of greatest potential impact would CITY OF YAI(lMA be at the outset of the project in conjunction with the site preparation OQMMi1Nl7Y DEVELOPMENT and excavation/grading activities. However, as described above under the Earth discussion, minimal amounts of excavation would be required for the project and air quality emission impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Temporary, localized emissions associated with carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons would result from diesel and gasoline-powered construction equipment operating on-site, construction traffic accessing the project site, and construction worker traffic. However, emissions from these vehicles and equipment would be small and temporary and are not anticipated to result in a significant impact. Upon completion of the project, the primary source of emissions would be from vehicles travelling to and from the site. While the number of vehicles travelling to and from the site will increase as a result of the increased capacity of the school, the amount of emissions generated from those vehicles is not anticipated to result in a significant impact. Another consideration with regard to air quality and climate relates to Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG). In order to evaluate climate change impacts of the proposed project, a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet has been prepared (Appendix B of this Environmental Checklist). This Worksheet estimates the emissions from the following sources: embodied emissions; energy-related emissions; and, transportation-related emissions. In total, the estimated lifespan emissions for the proposed project would approximate 63,042 MTCO2e2. Based on an assumed building life of 62.5 years,3 the proposed building would.be estimated to generate approximately 1,009 MTCOie annually. For reference, the Washington State Department of DOC. -- — - INDEX 2 MTCO2e is defined as Metric Ton Carbon Dioxide Equivalent and is a standard measure of amount of CO2 emissions reduced or sequestered. # D-1 3 According to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet,62,5 years is the sesUmed building life for educational buildings. Environmental Checklist 7 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 223 RH -Eilier:D Ecology threshold for potential significant GHG emissions is 25,000 MTCO2e annually. Therefore, the proposed project would not be OCT 2 8 2019 anticipated to generate a significant amount of GHG emissions. CITY OF YAKIMA b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may PLANNING DIV. affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The primary off-site source of emissions in the site vicinity is vehicle traffic on surrounding roadways, including N 881" Avenue and 1 f1l Summitview Avenue. There are no known offsite sources of air emissions or odors that would affect the proposed project. = r�U� - 2021 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other F CITY OF YAKiMA Impacts to air, If any: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT No emission-related Impacts are anticipated and mitigation measures would not be necessary. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) is there any surface water body on or in the Immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,wetlands)? if yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river It flows into. There Is no surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the Apple Valley Elementary School Project site, The nearest surface water body Is the Congdon Canal, which is located more than 600 feet to the southeast of the proposed project site (see Figure 1). 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The proposed project will not require any work over, in, or adjacent (within 200 feet)of any water body. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed In or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. DOC. No fill or dredge material would be placed in or removed from any INDEX surface water body as a result of the proposed project. Environmental Checklist 8 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 224 4) WIII the proposal require surface water withdrawals or RECEIVED diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. OCT 2 8 2019 The proposed project would not require any surface water CITY OF YAKIMA withdrawals or diversions. PLANNING DIV. 5) Does the proposal He within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The proposed project site does not lie within a 100-year floodplain and is not identified as a floodway area on City of Yakima maps RECEIVED (City of Yakima, 2019). JUL 1 4 2021 6) Does the proposal Involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and COMMuNI7 aQ anticipated volume of discharge. 41t There would be no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater would be withdrawn or water discharged to ground water as part of the proposed project. During geotechnical investigations on the site, groundwater was not encountered within the three exploratory borings which were completed to a depth of 13 feet bgs. Review the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Well Log database indicates that the depth of groundwater in the vicinity of the site is approximately 40 feet bgs or greater. Groundwater levels likely fluctuate throughout the year and are typically highest during irrigation season (GN Northern, 2019). 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources; Industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served(if applicable),or the number of animals DCC. or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. INDEX Waste material would not be discharged into the ground from septic ` D-1 tanks or other sources as a result of the proposed project. Environmental Checklist 9 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 225 RECEIVED c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and OCT 2 3 ZD19 method of collection and disposal, If any (include quantities, If OF YAIMA known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into GYTY PLANNING DIM. other waters? If so, describe. Approximately 30 percent of the existing campus is in impervious Rbett► rD surfaces, Including existing buildings and paved surfaces (parking areas, play areas, walkways, etc.). Existing stormwater sheet flows JUL to grass areas and underground stormwater drainage structures on 20?1 the school campus. COM CITy of, rAKINIA Stormwater from the proposed Apple Valley Elementary School MUNI DfVE�pMEAT Project would generated from similar sources as the existing conditions (buildings, parking areas, hard surface play areas, etc.) but would drain a greater amount of impervious surface when compared to existing conditions (48 percent impervious surface under the proposed project). Proposed stormwater management far the site would include drainage basins and underground stormwater drainage structures generally located along the south portion of the site. Stormwater management for the site would be designed to be consistent with applicable provisions of the Yakima County Regional Stormwater Manual. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed stormwater management system for the site would continue to ensure that waste materials would not enter ground or surface waters as a result of the proposed project. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. The proposed project would not alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the site vicinity. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The following measures would be implemented to control surface, ground and runoff water impacts: DOC. • The proposed project would comply with the applicable INDEX provisions of Yakima Municipal Code Section 7.82 — # D-1 Construction Stormwater Runoff, including the provision of a construction stormwater pollution prevention plan. Environmental Checklist 10 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 226 • Stormwater management for the proposed project would CEIVED comply with applicable provisions of the Yakima County Regional Stormwater Manual. OCT 2 3 2019 cfi v OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: evergreen tree: &shrubs (&grass RECEIVE0 _pasture crop or grain r JC1t _wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other 2021 _water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other can, F Ypie _other types of vegetation COMMUNIT�DEV LjCPM Nr b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing grass areas are located on the Apple Valley Elementary School Project site surrounding the existing building, surface parking areas and play areas. Seven existing trees are located on the site including five trees located within the existing courtyard and walkway to the building, and two trees adjacent to the existing parking lot.A large open grass area Is also located immediately to the south and east of the existing building It Is anticipated that portions of the existing grass areas and trees within the project area would be removed as part of construction.Seven trees would'be removed as part of the project to accommodate the proposed project. The existing open grass areas to the south and east of the existing building would be largely retained. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the slto. No known threatened or endangered species are located on or proximate to the project site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: New landscaping and planting areas would be provided on the site as part of development and would be consistent with City of Yakima DOC. requirements, including Yakima Municipal Code Section 15.06.090. INDEX The existing large open grass areas in the south and east portions of # p—1 the school campus would be retained. Environmental Checklist 11 Apple Valley Elementary School Project RECEIVED e. List all noxious weeds and Invasive species known to be on or OCT 2019 near the site. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. No noxious weeds or invasive species are known to be on the site. Species that could be present in the vicinity of the site include Japanese knotweed, English ivy and Himalayan blackberry. RECEIVED 5. Animals rJUL 4 2021 a. Circle(underlined)any birds and animals that have been observed CITY on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: COMMUNI r?p!' it,�q birds: songbirds,hawk, heron, eagle, other: crows, pigeons, LV opMENr mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: squirrels, raccoons, rats,mle fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None. Birds and small mammals tolerant of urban conditions may use and may be present on and near the Apple Valley Elementary School Project site. Mammals likely to be present in the site vicinity include: raccoon, eastern gray squirrel, mouse, rat, and opossurn. Birds common to the area include: European starling, house sparrow, rock dove, American crow, American robin, and house finch. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The following are listed threatened or endangered species that could affected by development on the project site, based on data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: marbled murrelet, Canada lynx, yellow billed cuckoo, bull trout, grey wolf, and north american wolverine4. However, It should be noted that none of these species have been observed at the project site and it is unlikely that these animals are present on or near the site c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The project site is not part of a known migration route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: New landscaping would be provided adjacent to the proposed building DOC. and parking areas that could provide areas for urban wildlife. INDEX D-1 4 U.S. Fish end Wildlife Service. IPeC. httosa/nws.iws.govli«acllagiianlosigx.Accessed September 2019. Environmental Checklist 12 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 228 e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. RECEIVED No invasive animal species are known to be located on or near the OCT 2 $ 2019 project site. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING Div. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) ROE will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? NED Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. JUL 14 202 Electricity and natural gas are the primary source of energy that would would serve the generally sed beutilized forpple a//ey htin61 electronics, chool roJect and CpMMuN�OF�� 9 Y lighting, heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? if so, generally describe. The proposed project would not affect the use of Solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The proposed project would be required to meet or exceed the requirements of the Washington State Energy Code, as adopted by the City of Yakima. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. As with any construction project, accidental spills of hazardous materials from equipment or vehicles could occur; however, a spill prevention plan would minimize the potential of an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. DOC. No known sources of potential contamination are present on the INDEX site Environmental Checklist 13 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 229 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might RECEIVED affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. vCT 2 3 2019 CITY OF YAKIMA A hazardous materials inspection report was conducted for the PLANNING Dlv. Apple Valley Elementary School Project (Fulcrum, 2019). Samples for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were taken from multiple locations within the existing school buildings. ACM was identified in several samples: however, the presence of ACM RECEIVED in wall materials Was Inconsistent and may represent an artefactual asbestos ceiling texture overspray. All ACM would 'JULequire abatement by a licensed asbestos contractor following 14 �021 all pertinent regulations prior to building demolition. If any new suspect materials are identified during demolition, work tOMMUNIT 9D sfIQq would be halted until the materials are sampled. £sO Lead-containing materials (LCM) were sampled and tested from the existing buildings. 12 samples had lead detected at levels above the method of limit of reporting and 8 of the samples contained lead greater than or equal to 600mg/Kg, which is the general guideline for worker exposure risk. These materials are classified as LCM and are regulated under worker safety regulations identified in WAC 296-155-176. Mercury-containing fluorescent lamps were also identified in the building and should be removed and recycled or disposed of in accordance with applicable local, state and federal requirements prior to demolition. In addition, refrigerant-containing systems (refrigerators, freezers, chilled drinking fountains and HVAC systems) were identified and should be removed for reuse or decommissioned by a qualified contractor prior to demolition. Soil sampling was also conducted as part of the geotechnical investigations on the site. Soil samples tested above the Model Toxics Control Act (MICA) levels for both lead and arsenic. The District's team would develop a remediation plan for proper handling and disposal of contaminated soils during earthwork activities that would comply with Washington State Department of Ecology guidelines and regulations. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or DOC construction,or at any time during the operating life of the project. INDEX During construction, gasoline and other petroleum-based products # P-.1 would be used for the operation of construction vehicles and equipment. Environmental Checklist 14 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 230 RECEIVED During the operation of the school, chemicals that would be used OC A 2 3 2019 on the site would be limited to cleaning supplies and would be stored in an appropriate and safe location. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. RECEIVED No special emergency services are anticipated to be required as a result of the project. As is typical of urban development, it Is possible that normal fire, medical, and other emergency services JUL 2o2f may, on occasion, be needed from the City of Yakima (i.e. Injuries CITY OF YA�tIMA during athletic activities or other school events). COMMUNITY pEVELOPMENT 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, If any: A spill prevention plan would be developed and implemented during construction to minimize the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. In areas where hazardous materials (ACM, LCM, mercury- containing lamps, and refrigerant cooling systems)or contaminated soils may be present,the construction contractor would comply with applicable regulations and standards for removal and disposal of such material prior to demolition of the existing building. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area that may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Traffic noise associated with adjacent roadways(N 88th Avenue and Summitview Avenue)is the primary source of noise in the vicinity of the project site. Existing noise in the site vicinity is not anticipated to adversely affect the proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic` construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from site. Short-Term Noise Construction-related noise would occur as a result of on-site DOC. construction activities associated with the project Existing INDEX residential land uses (particularly those to the immediate south and west of the site) would be the most sensitive noise receptors and , ' D- could experience occasional noise-related impacts during the construction process. However, pursuant to Yakima Municipal Environmental Checklist 15 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 231 RECEIVED Code 6.04.180, sounds created by construction equipment are exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance between the hours of 6:00 OCT 2 3 2019 AM to 10;0Q PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM on Sundays and legal holidays CITY OF YAKIMA PI AIMING DIV. Long-Term Noise The proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project and associated increase in student capacity would likely result In a REc IVED potential minor increase in noise from human voices and vehicles travelling to and from the site, particularly during student drop-off and pickup. The potential increase in noise is anticipated to be JUL 4 2D2t minor and would not result in significant noise impacts. CITY Or 3) MA Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, If any: COMMUNITY D� L,AKIOPMENT P P � The following measures would be provided to reduce noise impacts: ■ As noted, the project would comply with provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance (Yakima Municipal Code 6.04.180); which identifies construction-related noise as exempt between the hours of 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM on Sundays and legal holidays. S. Land and Shoreline Use a. What Is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The existing single-story Apple Valley Elementary School is located in the central portion of the school campus site and is comprised of three buildings, including the gymnasium building, the library building and an office building. The buildings contain approximately 31,670 gsf of building space,including classroom space,common areas, offices,and other spaces. Three portable classroom buildings are also located to the southeast of the existing buildings. Existing play areas are located to the northwest and northeast of the existing building. Open grass areas are located to the south of the building and include a backstop for baseball/softball use and soccer goals; additional open grass area is located along the eastern edge of the site. A parking lot is located to the west of the building and Includes space for approximately 55 vehicles. School bus loading and unloading also occurs in this area adjacent to the building, as well as parent drop-off and pick up. (see d# Figure 2 for an aerial photo of the site and Figure 3 for the site plan of the project). INDEX The school campus is generally bounded by open grass area, single D_1 family residences, and the Cross Church to the north; single family Environmental Checklist 16 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 232 residences to the east and to the south; and N 88'h Avenue and single ?ECEIVED family residences to the west. Adjacent land uses surrounding the project site are generally OCT 2019 comprised of one-story and two-story single family residences, and the CITY OF YAKiMA Cross Church. PLANNING DIV. The site would continue to be utilized as a school and would not be anticipated to affect current land uses on adjacent properties. b. Has the site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? if so, describe, How much agricultural or forest land of RECEIVED long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been JUL .1 4 �021 designated, how many acres In farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? CITY OF Ygy�IMq COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The project site has no recent history of use as a working farmland or forest land. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides,tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: The project would not affect or be affected by working farm or forest land; no working farm or forest land is located in the immediate vicinity of this site. c. Describe any structures on the site. The Apple Valley Elementary School campus contains three permanent single-story structures on the site, including the gymnasium building, the library building, and the office building. In total, these buildings contain approximately 31,670 gsf of building space. Three portable classroom buildings are also located to the southeast of these existing buildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? As part of the proposed project, the existing single-story buildings would be demolished and the three portable classroom buildings would be relocated from the site. DOC. INDEX D-1 Environmental Checklist 17 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 233 d. What Is the current zoning classification of the site? RECEIVED The site is currently zoned as R-1 Single-Family. Public schools are OCT 2 3 2019 categorized as a Class 3 permitted use in the R-1 Single Family zone. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. The adjacent surrounding areas to the north, south, east and west, are also currently zoned as R-1 Single-Family. R-2 Two Family zoned areas are located further to the north, beyond Summitview Avenue. R- 3 Multi-Family zoned areas are located further to the south and southeast, beyond W Chestnut Avenue (City of Yakima, 2019). RECEIVED a. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? rJUL 14 2021 The current comprehensive s � esignation for the site Is Low DensityCOM CITY D mom Residential (City of Yakima,plan MUNITyflCOl >4fE ivr f. If applicable, what Is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The project site is not located within the City's designated shoreline boundary. g. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? if so, specify. According to the City of Yakima GIS Maps there are no Environmental Critical Areas located on the project site (City of Yakima, 2019). h. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project would not provide any residential opportunities. Development of the project would create new classroom space that would increase the student capacity for the school to approximately 550 students (current capacity is approximately 232 students). It should be noted that the current student enrollment at the school is,approximately 367 students. Currently the school has approximately 42 full-time and part-time employees. Is anticipated that employment levels at the school would remain generally similar with the proposed project. DO . I. Approximately how many people would the completed project INDEX displace? a The proposed project would not permanently displace any people. Environmental Checklist 18 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 234 j. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if RECEIVED any: OCT 2 8 2019 No displacement Impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are CITY OF YgKflya necessary. PLANNING DIV k. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, If any: The proposed project is compatible with existing land uses and plans. RECEIVE() I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal Is compatible with JUL - 4 2D2! nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial C Cfly0F significance, If any: OMMu Y DEVpi("M No r The project site is not located near agricultural or forest lands and no mitigation measures are necessary. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, If any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-Income housing. No housing units would be provided as part of the Apple Valley Elementary School Project. b. Approximately how many units, If any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing presently exists on the site and none would be eliminated. c, Proposed measures to reduce or control housing Impacts, if any: No housing impacts would occur and no mitigation would be necessary, 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not Including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? DOC. The existing school buildings are single-story structures. The proposed INDEX building would be two stories and approximately 36 feet tall at its # D-1 highest point. Environmental Checklist 19 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 235 The exterior building materials for the proposed Apple Valley RECEIVED Elementary School Project would include metal wall panel, masonry units, storefront curtain wall systems, and a standing seam metal roof. l7C T 1 2 20Ig b. What views In the Immediate vicinity would be altered or CITY OF YAKIMµ obstructed? PLANNING OW. The proposed building would be situated In a similar location as the existing building (central portion of the site), but would be slightly taller and include a greater amount of building space.Views of the site would reflect the taller,denser building on the school campus;however, views RECEIVED of the site would generally remain similar to the existing conditions and would be reflective of the existing school uses on the site. Theproposed roject would not obstruct anyexistingviews in the site JUL ���� project CITY vicinity. CoMMuNIr,°DEVEi° c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 6 � No significant impacts are anticipated with regard to aesthetic impacts and no measures are proposed. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would It mainly occur? Short-Term Licht and Glare At times during the construction process,area lighting of the job site (to meet safety requirements) may be necessary, which would be noticeable proximate to the project site. In general, however, light and glare from construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to adversely affect adjacent land uses. Lonq-Terri Light and Glare Under the proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project, light and glare sources on the site would remain similar to the existing conditions and would primarily consist of interior and exterior building lighting, as well as vehicle lights travelling to and from the site. Lighting levels could be slightly higher than existing conditions due to the increased building space on the site but would not be anticipated to significantly affect adjacent land uses. Exterior building lighting and parking lot lighting would be designed to focus light on the site and minimize light spillage to adjacent properties. 10 0 k D rX - 1 Environmental Checklist 20 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 236 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? RECEIVED Light and glare associated with the proposed project would not be expected to cause a safety hazard or Interfere with views. °CT 2.8 2019 c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your CITY OF YAKIMA proposal? PLANNING DIV, No off-site sources of light or glare are anticipated to affect the proposed project. RECEIVED d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, UL if any: 2021 r CITIrOF YAKIMA interior and exterior building lighting would designed to be consistent COMMraNLEY, DEVELOPMENT with applicable City of Yakima requirements, including YMC 15.06.100. The proposed lighting would be designed to focus light on the site and minimize light spillage to adjacent properties. 12. Recreation a. What designated and Informal recreational opportunities are In the Immediate vicinity? The Apple Valley Elementary School campus Includes open play areas and playground structures to the east and west of the existing buildings. A grass open space area is also located immediately south of the existing buildings and includes areas for baseball/softball and soccer. There are several additional parks and recreation uses in the vicinity (approximately 1.5 miles)of the project site, including: • Harman Center at Gailleon Park is located approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the site; • Westwood West Golf Course is located approximately 1.2 miles to the southeast of the site; and, • West Valley Community Park is located approximately 1.1 miles to the southeast of the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The existing play areas and playground structures would be removed DOC• to accommodate the construction of the proposed building. INDEX D-1 As part of the project, multiple new play areas would be provided -- adjacent to the new building. A kindergarten playground would be located to the east of the building. Two playground areas, a basketball Environmental Checklist 21 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 237 court and other hard surface play areas would also be located to the south and southeast of the building. A portion of the existing grass areas to the north of the existing buildings RECEIVED would be removed with construction to accommodate the proposed parking lot and bus drop off area. However, the grass open areas to the OCT 2 3 2019 south and east of the building would remain and these areas would continue to be utilized for baseball/softball, soccer and other activities. CITY ITY OF YAKIMA DIM. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, Including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No impacts to recreation would occur and no mitigation is necessary. RE�flbED �4- .� 42021 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation CpM C `0.r Yq l a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the M I VCLUil site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in Nr national,state,or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. Building records indicate that Apple Valley Elementary School was originally constructed in 1950 with two additions subsequently added to the building in 1962 and 1964, However, site drawings for the school were dated 1968 and are consistent with the existing buildings on the site.Three portable classroom buildings were also placed on the site In the late 1990s and early 2000s. The school Is not listed on the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and there are no listed buildings Immediately adjacent to the project site. The Charles Russell Barn Is located approximately one mile to the southwest of the site and is listed on the Washington Heritage Barn Register(WHBR).Two additional buildings are listed on the WHBR and are located within approximately two miles to the east of the site, including the J.E. Ott Barn and the Johnson Orchards Packing House. Two structures are also listed on the Washington Heritage Register and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)and located within two miles of the site, including the Carbonneau Mansion and portions of the Yakima Valley Electric interurban Railroad. None of these structures are anticipated to be affected by the proposed project. . , .o. NMI Environmental Checklist 22 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 238 b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation?This may include human burials or old RECEIVED cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural Importance on or near the site? Please list any UC7. 2 3 2un professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING ENV. A review of Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) indicates that the site and surrounding areas are considered a low potential for archaeological resources based on the WISAARD predictive model. REcavED c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to jut cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. 202! CITY Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of Comm(! OF N archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, TYVEv historic maps, GIS data, etc. Potential impacts to historic and cultural resources on or near the site were evaluated by consulting the West Valley School District building history information and the WISAARD mapping and database system. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please Include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Although no impacts to historic or cultural resources are anticipated with the proposed project, the following measure would be implemented to minimize Impacts from a potential inadvertent discovery of cultural resources: • Although archaeological resources are not anticipated on the site, it is possible that undiscovered pre-contact or historic cultural material could be present within the project area. In the event of an inadvertent discovery, the City of Yakima, Yakima County, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and affected Tribes would be contacted. 14. Transportation A Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Apple Valley Elementary School Project has been prepared by the Transpo Group and is DQC. included as Appendix D to this Checklist. INDEX D-1 Envlronmental Checklist 23 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 239 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected RECEIVED geographic area and describe the proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. OCT 2 3 2019 The proposed Apple Valley Elementary School Project would CITY OF YAKIMA continue to be served by N 88th Avenue. Access to the site would be PLANNING DIV, provided via three driveways along N 88th Avenue. School buses would access the site via the northern-most driveway, while parent pick- up/drop-off would use the two southern driveways. Parking would be accessed via all proposed driveways. RECEIVED b. Is site or affected geographic area currently served by public E transit? If not, what Is the approximate distance to the nearest F rJUL 14 2021 transit stop? CITY 0 F The nearest public transit stop is located at the N 88th Avenue/Summit COMMUNITY DL.-_' ,T Avenue intersection, approximately 500 feet from the project site. The stop is served by Yakima Transit Route 1, which provides one-hour headways with service between the City of Yakima Summitview neighborhood and the downtown transit center. The School District provides school bus transportation to students that qualify, which generally applies to those living outside of the Apple Valley Elementary identified walk/bike route area. The school would be served by up to four school buses In the future. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? The existing site currently contains approximately 55 parking stalls.The project would construct an additional 95 parking space for a total of 150 on-site parking spaces located in two parking lots (staff parking and visitor parking) d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not Including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). As part of the project, roadway frontage improvements (including curb, gutter, and sidewalk)would be provided along N 88th Avenue adjacent to the site. New sidewalks would connect with bnsite pedestrian walkways. DCC. INDEX e. Will the project or proposal use(or occur in the immediate vicinity # D_1 of)water, rail, or air transportation? if so, generally describe. The proposed project would not utilize water, rail or air transportation. Environmental Checklist 24 Apple Valley Elementary School Project p 240 RECEIVED f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the 0c) 2 completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak /0I9 volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would Ivry OF Y 4KIAMA be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles).What PLANNING OW data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Vehicle trip generation for the proposed project was based on ITE's Trip RECEIVED Manual, 10th Edition(2017)for the Elementary School land p use. With completion of the proposed project, Apple Valley Elementary it JUL 14 2671 is anticipated to generate a total of 1,040 trips per day with 358 trips during the school morning arrival peak hour (8-9 a.m.) and 187 trips C►7'w,�'; during the school dismissal peak hour(3 to 4 p.m.). CO�Muiv;i: The existing elementary school has an enrollment of 367 students and the proposed school would have a capacity of 550 students. The estimated increase in vehicle trips with the proposed project would be 119 net new school trips during the school morning arrival peak hour and 62 net new school trips during the school afternoon dismissal peak hour. Up to four school buses would serve the school in the morning and afternoon. These buses would be up to five percent of school peak period traffic. There would also be a limited number of trucks on a weekly basis for deliveries such as food and trash pick-up. g. Will the proposal Interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets In the area? if so, generally describe. The proposed project would not affect the movement of agricultural or forest products. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. The proposal would not have any significant traffic or parking impacts requiring off-site mitigation. The proposed project includes on-site improvements such as separated bus and parent loading areas and additional on-site parking. DCC. These improvements help reduce conflicts between parent vehicles, buses and pedestrians as well as increase storage on-site such that INDEX spillover is not anticipated onto the adjacent street. In addition, the # D-1 provision of additional parking on-site will help reduce potential neighborhood parking impacts. Environmental Checklist 25 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 241 The project also includes new sidewalks along the N 88'" Avenue RECEIVED frontage. Providing these sidewalks will improve walking conditions to and from the school. OCT 2 8 Zt119 OF 15. Public Services PLANKING KING IDIV. a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. RECEIVED While the Apple Valley Elementary School Project would increase the student capacity of the school when compared to the existing JUL 14 2021 condition, it is not anticipated to generate a significant increase in the need for public services. To the extent that emergency service CITY OF YAKIMA providers have planned for gradual increases in service demands, no COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT significant impacts are anticipated. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct Impacts on public services, If any. The increase in the capacity of the school and the number of students on the site may result in an incrementally greater demand for emergency services; however, such an Increase In demand Is not anticipated to be significant and it is anticipated that adequate service capacity is available to preclude the need for additional public facilitieslservices. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. All utilities are currently available at the site, including cable/internet services. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the Utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in immediate vicinity that might be needed. Electrical (Pacific Power), natural gas (Cascade Natural Gas) and telephone/intemet would continue to be provided to the new school building. The existing natural gas service line would be retired and a DO , new service line would be Installed to serve the proposed building. ����� New electrical service lines would also be provided and would connect at the west side of the project site and be routed to the new # 1)-1 school building. Environmental Checklist 26 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 242 Water service (Nob Hill Water Association) and sewer service (City of Yakima) are also provided to the Apple Valley Elementary School Project site. An existing water service line with a three-inch meter J ECE'ivED currently serves the site. The existing water line would be removed and a new line and meter would be installed for the proposed building, Three new fire hydrants would also be located along the west side of OCT 2 $ 2019 the site.A new sanitary sewer service line would also be provided for Lin OF VAKMA the school and connected to the existing City sewer collection system. PLANNING UJ REC�i�Fo 0111. crr Z1 COAyry witAlp rn DOC. INDEX # D-1 Envlronate►Ital Checklist 27 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 243 C. SIGNATURES RECEIVED The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead agency Is relying on them to make Its decision. OCT 2 e Signature: CITY DF Y4lcll tl� PLANNING OW. ee")- • 91/7 ) - - `— - - - -— - CEIVED Name of Signee: rJUE 3 4 2021 COMMNIT aF �11�rq�� Jeff Ding Y U�v����z�,Li4r Position and Agency/Organization: Planner. EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC Date: October 10, 2019 1)OC. INDEX —A -- Environmental Checklist 28 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 244 REFERENCES City of Yakima. City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040. Accessed September 2019. City of Yakima. City of Yakima GIS webslte:htlps://gis.yatdrnawa.Qov/citvmapl. Accessed September 2019. City of Yakima. City of Yakima Municipal Code. Accessed September 2019. GN Northern, Inc. Geotechnlcal Site Investigation Report: Apple Valley Elementary School:August 2019. Fulcrum Environmental Consulting. Hazardous Building Materials Inspection Report: Apple Valley Elementary, August 30, 2019. The Transpo Group. Traffic Impact Analysis—Apple Valley Elementary School. October 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. IPaC. pttps:lecos.fws.govlipacllocationlindex. Accessed September 2019 Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Washington information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data. Accessed August 2019. West Valley School District. West Valley School District Website; ht0s://www.wvsd208.org/. Accessed August 2019, RECEWED OCT 2 3 zols CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. RECEPVED rJUL 1 Z0ZI CpAY o comma ,2L�L DOC. INDEX D-1 Environmental Checklist 28 Apple Valley Elementary School Project 245 Figures REcEn4rD - rULr 1 4 ZO?f cox cal COMM+ u; RECEIVED OCT 2 3 2019 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNW f; DOC. 1 I 246 Fit. ii! w 1. „r. 1 1 11 i 5 ii E 0 Po i N. A� to/4W15 ,v * i ; it I .L. n C • 0 �� q a' O N ti e X' G i E a x % O .ny OUP NAAhAp, 4 • V 2 rrt • Q :� � o Z . 1 1 t i, � 1 � 0i.4 • p w ..,..,its I s ,. .w 9N�M d H IS a1N a It k + •• * .^ 1� •.-. t� 'ter E,E. „:°. 3 '?1 Ki 0) . i rA• I 1 le .4 - . .. x s. : 'h. '..• C.-1;113t 141.. ,. , 41''. t' '..4.4i, 1 , 4 0 lib* b.!, . . -...•,,,„.,. . .... .1..4 Vri..Aelf...vrt it. It .. :I, r' :lit ' ' '... '' Ill' ill , 'het,_if,y4p,1 z. '' "."1 4*li, Toka ! v.. .. I* ' ,ar , • � vt, ,,.. et,. .f,'. - -, '1,4, ,.t,. . . . l• 1 , ,! i ' • 4 ' .., , .,, ' , -* io .144 j, I ... 0'11,;„ i rj .i ..- 44r +i c i• . • i., a..9 ' 1 t.r r b y Y p` ' •, ` .„ In 'G Y l!' I L . t y • / 11106. • , • a `[ Ir I, /. -11 ... tir k i . V. sib.. '•'1 " .1;+(r N j 1 [� 1 : 1•., ...stir :..--.;„:::•\.cir.r.: - •.,. it.. ,:.. - - - _ !,. VI 0 �. _ • .�* i. �r s s SO .1i a. I • I i! 11' itAS c- ...1,i i Or- .}, -, .' , .:,.rt , r ;r 1 ..ri` }11 •i Y dl o'{ Z ,•,I�•�'~4i�"y's. �'I �l'af TCi•1+jl ts �„r I .`� i . 71 . t ''t� r ti • • 1� t►A',t'► it il ' 11-"- L, 1164 .4ri"4-1,1 ilye,,,,- ., ,, ., , ,.. -, lif % . le,: 11. 1 ' ' II;T • 44 14:441/:ji ' . • - 1,11 .1 ► ". tr W.'• • g 0 ••-1 1. t ! ; C 1 IX n• C ,v •aki 1, i1,• N A• ` Q ry C 248 pi 1111L. 1I � f j- -- . - — ; E - 1 I IDS Im ) I . , ) I NH THAW. Ipia , , •V--� �-{ O Ta ° a °'� , 64 STALLS II J 1 o 0i , PARE -Q / ,•:, {'' EN Y g v m in N i1 n1 m m -� li a 41 3 .-2( . -1...r-h 1J $ = an al § , fLi- "1 n co I . o.. i o I o ` 8 i._.__..1...... (.x, . \ FIR TRUCK LANE Id3. T i .<0 ,a:i I g i c; iii 3 I I % <<_ ,-13 0 0 I i i 1 i 1 - v I I I I j I I I I 1 ? i . _ R m 1 I I I j I I I I I I ! n -J ! I I I I I I I r ; -‹ . m E — + - I i I I I gg Q < a' ; / ___I- a I - i_--. _ _i -—.L.. _. '•�.— f rn coo 0 5 �; I NORTH 86TH AVE. D. 05 S Cl o r x l 0 -n Ws m a. W rn rQ 5 N., 0 Na m z 249 Appendix A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECEIVED OCT23 2019 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING 0111. verrvrn DOC. INDEX JUL 14 2021 D" COMMUN�y OF YAKIMA DEVELOPMENT Northern Inc. Consulting Engineers Environmental Scientists Geologists 1110§;— Construction Materials Testing Geophysical Services GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT RECEIVED APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REPLACEMENT PROJECT °CT 2 8 2019 7 N. 88' AVENUE,, YAKIMA, WA PLANNING YAKIMA GNN PROJECT NO. 219-1130 R£CFJo ciUL 4 V 2021 AUGUST 2019 co_ coy D y kr444 Prepared for WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 208 8902 ZIER ROAD r i 1557 UILLE 1 I YAKIMA,WA 98908 SCHOOL DISTRICT Prepared by DCC. GN NORTHERN, INC. INDEX CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS ; D-1,.--, YAKIMA, WASHINGTON (509)248-9798 Common ,S'c7rsc%!/)/),c) dI /r 10 '1,001 c7Ilcl (I,twginerrirrq .S'inc'e 1995 (SIN)) '118-Q79 ww\.pmiolllici n.co1 251 <S_Northern,Itx; At GN Northern our mission is to serve our clients in the most efficient, cost effective way using the best resources and tools available while maintaining professionalism on every level. Our philosophy is to.satisfy our clients through hard work, dedication and extraordinary efforts from all ot.'our valued employees working as an extension of.the design and construction team. DOC. INDEX # D-1 RECEIVED r rJUL 14 2021 F CITY OF YAKIMA COMMJ.J&IR DEVLLOPMCNT 45irNurthertg2lrtt'. August 9,2019 RECEIVED West Valley School District No. 208 8902 Zier Road OCT 2 3 2019 Yakima, WA 98902 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Attn: Angela Von Essen, Asst. Supt. Finance/Oper. CC: Rob Gross, Sr. Project Manager, CBREIHEERY RECIENED Subject: Geotechnical Site Investigation Report Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement Project rJUC 1 4 2021 7 N. 88'h Avenue, Yakima,Washington CITY OF GNN Project No. 219-1130 COMMUNITY DE Vi.WI MENT Ladies& Gentlemen, As requested, GN Northern (GNN) has completed a geotechnical site investigation for the proposed Apple Valley Elementary School replacement project in Yakima, Washington. Based on the findings of our subsurface study, we conclude that the site is suitable for the proposed construction provided that our geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are followed during the design and construction phases of the project. This report describes in detail the results of our investigation, summarizes our findings and presents our recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations and pavements for the proposed project. It is important that GN Northern provide consultation during the design phase as well as field compaction testing and geotechnical monitoring services during the earthwork phase to ensure implementation of the geotechnical recommendations, If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us at 509-248-9798, Respectfully submitted, �,,\SU,f' it,[, GN Northern,Inc. dos Asy�q,'!yO y. 4.7 Karl A. Harmon, LEG,PE M. Yousuf Memon, PE •f 5560114. Senior Geologist/Engineer Geotechnical Engineer S Shi - a`, Ercp:7-15-2020 DOC. INDEX # Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement i GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue, Yakima, WA August 9,2019 eirrNnrthem Ina TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 2.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION&LABORATORY TESTING 2 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3 4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 4 4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 4 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 5.1 NRCS SOIL SURVEY 6 5.2 GROUNDWATER ,,6 6.0 SOIL INFILTRATION TESTING 6 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL SAMPLING&TESTING B 8.0 FINDINGS&CONCLUSIONS 9 9.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11 9.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT—GRADING 11 9.2 DEMOLITION,CLEARING&GRUBBING 11 9.3 SUITABILITY OF THE ONSITE SOILS AS ENGINEERED FILL 12 9.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS 12 9.5 UTILITY EXCAVATION,PIPE BEDDING AND TRENCH BACKFILL 13 9.6 IMPORTED CRUSHED ROCK STRUCTURAL FILL 14 9.7 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINEERED FILL 14 9,8 FOUNDATION BEARING SUPPORT 14 9.9 SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS 15 9.10 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT 16 9.11 CONCRETE FLATWORK/PATHWAYS 17 9.12 SUBGRADE PROTECTION 18 9.13 WET WEATHER CONDITIONS 18 9.14 SURFACE DRAINAGE 19 10.0 CONTINUING GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 20 11.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT 21 APPENDICES APPENDIX I—VICINITY MAP(FIGURE 1),SITE EXPLORATION MAP(FIGURE 2) APPENDIX It—EXPLORATORY TEST-PIT LOGS,KEY CHART(FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION) APPENDIX III— LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS APPENDIX IV—ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL TEST RESULTS APPENDIX V—RESULTS OF WA DOE'S 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING APPENDIX VI— SITE&EXPLORATION PHOTOGRAPHS DOC. APPENDIX VII -NRCS SOIL SURVEY ENDER CITY n APPENDIX VIII—WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WELL LOGS LN,IM . D-1 Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement ii GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88'h Avenue,Yakima, WA August 9,2019 44V.Northe, , lr,� 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES This report has been prepared for the proposed Apple Valley Elementary School replacement project in Yakima, Washington; site location is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1, Appendix I). Our investigation was conducted to collect information regarding subsurface conditions and present recommendations for suitability of the subsurface materials to support the proposed improvements and allowable bearing capacity for the proposed construction. GN Northern, Inc, has prepared this report for use by the client and their design consultants in the design of the proposed development. Do not use or rely upon this report for other locations or purposes without the written consent of ON Northern, Inc. Our study was conducted in general accordance with our Proposal for Special Consultant Services dated May 29, 2019. Notice to proceed was provided in the form of an AGREEMENT BETWEEN West Valley School District No. 208 and GN Northern, Inc, for Geotechnical Engineering Services, executed by Dr. Mike Brophy, Superintendent on July 1,2019. A Conceptual Site Plan (dated 7/9/19) prepared by Design West Architects, annotated with infiltration test locations, was provided by Darral Moore of J1JB Engineers, Inc. via email on July 24, 2019. Field exploration, consisting of three (3) exploratory test-pits and three (3) infiltration tests, was completed on July 25, 2019. Test-pit and infiltration test locations are shown on the Site Exploration Map (Figure 2, Appendix I), and detailed test-pit logs are presented in Appendix IL Soil samples for environmental contaminants (lead & arsenic) and topsoil testing were also collected from the test-holes, and results of the analyses arc presented in Appendices III & IV. This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to present our recommendations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered at the site. Results of the field exploration were analyzed to develop recommendations for site development, earthwork, pavements and foundation bearing capacity. Design parameters and a discussion of the geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction are avidteisl in this report. rJUL 1 4 2021 T$ Cliff OF YA!!! , D_•� COMM Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 1 CNN Project No.; 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9,2019 North4:NuNorthe2147, Inc; 2.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Based on the information provided in the Request for Proposal/Quotation document (dated May 16, 2019) prepared by CBREIHEERY, along with the Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Design West Architects, we understand that the existing school building will be demolished for construction of a new 2-story 61,000 SF school building with an attached gymnasium. The project will contain a new parking lot on the north side of the school building, student bus circulation/bus drop-off areas, playgrounds and playfields. We understand that the initial concept is to construct the new building with structural steel with infill of steel framing, while the attached gymnasium will be a CMU structure. Structural loading information for the school building was not available at the time of this report. Based on our experience with similar projects, we expect maximum wall loads to be on the order of 2,500 to 3,500 plf and maximum column loads to be less than 100 kips. It shall be noted that assumed loading is based on limited preliminary information provided at the time of this report. If loading conditions differ from those described herein, GNN should be given an opportunity, to perform re-analysis. Settlement tolerances for structures are assumed to be limited to I inch, with differential settlement limited to Yz inch. 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION & LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was completed on July 25, 2019. A local public utility clearance was obtained prior to the field exploration. Additionally, we contracted Utilities Plus to complete a private underground utility locate at each of exploratory locations. Site access was coordinated with Mr. Tim Critchlow, WVSD's Facilities Director, as well as Gilbert who helped with identifying the onsite sprinkler/irrigation lines. Three (3) exploratory test-pits were excavated by Ken Leingang Excavating, Inc. using a John Deere 410L backhoe at locations selected by our field engineer to depths ranging from approximately 11 to 13 feet below existing ground surface (BGS). The test-pits were logged by a GNN field engineer. Additionally, infiltration testing was completed at three (3) of the locations provided by JUB Engineers. Upon completion, all excavations were loosely backfilled with excavation spoils. Test-pit and infiltration test locations are shown on Site Explorai lap (Figure 2). RECEIVED INDEX 44 D-1 Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 2 TJUL 1 4 Ale GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA CITY or August 9,2019 COMMUNITY DE Northern , /net The soils observed during our field exploration were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), utilizing the field classification procedures as outlined in ASTM D2488. A copy of the USCS Classification Chart is included in Appendix II. Photographs of the site and exploration are presented in Appendix VI. Depths referred to in this report are relative to the existing ground surface elevation at the time of our investigation. The surface and subsurface conditions described in this report are as observed at the time of our field investigation. Representative samples of the subsurface soils obtained from the field exploration were selected for testing to determine the index properties of the soils in general accordance with ASTM procedures. The following laboratory tests were performed: Table 1: Laboratory Tests Performed Test To determine _ Particle Size Distribution Soil classification based on proportion of JUL 1 4 2021 (ASTM D6913) sand, silt, and clay-sized particles CITY OF YAKIMA Natural Moisture Content Soil moisture content indicative of in-situ COMMUNITY DEUf LOPfN7 (ASTM D2216) condition at the time samples were taken Results of the laboratory test are included on the test-pit logs and are also presented in graphic form in Appendix III attached to the end of the report. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site of the proposed school replacement project, Apple Valley Elementary School, is located at 7 N, 88th Avenue in the City of Yakima, Washington. The approximately 10.37-acre site is currently comprised of three contiguous parcels identified by the Yakima County Assessor as Parcel Nos. 18131942020, 18131942021 & 18131942006. The site is located within the NW % of the SE % of Section 19, Township 13 North and Range 18 East, Willamette Meridian. The site is accessed via N. 88th Avenue located along the east side, and is surrounded by single-family residence along the south,east and northeast sides, and a church and playfield towards the north. We understand that prior to construction of the existing school campus in 1968, the site was historically used as an orchard. Based on our site observations, it appears that grading for existing school historically resulted cut excavation along the north side and subsequent fill in the southern portions, The portable classroom buildings to the southeast of the school building were removed at the time of our exploration. An apparent equipment storage building exists to the southeast of easternmost playground. The currently developed school site includes playgrounds on the north Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 3 DOS GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 8$th Avenue,Yakima, WA August 9,2Q19 %INDEX North4NNorthe4517, Inc and east sides of the building, playfields to the south, and a parking lot on the west side of the school. Based on Google Earth topography, surface elevations across the site range from El 284' in the northern portion to E 1260'in the southern portion. 4.1 Regional Geology The City of Yakima lies in the Yakima Valley on the Yakima Fold Belt portion of the Columbia Plateau, a broad plain situated between the Cascade Range to the west and the Rocky Mountains to the east. The Columbia Plateau was formed by a thick sequence of Miocene Age tholeiitic basalt flows, called the Columbia River Basalt Group that erupted from fissures in north central and northeastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and Western Idaho. The mapped geologic unit in the vicinity of the site include Tertiary continental sedimentary rocks over basalt flows from the Wanapum and Saddle Mountain Basalt Formations, inter-bedded with fluvial-lacustrine deposits of the Ellensburg and The Dalles Formations. Surficial deposits generally consist of Plio-Pleistocene loess, silt, sand and gravel. Based on the published Geologic Map of the Yakima Area (Campbell, 1976), the northern half of the site is mapped as sedimentary bedrock of the Ellensburg Formation [Teu-s], predominantly fine sand and silt with some clay, while the southern half of the site is mapped as Quaternary alluvium [Qtu],mostly coarse gravel with sand. 4,2 Seismic Design Considerations As per the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), a Site Class `D' may be used for seismic design purposes. Site Class 'D' corresponds to `stiff soil', According to Mapped Spectral Acceleration obtained from the USGS Seismic Design Maps using the 2015 IBC, the following site-specific design values may be used: Table 2: IBC Design Response Spectra Parameters Seismic Design Parameter Value(unit) S. 0.536 (g) RECEIVED Si 0.219 (g) Fa 1.372 (unitless) JUL 14 2021 1.962 (unitless) SMs 0.735 (g) CITY n YiExII 5M1 0.430 (g) coMM 1��J,��i i LVEL ENT SD& 0.490 (g) DOC. SDI _ 0.287(g) Ss=MCE spectral response acceleration at short periods INDEX Si=MCE spectral response acceleration at 1-second period F.=Site coefficient for short periods # t�-�/ Fv r Site coefficient for 1-second period Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 4 GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9,2019 iNi_North st, Inc;. SMs=MCE spectral response acceleration at short periods as adjusted for site effects SMi=MCE spectral response acceleration at 1-second period as adjusted for site effects SDs=Design spectral response acceleration at short periods SDI=Design spectral response acceleration at I-second period Site Liquefaction Potential: Based on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map for Yakima County, Washington, prepared by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the project site is mapped, with a `low'potential for liquefaction susceptibility. In our professional opinion, due to the presence of relatively shallow sedimentary unit, the potential for soil liquefaction to occur at this site is considered very low. The onsite soils are generally non-susceptible to liquefaction- RECEIVED induced settlement. C UL 14 2021 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CITY OF Yrnict Based on the findings of our field exploration, soils across'the site generally consist of an uppet layer of artificial fill soils atop the native silty soil overburden overlying the local sedimentary unit of the Ellensburg Formation. Test-pit logs in Appendix II show detailed descriptions and stratification of the soils encountered. Thickness of the near-surface fill soils ranges from less than 12 inches to approximately 3,5 feet as noted in test-pits TP-1 & P-2. The geotextile separation fabric was noted at depths of approximately 3 to 16 inches BUS, separating the apparently contaminated underlying soils from the upper `clean' cap soils. The fill soils were generally classified as silty sand and sandy silt with varying amounts of gravel, and typically appeared medium dense. The native soils encountered beneath the fills typically included an upper approximately 2.5- to 3- foot thick layer of Sandy Silt (ML) that appeared medium dense, atop an approximately 18-inch thick layer of relatively dense Silty Gravel (GM) with variable degrees of cementation. These upper native layers were only encountered in the southern portion of site (TP-1, P-1 & P-2), and were absent in the northern portion (TP-2, TP-3 & P-3) likely due to historic cut grading in these areas. Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) was encountered beneath the thin gravel unit in the southern portion, and below the upper fill soils in test-pit TP-3. In test-pits where a thicker profile of this layer of exposed(TP-1 & TP-3), some lenses and layers of cementation were also noted. Siltstone was typically encountered as the prevailing underlying stratum below the native silts, gravels and sands in the northern portion of the site, and is expected to be present at greater depths Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 5 GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA DOC. August 9,2019 iNDEX D-1 Cir.Northct, Inc: towards the south. The siltstone appeared medium dense and was encountered as shallow as approximately 16 inches BGS in test-pit TP-2, to a depth of approximately 5 feet BGS in TP-3. 5.1 NRCS Soil Survey The soil survey map of the site prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) identifies the site soils as Cowiche loam across the majority of the site, while Harwood loam is identified in the northeastern portion of the site. The typical soil profile for Cowiche loam is described as loam grading to loamy fine sand, very fine sandy loam, while the profile for Harwood loam is noted as loam atop gravelly loam atop cemented material. Based on the Ni (.'k (Appendix VII), these units generally consist of well drained materials. JUL 14 2021 5.2 Groundwater CITY Ok=,YLV(i�,nq Groundwater was not encountered within the test-pits at time of our exploratic jw,,, AN-x;3p uiri depth of approximately 13 feet BGS. We reviewed the Washington Department of Ecology(DOE) Well Log database to estimate groundwater levels in the site vicinity based on nearby wells. Our review of nearby well logs, from wells located typically in the adjacent quarter-quarters, indicate depth of groundwater in the site vicinity to be on the order of 40 feet BGS or greater (see Appendix VIII), Groundwater levels likely fluctuate throughout the year, typically highest during the irrigation season and decreasing thereafter. These levels will fluctuate with irrigation, precipitation, drainage, and regional pumping from wells. 6.0 SOIL INFILTRATION TESTING Soil infiltration test-pits P-1 & P-2 in the southern portion of the site encountered fine-grained silty sand at the test depths, and were performed using a single ring infiltrometer consisting of a 10-inch diameter steel pipe driven into the ground at the test depth. After an initial pre-soak period, a constant water level was maintained in the ring with the use of a float valve and timed intervals of the water demand volumes were recorded. Continuous readings of the infiltration rates of water volumes required to maintain the constant head were recorded until a relatively constant rate was achieved and the average infiltration rate was determined. Infiltration test-pit P-3 in the northeastern portion of the site encountered relatively shallow siltstone, and was therefore completed using a small-scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT). To the degree possible, care was exercised during excavation to attempt to maintain relatively uniform Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 6 DOC' GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima, WA `NDEX August 9,2019 (*Northern, Inc side walls, and the resulting size and geometry of the finished test-pit was carefully recorded in the field. The infiltration test-pit was filled with water from a nearby spigot. The excavation was continuously filled at a measured constant inflow rate until the water head within the test-pit was observed to be relatively stable. Water flow into the test-pit at the noted rate was continued for a sufficient period to flood the pit and fully saturate the surrounding soils. The test results are indicative of the infiltration characteristics of the subsurface soils encountered at the test location/depth using the specific test method. The following table presents the results of the infiltration tests: Table 3: Infltration Test Results Test ID Test Method Test Depth Soil Tested Field Infiltration Rate P-1 Single-ring 7 feet BGS Silty Sand 0.84 inches/hour P-2 infiltrometer 8 feet BGS Silty Sand 2.4 inches/hour P-3 Small-scale PIT 7 feet BGS Siltstone 0.79 inches/hour The infiltration rates presented herein represents the un-factored field soil infiltration rate. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the field infiltration rate to determine long-term design infiltration rate. Determination of safety factors for long-term design infiltration should consider the following: pretreatment, potential for biofouling, system maintainability, horizontal and vertical variability of soils, and type of infiltration testing. Typical factors of safety for these soils generally range from 2,5 to 3. We believe that the variability of infiltration rates associated with the tested silty sand stratum in P-1 & P-2 is likely a result of presence of cemented lenses/layers noted within this layer. Furthermore, we recommend that onsite infiltration facilities be designed using the lowest field infiltration rates, generally believed to be representative of the limiting layers across the site. The cemented silty gravel unit (noted in test-pits TP-1, P-1 & P-2) is believed to represent an apparent restrictive layer; therefore, the bottom of infiltration facilities shall extend below this unit. Due to varying degrees of cementation of the underlying onsite soils, we recommend conducting infiltration testing of the as-constructed stormwater infiltration facilities to confirm the design rate(s), by means of full-scale drywell testing and/or infiltrometer testing of shallow trtntttion facilities. RELINED IN D Ewe # D-1 JUL 14 2021 Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 7 CITY OF YA8'If l GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA COMMUNITY GkVEZ L� August t 9 2019. (Nr.North z, Inc 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL SAMPLING & TESTING Four (4) samples were collected from the exploratory test-pits at depths of 12- to 18-inches BGS from soils present beneath the buried geotextile separation fabric for analytical testing of Lead and Arsenic contamination. Lead and Arsenic levels in the soil were tested in accordance with EPA Method 6020A. The following table provides a summary of analytical results along with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup levels: Table 4: Analytical Laboratory Test Results Sample ID Lead Detected Lead MTCA Arsenic Detected Arsenic (ppm) CUL (ppm) MICA CUL TP-1 @ 12" 73.9 250 22.5 20 TP-2 a� 12" 466 250 89.8 20 TP-4 @ 14" 23.4 250 66.5 20 P-3 17a 18" 217 _ 250 f 37.3 _ 2.0 CUL=clean-up level;ppm=parts per million Results of analytical testing are presented in Appendix IV. The analytical results indicate that Lead & Arsenic contaminants in the soils tested at the sampling locations are typically above the MTCA cleanup levels. Results of previous environmental testing completed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) in March and June of 2005 using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) device also suggested relatively high contaminant levels for Lead & Arsenic (see Appendix V). GNN is available to perform additional screening or testing if requested. The onsite contaminated soils, if reused in landscape area, will require a cap of clean soils placed over a geotextile separation fabric. The District's environmental consultant shall develop a remediation plan for proper handling and disposal of onsite contaminated soils during earthwork to comply with the WA State DOE guidelines and regulations which should include the 40-hour 1-IAZWOPER training of contractor's employees. Dust control measures should be implemented during earthwork to comply with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority. The design team should consult the District's environmental consultant to determine the need for including the remediation plan in the earthwork specifications for this project. REMIT DOC INDEX JUL 14 2" p-1 C COMMt- , . ., Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 8 GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9,2019 <9..Norther, Inc 8.0 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Conditions imposed by the proposed development have been evaluated on the basis of assumed elevations and engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered in the exploratory test-pits, and their anticipated behavior both during and after construction. The following is a summary of our findings, conclusions and professional opinions based on the data obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site evaluation. ➢ Based on the findings of this geotechnical evaluation and our understanding of the proposed development, from a geotechnical perspective, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the soil design parameters and site-specific recommendations in this report are followed in the design and construction of the project. • Design plans for the proposed development, including grading, drainage and finished elevations,were not provided at the time of this report. Once the plans are finalized, GNN shall be provided an opportunity to review final design plans to provide revised recommendations if/as necessary. ➢ Site soils generally consist of an upper layer of artificial fill soils range from less than 12 inches to approximately 3.5 feet BGS, atop the native silty, gravelly and sandy soil overburden overlying the local sedimentary siltstone of the Ellensburg Formation ➢ Groundwater was not encountered within the test-pits at time of our exploration to a maximum depth of approximately 13 feet BGS. Nearby well logs indicate depth of groundwater in the site vicinity to be on the order of 40 feet BGS or greater ➢ The underlying geologic condition for seismic design is site class 'D'. The minimum seismic design should comply with the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE 07-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ➢ The results of limited sampling and analytical testing completed during our geotechnical investigation confirms Lead and Arsenic concentrations exceed the MTCA CUL and confirms the findings of the 2005 XRF screening completed by the WA State DOE at this fNSC. INDEX RECEIVED # D_1 aK rl I. 14 2021 Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 9 GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima, WA CITY OF August 9,2019 Cotoomm i;L_ (Nr_Northewf, J, > The onsite sandy fill soils and the sandy silts, free of deleterious materials and oversize rocks (>4 inches), are generally suitable for reuse as engineered fill and utility trench backfill. We do not recommend reusing excavated siltstone material due to the expected degree of difficulty required to process and uniformly moisture-condition this material. ➢ The near-surface clean soils, above the geotextile separation fabric, shall be stockpiled separately for use in landscape areas. > The proposed school building may be supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on a layer of imported crushed rock atop the recompacted native subgrade in accordance with the recommendations of this report. ➢ Site grading shall incorporate the requirements of IBC 2015, Appendix J Grading. > Upon completion, all test-pit excavations were loosely backfilled with excavation spoils. The contractor is responsible to locate the test-pits to re-excavate the loose soils and re-place as compacted engineered fill. ➢ Site soils can be readily cut by normal grading equipment to the anticipated depths of excavations. ➢ The near-surface site soils are susceptible to wind and water erosion when exposed during grading operations. Preventative measures and appropriate BMPs to control runoff and reduce erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. • Due to varying degrees of cementation of the underlying onsite soils, we recommend conducting infiltration testing of the as-constructed stormwater infiltration facilities to confirm the design rate(s), by means of full-scale drywell testing and/or infiltrometer testing of shallow infiltration facilities. DOC. INDEX 2511 D 1 ��{ a ��K1;rhA kf1EPl� Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 10 GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N.88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9,2019 North4N_Northe2Ph, Inc.. 9.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary geotechnical recommendations are based on our current understanding of the proposed development as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan (dated 7/9/19) prepared by Design West Architects. The report is prepared to comply with the 2015 International Building Code Section 1803, Geotechnical Investigations, and as required by Subsection 1803.2, Investigations Required. Please note that the recommendations presented in this report are predicated upon appropriate geotechnical monitoring and testing of the site preparation and foundation and building pad construction by a representative of GNN's Geotechnical-Engineer-of- Record (GER). Any deviation and nonconformity from this requirement may invalidate, partially or in whole, the following recommendations. GNN shall be engaged to review site grading and foundation plans in order to provide revised. augmented, and/or additional geotechnical recommendations as required. 9.1 Site Development—Grading Site grading shall incorporate the requirements of IBC 2015 Appendix J. The project GER or a representative of the GER should observe site clearing, grading, and the bottoms of excavations before placing fills. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of over- excavation and recompaction. Seasonal weather conditions may adversely affect grading operations. To improve compaction efforts and prevent potential pumping and unstable ground conditions,we suggest performing site grading during dryer periods of the year. Soil conditions shall be evaluated by in-place density testing, visual evaluation, probing, and proof-rolling of the imported fill and re-compacted on-site soil as it is prepared to check for compliance with recommendations of this report. A moisture-density curve shall be established in accordance with the ASTM D1557 method for all onsite soils and imported fill materials used as structural fill. DOC. INDEX 9.2 Demolition, Clearing& Grubbing # D- At the start of site grading, existing pavements, exposed/buried foundation elements, surface vegetation, any large roots, non-engineered/artificial fill, and any abandoned underground utilities shall be removed from the proposed building and structural areas. The surface shall be stripped of all topsoil and/or organic growth (vegetation) that may exist rwithin the proposed structural areas. The topsoil and organic rich soils shall either be stockpiled v- a separately for future use or be Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 11 'JUL 14 2021 GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima, WA August 9,2019 CITY OF Y.^.;'I'^^., COMMUNITY D VLLUI;Y;L. 40$_.Northrh, Inc removed from the construction area. The near-surface clean soils, above the geotextile separation fabric, shall be stockpiled separately for use its landscape areas. Depth of stripping can be minimized with real-time onsite observation of sufficient removals. Areas disturbed during clearing shall be properly backfilled and compacted as described below. 9.3 Suitability of the Onslite Soils as Engineered Fill The onsite sandy fill soils and the sandy silts (including contaminated soils), free of deleterious materials and oversize rocks (>4 inches), are generally suitable for reuse as engineered fill and utility trench backfill. We do not recommend reusing excavated siltstone material due to the expected degree of difficulty required to process and uniformly moisture-condition this material. Suitable onsite soils shall be placed in max. 8-inch lifts (loose) and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) near its optimum moisture content. Compaction of these soils shall be performed within a range of±2% of optimum moisture to achieve the proper degree of compaction, 9.4 Temporary Excavations It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe temporary slope configurations since the contractor is at the job site, able to observe the nature and conditions of the slopes and be able to monitor the subsurface conditions encountered. Unsupported vertical cuts deeper than 4 feet are not recommended if worker access is necessary. The cuts shall be adequately sloped, shored or supported to prevent injury to personnel from caving and sloughing. The contractor and subcontractors shall be aware of and familiar with applicable local, state and federal safety regulation including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards, and OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1929, or successor regulations. According to chapter 296-155 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), it is our opinion that the soil encountered at the site is classified as Type 13 soils. We recommend that temporary, unsupported, open cut slopes to depths of 20 fact or less shall be no steeper than 1.0 feet horizontal to 1.0 feet vertical (1 H:1 V) in Type B soils. No heavy equipment should be allowed near the top of temporary cut slopes unless the cut slopes are adequately braced. Final (permanent) fill slopes should be graded to an angle of 2H:1V or flatter. Where unstable soils are encountatter slopes may be required. INDEX # rtla 2.021 Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 12 GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA CITYeAI .vC August 9,2019 COMNI Nir_Nm-t h , Inc. 9.5 Utility Excavation, Pipe Bedding and?bench Backfill To provide suitable support and bedding for the pipe, we recommend the utilities be founded on suitable bedding material consisting of clean sand and/or sand & gravel mixture. To minimize trench subgrade disturbance during excavation, the excavator should use a smooth-edged bucket rather than a toothed bucket. Pipe bedding and pipe zone materials shall conform to Section 9-03.12(3) of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 2018 Standard Specifications. Pipe bedding should provide a firm uniform cradle for support of the pipes. A minimum 4-inch thickness of bedding material beneath the pipe should be provided. Prior to installation of the pipe, the pipe bedding should be shaped to fit the lower part of the pipe exterior with reasonable closeness to provide uniform support along the pipe. Pipe bedding material should be used as pipe zone backfill and placed in layers and tamped around the pipes to obtain complete contact. To protect the pipe, bedding material should extend at least 6 inches above the top of the pipe. Placement of bedding material is particularly critical where maintenance of precise grades is essential. Backfill placed within the first 12 inches above utility lines should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density(ASTM D1557), such that the utility lines are not damaged during backfill placement and compaction. In addition, rock fragments greater than 1 inch in maximum dimension should be excluded from this first lift. The remainder of the utility excavations should be backfiiled and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTIVI D1557. Onsite soils are considered suitable for utility trench backfill provided they are free of oversize material and can be adequately compacted. All excavations should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of pipes and underground tanks, We recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfilling conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations such as OSHA and WISHA for open excavations. Compaction of backfill material should be accomplished with soils within ±2% of their optimum moisture content in order to achieve the minimum specified compaction levels recommended in this report. However, initial lift thickness could be increased to levels recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from damage by compactirissiquipment. DO C. INDEX Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 13 JUL 2021 GNN Project l .. 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9, 2019 CITY OF YAKIMA cOMMUNUY DEVELOPMENT Nr_Northc Fh, Inc 9.61mported Crushed Rock Structural Fill Imported structural fill shall consist of well-graded, crushed aggregate material meeting the grading requirements of WSDOT 2018 Standard Specifications, Section 9-03.9(3) (1-1/4 inch minus Base Course Material)presented here: Table 5: WSDOT Standard Spec. 9-03.9(3) Sieve Size Percent Passing(by Weight) 11/4 Inch Square 99 - 100 1 Inch Square 80- 100 5/8 Inch Square 50— 80 U.S. No.4 25 -45 U.S. No. 40 _ 3— 18 U.S. No. 200 Less than 7.5 A 50-pound sample of each imported fill material shall be collected by GNN personnel prior to placement to ensure proper gradation and establish the moisture-density relationship (proctor curve). 9.7 Compaction Requirements for Engineered Fill All fill or backfill shall be approved by a representative of the GER, placed in uniform lifts, and compacted to a minimum 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. The compaction effort must be verified by a representative of the GER in the field using a nuclear density gauge in accordance with ASTM D6938. The thickness of the loose, non-compacted, lift of structural fill shall not exceed 8 inches for heavy-duty compactors or 4 inches for hand operated compactors. DOC. INDEX 9.8 Foundation Hearing Support D-1 In our opinion, the proposed new school building may be supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on a layer of imported crushed rock structural fill atop a recompacted native subgrade in accordance with the recommendations of this report. The minimum footing depth shall be 24 inches below adjacent grades for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Following completion of site clearing and grubbing operations, all proposed foundation areas shall be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 12-inches below the bottom elevations of the footings to expose the native subgrade. The over-ex shall include a minimum lateral offset of 2-foot on all sides. The exposed native soils shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to minimum 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557D1557/Ticificiiinimum depth of 12 inches. Any Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 14 rJUL 1 '4 202t GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9,2019 CITY OF YAKIMA ©(aMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT 4:1SrNor•thi, Irrc: soft spots encountered during compaction of the native soils shall be over-excavated an additional 12 inches and replaced as compacted fill. Foundation gxcavations in the northeastern portion of the building may encounter relatively shallow siltstone; consequently, scarification and recompaction is not recommended. The exposed siltstone subgrade shall be carefully cut to the desired elevation and the excavations shall be cleared of all loose soils. In order to limit the risk of differential settlement from foundations straddling a silty soil and siltstone subgrade, following re-compaction and preparation of the exposed bottom of the over- excavation, a minimum 12-inch thick layer of imported crushed rock structural fill shall be placed beneath all footings, Imported structural fill shall consist of 11/4-inch minus crushed rock and shall be placed as engineered fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Footings constructed in accordance with the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for short-term transient loading conditions, The estimated total settlement for footings is approximately 1-inch with differential settlement less than half that magnitude. The weight of the foundation concrete below grade may be neglected in dead load computations. Lateral forces on foundations from short term wind and seismic loading would be resisted by friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure against the buried portions. We recommend an allowable passive earth pressure for the compacted onsite soil of 200 pef. This lateral foundation resistance value includes a factor of safety of 1.5. We recommend a coefficient of fiction of 0,45 be used between cast-in-place concrete and imported crushed rock fill. An appropriate factor of safety should be used to calculate sliding resistance at the base ofilkiags. INDEX 9.9 Slab-on-Grade Floors # D- Place a minimum 8-inch layer of crushed aggregate fill beneath the slabs. The material shall meet the WSDOT 2018 Standards Specifications, Section 9-03,9(3), "Crushed Surfacing Top Course'', with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (fines). The crushed rock material shall be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 method. Prior to placing the crushed rock layer, all fill soils shall be completely removed and the native subgrade shall be moisture-conditioned and compacted to minimum 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 to a minimilvAgi of 12 inches. Any soft spots or Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 15 -JUL 1 4 2021 GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9,2019 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMURI.-N DEVELOPMENT 404,..Northe46k, Inc, areas displaying pumping/deformation during compaction shall be over-excavated an additional 12 inches, backfilled with imported granular structural fill and re-compacted. We recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 120 pounds per cubic inch (pci) based on a value for gravel presented in the Portland Cement Association publication No. EB075.01 D. Slab thickness, reinforcement and joint spacing shall be determined by a licensed engineer based on the intended use and loading. An appropriate vapor retarder (15-mil polyethylene liner) shall be used (ASTM E1745/E1643) beneath areas receiving moisture sensitive resilient flooringNCT where prevention of moisture migration through slab is essential. The slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or AC1 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. If a vapor retarder is used, we recommend placing a sand layer over the vapor retarder and immediately below the slab to promote proper curing and protect the vapor retarder during rebar placement. Relative humidity (RH) and moisture vapor emission rate (MVER) of concrete floor slabs shall be tested and measured in accordance with ASTM F2170-18 and ASTM E1869 when the building has been properly conditioned. Manufacturer's guidelines shall be adhered to in performing the slab moisture test. The architect shall determine the need and use of a vapor retarder and sand layer. 9.10 Flexible Pavement Pavement subgrade soils are generally expected to consist of the native sandy silts. A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 4 has been estimated for the onsite soils for use in the pavement analysis. Using an empirical relationship, this CBR value corresponds to a resilient modulus value of approximately 6,000 psi. Pavement analyses are based on 1993 AASHTO Guide far Des - {/ . Pavement Structures. Table 6 presents recommended pavement sections for this project: # D-1 Table 6: Recommended Asphalt Concrete Paving Sections -� Asphalt Crushed Aggregate Traffic Thickness Base Course Subgrsde (inches) (inches) upper min. 12 inches scarified, moisture Heavy Dutyt 4.0 1 p* conditioned and re-compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as Standard Duty-M. 2.5 8 determined by ASTM DI 557 tHeavy duty applies to pavements section for bus loop,entrance drives,and trash enclosure drive lanes ttStandard duty applies to general parking areas *The upper 2"of crushed rock should be top course rock place t aver{the base course layer Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 16 JUL 1 4 2021 (INN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue, Yakima, WA August 9,2019 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNION DEVELOPMENT OrrIVnrtheFPt, lrrc Pavement design recommendations assume proper and positive drainage and construction monitoring and arc based on AASHTO Design parameters for a 20-year design period. Asphalt pavements tend to develop thermal and fatigue cracking over time from environmental factors and traffic loads. Asphalt, being a viscoelastic material, weakens from temperature influx, Timely preventative measures for continual flexible maintenance such as crack filling and seal coating at 8-10 year intervals to control the progression of surface cracking and distress to prevent water from infiltrating into the base course and subgrade shall be considered. Performing this intermediate level of maintenance will net at least a 20-year service life/performance life Soils containing roots or organic materials, and any artificial fill soils, shall be completely removed from the proposed paved areas prior to subgrade construction. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils beneath the pavement section shall be scarified, moisture conditioned and re- compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. All fills used to raise low areas must be compacted onsite soils or structural gravel fill and shall be placed under engineering control conditions. The finished surface shall be smooth, uniform and free of localized weak/soft spots. All subgrade deficiency corrections and drainage provisions shall be made prior to placing the aggregate base course. All underground utilities shall be protected prior to grading. The 1-iMAC utilized for the project should be designed and produced in accordance with Section 5- 04 Hot Mix Asphalt of the WSDOT 2018 Standards Specifications. Aggregate Base material shall comply with Section 9-03.9(3) Crushed Surfacing of the WSDOT 2018 Standards Specifications. Aggregate base or pavement materials should not be placed when the surface is wet. INDEX 9.11 Concrete Flatwark/Pathways D--1—The concrete sidewalk (pathways) section shall be 4" PCC over 4" crushed aggregate top course (3/4" minus rock). To impede the wicking of moisture beneath pathways, we recommend a 4-inch layer of free draining 3/4" minus crushed aggregate fill be placed. Material meeting the WSDOT Specification 9-03.9 (3), "Top Course", may be acceptable provided it contains less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve (fines). The crushed rock material shall be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 method. Prior to placing the crushed aggregate fill,the subgrade soils shall be proof rolled to a non-yielding surface and to at least 95% Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 17UL i 4 2021 GNN Project No.: 219-1 l30 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yalcima,WA August 9,2019 CITY OF YAKIMA ,O,g116MUli ll DEVELOPMENT 4:74.Northclz, Inc of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 method. Any areas pumping during proof-compacted shall be over-excavated and re-compacted. 9.12 Subgrade Protection The degree to which construction grading problems develop is expected to be dependent, in part, on the time of year that construction proceeds and the precautions which are taken by the contractor to protect the subgrade, The near-surface fine-grained soils currently present on site are considered to be moisture and disturbance sensitive due to their fines content and may become unstable (pumping) if allowed to increase in moisture content and are disturbed (rutted) by construction traffic if wet. if necessary, the construction access road should be covered with a layer of gravel or quarry spalls course. The soils are also susceptible to erosion in the presence of moving water, The soils shall be stabilized to minimize the potential of erosion into the foundation excavation. The site shall be graded to prevent water from ponding within construction areas and/or flowing into excavations. Accumulated water must be removed immediately along with any unstable soil. Foundation concrete shall be placed and excavations backfilled as soon as possible to protect the bearing grade. We further recommend that soils that become unstable are to be either: • Removed and replaced with structural compacted gravel fill, or • Mechanically stabilized with a coarse crushed aggregate(possibly underlain with a geotextile) and compacted into the subgrade. 9.13 Wet Weather Conditions The near surface soils are fine-grained and sensitive to moisture during handling and compaction, Proceeding with site earthwork operations using these soils during wet weather could add project costs and/or delays, The stability of exposed soils may rapidly deteriorate due to a change in moisture content. Therefore, if at all possible, complete site clearing, preparation, and earthwork during periods of warm, dry weather when soil moisture can be controlled by aeration. During or subsequent to wet weather, drying or compacting the on-site soils will be difficult. It may be necessary to amend the on-site soils or import granular materials for use as structural fill. If earthwork takes place in wet weather or wet conditions, the following recommendations should be followed: iffatiV Etr DOC. -JUL I 4 2021 ItNirriX viTY OF YAKIMA tfeitilAWN @EVCLOPMLNT Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement l 8 GNN Project No.: 219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima, WA August 9,2019 4N.Northern, !nc- • Fill material should consist of clean, granular soil, and not more than 3 percent fines (by weight) should pass the No. 200 sieve. Fines should be non-plastic. These soils would have to be imported to the site. • Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections and carried through to completion to reduce exposure to wet weather. Soils that becomes too wet for compaction should be removed and replaced with clean, granular material. • The construction area ground surface should be sloped and sealed to reduce water infiltration, to promote rapid runoff, and to prevent water ponding. • To prevent soil disturbance, the size or type of equipment may have to be limited. • Work areas and stockpiles should be covered with plastic. Straw bales, straw wattles, geotextile silt fences, and other measures should be used as appropriate to control soil erosion. • Excavation and fill placement should be observed on a full-time basis by a representative of GER to determine that unsuitable materials are removed and that suitable compaction and site drainage is achieved. 9.14 Surface Drainage With respect to surface water drainage, we recommend that the ground surface be sloped to drain away from the structure. Final exterior site grades shall promote free and positive drainage from the building areas. Water shall not be allowed to pond or to collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend that a gradient of at least 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the building perimeter be provided, except in paved locations. In paved areas, a minimum gradient of 1% should be provided unless provisions are included for collection/disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. Catch basins, drainage swales, or other drainage facilities should be aptly located. All surface water such as that coming from roof downspouts and catch basins be collected in tight drain lines and carried to a suitable discharge point, such as a storm drain system. Surface water and downspout water should not discharge into a perforated or slotted subdrain, nor should such water discharge onto the ground surface adjacent to the building. Cleanouts should be provided at convenient locations along all drain lines. RECEIVED DOG. JUL 1 4 2021 INDEX CITY OF YAKfMA COMMUiL.i OLVELQpjN1 Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 19 GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9,2019 4N_North Pn, Inc 10.0 CONTINUING GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES GNN recommends that the Client should maintain an adequate program of geotechnical consultation, construction monitoring, and soils testing during the final design and construction phases to monitor compliance with GNN's geotechnical recommendations. Maintaining GNN as the geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services, If GN Northern, Inc. is not retained by the owner/developer and/or the contractor to provide the recommended geotechnical inspections/observations and testing services, the geotechnical engineering firm or testing/inspection firm providing tests and observations shall assume the role and responsibilities of Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record. GNN can provide construction monitoring and testing as additional services. The costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangement, but can be obtained from our office. The recommended construction monitoring and testing includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: > Consultation during the design stages of the project. > Review of the grading and drainage plans to monitor compliance and proper implementation of the recommendations in GNN's Report. Y Observation and quality control testing during site preparation, grading, and placement of engineered fill as required by the local building ordinances, • Geotechnical engineering consultation as needed during construction RECTIVED COMMCUrjINTYUT 4 2021 1OFDLYL►nlqNM ENtDOC.INorix p-1 Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 20 GNN Project No.;219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima, WA August 9,2019 Northe?fl, Inc 11.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT This GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT ("Report") was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. GN Northern, Inc.'s (ONN) findings, conclusions and recommendations in this Report are based on selected points of field exploration, and GNN's understanding of the proposed project at the time the Report is prepared. Furthermore, CNN's findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil, rock and/or groundwater conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations at the project site. Variations in soil, bedrock and/or groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until during or after construction. Variations in soil, bedrock and groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and revisions to GNN's recommendations in the Report. In many cases the scope of geotechnical exploration and the test locations are selected by others without consultation from the geotechnical engineer/consultant. GNN assumes no responsibility and, by preparing this Report, does not impliedly or expressly validate the scope of exploration and the test locations selected by others. This Report's findings are valid as of the issued date of this Report. However, changes in conditions of the subject property or adjoining properties can occur due to passage of time, natural processes, or works of man. In addition, applicable building standards/codes may change over time. Accordingly, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this Report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of GNN's control. Therefore, this Report is subject to review and shall not be relied upon after a period of one (1) year from the issued date of the Report. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of structures are planned, the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by GNN and the findings, conclusions, and recommenfliija of this Report are modified or verified in writing. INDEX D-1 This Report is issued with the understanding that the owner or the owner's representative has the responsibility to bring the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and design professional(s) for the project so that they are incorporated Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 21 JUL 14 2021 GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA CITY OF YAKIM August 9,2019 COMMUNIII JE2,ILLON'MENT < ..Northeh. I►�c into the plans and construction specifications, and any follow-up addendum for the project. The owner or the owner's representative also has the responsibility to verify that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations during construction. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this Report to the appropriate governing agencies. The foregoing notwithstanding, no party other than the Client shall have any right to rely on this Report and GNN shall have no liability to any third party who claims injury due to reliance upon this Report, which is prepared exclusively for Client's use and reliance. GNN has provided geotechnical services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. GNN expressly disclaims all warranties and guarantees,express or implied. Client shall provide GNN an opportunity to review the final design and specifications so that earthwork, drainage and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If GNN is not accorded the review opportunity, GNN shall have no responsibility for misinterpretation of CNN's recommendations, Although GNN can provide environmental assessment and investigation services for an additional cost, the current scope of GNN's services does not include an environmental assessment or an investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water,groundwater, or air on,below,or adjacent to the subject property. RECO/ED `JUL 14 2021 ittgorQP2)1.1ifici„ 444 D.QCINDEX Apple Valley Elementary School Replacement 22 GNN Project No.:219-1130 7 N. 88th Avenue,Yakima,WA August 9,2019 RECEIVED 276 JUL 1 4 2021 —_w........ CITY OF YAKIMA I t• 1 o I 0 1 gOMMUNITYI DEVELOPMENT I 1 � DOC. INDEX r,„ v) In1 , -C I- xi 1 l 1* m1 1 Ai ._.s i I , __i_..1, -i. fi. ) ‘, . ,, I az 1k .. � __.x' �_ r1 �. � ■ 0 -r- -,:�.- �. _._ rAT --• vTa IF�j- .tM.�,7'?. -?i1.r2=Si'_ i=]I..; + b; -2 w = t � # •• ..�.-.� -.-.- - IN 88TH AVE} in M*41 a��e.alma• - - l c f ql" .--r, .._.r.-.0'!•" MEI I 5.4 I I E4 Tr4 ' - I I J IF I . t y it 4+ e I �Ei !E ♦ s' � N1� :y IFI I 1 MI� I 41 E I _ 3 1 .cvw�■ 1a i I FI E E E E E E E E E - E 14 ¢ E E E E E F 'f`_ 4 .. .,�.�. - - 111111 •:� J it! F 4 i. ,F E F ff • I •1,4 E F 4 1.* F F 111 ul COD� ., : 11 4 f le ! A, a . . . J �X �• IE E E Et I E E E� f/ SO; �/ IE; E 4 t 14 4_ E E E F F Om �r �./view. .'` ar —iv— 4• 1 41 i4 E 4 9 4 1 E E E E S EF./ D 4• 1 ` Tl m P 144 E 4i__-`-- F F e 4 F r, �- 1! le 1 I F • E E (�(- 4 4 4 */l/ Y m r• 1 4 le e' E 4 E 4 4 E E 4 g [�/�///II4(// iWJ./J/f/// j m m _ _ f 14• F 4 E E E f .E 4 4 Z E E 4 E t E E 4 4 � D r - 4 M f,41 IE 4 E E E E E F E E ® ® % '�f I 1; 1Fe E E E E E F E E trV ,• ��� JI E 7 I E E E E F E E E E 1 EB'� � r 1 i 4 F 4 F E E E 4 i /Il% -'1/4- - • t.l I 4 F < S 4 i 4 E em 1 �v ; E * E < E <- E E ( / 714r.F E F F E 4 E E < / - Z 1 1 i . 1 1 E 11 E E E E < E E. S 1 , > r • If E E F E * 4 * F < L__ ///I//I/e/.0.4 I!!!I!I//////////I/. •_AIMS 'p FSE E E E E f f E < ® ®\ +14 E E E E E E E E E • 41 E 4 4 4 E 4 4 E 4 E 1 • t ;( F E E 4 E F F E •I P ® El . - fjl i E I 4 4 + 4 4 4 C ( E < ® ® E t4I 44 F F 4 4 I4 4 4 4 4 E E !XL E < < 44E4 .44�44f4FflEEEEEEER I V V• V•I V. V V1 • V FiE• E ( Y L4 y E V 4. t F Y E 41151. ,F 4 6- 4 f 4. 4 F F F +EEE EEE F EE EE EE FF < E ( E4 F ( 5 ( E Q@1,1„„., t„ � Y ,. ____ =E i E E 4 E E E E 4 .._ _____ - 4 7 'E E E E E 8_i E 4 4 4 4 4 e F E i E 4 E 4 Er..,4 4 4 4 4 E E a• 4.� IF E F F E F E E E NDj ( 4 f f i F t.^4. ( t f 4- E < E E E E E E E E E E E E E F E E E E E NM VICINITY MAP ffi■ LI M 'VOL CITY OF YAKIMA P arming File Number: CL3#010-19 AD 02 - VAR#004-19, CAO#027-19SE PA#038-19 7 19, & SEPA#038 19 Project Name: WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT—APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY Site Address: 7 N 88TH AVE rnmitvievl Air Summ4view Ave Sunlmttu 7 I 1 . ; - I/ I _. \ r crose,Chu7E.h I - ��ti I SII II,n111Y lel-ii I— I - Aim? Way Y A�nrr Cr/5.:7( .._± ca , 11 !I I me. il I n 'I Hurd S 1 t �� • '4 B.7tilt,.`-.1 I �-- w r'i Barg'. St 1- 1, �4r J T 1' __ Apple lit n: 'Elenn is,i 0° — ( J Sc lDoIl ` V'l Yakima Ave sl +.dl•• 4-Mid C.,r AppL_ Valley — Elemental Elelnentai I SITE l Sr T l-eslnl 11 Ave ^1--- _ � t Wood 1M1irels Way ivo , in1 I r r 1 vi Proposal: Proposal to construct a new 60,000 sq ft elementary school building in the R-1 zoning district with 147 parking spaces and other associated site amenities and improvements. This request includes a variance to exceed the building height limitation of 35 ft in this zoning district to allow a height of 44 ft,a critical areas review due to the site being in a wellhead protection area, and an administrative adjustment for the following:request to waive the sitescreening requirement that would impose a 6-ft view-obscuring fence,installation of a digital sign and wall signs which are not otherwise allowed in residential zoning districts, and adjust the maximum height of 10 ft for signs set back more than 15 ft from the right-of-way to allow a height of 11 ft 6 inches. Contact the City of Yakima Planning Division at(509)575-6183 „.---,-7‘ ti l Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only.The City fLYea�f � I� assumes no liability for any errors,omissions,or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, .;4 I -'1 or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or inforektprovided herein. Date Created: 12/20/2019 ��oo 'JUL 1 4 2021 INDEX D- 1 CITY , COMMU ,: , mm,ri1;L;JT 278 RECEIVED JUL 14 2021 CITY OF MOM COMM.UN1TY L; 'vLLOPME(JT EXHIBIT D DOC. INDEX D-1 Z , I _ D JC. '4 • m , 1I \\ I•1:,, I - m �l m , 1 279 .- :if . ,..4.1,41°.r , --ala•ti..lt '�.--.1 ": . - - - a"--�- -. r=�= _• ._F_.". -1. = "' + i� '- T ?'- rr as vMix:trrv=...Q ti ril'c= -'�i.�':F`:,:, 7^•- `t�® 'a' ,ems ��• N BBrH AVE•-���_� , -i L, . ......." �... .. I,4.1.l :r' ..sw ev��-,������' ,)-77v i�4 lam{ r n er rL 2'1- _\�� _ r:i0na�C� _ ; a • en�i�� kak� ,-ii . I i Lip- .41.• L. ,,,....ip -,...,_:___,.....) - ,,,,,....-. ir, ) ii ,.. , , . . . i „, * I) -'1, I ,i e' .,,,:-.;--- e %R+gym ala—rts_urdmirl1�i MGM la i�p�' 411 0 1 ?k%nAgrA.E•Mr AlisirActrimmut , ' i__= - .4 II � w8�r Hais��RI1;R �N-7-/ I 1 , , ;1;11:111 Woo,,,,V"ifigrgi;1all ,' !7." 'At I 1,:' I .-'At-Ti: ' E I : ,Ill ppr. '- ,4 .... f ..• ,- 1M 111111111kill!1%111-11111 T • 11ii 'G I , ® 't gel +; � '.i +, Ai f i1 /. • I i �11i` m ;�1; ' I vii,,,,,H. 1 r „ f � � 1Ilim 1 : .. ' {'' i rM • !111 Li I _..\, Ilk • � �' ; rl l l i % ,r i ' I \ 1,ITI I �v� 1 --. . Oiin •l) 1 _ ill ,! ',, li '.,l.\ ,-V"1-17 4 .../• �J ^til o.- 133 am I Jr Ii j 1 ® ® ,nn 1 u .II Oi: 1 f Vill't1]If �I 1 r1l # ry l', ill f } \ ', lc — o 1 ' c E imil im ` J I■r 1 1 I.,} 1 N 11 ` 1 �Iy� y{ _ id.PP' W 'CI ` 1'1 '', 11 11111110: I L' , , 1 • , ,, ` 1 ' ►Ll�llffillifil • y,'ern F y ,� I \ \ 1}k•t 1 , 41� \ 11.1 y 1 N1 ? y S i)'1' '` : !a ii ` ) \ ` it 1� % ? •. .„ �� �( ' ` 1 ,, ' �,- , - v. w w V. .,% r y, �.. � ---yam--- y,--^"y.7Ysii1, y j. I : I I 1 a. DOC. o INDEX D -1 Api': : 1 sigipillitig; !!:,111 0 il L-'.. ,. . 1 I/ hCO ?..,'; r....I q-9,ROg § § ill il If gOl* yp 1A A m A 4 J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. t� r�8 A O p PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY y��1,et" t1iU� •/ 2810 W.Clearwater Ave. i g , 9 N Q WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT `�, T W IL 11 I 1 §�. — - .`� '-4 uvmwwkk.WA 90338 kirnou.ur 1 I �m�w."'.,..tee �"..".�.• i _ € erne vauar-rrl...n AVE me MMUS.we 2i 9 O R wMMlm.w•ens w mammy AVE Q ruara,w..xaarow..sw Plow sw lu — _ I ._ -. ! I m 1 I 0 I ' 280 Ail, I CpMMVIVIIY pEfre4,. ° EXHIBIT E �MENT Doc. # D - 1 p m I r, { o I .. _ i o 1 = 281 i.-< V m .0• m m. ''1 ' i ,I f • � '_ 1 I 1l v '.,r I 1 i ��A I. r N 8a111 AVER•-.- -T �_ •�� E. r.. .;R:.r'.'`t - ��_ _._.'•.AAAAI---:�/ Jmaim - ...arftr..�srMs: yr::Y„-•r:: .an••00.•:a 7.1 ` r.r — T as •�.•MI:•^s. 'r �E'.i y '.1`._=-- •s Ai [` * ,•i Iis��rHOW/Rl�eadk—wwaw�hrtrrraolliirir: w ii'/A-r�. lI' , '� iM - . � _ !I • — 14111 — E � AEI v __.. ,`I {i u r ' ^ ill JI r . .-.. —1 . ( i I I - I. i - t f I I , r •I.1 11 r 1 7. I�il m y _ r j ,{i N i . 1 1 .,• I 0 / 1 , 1!. GvVi y D All _ 1 i 1 lJl r•. j 1 '11r t { I 1 I r-. rill ' I I i 14 m It 1' 1 lljl Ir I iI Ir1 P J \ J3'® f 1 j 'f f I \\li :: ' • -: ° - - : 1 r1 • I , •. I', •i11111 111111 l-,I �— ; I{ C 1 I ;;;IN 1131111 it r .y I :::11 1 I:I:ll II I I \ e. y` ytWE Y�Elig , 1►.,1;Nl- 1 I'd Judi I I t., "L_IL- , I- -ii- .� . •ro�vr r. v. w an -ri ,w;-- I 11 r9 ,�_ • i 1 1 I I 0 INDEX z -1 c _ D-1 o T )_ ! ! 4 m m F o;a; Q E r— ry rb CI O O PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY .l-U-a ENGINEERS,INC_ s ` k DEEM -� 9 1 N - WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT ! l 2910 W.Clearwater Ave. y 5 t- imp E C B] suue2ol 'E "'"•"."_ p> a.r unE VA Kennewick.WA 99336 MOON ; i i 5 AN ..- i Z=r g p WALLET T N OB.AVE �� .5 7i n1 BUMMITVIEW-B90BW CHESTNUT AVE i u 0 essiNHAs,ie[ $ w 0 o r TAMIMA,WASHINGTON MOB 3, Phone:509FAM 2. 282 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21, APP#001-21) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER E Public Notices DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# E-1 Land Use Action Installation Certificate 08/02/2021 E-2 Notice of Appeal of Administrative Official's Decision 07/23/2021 & Public Hearing E-2a: Legal Ad E-2b: Press Release and Distribution Email E-2c: Parties and Agencies Notified E-2d: Affidavit of Mailing E-3 Decision of MOD#021-21 06/30/2021 E-4 HE Agenda Distribution List 08/05/2021 E-5 HE Agenda & Sign-In Sheet 08/12/2021 E-6 Notice of Hearing Examiner's Decision 08/27/2021 (See DOC Index#AA-1 for HE Decision) E-6a: Parties and Agencies Notified E-6b: Affidavit of Mailing E-7 Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision 09/15/2021 E-7a: Parties and Agencies Notified E-7b: Affidavit of Mailing E-8 Letter of Transmittal to City Clerk 10/20/2021 283 CITY OF YAKIMA, PLANNING DIVISION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I, Analilia Nunez, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have transmitted to: Sonya Claar Tee, City Clerk, by hand delivery, the following documents: 1. Mailing labels for West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary (APP#008-21) including all labels for the West Valley School District, Perkins Coie LLP,John Manfredi, and e-mail distribution lists for in-house and local media. 2. U�vOh%iti Mc Signed this 20th day of October,2021. Analilia Nunez Planning Technician Received By: f'�/�[thE Date: J 0P.G0,0?, DOD. INDEX � , 284 Nunez, Analilia From: Nunez, Analilia Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 4:14 PM To: Claar Tee, Sonya Subject: Public Notice for West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary APP#008-21 Attachments: In-House Distribution E-mail List_ updated 09.02.2021; Local Media List_09.16.2021 Hi Sonya, Please have the public hearing notice emailed to these distribution lists: In-house Distribution E-mail List updated 09.02.2021 and Local Media List 09.16.2021 Also, please email the notice to: Julie Wilson-McNerney, Perkins Coie LLP-jwilsonmcnernev@nerkinscoie.com Peter Finch,West Valley School District-finchp@wvsd208.org John Manfredi-icmanfredi@outlook.com I am bringing down labels shortly. Thank you, Analilia Nunez Planning Technician City of Yakima Planning Division p: 509.575.6261 129 North 2nd Street,Yakima,Washington, 98901 Pane"ing Doss INDEX 285 Perkins Coie LLP—Julie Wilson-McNerney West Valley School District—Peter Finch John Manfredi 1201 Third Ave. 8902 Zier Rd. 8615 Woodwinds Way Seattle,WA 98101 Yakima,WA 98909 Yakima,WA 98908 Doe. INDEX - ' � 286 Project Name: WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT/APPLE VALLEY ,c71•1 nr1\1 h. ///■ ■\\\ ELEMENTARY - APPEALAir -1 „_ Site Address: 7 N 88TH AVE (-IlY OI' YAKIMA File Number(s): APP#008-21 P n n i n g Proposal: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision to Yakima City Council (APP#001-21). N VICINITY MAP o :.11111111IIV1,-44 Ave .. _ f— \ —ti ,I Crc,ssChu :h �`�r Summilview - Beaphsl- tc _ • _i I'Th"........* Aili-,,, t;t ` 1James , C+Hurd s L :r to 1 lryu S1 ,,, IN HaryE� St CO 11n� Ave West Valley' Child Care I .— - - Apple Valley Elementary - School 1 / k !• 1 f IWood Winds Wa{{{y ,- - ay I V" ) .c L 4 Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only.The City of ,l Yakima assumes no liability for any errors,omissions,or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any 1:-:' 1 action taken,or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provide 0to„ •�' Date Created: 10/21/2021 ` 287 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP#009-21 WVSD/Apple Valley Elementary 7 N. 88th Ave. I, Analilia Nunez, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; a true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of subject property; that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division; and that said notices were mailed by me on this 15th day of September,2021. 4 That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. An, ilia Nunez Planning Technician DOC. INDEX 288 West Valley School District—Peter Finch John Manfredi Perkins Coie LLP—Julie Wilson-McNerney 8902 Zier Rd. 8615 Woodwinds Way 1201 Third Ave. Yakima,WA 98909 Yakima,WA 98908 Seattle,WA 98101 N Ott C&t (let oug-z i sf,n\- I 2' 1 INDEX # E -161 289 In-House Distribution E-mail List Revised 09/02/2021 Name Division E-mail Address Silvia Corona Clerk's Office Silvia.Corona@yakintawa.gov Lisa Maxey Code Administration Lisa.Maxev a.vakimawa.goy Glenn Denman Code Administration Glenn.Demmn@yakimawa.gov John Zabell Code Administration John.Zabell a,yakimawa.gov Kelli Horton Code Administration Kelli.Florton(avakimawa.gov Pedro Contreras Code Administration Pedro.Conueras@,yakimawa.gov Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.Debusschereayakimawa.gov Tony Doan Code Administration Tony.Doan@yakimawa.gov Joan Davenport Community Development Joan.Davenport@yakimawa.gov Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Rosalinda.l.barra a vakimawa.gov Bill Preston Engineering Bill.preston@yakimawa.gov Dan Riddle Engineering Dan.Riddlea,yakimawa.gov Aaron Markham Fire Aaron.markham@yakimawa.gov Jeremy Rodriguez Fire Jeremy.Rodritueza,yakimawa.gov Sara Watkins Legal Sara.Watkins a yakimawa.gov_. Archie Matthews ONDS Archie.Mauhews@vakimawa.gov Joseph Calhoun Planning Joseph.Calhoun(aa vakimawa.gov Analilia Nunez Planning Analilia.nunez@vakimawa.gov Matt Murray Police Matthew.murray( 7iyakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Public Works Scott.Schaferayakimawa.gov Loretta Zammarchi Refuse Loretta.Zammarchi@yakimawa.gov Randy Layman Refuse Randy.Layrnan@yakimawa.gov Gregory Story Transit Gregory.Story@vakimawa.gov James Dean Utilities James.Dean@yakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Wastewater Dana.Kallevig(crvakimawa.gov Randy Meloy Wastewater Randy.Meloy@,vakimawa.gov Dave Brown Water/Irrigation David.Brown@vakimawa.gov Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Mike.Shane rr yakimawa.gov Outside Distribution Name Address Included In�Mling? Pacific Power Attn: Estimating Department 500 N Keys Rd,Yakima, WA 98901 ❑ Yes V No (Subdivision notices ONLY) Type of Notice: Nit- lA+t p (_ cl `p File Number(s): 11V0 Date of Mailing: of 1 l r),n INDEX 290 Nunez, Analilia From: Nunez, Analilia Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:56 PM To: Brown, David; Calhoun,Joseph; Contreras, Pedro; Corona, Silvia; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Doan, Tony; Horton, Kelli; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Layman, Randy; Markham, Aaron; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Murray, Matthew; Nunez, Analilia; Preston, Bill; Riddle, Dan; Rodriguez,Jeremy; Schafer, Scott; Shane, Mike; Story, Gregory;Watkins, Sara;Zabel!, John;Zammarchi, Loretta Cc: Crowell, Eric Subject: NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL_WVSD - APP#008-21 Attachments: NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL_WVSD - APP#008-21.pdf Attached you will find a Notice of Appeal for the above-mentioned project. If you have any questions about the project please contact assigned planner, Eric Crowell at eric.croweil@yakimawa.gov Analilia Nunez 'iz Planning Technician 1iAlr =. City of Yakima Planning Division p: 509.575.6261 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima,Washington, 98901 DO;. INDEX 291 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Air ,■SW% Joan Davenport, AICP, Director /II1 ■■►► „t Planning Division PICITY OF YAKIMA Joseph Calhoun, Manager a n n i n g 129 North Second Street,2 Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov• www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION September 15, 2021 City File APP#008-21 This notice is being provided to parties of record and the appellant that a timely appeal was filed West Valley School District#208 on September 10, 2021 for the Hearing Examiner's Decision on APP#001-21/MOD#021-21. Copies of the Notice of Appeal and any written argument or memorandum of authorities accompanying the Notice of Appeal may be obtained from the Planning Division. In accordance with YMC § 15.16.050(B), "All parties of record wishing to respond to the appeal may submit a written argument or memorandum to the legislative body within thirty days from the date that the notice is mailed; and any written argument or memorandum shall not include the presentation of new evidence and shall be based only upon the facts presented to the examiner." Please submit written argument or memorandum of authority to Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima,WA 98901 Upon completion of the thirty-day submittal period for submission of any written argument or memorandum, the appellant at their expense may obtain copies of any such submissions, and shall be provided a fifteen-day rebuttal period, starting on the thirty-first day from the date of mailing. Please be certain to reference the file number or appellant's name in your correspondence. (APP#008-21 —West Valley School District#208) Public Notice Meeting on Appeal: Subsequent to the submission and rebuttal periods discussed above and outlined below, the record will be transferred to the Legislative Body. A separate notice to identify the date and time of the City Council's public meeting to consider the appeal will be sent to the appellant and parties of record. DOC. INDEX 292 For further information or assistance you may contact Eric Crowell, Senior Planner, at (509) 576-6736, or email eric.crowellAyakimawa.gov & , ?7ZC2otJ. Eric Crowell Senior Planner Applicable Dates: Date of Mailing: September 15, 2021 30 day submittal for written argument or memorandum ends: October 15, 2021 at 5:00 pm 15 day rebuttal period begins: October 18, 2021 15 day rebuttal period ends: November 2, 2021 at 5:00 pm Enclosures: Application of Appeal Yakima DOCK 2015 1994 INDEX 293 RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA Agra r e t■w PLANNING D 1!. M IAA Supplemental Application For: 111W APPEAL CITY OF YA t;I M A F' anning Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Chapter 15.16/Chapter 16.08 PART II--SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION 1.THIS APPLICATION 1S AN APPEAL OF: ❑ Administrative Official's Decision ❑✓ Hearing Examiner's Decision ❑ Subdivision Administrator's Decision ❑ SEPA Determination ❑ Other: 2,FILE NUMBER(S)OF PROPOSAL BEING APPEALED:APP1i001-21,MOD0021-21 3.DESCRIPTION OF ACTION BEING APPEALED: The School District challenges the Hearing Examiner's August 26,2021 decision In APP#001-21 to affirm the Administrative Official's partial denial of the Schaal District's Modification Application In MOD#21-21.The Modification Application requested approval of as-built elevations that are an increase over the elevations the City of Yakima approved as part of the School Districts building permit fore replacement of Apple Valley Elementary School. See attached for more detailed explanation. 4. REASON FOR APPEAL-Describe the specific error(s)or issues(s)upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan,The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance,or other provisions of law. (Reference the section,paragraph,and page of the provision(s)cited.) (Attach if lengthy): See attached. Revised 4/2019 Page 14 DOC. INDEX 294 RECEIVE®1 SEP 0 202 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BEFORE THE YAIUMA CITY COUNCIL 13 14 In the matter of the Appeal of: 15 I APP#001-21,MOD#21-021 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO.208,a political subdivision of the NOTICE OF APPEAL 18 State of Washington, 19 20 Appellant, 21 22 V, 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA,a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 31 32 West Valley School District No.208(the"School District")files this Notice of 33 34 Appeal to the Yakima City Council("City Council")for review of the City of Yakima 35 36 Hearing Examiner's Decision,APP#001-21 ("Hearing Examiner Decision"),to uphold the 37 Administrative Official's denial of the School District's Application for Modification, 38 39 MOD#21-021 ("City Decision").The School District states and alleges as follows: 40 41 1. The subject Modification Application proposed to add a 5-foot walking path 42 around the perimeter of the playfields,to change the backstop and goal locations,to reduce 43 44 the amount of asphalt in the playground,to approve the as-built increased site elevations, 45 46 and to install site-screening in certain locations. On June 30,2021,the City issued its 47 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL—1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104 z Fax: 206.359,9000 DOC. INS 295 RECEIVED SEP 0 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. decision on the School District's Request for Modification. City Decision at 1. The City 2 3 approved the walking path,revised backstop and goalpost locations,the reduction of asphalt 4 for the playground,and the installation of site screening. City Decision at 1. However,the 5 6 City denied the School District's request to approve the as-built grading on the basis that the 7 8 as-built site grading shown in the modification application is in"excess of a 50%increase in 9 elevation from what was shown with the B200126 submittal in several locations,not 10 1 t meeting the standard for a modification." City Decision at 1. Additionally,the City found 12 13 that the increase in site grading"does create an adverse impact"because"the City received 14 15 numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners"about"its negative impact 16 17 on adjacent property owners." City Decision at 6. The Hearing Examiner affirmed the 18 City's decision,stating that the Administrative Official did not err in partially denying the 19 20 modification application. Hearing Examiner Decision at 13. 21 2. West Valley School DistrictNo.208("School District") 22 AppellantVll Y is a 23 public-school district operating in Yakima, Washington. Appellant's business address is 24 25 8902 Zier Road,Yakima, Washington 98909. 26 27 3. Attorneys for the Appellant are Kristine R. Wilson and Julie Wilson- 28 McNerney,Perkins Coie, 1201 Third Avenue,Seattle,Washington 98101-3099. 29 30 4. Attached to this Notice of Appeal as Exhibit A is the originally appealed- 31 32 from decision of the Administrative Official("City Decision"),dated June 30,2021 and as 33 34 Exhibit B,is the Hearing Examiner's Decision,dated August 26,2021,that is the subject of 35 this appeal(the"Hearing Examiner's Decision"). Attached as Exhibit C is a statement from 36 37 the appellant in accordance with Yakima Municipal Code("YMC") 16.08.025.A.3. 38 39 5. Appellant has standing to initiate this appeal as a party of record per YMC 40 16.08.025.A. Appellant in this matter is the applicant whose modification request was 41 42 denied by the City of Yakima("City")and who now is appealing the Hearing Examiner's 43 44 decision to affirm the City's denial of the School District's modification request. 45 46 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—2 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104.2 Fax: 206.359.9000 DQ.;. INDEX 296 RECEWED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 1 6. Appellant is appealing the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the grounds that 2 3 the Hearing Examiner exceeded his authority in issuing the Decision;the Hearing Examiner 4 committed errors of law;and the findings,conclusions or decision prepared by the Hearing 5 6 Examiner are not supported by substantial evidence in the following respects: 7 8 a. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law by finding that the 9 Administrative Official correctly applied by analogy YMC 15.17.020.C's criteria to the 10 11 School District's request that the City approve the as-built site grading. Hearing Examiner 12 13 Decision at 7. YMC 15.17.020.0 allows the City to approve as a Minor Modification any 14 15 expansion of use area or a structure not exceeding 50%of the gross floor area. YMC 16 15.17.020.0 does not speak to changes in site elevation. The Hearing Examiner also erred 17 18 in finding that the City's interpretation of YMC 15.17.020.0 did not prejudice the School 19 20 District. 21 b. The HearingExaminer's findingthat the Administrative Official was justified 22 23 in her site elevation increase calculations—wherein the Administrative Official considered 24 25 only the increased elevations at the playfields rather than the average increase in elevation 26 27 across the site as a whole—is not supported by substantial evidence. Hearing Examiner 28 Decision at 8-9. The uncontroverted evidence in the record demonstrates that the average 29 30 increase in grade is only 32%across the entire site from the permit set to the as-built 31 32 conditions. The School District's use of the average increase in elevation across the site as a 33 34 whole is consistent with YMC 15.17.020. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law 35 in upholding the Administrative Official's application by analogy of YMC 15.17.020.0 to 36 37 only those areas of the site that pertained to the adverse impacts reported by neighbors. 38 39 Hearing Examiner Decision at 9. The Hearing Examiner also erred in finding that the City's 40 41 calculation of the site elevation increase did not prejudice the School District. 42 c. The Hearing Examiner's Decision to uphold the Administrative Official's 43 44 finding that the as-built grading would cause an adverse effect is not supported by 45 46 substantial evidence. The City's record consistently demonstrates that the site grading 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—3 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone; 206.359.8000 1s377o 104.2 Fax: 206.359.9000 DOC. 297 RECEIVED SEP 0 1'1.'i CITY OF 1°AK►nit PLANNING DIV 1 would not have an adverse effect and that the grading met code requirements. YMC 3 11.04.010 adopts Appendix J of the 2018 Washington State Building Code. Sections J108.3 4 and J109.4 of the Washington State Building Code indicate that"adverse effects"to 5 6 adjacent properties include only slope stability,drainage,and potential erosion problems 7 8 resulting from the grading. Yet,the City's only stated basis for denying the School 9 District's modification request—and the Hearing Examiner's basis for affirming the 10 11 Administrative Official's finding—was neighbors' concerns regarding the aesthetic and 12 13 visual impacts of the higher playfield elevation on their adjacent properties. See Hearing 14 15 Examiner Decision at 10. But impacts to aesthetics and visual quality are an improper basis 16 to support an"adverse effects"finding pursuant to the Washington State Building Code. By 18 upholding the Administrative Official's finding on the basis of the neighbor's aesthetics and 19 20 visual concerns,the Hearing Examiner improperly applied a higher standard to the School 21 22 District's modification request than would have been applied to a grading permit for the 23 same work. The City's record shows that grading would not have adverse effects based on 24 25 the environmental review,and the City's surface water engineer's analysis shows that the 26 27 site does not create any site stability,erosion,or drainage impacts to adjacent properties. 28 Because there are no slope stability or erosion concerns resulting from the increased 29 30 playfield elevation,the Hearing Examiner's determination that the grading would result in 31 32 adverse effects is not supported by substantial evidence. 33 34 d. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law in affirming the 35 Administrative Official's application of a higher standard to the denial of the grading 36 37 modification than would have been applied to the initial grading permit review. 38 39 e. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law and exceeded his authority 40 in holding that the School District must either successfully appeal the Administrative Minor 41 42 Modification decision,or successfully obtain approval of the grading increase through a 43 44 Type(3)review process. Hearing Examiner Decision at 12. The School District went 45 46 through the Type(3)review process for the demolition and elementary school rebuilding 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—4 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 1537701042 Fax: 206.359.9000 DOC. INDEX # '� __ 298 RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 1 project,as this proposed use triggers a Type(3)review process. See YMC 15.15.020. Mere 2 3 changes in site elevation should not require a whole new Type(3)review process and a 4 separate approval on the same scale as the entire school rebuilding project. 5 6 f. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law and exceeded his authority 7 8 in affirming the Administrative Official's determination that the School District may be 9 required to regrade the site. Hearing Examiner Decision at 12-13. The Hearing Examiner to 11 held that the"nexus and proportionality test"does not apply here because the Administrative 12 13 Official's decision"leaves unaffected the grading contour requirements of the approved 14 15 2020 building permit which was not appealed and which will remain as the grading contour 16 requirements for the site." Hearing Examiner Decision at 13. However,the Hearing 17 18 Examiner failed to consider the significant adverse effect on the School District,the 19 20 taxpayers,and the elementary school students by requiring the School District to regrade the 21 22 site consistent with the approved 2020 building permit grading plans. By so holding,the 23 Hearing Examiner(and the Administrative Official)deemed that the handful of neighbors' 24 25 aesthetic concerns trump the exorbitant cost of regrading the site both to the School District 26 27 and to the City taxpayers. Accordingly,the imposition of a requirement to regrade the site is 28 contrary to the nexus and proportionality test. The City may only impose requirements that 29 30 are proportionate to the impacts of the proposed action. Therefore,the Hearing Examiner 31 32 and Administrative Official lack authority to require the school district to regrade the site. 33 34 7. Appellant seeks the following relief from the City Council: 35 a. For an Order reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision with respect to 36 37 grading. 38 39 b. For such other and further relief as the City Council deems just and equitable. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—5 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770)04.2 Fax: 206.3 k # 1_ ,� 299 RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV 2 3 4 DATED: September 10,2021 5 K st ie R. Wilson W. A No. 33152 6 Ju ie . Wilson-M ern y,WSBA No.46585 7 Pe ns Coie LLP 8 12( Third Avenue 9 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 to Phone: 206.359.8000 11 Fax: 206.359.9000 12 KRWilson@perkinscoie.com 13 JW ilsonMcNerney@perkinscoie.com 14 15 Attorneys for Appellants West Valley School 16 District No. 208 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 I 43 44 45 46 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—6 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104,2 Fax; 206.359.9000 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED 300 SEP1020?l CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 4 the date indicated below,I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF 5 6 APPEAL to be served on the following persons via the methods indicated below: 7 9 City of Yakima 0 Via U.S.Mail, 1st class,postage prepaid 10 Community Development Department ® Via Legal Messenger 11 129 N.2nd Street,2nd Floor 0 Via Facsimile 12 Yakima,WA 98901 ❑ Via Overnight Mail 13 0 Via email 14 15 16 DATED this 10th day of September,2021 at S tile.Washington. 17 18 ler8116444--.‘6,- 19 20 Cheryl Robert:on, Legal Practice 21 Assistant 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NOTICE OF APPEAL—7 Perkins Cole LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153770104.2 Fax: 206.359.9000 DOC. INDEX # RECEIVED SEP 1 ® 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. EXHIBIT A DOC. INDEX # '.1 RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2021 i arsi,� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF YAKIMA /71S■�►1\ Joan Davenport,AICP,Director PLANNING DIV. liWk PlanningDivision PCITY OF YAKIMA I a n n I n g Joseph Calhoun,Manager 129 North Second Street,god Floor,Yakima,WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov•www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA FINDINGS of FACT,CONCLUSIONS, &DECISION for REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION File Number: MOD#021-21 APPLICANT: West Valley School District do Angela Von Essen APPLICANT ADDRESS: 8902 Zier Rd.,Yakima,WA 98908 PROPERTY OWNER: West Valley School District#208 PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS: 8902 Zier Rd.,Yakima,WA 98908 PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 181319-42006&-42022 DATE OF REQUEST: May 28, 2021 DATE OF DECISION: June 30,2021 STAFF CONTACT: Eric Crowell,Associate Planner I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Modification to the final site plan of CL3#010-19 to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations,a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, regrading of the site, and installation of sitescreening in some locations, at the site of a new elementary school in the R-1 zoning district. IL SUMMARY OF DECISION:The Modification request for the five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations,reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of site screening are approved.The Modification request for re-grading of the site is denied. III. FACTS: A. Processing 1. The application for a Modification was received on May 28,2021. 2. Additional drawings and an updated narrative were received on June 21,2021. 3. An additional drawing showing added sitescreening was received on June 23, 2021. 4. The application was deemed complete for processing on June 30, 2021. 5. This application is being processed under the provisions of Ch. 15,17 (Modifications to Existing or Approved Uses or Development). Yddei 2016 19„ CoC. INDEX # -1 303 RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA B. Applicable Law: PLANNING DIV, 1. Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: a. Modification of(Use or Development) Defined: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.02.020, "Modification (of use or development)"means any change or alteration in the occupancy, arrangement, placement or construction of any existing use, structure, or associated site improvement, and any change or alteration of land. b. Use Defined: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.02.020, "Use"means the activity or purpose for which land or structures or a combination of land and structures is designed, arranged,occupied, or maintained together with any associated site improvements.This definition includes the construction,erection, placement, movement or demolition of any structure or site improvement and any physical alteration to land itself, including any grading, leveling, paving or excavation. "Use" also means any existing or proposed configuration of land, structures,and site improvements, and the use thereof. c. Submits: Pursuant to YMC§15.17.040(A), applications for modification shall follow the submittal requirements for Type(1) review. In addition,for an approved Class(2)or(3)use or development,the applicant shall submit both the site plan previously approved by the reviewing official and a new site plan showing the location, size, and type of modification proposed by the applicant. d. Limits of Expansion Under Modification: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.17.020,minor changes to existing or approved Class(1), (2)or(3)uses or development may qualify for abbreviated review under the provisions in this chapter, if they meet the criteria listed below. Overlay districts shall not increase the level of review for the provisions of this chapter. Modifications not meeting the criteria below must apply directly for review as a Class(1), (2)or(3)use or development. i. The modification will not increase residential density that would require an additional level of review; H. The modification will not Increase the amount of parking by more than ten percent or twenty spaces(whichever is least), except that the amount of parking for controlled atmosphere and cold storage warehouses may be increased by up to twenty spaces.This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; iii. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area.The expansion of an existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; iv. The modification will not increase the height of any structure; v. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 2 INDEX # E-1 304 RECEIVED SEP I 0 2021 vi. The modification will not add a drive-thru facility;and CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. vii. The modification does not include hazardous materials. e. Review: Pursuant to YMC§ 15.17.040(B), applications for modifications may be administratively and summarily reviewed using the Type (1)review process, in addition to the following criteria: Any proposed change in the site design or arrangement - Will not change or modify any special condition previously imposed under Class(2)or(3)review; - Will not adversely reduce the amount of existing landscaping or the amount or location or required sitescreening;and - In the determination of the Planning Division, it will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. ii. All proposed new structures, site improvements,or structural alterations to existing structures or site improvements comply with the development standards of YMC Ch. 15.05 through 15.08,except as approved under the adjustment or variance provisions. f. Sltescreeninc—Purpose: Pursuant to YMC 15.07.010,the purpose of this chapter is to: establish sitescreening standards to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity, streets and structures;reduce erosion and stormwater runoff; protect property values; and eliminate potential land use conflicts by mitigating adverse impacts from dust,odor, litter, noise, glare, lights,signs,water runoff, buildings or parking areas. IV. FINDINGS:The Administrative Official makes the following findings: A. The subject property is classified as Elementary and Middle School,a Class(3) permitted use in the R-1 zoning district(YMC§ 15.04, Table 4-1, Permitted Land Uses).The project was originally approved under CL3#010-19. B. Regarding soil and terrain, the Environmental Checklist(SEPA#038-19) noted that "approximately 15,000 cubic yards of grading and excavation would occur during project construction.The site is anticipated to be a net balance and no significant amounts of imported or exported soils are anticipated." C. Status of Environmental Work-the following summary was provided by the Department of Ecology: 1. It has been estimated that there are approximately 58,000 acres of lead and arsenic impacted soil in Yakima County alone and 187,588 acres impacted state wide. One of the strategies widely used in Washington State and acceptable to both Ecology and Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority(YRCAA) is capping of lead and arsenic containing soils with hardscape(asphalt or concrete)or some combination of fabric, clean soil, and mulches like bark or rock. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 3 COC,. NDE.X _ >#' _ 1E '1 305 RECEIVED SEP ® 2029 2. In 2012 as part of an Ecology funded project and consistent with an Ecol0NY OF YAKIMA accepted practice,the lead and arsenic containing soil in the grass-surfacApjNllµG [IIV. areas at the Apple Valley Elementary site was covered by fabric and about eight inches of clean soil before grass was re-established.Areas of lead and arsenic containing soil located under buildings, parking lots and sidewalks were not disturbed during the 2012 project. 3. The 2019/2020 Apple Valley Elementary project included demolition of existing buildings and regrading of the site to facilitate the new elementary school building construction and associated stormwater management.As the new construction would disturb lead and arsenic containing soils previously capped by the 2012 Ecology lead project,the District's environmental consultant, Fulcrum Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Fulcrum), notified both the Ecology and the YRCAA that work would occur on the Apple Valley Elementary School site and reviewed the intended mitigation plan for regrading and re-capping the site with fabric and clean soil or hardscape consistent with Ecology's 2012 mitigation work. 4. Both worker and community protection measure were developed as a portion of the soil mitigation plan and was incorporated into the project specifications for the contractors to follow during construction. Contractor dust control and stormwater measures during lead and arsenic soil moving tasks has been monitored by Fulcrum and have been within the pre-project identified tolerances. 5. Construction on the Apple Valley Elementary project is nearing completion. Following is a summary of current conditions: a. One stockpile of lead and arsenic soil remains onsite and is being used to finish the elevation of soil located beneath the fabric cap. Some surplus soil from this stockpile maybe removed from the site.The stockpile has been characterized and was below the dangerous waste threshold. b. All lead and arsenic contaminated soil was removed from stormwater Infiltration areas. c. Lead and arsenic contaminated soil remaining in building footprint, asphalt parking, or concrete side walk areas have been capped with gravel and either concrete or asphalt. d. Lead and arsenic contaminated soil remaining grass or landscaping areas is currently being covered with an orange geotextile fabric and clean soil. e. Following clean soil placement, either sod will be added to the grass surfaced areas. D. This modification is being requested in order to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, modified site grading, and installation of sitescreening in some locations. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 4 INDEX # RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV E. Modification to Permitted Development and Uses Regulated. Pursuant to YMC§ 15.17.020,the proposal complies with the following criteria in order to be considered a modification: 1. The modification will not increase residential density that would require an additional level of review. Staff Resonse:Not applicable;it is not a residential use. 2. The modification will not increase the amount of parking by more than ten percent or twenty spaces(whichever is least), except that the amount of parking for controlled atmosphere and cold storage warehouses may be increased by up to twenty spaces. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. Staff Response:No additional parking is being proposed. 3. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area.The expansion of an existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. Staff Resoanse: The school building and grounds are not being expanded from what was previously approved, as all proposed site modifications are within the Apple Valley school parcels. The number of playfields is being increased from two to three, an increase of 50 percent, meeting the standard for modification. The addition of the five-foot paved path around a portion of the perimeter and the reduction in playground asphalt will result in a cumulative decrease of 6 percent for overall impervious lot coverage, meeting the standard for a modification. Grading is included in the definition of'Use"and is therefore subject to review under the Modification criteria. On-site grading has changed significantly from the grading contours submitted with the Building Permit(B200126). The new contour lines shown on the revised Modification Site Plan and narrative submitted with this application are in excess of a 50%increase in elevation from what was shown with the B200126 submittal in several locations, not meeting the standard for a modification. 4. The modification will not increase the height of any structure. Staff Resp9n$0: The school was approved for a variance(VAR#004-19)to exceed the 35-foot height limitation in the R-1 zoning district, but no other structures are proposed that exceed the approved 44-foot height. 5. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 5 DOS• INDEX RECENVED SEP 0 202i CITY OF YAKllvrk PLANNING DIV Staff Response. Previous modifications(MOD#026-18, MOD#031-18)were for the placement of portable classrooms, which were eliminated with the construction of the new school. 6. The modification will not add a drive-thru facility. Staff Response: No drive-thru facility is being added, 7. The modification does not include hazardous materials. Staff Response. The proposed modification does not introduce additional soil containing hazardous materials. See analysis provided above for on-site conditions related to soil remediation and capping under the Department of Ecology Guidelines. F. The proposed modification complies with all other development standards of the R-1 zoning district. G. The proposal will not change or modify any special condition previously imposed under the previous land use review by the Hearing Examiner In 2020. H. The proposal will not significantly reduce the amount of the existing landscaping. It will not reduce the amount or location of the existing required sitescreening.While an Administrative Adjustment(ADJ#027-19)was approved,waiving the requirement that view-obscuring material be added to the existing chain link fence,the applicant has agreed to add view-obscuring material to a portion of the fence along the east and south property lines. I. The proposed asphalt path,additional field, relocated backstop, and additional sitescreening will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts of the project. J. The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project.The new grade is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown on the grading plans submitted with B200126.The City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners which prompted the Building Official to issue a stop-work order.The WVSD held a neighborhood meeting on June 14, 2021 to hear the concerns and questions of neighbors. Multiple emails and phone calls were received by various City staff both prior and subsequent to the meeting about site grading and its negative impact on adjacent property owners. K. Development Service Team Review:A Development Service Team(DST)meeting was not held for technical review of the project. The following comment was received from Randy Meloy, Surface Water Engineer: 1. Per your request I went out to Apple Valley Elementary and walked around the entirety of the path to assess the possibility of drainage impacts. The asphalt path is about five feet wide and is located close to the school's fence along the perimeter of their parcel. The cross slope of the path is generally flat, with some areas gently sloped towards the grass and other areas gently sloped towards the West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 6 Doc. INDEX # ' 7 RECEIVED SEP +A 0 2021 Y i F YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. fence. it is my opinion that there would be no drainage impact on the surrounding parcels due to this paved path being close to the fence. The only possible scenario where I could see there being any kind of drainage issue would be on the south side if the school overwatered with the sprinklers, and because the main grassy area is elevated,you could get runoff from the sloped grassy areas making its way towards the perimeter. If that happened there is still a ten foot separation between the school's fence and the neighbor's fences. Much of the runoff would infiltrate into the ground in this area. This is assuming there would be some problem with the school irrigation and that is unlikely.Along the east side of the school there is a small gravel berm between the path and the fence which would help to contain any runoff that might get there.Again, i wouldnot anticipate any issues there. Last night and this morning there was a decent amount of rainfall at the school, and while walking the path I looked for signs of erosion and did not find any. This path is only five feet wide and It is my opinion that it will not cause any drainage problems. V. CONCLUSIONS: A. The Administrative Official has reviewed the addition of a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations,a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sitescreening In some locations against the standards and requirements for a Modification under YMC Ch. 15.17 and has conduded that they are consistent with said standards and requirements. B. The proposed site grading is not consistent with the standards and requirements for a Modification under YMC Ch. 15.17. C. All other development standards of the R-1 zoning district will be met. D. The revised site plans submitted on June 21 and 23, 2021 shall serve as the final site plans for items approved under this Modification. VI. DECISION: The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Modification application (MOD#021-21)to add a five-foot-wide walking path, increase the number of fields from two to three, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of additional fencing to an existing Class(3)use is approved,and authorizes the issuance of the permit(s)based upon the above findings and conclusions and subject to the Building Official's determination of compliance with all building codes. The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Modification application (MOD#021-21)for site grading is denied, and requires the applicant to regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in the building plan submittal (B200126). Entered this 30th day of June,2021,pursuant to the authority granted under YMC Ch. 15.17. This decision constitutes the final zoning review and is hereby granted and forwarded to the Building Official. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 7 DOC. INDEX 309 RECEIVED 1 2021 s�P CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING OIV This zoning decision is valid for one year from this date unless appealed under the Yakima Municipal Code. The zoning decision may be extended one time up to one additional year prior to the expiration date,as set forth in YMC§ 15.12.060. This zoning decision is not a construction permit and does not in and of itself authorize any use to be established, constructed, made or implemented without a construction permit issued by the Building Official and the conditions pending have been completed. This zoning decision shall expire if:a)a construction permit and/or business license for the approved project is required but not issued within one year from the date of issuance of this final decision; b)the construction permit and/or business license is issued but allowed to expire; or c)the project is modified and a new zoning decision is issued. The issuance of any pennit,subsequent permit inspection,land use decisions,or other related applications by the City of Yakima shall not be construed as an approval for work to be performed in violation of any government(Federal,State or Local)order to cease or limit construction activities during the COVID-19 emergency period outlined in such order. Joe avenport,MCP, Co unity Development Director APPEAL Pursuant to YMC 15.17.040 and 15.17.050, uses or developments denied under this chapter may submit applications for review under the normal review provisions for the use. Decisions by the planning division regarding approval or denial of administrative modifications may be appealed as prescribed by the applicable review.All appeals shall be filed within fourteen days following the mailing of the final decision by the Administrative Official or designee.Appeals must be submitted in writing to the City of Yakima, Community Development Department; 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA 98901. If a final decision does not require mailing,the appeal shall be filed within fourteen days following the issuance of the final decision. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary MOD#021-21 8 DO 4 INDEX � -7 310 RECEIVED S EP 1 0 2021 Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. EXHIBIT B Doc. INDEX 311 RECEIVED ��`,�G�;; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CEP ® ��2� �.� Joan Davenport,AICP,Director CITY of YAKIMn Planning Division CITY OF YAKIMA n g Joseph Calhoun,Manager PLANNING DIV 129 North Second Street,2od Floor,Yakima,WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov•www.yaldmawa.gov/services/planning NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION DATE: August 27,2021 TO: Applicant,Appellant, SEPA Agencies,Adjoining Property Owners &Parties of Record SUBJECT: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Decision FILE#(S): APP#001-21,MOD#021-21 APPLICANT: West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary School APPELLANT: West Valley School District PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. On August 26, 2021,the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his decision on APP#001- 21, an appeal of the Administrative Official's Decision for MOD#021-21, a modification to an existing site plan at Apple Valley Elementary in the R-1 zoning district.Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision.The appellant may apply for a Type(3)Major Modification and/or has the right as set forth in YMC 16.08.025 and YMC 16.08.030 to appeal this decision to the Yakima City Council within fourteen days of mailing this decision in accordance with the applicable City provisions. For further information or assistance, you may contact Associate Planner Eric Crowell at (509) 575-6736 or email to: eric.crowell(I yakimawa.gov. Edc, 771. &adeek Eric Crowell Associate Planner Date of Mailing:August 27,2021 Enclosures:Hearing Examiner's Decision Yakima 'ICII` 2015 1994 INDEX 312 RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 , IOF YAKIM City of Yakima, Washington CPLANNNING Div. Hearing Examiner's Decision RECEIVED August 26,2021 SEP 10 2021 In the Matter of an Appeal by the ) CITY Of YAKIMA West Valley School District of an ) PLANNING DIII. Administrative Official's Decision ) APP#001-21 Regarding One of Five Requests ) MOD#021-21 For a Minor Modification to the ) City's Approved Site Plan for the ) Apple Valley Elementary School ) A. Introduction. The main procedural aspects of the open record public hearing that was conducted by the Hearing Examiner on August 12, 2021, may be summarized as follows: (1) The Administrative Official, City of Yakima Community Development Director Joan Davenport, issued a decision on June 30, 2021, relative to a request for the Minor Modification of the site plan previously approved for the Apple Valley Elementary School. The decision approved as a Minor Modification the addition of a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sight-screening in some locations which were four of the modified features shown on the revised site plans submitted on June 21 and June 23, 2021 (Document Index B-3 and G-3). The decision did not approve as a Minor Modification the increase in elevation of grading contours of portions of the site beyond what the City had previously approved for building permit B200126 in 2020. That denial was based on a finding that the increase in site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project(Document Index E-3 and G-4). (2) A courtesy copy of the Administrative Official's decision was sent to West Valley School District 1 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 Doe. INDEX # F-1 313 'DECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 UP OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. adjacent property owners who had emailed concerns to the City about the increoltz-covpry in elevation of the site (Testimony of Joan Davenport). A section at the end of the decision entitled "APPEAL" set forth instructions as to how decisions by kifp 1 0 2021 Planning Division regarding approval or denial of administrative modifications may he appealed within fourteen days.West Valley School District(hereafter"W VY") OF YAKIMA appealed the Administrative Official's denial of the increase in the site graclN!6NNING DIV elevation of the playgrounds and playfields as a Minor Modification. There is no indication in the record that anyone appealed the changes that were approved as part of the Minor Modification request. If those aspects of the Minor Modification were appealed, they were not included within this Appeal proceeding and are not before the Hearing Examiner as part of this Appeal. (3)Testimony of City Associate Planner Eric Crowell recommended that the Appeal be denied and that the Administrative Official's failure to approve the requested increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification of the approved site plan be affirmed for reasons set forth in his staff report (Document Index A-1). Testimony in favor of denial of the Appeal and affirmance of the Administrative Official's decision was also presented by City Attorney Sara Watkins;by Community Development Director Joan Davenport;and by adjacent property owner John Manfredi. (4) Testimony in favor of the Appeal to authorize the increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification was submitted by appellant's attorney Julie A. Wilson-McNerney of the law fine of Perkins Coie LLP; by the Project Architect at Design West Architects, Matthew Whitish, AIA; by the Bond Oversight Committee Chairman, Peter Marinace; and by a parent of two Apple Valley Elementary School students,Chris Jevne. (5) Written comments in favor of the Appeal seeking approval of the requested increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the site as a Minor Modification were submitted by appellant's attorneys,Kristine R. Wilson and Julie A.Wilson-McNerney of Perkins Coie LLP (Document Index D-1, G-2,H-5 and H- 6); by appellant's Acting Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Peter Finch (Document Index D-1);by a commenter who described herself as a taxpayer,Michelle Mueller (Document Index F-2); by a parent of an Apple Valley Elementary School student, Jamie Mathews (Document Index H-1); by a West Valley resident, Ryan K. Mathews (Document Index H-3); by a resident living across Barge Street north of the school, Oscar Rodriguez (Document Index H-7); and by the Bond Oversight West Valley School District 2 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 D.©'1 . INDEX # �- � 314 RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA Committee Chairman,Peter Marinace(Document Index H-8). PLANNING OIV• RECEIVE (6) Written comments in opposition to the Appeal and in favor of affirming the Administrative Official's decision were submitted by Associate Planner Eric SEP 91 Crowell (Document Index A-1); by Administrative Official Joan Davenport (Document Index H-4); by adjacent resident Julia Ericson (Document Index F-1); CITY OF Yr1Kd by adjacent resident Stuart McCurdy (Document Index F-3); by adjacent residents PLANNING f3 Kevin and Melanie Cox (Document Index F-4); by adjacent residents John and Candace Manfredi (Document Index F-5 and H-2); by adjacent resident Thela McCurdy (Document Index F-6); and by adjacent residents Erasmo and Lorena Carranza(Document Index F 7). (7) Extensive written, photographic, illustrative and oral evidence was presented in this matter. Any attempt to summarize the evidence that was relative to the grounds set forth for this Appeal could not as a practical matter include all of the many points in their context that were submitted as evidence, but anyone interested in reviewing all of the evidence in its full context may do so by reviewing the documents submitted for this record and by viewipg the hearing on the City's website entitled"yakimawa.gov"by clicking on"City Council"and then on "City Council Videos" and then on"City of Yakima Hearing Examiner 8/12/2021."The Hearing Examiner has more than once reviewed all of the written,photographic and illustrative evidence, as well as all of the testimonial evidence presented at the hearing. The following Findings, Conclusions and Decision are the result from that review and consideration of all of the evidence in the record and presented at the hearing which pertains to the stated grounds for this Appeal. These Findings, Conclusions and Decision have been issued within ten working days of the date of the open record public hearing as required by Subsections 16.08.018(G) and 16.08.020(C)of the Yakima Municipal Code(YMC). B. Basis for Decision. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site on August 10, 2021,without anyone else present; his consideration of the staff report, the appeal information, the exhibits,the testimony and other evidence presented at the open record public hearing on August 12, 2021; and his consideration of the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code West Valley School District 3 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 DOC. INDEX # � �� 315 RECEIVED SEP 1 02021 /ECEIVED CITY Of Yp{�Ilv►r', AUG 2 6 2021 pl_ANNING Dlv ► r of YAKIMA a+.AN►INQ DIV. (YMC), which apply to the Appellant's grounds for appeal; the Hearing Examiner makes and issues the following Findings, Conclusions and Decision: FINDINGS I. Background of AppeaI. The background facts pertinent to this appeal may be summarized as follows: (1) When the City investigated a complaint regarding the construction of a walking pathway at Apple Valley Elementary School, it found that the school and parking areas had been constructed in accordance with the site plan that was approved on April 7,2020 for the building permit(B200126),but it was determined that the playground areas, fields and pathway were in some areas one to three feet higher than shown on the approved site plan. A stop work order was placed on the playground and playfield portions of the project on May 26, 2021. WVSD applied for a modification of the approved site plan on May 28,2021 which would add the pathway that had been constructed around the south and east perimeter of the school site. The City recommended during a virtual meeting with WVSD on June 4,2021 that WVSD meet with the concerned neighbors to hear their comments. After WVSD sent email notices to neighbors on June 8, 2021, it held a meeting with neighbors to hear their concerns on June 14, 2021. The City's Community Development Director who is the Administrative Official,Joan Davenport,attended that meeting and heard neighborhood concerns, including concerns about the increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the playground and playfields at issue in this Appeal. She also visited the school campus. On June 21, 2021, an amended application was submitted to also modify backstop and goalpost locations for the playfields, to slightly reduce the asphalt area for the playground,to change some of the fencing and to allow the grading of the playfields to remain at the as- built elevations rather than at the previously approved elevations.The City Planning Division determined that the application was complete and the Administrative Official issued the decision relative thereto on June 30, 2021 (Document Index H-4 and E-3). West Valley School District 4 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX RECEIVED 316 SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA RECEIVED PLANNING DIV AUG 2 6 2021 �r r Y c YAKIMA PANNING DIV. (2) The decision approved as a Minor Modification the five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfields, the revised backstop and goalpost locations, the reduction in asphalt for the playground, and the installation of sitescreening,but it did not approve as a Minor Modification the as-built increase in the site grading elevation of portions of the playground and playfield areas of the site. (3)West Valley School District timely appealed the latter aspect of the Minor Modification decision on July 14,2021. Public notice of the Appeal hearing set for August 12, 2021 was given by mailing notice to the parties of record and the applicant/appellant on July 23,2021, as well as by publishing notice in the Yakima Herald-Republic on July 23, 2021 and posting land use action signs on the site on August 2, 2021 in accordance with YMC §16.08.018(D). The Hearing Examiner conducted the open record public hearing pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by YMC §15.20.040(C)(1)(f)and§16.08.018(G). (4)YMC §15.17.020 states that minor changes to approved Class(1), (2)or (3) uses may qualify for abbreviated review if they do not exceed certain listed criteria consisting of seven types of limitations on the nature of the change. The limitation prescribed by YMC §15.17.020(C) is that any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed 50% of the gross floor area. YMC §15.17.040(B)(1) provides that applications for modifications may be summarily and administratively reviewed by using the Type(1)review process plus the additional consideration of three specified criteria. The third criterion in YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) is that the proposed change in the site design or arrangement, in the determination of the planning division, will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. (5) YMC §15.17.040(C) provides that if in utilizing the Type (1) review process the proposed modification does not meet all of the requirements of section 15.17.040, it shall be denied and may be the subject of an application for review under the normal review provisions for the use. The normal review provisions for this use would be the Type(3)review provisions for elementary school uses in the Single-Family Residential(R-1)zoning district. Besides requiring public notice and an open record public hearing by the Hearing Examiner, Type (3) review of Class (3) uses defined in YMC §15.02.020 also requires the consideration of several criteria such as compatibility with the neighborhood and authorizes the imposition of conditions if they would adequately resolve difficulties related to compatibility. West Valley School District 5 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX 317 RECEWED SEP 1 ® 2021 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA AUG 2 6 2021 PLANNING DIV. qi 1 Y OF YAKIMA Such alternatives are not available in the abbreviated, summ PLANNING DIV. ary, administrative Type(1)Minor Modification process which according to YMC§15.17.040(C)must result in either approval or denial of the requested change. YMC §15.17.020 likewise provides that denial of requested changes under the abbreviated Type (1) Minor Modification procedure that do not meet the criteria must apply for review as a Class(1), (2)or(3)use or development. (5)YMC §16.08.018(A)provides that an Administrative Official's decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. YMC §16.08.018(C) states that all appeals shall specifically cite the action being appealed, the error(s) or issue(s)to be considered, and explain why the action is not consistent with the provisions of the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan, this title or other provisions of law. YMC §16.08.018(G)requires that testimony given during the appeal shall be limited to those points cited in the appeal application. YMC §16.08.020(A) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hear appeals de novo which means that open record appeal hearings shall be conducted. YMC §16.08.014 states that the appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate that there is at least one of four specified types of error in the decision of the Administrative Official. YMC §16.08.018(H) provides that decisions by the Hearing Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless appealed to the Yakima City Council in accordance with YMC §16.08.020(C), §16.08.025 and §16.08.030 which would result in a stay of actions of the Administrative Official in accordance with YMC §16.08.050. II. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's First Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official Committed an Error of Law in Partially Denying the Modification Application. (1)The appellant correctly points out that YMC §15.17.020(C)which allows any expansion of use area and structure not exceeding fifty percent of the gross floor area to be considered as a Minor Modification if it satisfies the additional criteria in YMC §15.17.040 is inapplicable to increases in site grading elevation even though grading is specifically included in the definition of a "use" in YMC §15.02.020. This contention is supported by the definition of "gross floor area" in YMC §15.02.020 and YMC §15.06.040(A). Gross floor area is defined as the total square West Valley School District 6 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 CA . INDEX # > - .v_. 318 RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA AUG 2 6 2021 PLANNING DIV. CITY OF YAKIMA footage of all floors in a structure which is to be determined in a specified manner DIV. and which can only be applied to an increase in the site grading elevation of a use area by analogy. (2)The Administrative Official did in fact apply the potential type of Minor Modification described in YMC §15.17.020(C)by analogy for evaluation purposes to the appellant's requested increase in the site grading elevation of the site. She applied that provision to individual elevation increases in any of the contours that were compared rather than to the average percentage increase in elevation over the entire site(Document IndexA-1,page 2 of the staffreport).The Planning Division's interpretation of that provision to allow consideration of some grading changes by analogy to constitute Minor Modifications if they also meet the additional criteria in YMC §15.17.040 was at most harmless error. (3) The Administrative Official's interpretation of YMC 15.17.020(C) did not prejudice the appellant. That is because the appellant's requested increase in site grading elevation could not otherwise be considered as a Minor Modification under any circumstances absent the use of that provision by analogy. The appellant could not point to any ordinance provision specifying how a percentage increase in grading elevation is to be determined by analogy. Applying YMC §15.17.020(C) to this situation by analogy also did not prejudice the appellant because the Administrative Official also went further and also considered the requested modification under the additional criteria of YMC§15.17.040. Consideration of the requested modification under the additional criterion of YMC 15.17.040(B)(1)(c) resulted in a determination that "The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project" (Document Index E-3 and G-4,page 6 of the decision). III. The [tearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's Second Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official's Finding that the As-Built Grading Would Be More Than a 50% Increase in Elevation is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. West Valley School District 7 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX_ 319 RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2021 AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. PLANNING DIV. (1) The appellant correctly described"substantial evidence"as"evidence of a sufficient quantity to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true." Some cases refer to the fictitious person being persuaded as a "fair-minded person." E.g. Ostrum Mushroom Farm Co. v. Wash. State Dep't of Labor and Industries, 13 Wn.App.2d 262, 271, 463 P.3d 149, 154 (2020). (2)The appellant's uncontradicted evidence was to the effect that the average increase in the as-built site grading elevation across the entire site is 32%rather than in excess of the 50%referenced in YMC §15.17.020(C). That is because portions of the southern playfield were graded at an elevation one to three feet higher than approved by the City in 2020,while the finished elevation in other areas of the site is one foot lower than shown in the approved site plans(Document Index D-1,pages 9-10 of appellant's memorandum). (3) The Administrative Official did not use the average increase in site grading elevation in determining that the increase in site grading elevation exceeded 50%. She rather determined that the elevation of any contour line on the site plan for the modification request which exceeded by more than 50%the elevation of the contour line it crossed on the site plan previously approved with building permit B200126 in fact by analogy violated the 50% limitation in YMC §15.17.020(C) required for administrative approval as a Minor Modification. (Document Index A- 1,page 3 of the staff report). (4) In this regard it is difficult to apply YMC §15.17.020(C)by analogy to an increase in the site grading elevation of a site because an increase in gross floor area would be determined by considering the total square footage increase in floor area in all applicable locations throughout a building without being an average increase or being an increase that is exceeded only in certain areas. Here the adverse impacts of the project cited by adjacent residents consist mainly of an increase in site grading elevation in the areas relatively near adjacent residences which diminish the effectiveness of their perimeter sitescreening as a visual buffer between the school and their residential uses of different intensity contrary to YMC §15.07.010. (5)Interpreting YMC§15.17.020(C)to mandate consideration of the average increase in the site grading elevation across the entire site would result in consider- ation of areas away from the adjacent neighbors that would not be relevant to their concerns and would ignore the full extent of any increases in the site grading West Valley School District 8 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX # �'� 320 RECEWED RECEIVED SEP 2921 AUG 2 6 2021 i;1TY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV t'I1 OF G YAKIMADIV elevation that are near enough to the adjacent neighbors to significantly diminish the effectiveness of their sitescreening.The Administrative Official's approach and determination as to the applicability by analogy for evaluation purposes of YMC §15.17.020(C)focused upon the adverse impacts reported by neighbors rather than upon the average increase in site elevation which was not the problem reported by the neighbors. Her determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record which consists of (i) the differences between the contour lines on the site plan submitted for the modification application and the contour lines on the site plan previously approved for the building permit and (ii) the written comments, photographs, illustrations and testimony of adjacent neighbors which have been submitted for the record of this de novo open record hearing appeal procedure. (6) Even if the Administrative Official should have utilized the average increase in site grading elevation across the entire site,again any error was harmless. The failure of the increase in site grading elevation to satisfy the percentage limitation in YMC §15.17.020(C)was not the Administrative Official's only basis for refusing to approve the requested increase in the site grading elevation as a Minor Modification. A second and independent basis for refusing to summarily approve the increase in site grading elevation administratively as a Minor Modifi- cation was her determination that it creates an adverse impact of the project so as to be disqualified from approval as a Minor Modification under the third criterion prescribed by YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) (Document Index E-3 and G-4,page 6 of the decision). IV. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's Third Ground for the Appeal to the Effect that the Administrative Official's Finding that the As-Built Grading Would Cause an Adverse Effect is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. (1)YMC §15.17.040(B)provides in part that applications for modifications may only be administratively and summarily reviewed using the Type (1) review process if in the determination of the Planning Division, it will not create or West Valley School District 9 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 A INDEX E-J 321 AECEWED SEP 1 2021 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA AUG 2 G 2021 PLANNING DIV, CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. YMC §15.02.020 defines the Planning Division as the Department of Community Development of the City of Yakima and the Administrative Official as the duly appointed City of Yakima Director of Community Development.Here the Director of Community Development specifically determined that the site grading elevation does in fact create an adverse impact of the project that prevented it from being processed administratively by the summary Minor Modification process. Her specific determination in regard to the adverse impact of the site grading elevation was as follows: "The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project.The new grade is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown on the grading plans submitted with B200126. The City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners which prompted the Building Official to issue a stop work order.The WVSD held a neighborhood meeting on June 14, 2021 to hear the concerns and questions of neighbors. Multiple emails and phone calls were received by various City staff both prior and subsequent to the meeting about site grading and its negative impact on adjacent property owners." (Document Index E-3 and G-4,page 6 of the decision). (2) The Administrative Official's determination relative to the Minor Modification requirement of YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c) was based upon her personal knowledge of neighbors' concerns relayed to the Planning Division by emails and phone calls and expressed at the neighborhood meeting held on June 14, 2021,which she attended. YMC §15.17.020 and §15.17.040(C)state that the effect of that determination is in this situation to require consideration of the requested modification of the site grading elevation by means of an application for Type (3) review rather than by means of the abbreviated, summary,administrative Type(1) Minor Modification review process. (3)The appellant correctly points out that the City's Surface Water Engineer determined that the as-built conditions at the school would not cause erosion or drainage problems. That does not mean, however, that the increase in site grading elevation to a significantly higher elevation than what was approved would not create other problems. The most obvious adverse impact from such an increase in West Valley School District 10 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX 322 RECEIVED SEP 0MI RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIIVi, AUG 2 6 2021 PLANNING DIV CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. the site grading elevation is described in the Planning Division staff report as follows: "Because the elevation changes by a few feet in some locations,this reduces the effectiveness of the view-obscuring sitescreening material the school district agreed to install upon an existing six-foot-tall fence." (Document Index A-1,page 3 of the staff report). (4) The Administrative Official's decision approved the requested Minor Modification for six-foot-tall view-obscuring fencing along the south and southeast perimeter of the site. The Administrative Official's decision contains a reference to one of the purposes of sitescreening set forth in YMC §15.07.010. One of the purposes of sitescreening is to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity such as between school playgrounds/playfields and adjacent residences. (Document Index E-3 and G-4, page 3). Increases in site grading elevations can reduce the effectiveness of the six-foot-high view-obscuring fencing to varying degrees depending upon where those increases in elevation are located. (5)Since YMC§16.08.020(A)provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hear appeals de novo at an open record hearing, the written comments, photographs, illustrations and testimony presented for the appeal must be considered in deciding whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Administrative Official's determination to the effect that the increase in site grading elevation creates an adverse impact ofthe project so as to preclude its administrative approval summarily as a Minor Modification. Additional evidence presented for the record of this proceeding relative to the adverse impacts of the increase in site grading elevation includes evidence to the effect that (i) the building permit approval included regrading the south and east playgrounds/playfields to raise their elevation from one to four feet over what existed at that time (Document Index F-1 and F-5) and (ii) the additional subsequent increase in the site grading elevation of three to four feet more only 20 to 40 feet from the south and east property lines is now enough for some of the adjacent residents to see people over a six-foot-high view- obscuring fence from the waist up and to allow people to see into their yards and windows so as to create adverse impacts to some of the adjacent residents'privacy, security,personal safety,property damage and/or property values (Document Index F-1, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6 and F-7). The testimony presented at the hearing by an adjacent property owner was consistent with his written comments, and he again West Valley School District 11 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX 323 RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 1 0 20/I AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAI(INMi, PLANNING Div CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. indicated that the neighbors should be compensated for the adverse impacts to their property caused by the increase in the site grading elevation if that change is approved (Testimony of John Manfredi; Document Index F-5). The written evidence, photographs, illustrations and testimony in the record as to adverse impacts due to the increase in site grading elevation is not speculative because it is based on already as-built elevations rather than on possible future impacts of possible future elevations. (6) The written comments and testimony of adjacent neighbors that were submitted for the record of this proceeding as Document Index F-1, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6 and F-7 in and of themselves constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of the Administrative Official to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation of the site creates an adverse impact of the project. This determination under the plain language of YMC §15.17.040(B)(1)(c)is solely hers to make because this is an abbreviated, summary, administrative Minor Modifi- cation process. This Minor Modification process does not involve determinations as to credibility,compatibility or the imposition of conditions to resolve difficulties related to the compatibility of a proposal which are involved by definition per YMC §15.02.020 in the consideration of Class (3)uses by Type(3) review. The Minor Modification process is rather a summary process which must result in either approval or denial based in part upon a determination of the Planning Division. That determination here is supported by substantial evidence. V. The Hearing Examiner's Findings as to the Appellant's Fourth Ground for this Appeal to the Effect that the City Exceeded Its Authority in Requiring the School District to Regrade the Site. (1) The language of the Administrative Official's decision following her denial of the requested increase in site grading elevation as a Minor Modification accurately describes what will result if the applicant/appellant should fail to be successful in an appeal of the Administrative Minor Modification decision and/or should fail to obtain approval of the increase in the site grading elevation of the site through the Type (3) review process. Absent success in pursuing one or both of those alternatives set forth in YMC §16.08.025 and §16.08.030 and/or YMC West Valley School District 12 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX 324 RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 19 2021 AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA ;i I Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. PLANNING DIV. §15.17.020 and§15.17.040(C),it is true that the applicant/appellant will be required to regrade the site consistent with grading contours shown on the elevation site plan submittal for B200126 because that is the most recent City approval of the grading contours of the site. If that becomes a requirement, the requirement would be attributable to the appellant's action in increasing site grading elevations of the site beyond what the City had approved rather than attributable to any action by the City. (2)The nexus and proportionality test do not apply to this situation because the Administrative Official's decision does not require an exaction or any mitigation measures, but rather leaves unaffected the grading contour requirements of the approved 2020 building permit which was not appealed and which will remain as the grading contour requirements for the site if the Administrative Official's decision is not changed as a result of the appeal process and/or the Type(3)review process. VI. The Hearing Examiner's Conclusions as to the Appellant's Grounds for this Appeal. (1) The Administrative Official did not commit an error of law in partially denying the modification application. (2) The Administrative Official's finding that the as-built grading would be more than a 50%increase in elevation at some places on the site where contour lines of the site plan submitted with the modification application cross contour lines of the site plan approved for building permit B200126 is supported by substantial evidence. (3)The Administrative Official's finding to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation creates an adverse impact of the project is supported by substantial written,photographic,illustrative and oral evidence which is contained within the record of this proceeding. (4) The City did not exceed its authority in requiring the School District to regrade the site because that is already required by the approved building permit site plan for B200126 which was not appealed. It is not a new requirement imposed by the Administrative Official. It is rather an existing building permit requirement that West Valley School District 13 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 INDEX # 7 RECEIVE') 325 SEP 10 7i1 ' RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIM� PLANNING OIV AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. could still be eliminated by a successful appeal of the Administrative Official's decision or could still be eliminated or modified through Type(3)review. (5)Due to the summary nature of the Minor Modification process,the written and oral evidence submitted at the hearing in favor of approving the Minor Modification which has all been reviewed and considered by the Hearing Examiner cannot here result in a reversal of the Administrative Official's decision because it fails to satisfy the appellant's burden to prove at least one of the four specific grounds required for a successful Appeal of a Minor Modification even though it may be persuasive in other contexts. (6) The consequence of a failure to satisfy all of the criteria for a Minor Modification is that the applicant/appellant can apply for Type (3) review of the modification request for an increase in the site grading elevation of the site. That type of review would involve notice and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner or Pro Tem Hearing Examiner. During that type of review, the written comments and testimony of those in favor of the modification of the site grading elevation that were presented for this Appeal, as well as additional written comments and testimony, could be presented and be considered under different criteria than are required for the administrative approval of a Minor Modification. If this modification request is set for a Type (3) review hearing in the future, the Planning Division may consider assigning that review to the Pro Tern Hearing Examiner since a third review of the site features for this new school could involve argument as to the intent and effect of this Hearing Examiner's two prior decisions in that regard which in turn might give rise to the need to address an appearance of fairness assertion or issue that could possibly be raised at the beginning of a future hearing. (7)If the appellant applies for Type (3) review of the requested increase in the site grading elevation of the site and/or appeals this decision within the requisite fourteen days of mailing this decision, then the increase in site grading elevation will not immediately become a code compliance issue due to the stay prescribed by YMC §16.08.050. But otherwise the Administrative Official's requirement to regrade the site consistent with grading contours shown in the building plan submittal for B200126 will become a code compliance issue since the grading contours on that building plan submittal are currently the only grading contours that have been approved by the City. West Valley School Disct 14 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 326 RECEIVED RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 AUG 2 6 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. PLANNING DIV. (8)This Appeal decision may be further appealed to the Yakima City Council within the time period and in the manner required by applicable City ordinance provisions. VII. Hearing Examiner's Appeal Decision (APP#001-21). The Hearing Examiner's decision relative to this Appeal is as follows: (1)The portion of the Administrative Official's administrative determination to the effect that the increase in the site grading elevation shown on the site plan for the modification application does not satisfy all of the criteria for approval of a Minor Modification is affirmed and the Appeal from that portion of the Minor Modification decision is denied. (2)The portion of the Administrative Official's said decision which requires the applicant/appellant to regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in the building site plan submittal for B200126 is also affirmed subject to the right of the applicant/appellant set forth in YMC §15.17.020 and§15.17.040(C)to apply for a Type (3) Major Modification and/or the right of the applicant/appellant set forth in YMC §16.08.025 and§16.08.030 to appeal this decision to the Yakima City Council within fourteen days of mailing this decision in accordance with applicable City ordinance provisions. DATED this 26th day of August, 2021. /3;— tin. yam Gary M. uillier, Hearing Examiner West Valley School District 15 Modification Appeal Decision Apple Valley Elementary School APP#001-21 of MOD#021-21 I - 327 RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. EXHIBIT C c. INDEX 328 RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA 1 PLANNING DIV. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BEFORE THE CITY OF YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL 13 14 In the matter of the Appeals of: 15 APP#001-21,MOD#021-21 16 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 NO.208,a political subdivision of the DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH 18 State of Washington, 19 20 Appellant, 21 22 V. 23 24 CITY OF YAKIMA,a political 25 subdivision of the State of Washington, 26 27 Respondent. 28 29 30 31 32 33 I,Dr.Peter Finch,declare and state as follows: 34 35 1.. I am over the age of eighteen years,make this declaration on personal 37 knowledge of the facts stated herein,and am competent to testify. 39 2. I am currently the Superintendent of Schools for the West Valley School 40 41 District. I previously served as an Assistant Superintendent at the West Valley School 42 43 District from 2001 until 2021. 44 45 46 47 DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH—1 Perkins Cole LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153805538.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 DOC- INDEX 329 RECEIVED SEP 1 0 2021 CITY OF YAKIMm PLANNING DIV 3. I have read the West Valley School District's appeal of the Hearing 2 3 Examiner's August 26,2021 decision in APP#001-21,which affirms the Administrative 4 5 Official's partial denial of MOD#021-21,and I believe the contents of the appeal to be true. 6 7 I declare that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and 8 9 subject to the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. 10 11 12 13 Dated this 10th day of September,2021,at Yakima,Washington. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ert•—•\-7 21 22 � -23 Dr.Peter Finch, Superintendent 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH—2 Perkins Cote LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153805538.1 Fax: 206.359.90 INDEX 330 RECEIVED SEP 10 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on 4 5 the date indicated below,I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing 6 7 DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH to be served on the following persons via the 8 9 methods indicated below: 10 11 City of Yakima 0 Via U.S.Mail, 1st class ost a aid 12 Community Development Department ® Via Legal Messenger p p 13 129 N.2nd Street,2nd Floor 0 Via Facsimile 14 5 Yakima,WA 98901 0 Via Overnight Mail 16 0 Via email 17 18 19 DATED this 10th day of September,2021 at Sea le,Washington. 20 21 22 23 Cheryl Roberts n,Legal Practice 24 Assistant 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DECLARATION OF DR.PETER FINCH—3 Perkins Cole LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 153805538.1 Fax: 206.359.9000 1JOflC4 .,{ E 331 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP#001-21 WVSD/Apple Valley Elementary 7 N. 88th Ave. I, Analilia Nunez, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Hearing Examiner's Decision; a true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, parties of record, and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of subject property; that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division; and that said notices were mailed by me on the 27th day of August, 2021 That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the state n • made herein are just and true. ill Anali to Nunez Planning Technician DOC. INDEX 332 West Valley School District—Peter Finch John Manfredi Perkins Coie LLP—Julie Wilson-McNerney 8902 Zier Rd. 8615 Woodwinds Way 1201 Third Ave. Yakima,WA 98909 Yakima,WA 98908 Seattle,WA 98101 AYyWoU1 woil Ot &i Vu Vt(*. .1i 112 DOC. INDEX # E -ArC 333 In-House Distribution E-mail List Revised 06/14/2021 Name Division E-mail Address Silvia Corona Clerk's Office Silvia.Corona(a7yakimawa.gov Lisa Maxey Code Administration Lisa.Maxey(@,vakimawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration Glenn.Denmanna,yakimawa.gov John Zabell Code Administration John.Zabell@yakimawa.kov Kelli Horton Code Administration KelIi.Horton@vakimawa.gov Linda Rossignol Code Administration Linda.Rossienol@yakimawa.gov Pedro Contreras Code Administration Pedro.Contrerac(?�yakimawa.gov Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.Debusschere(avakimawa.gov Tony Doan Code Administration Tonv.Doanfayakimawa.gov Joan Davenport Community Development Joan.Davenport( yakimawa.gov Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Rosalinda.lbarra lyakimawa.gov Bill Preston Engineering Bill.prestonc[r�,yakimawa.gov Dan Riddle Engineering Dan.Riddle(cryakimawa.gov Aaron Markham Fire Aaron.markham@yakimawa.gov Jeremy Rodriguez Fire Jeremy.Rodriguez(ct7,yakimawa.gov Sara Watkins Legal Sara.Watkins@vakimawa.gov. Archie Matthews ONDS Archie.Matthews tr.vakimawa.gov Joseph Calhoun Planning Joseph.Calhounfayakimawa.gov Analilia Nunez Planning Analilia.nunezavakimawa.gov Matt Murray Police Matthew.murray@yakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Public Works Scott.Schaferrryakimawa.gov Loretta Zammarchi Refuse Laretta.Zammarchi®yakimawa.gov Randy Layman Refuse Randy.Layman a,yakimawa.gov Gregory Story Transit Gregory.Storv@vakimawa.gov James Dean Utilities James.Dean@yakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Wastewater Dana.Kallevigtyakimawa.gov Randy Meloy Wastewater Randy.Melov@yakimawa.gov Dave Brown Water/Irrigation David.Brown(vakimawa.gov Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Mike.Shane@yakimawa.gov Outside Distribution Name Address Included In Mailing? Pacific Power Attn: Estimating Department 500 N Keys Rd,Yakima, WA 98901 ❑ Yes NAo (Subdivision notices ONLY) Type of Notice: No..�; Lt t ticG� 1 � File Number(s): 1�( y 1 Du1 I 1 Date of Mailing: k 1 Z� 1..21 Doc INDEX 334 Nunez, Analilia From: Nunez, Analilia Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:00 PM To: Brown, David; Calhoun, Joseph; Contreras, Pedro; Corona, Silvia; Davenport, Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Doan, Tony; Horton, Kelli; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Layman, Randy; Markham, Aaron; Matthews, Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Murray, Matthew; Nunez, Analilia; Preston, Bill; Riddle, Dan; Rodriguez, Jeremy; Schafer, Scott; Shane, Mike; Story, Gregory;Watkins, Sara;Zabell, John;Zammarchi, Loretta Cc: Crowell, Eric Subject: Notification of HE Decision_West Valley School District - APP#001-21 Attachments: Notification of HE Decision_West Valley School District - APP#001-21.pdf Attached is a Notice of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the above-entitled project. If you have any questions about this proposal, please contact assigned planner Eric Crowell at eric.crowell@yakimawa;qov. Analilia Nunez �. Planning Technician City of Yakima Planning Division ' p: 509.575.6261 129 North 2nd Street,Yakima,Washington,98901 DOC. ND EX 1 335 M■•M'*i DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MI RUIN. Joan Davenport, AICP, Director 'VW Planning Division PCITY of YAKIr A a n nIng Joseph Calhoun, Manager 129 North Second Street, 2"d Floor,Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION DATE: August 27, 2021 TO: Applicant, Appellant, SEPA Agencies, Adjoining Property Owners & Parties of Record SUBJECT: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Decision FILE #(S): APP#001-21, MOD#021-21 APPLICANT: West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary School APPELLANT: West Valley School District PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. On August 26, 2021, the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered his decision on APP#001- 21, an appeal of the Administrative Official's Decision for MOD#021-21, a modification to an existing site plan at Apple Valley Elementary in the R-1 zoning district. Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. The appellant may apply for a Type(3) Major Modification and/or has the right as set forth in YMC 16.08.025 and YMC 16.08.030 to appeal this decision to the Yakima City Council within fourteen days of mailing this decision in accordance with the applicable City provisions. For further information or assistance, you may contact Associate Planner Eric Crowell at (509) 575-6736 or email to: eric.crowell(cyakimawa.gov. Eric Crowell Associate Planner Date of Mailing: August 27, 2021 Enclosures: Hearing Examiner's Decision Yakima 2015 D��jjV�C■ 1994 INDEX � V 336 s ��" DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ari II% Joan Davenport, AICP, Director �•� Planning Division Panning Joseph Calhoun,Manager 129 North Second Street,2id Floor,Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov• www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA Thursday,August 12, 2021 Beginning at 9:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. INTRODUCTION IL PUBLIC HEARING A. JULIO ARREOLA 04/30/2021 NCF#001-21 PLANNER: JOSEPH CALHOUN ADDRESS: 303 CHALMERS ST REQUEST: Expansion of a non-conforming use for loading and unloading vehicles at an existing automotive recycling yard in the GC zoning district. B. WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT/APPLE VALLEY 07/14/2021 APP#001-21 ELEMENTARY PLANNER: ERIC CROWELL MOD#021-21 ADDRESS: 7 N 88TH AVENUE REQUEST: Appeal of the Administrative Official's Decision for MOD#021-21,a modification to an existing site plan to add a 5-ft wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield at Apple Valley Elementary in the R-1 zoning district. IV. ADJOURNMENT Yakima The staff recommendation report on the listed project(s)is available online at: www.buildingyakima.com I II I, 2015 DOC. 199499a INDEX S 337 ter■■��� Mr/ ■..\ j► SIGN—IN SHEET AIM L�= CITY dF YAKIMA CITY OF YAKIMA Panning City of Yakima HEARING EXAMINER PI a n n i n g City Hall Council Chambers Thursday August 12, 2021 Beginning at 9:00 a.m. Public Hearings CASE FILE # PROJECT NAME SITE ADDRESS A. NCF#001-21 JULIO ARREOLA 303 CHALMERS ST B. APP#001-21 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT/APPLE 7 N 88TH AVENUE VALLEY ELEMENTARY PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY Agenda ZIP Item of NAME MAILING ADDRESS or E-MAIL Interest CODE JIL4O r4jl.+'�ro JWOWjog 9cff Gf ✓1 ✓may 7re�,� '7 I32_ filet � t ( Jt`1 (2 t pi.."f 4-ro 9. = 1 `y, L 7 06,7 FEtt Sr? II L( Haii'? ) t/c1vsd2CYrj 9e90: NJ )&411A- u 9Y/C 61\ VOtAkal -)\JA-t\i\lW WAkfulAe co Ise. c.INA (1 t 10 I Nktek if 7 e. h‘f-11, ks;/_, p prtc:J„ "1 6% J rt era r�,i..� � j:-WNY‘C kk'l.kva :'ti DQC. INDEX Page 1 08/12/2021 HE Hearings 338 RiwRf�`� �I■ t %'% �•■, l�` SIGN-IN SHEET ��•, l\= Panting Panning ! Agenda ZIP Item of NAME MAILING ADDRESS or E-MAIL CODE Interest ill ii.iv NA. ,-,“..A-<...,,I c 1• t‘d 7.3-t" Sk_ , ki ,tk:.4„_ eit 177/lrr^ 4)t r sji j cax.tm-N rc L q -3 V0 t--I'-�4 CCA,v,v'1114u 10 cj S: z-e U d et1 L,m-/Vll�- / v OIL t c t o cr t ,\ c\,,,,, iQsiox&v,., _, IYteir, ,c) 6 i s L3, c1,,,)iv,zi,, L')(k) civibY (e--1 0 \O ; k ; N-Yv4e0 1062 61.E ,g,t d . G, . 1 `i cal pe, 4 (..-, /t,lar 0 frc ci-; v.)---f-,---,t,Q.51)-?v„,2"., 4(6; Page 2 08/12/2021 Mctrings INDEX 339 Hearing Examiner AGENDA ONLY Phil Lamb 3rd KIT-KATS Radio Distribution List— 2021 311 North Street 4010 Summitview, Suite 200 Yakima,WA 98901 Yakima,WA 98908 All YPAC randy.beehler@yakimawa.gov Yakima Assoc. of Realtors KARY Radio mike.brown@vakimawa.gov Gov.Affairs Committee 17 N 3rd St Ste 103 sean.davido@yakimawa.gov 2707 River Road Yakima,WA 98901 bonnie.lozano@yakimawa.gov Yakima,WA 98902-1165 jo h n.fa nn i n@vakimawa.gov Police Chief—Matthew Murray KCYU-FOX 68 Matthew.murray@yakimawa.gov David Okowski KIMA TV 1205 West Lincoln Ave. 2801 Terrace Heights Drive Fire Chief—Aaron Markham Yakima,WA 98902 Yakima,WA 98901 Aaron.markham@vakimawa.gov Sonya Claar-Tee Pacific Power KNDO TV City Clerk Mike Paulson 216 West Yakima Avenue sonya.claarteeavakimwa.gov 500 N. Keys Rd. Yakima,WA 98902 Yakima,WA 98901 Bob Harrison Office of Rural FWH Yakima Herald Republic City Manager Marty Miller P.O. Box 9668 bob.harrison@vakimawa.gov 1400 Summitview#203 Yakima,WA 98909 cally.orice@yakimawa.gov Yakima,WA 98902 Radio KDNA Yakima School Dist.#7 Patrick D. Spurgin P.O. Box 800 Superintendent 411 N. 2nd St. Granger,WA 98932 104 North 4th Street Yakima,WA 98901 Yakima,WA 98902 KAPP TV Attn: Newsroom Business Times Gary Cuillier PO Box 1749 Bruce Smith 314 N. 2nd Street Yakima,WA 98907-1749 P.O. Box 2052 Yakima,WA 98901 Yakima,WA 98907 Reed C. Pell 31 Chicago Avenue#4 Yakima Valley C.O.G. Maud Scott Yakima,WA 98902 311 N.4th Street#204 309 Union Street Yakima,WA 98901 Yakima,WA 98901 ce -- gISI2l Perkins Coie LLP—Julie Wilson-McNerney West Valley School District—Peter Finch 1201 Third Ave. 8902 Zier Rd. Seattle,WA 98101 Yakima,WA 98909 DOC. INDEX 340 ..ram �� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1I1I I Wax Joan Davenport, AICP, Director ctrrf va Planning Division P a n on i nM� Joseph Calhoun, Manager 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA FINDINGS of FACT, CONCLUSIONS, &DECISION for REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION File Number: MOD#021-21 APPLICANT: West Valley School District do Angela Von Essen APPLICANT ADDRESS: 8902 Zier Rd., Yakima, WA 98908 PROPERTY OWNER: West Valley School District#208 PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS: 8902 Zier Rd., Yakima, WA 98908 PROJECT LOCATION: 7 N. 88th Ave. TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 181319-42006 &-42022 DATE OF REQUEST: May 28, 2021 DATE OF DECISION: June 30, 2021 STAFF CONTACT: Eric Crowell, Associate Planner I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Modification to the final site plan of CL3#010-19 to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, regrading of the site, and installation of sitescreening in some locations, at the site of a new elementary school in the R-1 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Modification request for the five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of site screening are approved. The Modification request for re-grading of the site is denied. III. FACTS: A. Processing 1. The application for a Modification was received on May 28, 2021. 2. Additional drawings and an updated narrative were received on June 21, 2021 3. An additional drawing showing added sitescreening was received on June 23, 2021. 4. The application was deemed complete for processing on June 30, 2021. 5. This application is being processed under the provisions of Ch. 15.17 (Modifications to Existing or Approved Uses or Development). Yakima [INDEX ,ll YND �Q 2015 1994 341 B. Applicable Law: 1. Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: a. Modification of(Use or Development) Defined: Pursuant to YMC § 15.02.020, "Modification (of use or development)" means any change or alteration in the occupancy, arrangement, placement or construction of any existing use, structure, or associated site improvement, and any change or alteration of land. b. Use Defined: Pursuant to YMC § 15.02.020, "Use" means the activity or purpose for which land or structures or a combination of land and structures is designed, arranged, occupied, or maintained together with any associated site improvements. This definition includes the construction, erection, placement, movement or demolition of any structure or site improvement and any physical alteration to land itself, including any grading, leveling, paving or excavation. "Use" also means any existing or proposed configuration of land, structures, and site improvements, and the use thereof. c. Submittals: Pursuant to YMC § 15.17.040 (A), applications for modification shall follow the submittal requirements for Type (1) review. In addition, for an approved Class (2) or(3) use or development, the applicant shall submit both the site plan previously approved by the reviewing official and a new site plan showing the location, size, and type of modification proposed by the applicant. d. Limits of Expansion Under Modification. Pursuant to YMC § 15.17.020, minor changes to existing or approved Class (1), (2) or(3) uses or development may qualify for abbreviated review under the provisions in this chapter, if they meet the criteria listed below. Overlay districts shall not increase the level of review for the provisions of this chapter. Modifications not meeting the criteria below must apply directly for review as a Class (1), (2) or(3) use or development. i. The modification will not increase residential density that would require an additional level of review; ii. The modification will not increase the amount of parking by more than ten percent or twenty spaces (whichever is least), except that the amount of parking for controlled atmosphere and cold storage warehouses may be increased by up to twenty spaces. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; iii. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area. The expansion of an existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; iv. The modification will not increase the height of any structure; v. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review; West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary DOC. MOD#021..21 INDEX 2 342 vi. The modification will not add a drive-thru facility; and vii. The modification does not include hazardous materials. e. Review: Pursuant to YMC § 15.17.040 (B), applications for modifications may be administratively and summarily reviewed using the Type (1) review process, in addition to the following criteria: Any proposed change in the site design or arrangement: - Will not change or modify any special condition previously imposed under Class (2) or (3) review; - Will not adversely reduce the amount of existing landscaping or the amount or location or required sitescreening; and - In the determination of the Planning Division, it will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project. ii. All proposed new structures, site improvements, or structural alterations to existing structures or site improvements comply with the development standards of YMC Ch. 15.05 through 15.08, except as approved under the adjustment or variance provisions. f. Sitescreeninq—Purpose: Pursuant to YMC 15.07.010, the purpose of this chapter is to: establish sitescreening standards to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity, streets and structures; reduce erosion and stormwater runoff; protect property values; and eliminate potential land use conflicts by mitigating adverse impacts from dust, odor, litter, noise, glare, lights, signs, water runoff, buildings or parking areas IV. FINDINGS: The Administrative Official makes the following findings: A. The subject property is classified as Elementary and Middle School, a Class (3) permitted use in the R-1 zoning district (YMC § 15.04, Table 4-1, Permitted Land Uses). The project was originally approved under CL3#010-19. B. Regarding soil and terrain, the Environmental Checklist (SEPA#038-19) noted that "approximately 15,000 cubic yards of grading and excavation would occur during project construction. The site is anticipated to be a net balance and no significant amounts of imported or exported soils are anticipated." C. Status of Environmental Work—the following summary was provided by the Department of Ecology: 1. It has been estimated that there are approximately 58,000 acres of lead and arsenic impacted soil in Yakima County alone and 187,588 acres impacted state wide. One of the strategies widely used in Washington State and acceptable to both Ecology and Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA) is capping of lead and arsenic containing soils with hardscape (asphalt or concrete) or some combination of fabric, clean soil, and mulches like bark or rock. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary DOC. MOD#021-21 INDEX 3 # c-3 343 2. In 2012 as part of an Ecology funded project and consistent with an Ecology accepted practice, the lead and arsenic containing soil in the grass-surfaced areas at the Apple Valley Elementary site was covered by fabric and about eight inches of clean soil before grass was re-established. Areas of lead and arsenic containing soil located under buildings, parking lots and sidewalks were not disturbed during the 2012 project. 3. The 2019/2020 Apple Valley Elementary project included demolition of existing buildings and regrading of the site to facilitate the new elementary school building construction and associated stormwater management. As the new construction would disturb lead and arsenic containing soils previously capped by the 2012 Ecology lead project, the District's environmental consultant, Fulcrum Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Fulcrum), notified both the Ecology and the YRCAA that work would occur on the Apple Valley Elementary School site and reviewed the intended mitigation plan for regrading and re-capping the site with fabric and clean soil or hardscape consistent with Ecology's 2012 mitigation work. 4. Both worker and community protection measure were developed as a portion of the soil mitigation plan and was incorporated into the project specifications for the contractors to follow during construction. Contractor dust control and stormwater measures during lead and arsenic soil moving tasks has been monitored by Fulcrum and have been within the pre-project identified tolerances. 5. Construction on the Apple Valley Elementary project is nearing completion. Following is a summary of current conditions: a. One stockpile of lead and arsenic soil remains onsite and is being used to finish the elevation of soil located beneath the fabric cap. Some surplus soil from this stockpile maybe removed from the site. The stockpile has been characterized and was below the dangerous waste threshold. b. All lead and arsenic contaminated soil was removed from stormwater infiltration areas. c. Lead and arsenic contaminated soil remaining in building footprint, asphalt parking, or concrete side walk areas have been capped with gravel and either concrete or asphalt. d. Lead and arsenic contaminated soil remaining grass or landscaping areas is currently being covered with an orange geotextile fabric and clean soil. e. Following clean soil placement, either sod will be added to the grass surfaced areas. D. This modification is being requested in order to add a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, modified site grading, and installation of sitescreening in some locations. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary DOC. MOD#021-21 IN��rR 4 ## ��3 344 E. Modification to Permitted Development and Uses Regulated. Pursuant to YMC § 15.17.020, the proposal complies with the following criteria in order to be considered a modification: 1. The modification will not increase residential density that would require an additional level of review. Staff Response: Not applicable; it is not a residential use. 2. The modification will not increase the amount of parking by more than ten percent or twenty spaces (whichever is least), except that the amount of parking for controlled atmosphere and cold storage warehouses may be increased by up to twenty spaces. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. Staff Response: No additional parking is being proposed. 3. Any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area. The expansion of an existing single-family home may exceed the fifty percent limit when all applicable setback and lot coverage standards are met. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. Staff Re sponse: The school building and grounds are not being expanded from what was previously approved, as all proposed site modifications are within the Apple Valley school parcels. The number of p/ayfields is being increased from two to three, an increase of 50 percent, meeting the standard for modification. The addition of the five-foot paved path around a portion of the perimeter and the reduction in playground asphalt will result in a cumulative decrease of 6 percent for overall impervious lot coverage, meeting the standard for a modification. Grading is included in the definition of"Use"and is therefore subject to review under the Modification criteria. On-site grading has changed significantly from the grading contours submitted with the Building Permit(8200126). The new contour lines shown on the revised Modification Site Plan and narrative submitted with this application are in excess of a 50%increase in elevation from what was shown with the B200126 submittal in several locations, not meeting the standard for a modification. 4. The modification will not increase the height of any structure. Staff Response: The school was approved for a variance (VAR#004-19) to exceed the 35-foot height limitation in the R-1 zoning district, but no other structures are proposed that exceed the approved 44-foot height. 5. This limit shall be calculated cumulatively for all previous modifications since the last normal review. 00C. NoND X West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary _MOD#021-21 ' 5 345 Staff Response: Previous modifications (MOD#026-18, MOD#031-18) were for the placement of portable classrooms, which were eliminated with the construction of the new school. 6. The modification will not add a drive-thru facility. Staff Response: No drive-thru facility is being added. 7. The modification does not include hazardous materials. Staff Response: The proposed modification does not introduce additional soil containing hazardous materials. See analysis provided above for on-site conditions related to soil remediation and capping under the Department of Ecology Guidelines. F. The proposed modification complies with all other development standards of the R-1 zoning district. G. The proposal will not change or modify any special condition previously imposed under the previous land use review by the Hearing Examiner in 2020. H. The proposal will not significantly reduce the amount of the existing landscaping. It will not reduce the amount or location of the existing required sitescreening. While an Administrative Adjustment (ADJ#027-19) was approved, waiving the requirement that view-obscuring material be added to the existing chain link fence, the applicant has agreed to add view-obscuring material to a portion of the fence along the east and south property lines. I. The proposed asphalt path, additional field, relocated backstop, and additional sitescreening will not create or materially increase any adverse impacts of the project. J. The proposed increase in site grading elevation does create an adverse impact of the project. The new grade is significantly higher in elevation than what was previously shown on the grading plans submitted with B200126. The City received numerous phone calls and emails from adjacent property owners which prompted the Building Official to issue a stop-work order. The WVSD held a neighborhood meeting on June 14, 2021 to hear the concerns and questions of neighbors. Multiple emails and phone calls were received by various City staff both prior and subsequent to the meeting about site grading and its negative impact on adjacent property owners. K. Development Service Team Review: A Development Service Team (DST) meeting was not held for technical review of the project. The following comment was received from Randy Meloy, Surface Water Engineer: 1. Per your request I went out to Apple Valley Elementary and walked around the entirety of the path to assess the possibility of drainage impacts. The asphalt path is about five feet wide and is located close to the school's fence along the perimeter of their parcel. The cross slope of the path is generally flat, with some areas gently sloped towards the grass and other areas gently sloped towards the DOC. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary i E X MOD#021-21 n/� 6 346 fence. It is my opinion that there would be no drainage impact on the surrounding parcels due to this paved path being close to the fence. The only possible scenario where I could see there being any kind of drainage issue would be on the south side if the school overwatered with the sprinklers, and because the main grassy area is elevated, you could get runoff from the sloped grassy areas making its way towards the perimeter. If that happened there is still a ten foot separation between the school's fence and the neighbor's fences. Much of the runoff would infiltrate into the ground in this area. This is assuming there would be some problem with the school irrigation and that is unlikely. Along the east side of the school there is a small gravel berm between the path and the fence which would help to contain any runoff that might get there. Again, 1 would not anticipate any issues there. Last night and this morning there was a decent amount of rainfall at the school, and while walking the path I looked for signs of erosion and did not find any. This path is only five feet wide and it is my opinion that it will not cause any drainage problems. V. CONCLUSIONS: A. The Administrative Official has reviewed the addition of a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sitescreening in some locations against the standards and requirements for a Modification under YMC Ch. 15.17 and has concluded that they are consistent with said standards and requirements. B. The proposed site grading is not consistent with the standards and requirements for a Modification under YMC Ch. 15.17. C. All other development standards of the R-1 zoning district will be met. D. The revised site plans submitted on June 21 and 23, 2021 shall serve as the final site plans for items approved under this Modification. VI. DECISION: The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Modification application (MOD#021-21) to add a five-foot-wide walking path, increase the number of fields from two to three, revised backstop and goalpost locations, a slight reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of additional fencing to an existing Class (3) use is approved, and authorizes the issuance of the permit(s) based upon the above findings and conclusions and subject to the Building Official's determination of compliance with all building codes. The Administrative Official hereby determines that the requested Modification application (MOD#021-21) for site grading is denied, and requires the applicant to regrade the site consistent with grading contours as shown in the building plan submittal (B200126). Entered this 30th day of June, 2021, pursuant to the authority granted under YMC Ch. 15.17. This decision constitutes the final zoning review and is hereby granted and forwarded to the Building Official. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary DOC° MOD#021-21 I t' DrX 7 347 This zoning decision is valid for one year from this date unless appealed under the Yakima Municipal Code. The zoning decision may be extended one time up to one additional year prior to the expiration date, as set forth in YMC § 15.12.060. This zoning decision is not a construction permit and does not in and of itself authorize any use to be established, constructed, made or implemented without a construction permit issued by the Building Official and the conditions pending have been completed. This zoning decision shall expire if: a) a construction permit and/or business license for the approved project is required but not issued within one year from the date of issuance of this final decision; b)the construction permit and/or business license is issued but allowed to expire; or c) the project is modified and a new zoning decision is issued. The issuance of any permit, subsequent permit inspection, land use decisions, or other related applications by the City of Yakima shall not be construed as an approval for work to be performed in violation of any government(Federal, State or Local) order to cease or limit construction activities during the COVID-19 emergency period outlined in such order. Joa avenport, AICP, Co unity Development Director APPEAL Pursuant to YMC 15.17.040 and 15.17.050, uses or developments denied under this chapter may submit applications for review under the normal review provisions for the use. Decisions by the planning division regarding approval or denial of administrative modifications may be appealed as prescribed by the applicable review. All appeals shall be filed within fourteen days following the mailing of the final decision by the Administrative Official or designee. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the City of Yakima, Community Development Department; 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA 98901. If a final decision does not require mailing, the appeal shall be filed within fourteen days following the issuance of the final decision. Doc. West Valley School District/Apple Valley Elementary INDEX MOD#021-21 8 348 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP#001-21 West Valley School District 7 N. 88th Ave. I, Analilia Nunez, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Appeal of Administrative Official's & Public Hearing. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, appellant, all parties of record, and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on this 23rd day of July,2020. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Oa- /7417 Analilia Nunez Planning Technician DOC. INDEX 349 Parties of Record—WVSD/Apple Valley School District—APP#008-21 Perkins Coie LLP—Julie West Valley School District—Peter Finch John Manfredi Wilson-McNerney 8902 Zier Rd. 8615 Woodwinds Way 1201 Third Ave. Yakima, WA 98909 Yakima,WA 98908 Seattle,WA 98101 finehp4iwvsd208.0rg 'man fredirrroutlook.cont iwilsonmen ern ev{c perkinscoic.com critchlowl@wvsd208.org In-House Distribution E-mail List Revised 09/02/2021 Name Division E-mail Address Silvia Corona Clerk's Office Silvia.Corona@yakimawa.gov Lisa Maxey Code Administration Lisa.MaxeyCiayakimawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration Glenn,Denmanayakimawa.gov John Zabell Code Administration John.Zabell@vakimawa.gov vakimawa.gov Kelli Horton Code Administration Kelli.Horton@yakimawa.gov Pedro Contreras Code Administration Pedro.Contreras(2l yakimawa.gov Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.Debusschere@yakimawa.gov Tony Doan Code Administration Tonv.Doan(a yakimawa.gov Joan Davenport Community Development Joan.Davenporgyakimawa.gov Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Rosalinda.lbarra@yakimawa.gov Bill Preston Engineering Bill.prestonayakimawa.gov Dan Riddle Engineering Dan.Riddle rt vakimawa.gov Aaron Markham Fire Aaron.markham@vakintawa.aov Jeremy Rodriguez Fire Jeremy.Rodriguez@yakimawa.gov Sara Watkins Legal Sara.Watkins@.vakimawa.gov. Archie Matthews ONDS Archie.Matthewspyakimawa.gov Joseph Calhoun Planning Joscph.CalhounRyakimawa.gov Analilia Nunez Planning Analilia.nunez@yakimawa.gov Matt Murray Police Matthew.murrav(avakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Public Works Scott.Schafer(clyakirnawa.gov Loretta Zammarchi Refuse Loretta.Zammarchi@yakimawa.gov Randy Layman Refuse Randy.Layman@yakimawa.gov Gregory Story Transit Gregory.Siory@yakimawa.gov yakimawa.gov James Dean Utilities James.Dean@yakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Wastewater Dana.Kallevig@yakimawa.gov Randy Meloy Wastewater Randv.Melov@vakimawa.gov Dave Brown Water/Irrigation David.Brownavakimawa.gov Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Mike.Shane@yakimawa.gov yakimawa.gov Outside Distribution _Name Address Included In Mailing? Pacific Power Attn: Estimating Department 500 N Keys Rd,Yakima,WA 98901 ❑ Yes C/No (Subdivision notices ONLY) Type of Notice: NO( p rec e U � Gtireqo w1 Ju File Number(s): of y At Date of Mailing: 7 13j 2 DOC. immix # E2 -iC 350 Nunez, Analilia From: Nunez, Analilia Sent: Friday,July 23, 2021 3:23 PM To: 'jcmanfredi@outlook.com'; 'jewels169@msn.com'; 'sem10250@charter.net'; 'Iorymora33 @gmail.com'; 'pviking1975@gmail.com'; 'prisc00@hotmail.com'; 'codeman8611 @msn.com'; Harrison, Bob; 'finchp@WVSD208.ORG'; Hill, Brad Cc: Calhoun, Joseph; Watkins, Sara; Crowell, Eric; Denman, Glenn Subject: NOTICE OF APPEAL& PUBLIC HEARING_WVSD - APP#001-21 Attachments: NOTICE OF APPEAL& PUBLIC HEARING_WVSD - APP#001-21.pdf Good afternoon, Thank you for your interest in this project. In accordance with YMC Ch. 16.08,the notice has been mailed to the parties of record. For your convenience a courtesy copy of the notice is attached.The complete record is available for viewing at Yakima City Hall—129 N. 2nd St. Thank you, Analilia Nunez , Planning Technician City of Yakima Planning Division • p: 509.575.6261 129 North 2nd Street,Yakima,Washington, 98901 DQC 1 !INDEX' #f2- 351 Nunez, Analilia From: Nunez, Analilia Sent: Friday,July 23, 2021 3:24 PM To: Brown, David; Calhoun, Joseph; Contreras, Pedro; Corona, Silvia; Davenport,Joan; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Doan, Tony; Horton, Kelli; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Layman, Randy; Markham, Aaron; Matthews,Archie; Maxey, Lisa; Meloy, Randy; Murray, Matthew; Preston, Bill; Riddle, Dan; Rodriguez, Jeremy; Rossignol, Linda; Schafer, Scott; Shane, Mike; Story, Gregory;Watkins, Sara;Zabell, John; Zammarchi, Loretta; Brown, Michael; Davido, Sean; 'El Mundo'; 'El Sol de Yakima'; Fannin, John; 'KAPP TV News'; 'KBBO-KRSE Radio - manager'; 'KDNA Radio - Francisco Rios'; 'KEPR TV News'; 'KIMA TV News'; 'KIT News'; 'KIT/KATS/DMVW/KFFM - Lance Tormey'; 'KNDO TV News'; 'KNDU TV News'; 'KUNW-TV Univision'; 'KVEW TV News'; 'La Casa Hogar; 'La Voz'; Lozano, Bonnie; 'NWCN News'; 'NWPR- Anna King'; 'Randy Luvaas - Yakima Business Times'; 'RCDR - Maria DJ Rodriguez'; 'Tu Decides -Albert Torres'; 'West Valley School District - Angela Watts'; 'Yakima Herald Republic - Mai Hoang'; 'Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper'; 'Yakima School District - Stacey Locke'; 'Yakima School District -Trevor Greene'; 'Yakima Valley Business Times'; Beehler, Randy; 'Gary Cuillier'; 'Kevin Richardson - Legal Secretary for Gary Cullier'; 'Pat Spurgin (pds@spurginlawoffice.com)' Cc: Crowell, Eric Subject: REVISED NOTICE OF APPEAL & PUBLIC HEARING -WVSD -APP#001-21 Attachments: NOTICE OF APPEAL& PUBLIC HEARING_WVSD - APP#001-21.pdf Attached is a Revised Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing regarding the above-entitled project. If you have any questions about this proposal, please contact assigned planner Eric Crowell at eric.crowell@yakimawa.gov. Thank you! From: Nunez, Analilia Sent: Friday,July 23, 2021 2:38 PM To: Brown, David<David.Brown@yakimawa.gov>; Calhoun,Joseph <Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Contreras, Pedro<Pedro.Contreras@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Corona, Silvia <Silvia.Corona@yakimawa.gov>; Davenport,Joan <Joan.Davenport@yakimawa.gov>; Dean,James<James.Dean@yakimawa.gov>; DeBusschere,Suzanne <suzanne.debusschere@yakimawa.gov>; Denman, Glenn <Glenn.Denman@yakimawa.gov>; Doan,Tony <Tony.Doan@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Horton, Kelli<Kelli.Horton@yakimawa.gov>; Ibarra, Rosalinda <Rosalinda.lbarra@yakimawa.gov>; Kallevig, Dana <Dana.Kallevig@yakimawa.gov>; Layman, Randy <Randy.Layman@yakimawa.gov>; Markham,Aaron<aaron.markham@yakimawa.gov>; Matthews,Archie <Archie.Matthews@yakimawa.gov>; Maxey, Lisa <Lisa.Maxey@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Meloy, Randy <Randy.Meloy@yakimawa.gov>; Murray, Matthew<matt.murray@yakimawa.gov>; Nunez, Analilia <analilia.nunez@yakimawa.gov>; Preston, Bill <Bill.Preston@yakimawa.gov>; Riddle, Dan <Dan.Riddle@yakimawa.gov>; Rodriguez,Jeremy<Jeremy.Rodriguez@yakimawa.gov>; Rossignol, Linda<Linda.Rossignol@yakimawa.gov>; Schafer, Scott<Scott.Schafer@yakimawa.gov>; Shane, Mike<Mike.Shane@yakimawa.gov>; Story, Gregory <Gregory.Story@yakimawa.gov>; Watkins,Sara <Sara.Watkins@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Zabell,John <John.Zabell@yakimawa.gov>; Zammarchi, Loretta <Loretta.Zammarchi@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Brown, Michael <Michael.Brown@yakimawa.gov>; Davido, Sean <Sean.Davido@yakimawa.gov>; El Mundo<info@elmundous.com>; El Sol de Yakima <gibanez@yakimaherald.com>; Fannin,John <John.Fannin@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; KAPP TV News <kappnews@kapptv.com>; KBBO-KRSE Radio-manager<kellyg@yakimaradiogroup.com>; KDNA Radio- Francisco Rios <frios@kdna.org>; KEPR TV News<newsroom@keprtv.com>; KIMA TV News<tips@kimatv.com>; KIT News <kitnews@townsquaremedia.com>; KIT/KATS/DMVW/KFFM - Lance Tormey<lancetormey@towntimgmedia.com>; IN1 �, DgX2.b 352 KNDO TV News<news@kndo.com>; KNDU TV News<news@kndu.com>; KUNW-TV Univision <noticias@kunwtv.com>; KVEW TV News<kvewnews@kvewtv.com>; La Casa Hogar<info@lacasahogar.org>; La Voz <Iavoznewspaper@gmail.com>; Lozano, Bonnie<Bonnie.Lozano@yakimawa.gov>; NWCN News<nwnews@nwcn.com>; NWPR-Anna King<aking@wsu.edu>; Randy Luvaas-Yakima Business Times<rluvaas@yvpub.com>; RCDR- Maria DJ Rodriguez<mdjrodriguez@rcdr.biz>;Tu Decides-Albert Torres<albert@tudecidesmedia.com>; West Valley School District-Angela Watts<wattsa@wvsd208.org>; Yakima Herald Republic- Mai Hoang<maihoang@yakimaherald.com>; Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper<news@yakimaherald.com>; Yakima School District-Stacey Locke <locke.stacey@ysd7.org>;Yakima School District-Trevor Greene<greene.trevor@ysd7.org>;Yakima Valley Business Times<news@yvpub.com>; YPAC- Randy Beehler<rbeehler@ci.yakima.wa.us>; Gary Cuillier<gary@cuillierlaw.com>; Kevin Richardson- Legal Secretary for Gary Cullier<kevin@cuillierlaw.com>; Pat Spurgin (pds@spurginlawoffice.com) <pds@spurginlawoffice.com> Cc: Crowell, Eric<Eric.Crowell@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Subject: NOTICE OF APPEAL& PUBLIC HEARING-WVSD-APP#001-21 Attached is a Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing regarding the above-entitled project. If you have any questions about this proposal, please contact assigned planner Eric Crowell at eric.crowellavakimawa.gov. Thank you! Analilia Nunez ` Planning Technician City of Yakima Planning Division p: 509.575.6261 129 North 2nd Street,Yakima,Washington,98901 DOC. INDEX 2 # . ��� 353 CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS DECISION& PUBLIC HEARING DATE:7/23/2021;City File #:APP#001-21;This notice is being provided to parties of record.the applicant,and the appellant that a timely appeal City Council Chambers at 129 was filed by West Valley N.2nd Street,Yakima,WA. School District on 07/14/2021 98901.in accordance with for the Administrative Offi- YMC 15.16.040(G),'Testi cial's Decision on MOD#021- mony given during the appeal 21 regarding the requested shall be limited lathing_ site grading modifications. points cited in the appeal The decision approved the aoplication.At the conclusion placement of a five-foot-wide of the hearing,the Hearing walking path around the Examiner will issue his written perimeter otthe playfield, decision within ten working revised backstop and goal- days unless a longer period post locations,reduction in is mutually agreed to by the asphalt for the playground, applicant and the examiner!' and installation of sitescreen- Final Decision:In wow- ing.subject to conditions, dance with YMC§16.08.108 but denied the regrading of (G),"Except as otherwise the site,in the R-1 zoning provided,all appeal decisions district.The subject prop- by the hearing examiner shall arty is located at 7 N.88th be final and conclusive on all Ave.,Yakima.WA 98908. parties unless appealed to in accordance with YMC§ the legislative body pursuant 15.16.040(D),"The[Planning) to this chapter."For further division shall:Seta reason- information or assistance you able time and place for the may contact Eric Crowell, hearing of the appeal;and, Associate Planner,at(509) Provide a notice of appeal 576-6736,or email to;eric, and public hearing to the offi- crivagyAkjaclwazgy. vial whose decision is being appealed and parties entitled (982270)July 23,2021 to notice of the decision. including posting of property and published notice at least ten days a nor to the hear- ing:A Hearing:The Hearing Examiner will hold a put:lic hearii rg(in August 12,2021 at 9:00 a.m.in the DOC. INDEX 354 Ad Proof YAKIMA HERALD REPUBLIC CITY YP HERALD-REPUBLIC NOTICE OFF APPP EALEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE WE TELL YOUR STORIES YAKIMAHERALD.COM OFFICIAL'S DECISION& PUBLIC HEARING le El Sol de Yakima being#providedtopantATE:7/23/2021;City esof record,the applicant,and the -Ad Proof- appellant that a timely appeal was filed by West Valley School District on 07/14/2021 for the Administrative Offi- cial'This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the re Decision on MOD#021- 21 regarding the requested site grading modifications. The decision approved the dates indicated below. placement of a five-foot-wide walking path around the Please confirm placement prior to deadline perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goal- post locations,reduction in by contacting your asphaltinstallation for the of sites playground, and sitescreen- ing,subject to conditions, account rep at (509) 577-7740. but denied the regrading of the site,in the R-1 zoning district.The subject prop- erty is located at 7 N.88th Date: 07/21/21 Run Dates: Ave.,Yakima,WA 98908. Yakima Herald-Republic 07/23/21 In accordance with YMC§ 15.16,040(D),"The[Planning] Account#: 110358 YakimaHerald.com 07/23/21 division shall:Set a reason- Company Name: CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING able time and place for the hearing of the appeal;and, Provide a notice of appeal Contact: ROSALINDA IBARRA,AP and public hearing to the offi- cial whose decision is being appealed and parties entitled Address: 129 N 2ND STREET to notice of the decision, YAKIMA,WA 98901-2720 including posting of property and published notice at least ten days prior to the hear- Telephone: (509)575-6I 64 ing'Appeal Hearing:The Hearing Examiner will hold Fax: a public hearing on August 12,2021 at 9:00 a.m.in the City Council Chambers at 129 • N.2nd Street,Yakima,WA, Ad ID: 982270 98901.In accordance with YMC 15.16.040(G),"Testi- mony given during the anneal Start: 07/23/21 shall be limited to those oinmStop: 07/23/21 application.t At the conclusion of the hearing,the Hearing Examiner will issue his written Total Cost: $146.00 decision within ten working #of Inserts: 2 days unless a longer period is mutually agreed to by the Lines: 77.0 applicant and the examiner." Ad Class: 6021 Final Decision:In accor- dance with YMC§16.08.108 Ad Class Name: Public Legal Notices (G),"Except as otherwise Account Rep: Simon Sizer provided,all appeal decisions Phone# (509)577-7740 by the hearing examiner shall be final and conclusive on all Email: ssizer@YAKIMAHERALD.COM parties unless appealed to the legislative body pursuant to this chapter."For further information or assistance you may contact Eric Crowell, Associate Planner,at(509) 576-6736,or email to:eric. crgw layaklmawa.gov. (982270)July 23,2021 DOC. ■■www� DEI _ _MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEL LENT 355 77 ViV% Joan Davenport, AICP, Director 'VW PlanningDivision CITY DF YAKIMA P I a n n i n g Joseph Calhoun, Manager 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL'S DECISION & PUBLIC HEARING July 23, 2021 City File #: APP#001-21 This notice is being provided to parties of record, the applicant, and the appellant that a timely appeal was filed by West Valley School District on July 14, 2021 for the Administrative Official's Decision on MOD#021-21 regarding the requested site grading modifications. The decision approved the placement of a five-foot-wide walking path around the perimeter of the playfield, revised backstop and goalpost locations, reduction in asphalt for the playground, and installation of sitescreening, subject to conditions but denied the regrading of the site, in the R-1 zoning district. The subject property is located at 7 N. 88th Ave., Yakima, WA 98908. In accordance with YMC § 16.08.018 (D), "The [Planning] division shall: 1. Set a reasonable time and place for the hearing of the appeal; and, 2. Provide a notice of appeal and public hearing to the official whose decision is being appealed and parties entitled to notice of the decision, including posting of property and published notice at least ten days prior to the hearing." Appeal Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing on August 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers at 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA, 98901. In accordance with YMC § 16.08.018 (G), "Testimony given during the appeal shall be limited to those points cited in the appeal application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue his written decision within ten working days unless a longer period is mutually agreed to by the applicant and the examiner." Final Decision: In accordance with YMC § 16.08.108 (G), "Except as otherwise provided, all appeal decisions by the hearing examiner shall be final and conclusive on all parties unless appealed to the legislative body pursuant to this chapter." For further information or assistance you may contact Eric Crowell, Associate Planner, at (509) 576-6736, or email to: eric.croweli(vakimawa.gov. & ?YZCWJQ. Eric Crowell ®OC. Associate Planner INDEX Enclosures: Appeal Application Yakima 2015 1994 1011• I VA% CITY OF YAKIMA R F ,V ECG 6Tynon•IN1A_ LAND USE ACTION INSTALLATION AUG 0 2 Z021 P n n g CERTIFICATE oly OF PLANNNING YAKIMA File Number: A P P*001-21 Applicant/Project Name: w1/5D t%pp1 e ✓c I Site Address: 7 J'10 r 4 Z• edq '-' A e, Date of Posting: 7 /Z 9 / Z i Land Use Sign ID#(s): Location of Installation (Check One): leF Land Use Action Sign is installed per standards described in YMC §15.11.080(C). Land Use Action Sign is installed in an alternate location on the site. Note: this alternate location (/f not pre-approved by the Planning Manager) may not be acceptable by the Planning Division and is subject to relocation(at the owner's expense)to a more visible site on the property. The alternative location is: The required notice of application will be sent to the applicant and property owners within a 300-foot radius after the Planning Division has received this Land Use Action Installation Certification. Failure to post a Land Use Action sign and return this form signed in a timely manner may cause a delay in the application review process. I hereby testify that the installed sign fully complies with the Land Use Action sign installation standards (see pg. 2), that the sign will be maintained until a decision has been rendered, and that the sign will be returned within 30 days from the date the final decision is issued. ir/a/z. i Applicant's Signat a Date go►t //ogy�Mr 5-°9-- L/9C- 712 Applicant's Name(Please Print) Applicant's Phone Number Please fill out and sign the above certification after posting and deliver to the City of Yakima Planning Division via email to ask.planning@yakimawa.gov or in person/by mail to: City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 North 2" Street,Yakima,WA 98901. DOC. INDEX Page - 1 .. �i /l Revised 04/2019 357 WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / APPLE VALLEY ELEMENTARY APP#008-21 (MOD#021-21, APP#001-21) EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER F Public Comments DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# F-1 Comment Letter from Julia Ericson I 08/05/2021 F-2 Comment Letter from Michelle Mueller 08/05/2021 F-3 Comment Letter from Stuart McCurdy 08/04/2021 F-4 Comment Letter from Kevin & Melanie Cox 08/04/2021 F-5 Comment Letter from John Manfredi 08/04/2021 F-6 Comment Letter from Thela McCurdy 08/03/2021 F-7 Comment Letter from Lorena Mora 08/03/2021 RECEEVED Nunez, Analilia 41tG_� �n�9 From: Lorena Mora <lorymora33@gmail.com> CITY OF YAKIMA Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2021 5:32 PM PLANNING DIV. To: Ask Planning Subject: Appeal#001-21 (Apple Valley Elementary Construction Project) Attachments: Appeal#001-21 Apple Valley School Construction Project.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Good afternoon, Attached find our written comments/concerns with pictures regarding the Apple Valley Elementary School construction project-appeal#001-21, hearing scheduled for 8/12/2021 at 9:00am. Our intent with the pictures is to show you how close(8ft)the walking pathway is to our home and why we fear for our family's safety. Additionally,we've added a few pictures showing our concerns with the irrigation system, how they spray our vehicles, house and are causing landslide into our property. DOC. INDEX # f-1 1 RECEIVED 359 AUG 0 3 2021 ' !, CITY OF YAKIMA Mr, ,,, ;�ty ? �� • s , �� ._ _ PLANNING DIV. t •`/: ` .� •ter-'.,. _ r_ __r ,_.-:bliiiiimmaibm_.-- ' --'41111 -7- :-..:.- '" ' . ' '.� w •ti-P •r r. J . _ F., � ., 04111111iiii-`Ili �� �,. I EMI .. _ .i i , .1 ,,,,,,,r ., t . . d. . , . . , . . _ il f.`• Have a great day! Respectfully, Erasmo & Lorena Carranza DOC. INDV....., RECEIVED AUG 03 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. August 3, 2021 Appeal#001-21,WVSD To: The City of Yakima Hearing Examiner, The Carranza family, which resides at 109 S. 88th Ave. has written this letter to express our concerns regarding the new construction of Apple Valley Elementary School. The school's property line is 8ft away from ours. Our main concern is the raised terrain. We worry that surface water, including runoff from rain and snow will continue to cause erosion and future flooding into our property.Although the land has been evaluated by an expert, we disagree that with time erosion will not occur as we've already witnessed it on our property (south side). We worry that the snow on the walking pathway will not get cleaned during winter causing the snow to melt into our property leading to erosion/landslide as it already is a concern with the school's irrigation system. We ask that they consider a retaining wall. to prevent further erosion and landslide into our property. The school's sprinklers have been an ongoing issue for the last 4 years which is why prior to the new construction, the grounds supervisor decided to put up the black screen shade, to help prevent the sprinklers from spraying water on the siding of our house/vehicles as the water will eventually cause future damage.Although the screen does not eliminate the problem, it has helped some. Overtime, we have noticed some landslides into our property as a result of snowmelt, rainfall and irrigation water, and now with the walking pathway being extremely close to our fence/property line.(8ft) will only contribute to the existing problems. In addition, we no longer have privacy and fear for our family's safety. The raised terrain and now the walking pathway being so close to our house (8ft from our side entry door) has raised safety concerns and instilled fear in our family. We no longer feel safe in our own home. During the construction planning, we are sure that the most important factor taken into consideration was to build a school that provided a safe environment for the students. With this in mind, we ask that you please also take the surrounding neighbor's children and their safety into consideration. The children who live in the surrounding neighborhood are just as important as those who will be attending Apple Valley Elementary School. The raised terrain and walking pathway so close to our house allows for intruders to scope our homes, placing our family's at high risk for crimes. DOC. INDEX = EcEIVE i AUG 0 3 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA Our family invites you to walk the pathway along the South side of the school near our hoRIANNING DIV. and/or to stop by our home to better help you understand our concerns. Standing on top of the raised terrain allows everyone to see into our backyard and inside our home (directly into the bedroom and kitchen). We would like to request that the terrain be lowered in addition to either moving the walking pathway further away from the fence or that the school build a tall enough private fence that will not only block people's views into our property, but block the school's sprinklers. The walking pathway has already become an issue as it traps all the garbage and weeds in-between the fence and edge of the walking pathway. The garbage/weeds will remain there until I call and complain about it. Our neighbors and family work very hard to try and keep our properties nice and clean and it becomes very frustrating when the school doesn't put their part in maintaining the school grounds. We would also like to request that the baseball field be moved and/or taken out completely as our house is located the closest to the school's fence and do not feel safe with the Alin baseballs. Flying baseballs were already a previous issue prior to the construction of the new school and now the raised terrain has only contributed to this problem. If the baseball field will not be moved and/or taken out, we ask that you enforce the school to build a private, tall enough fence that will block flying baseballs from coming into our property.Again our house is located so close to the school fence, that we worry we will have ongoing broken windows and/or family members getting hit by a flying baseball when out in our own backyard. We are also worried that we will have a lot of broken window(s) while away on our vacation trios and no one being home to address the issue right away targeting intruders who may be walking the pathway and notice not only the broken window(s), but that nQ one is home. Finally, we ask that the school put up a "D❑ Not Block Driveway" sign up at the end of our driveway entrance as the pickup line forms along the side of the road and across our driveway. It is a daily issue that we and the city of Yakima have been dealing with as parents block our driveway on a daily basis making it very difficult for us to drive in/out of our driveway. There are three homes on this shared driveway and we are concerned that if an emergency were to occur, the emergency units would not have access to our homes as it is nearly impossible to access our driveway during school hours and/or afterschool activities. We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our concerns and ask that you please not ignore them. On the contrary, you take them into consideration and work with us to help maintain our community together and happily. DOC. INDEX 362 AECE'° AUG 0 CITY L "'" Respectfully, PLAN ;, UIV Erasmo & Lorena Carranza (509)952-9347 DOC. INDEX # 1 363 RECEIVED AUG o 3 zozi CITY OF YAK , . , PLANNING DIV . . .. . ... . i • .... 411...,.. .. • - -;: • ,„ 4_, ... '31°1-'4 k •' ..1-,.:.. 1 I, .....7 ••In A , • . , • -..'s., ,1 '4,.."')-r:ILI• ` ' ,1. ii,..1 , , ,.1.. .iii4‘. ....5,„;.--.._• .„ -..:.,,,,--. .....- . rig. .. -....., ...,. .... ._. !._..::.„..A.... : ;.:-......6!• ._ '. .. . .4-,... • ,. •.• • - • i ri 1, ,. .-.1 •:. .0 .._ — • t ._/7- .: .',. sq. '. , • •.....m.....W / 1. ' ' t / ' ' 1 .. • : ' ' • o ,. ' ' # ! ' 11-- ' •ii', I . , 11 / 1 1 I i:I':. ' ii. j, I i, .''' I . I. • I: '/ • I , f ' , . 1 .:. , , . . I . , : Ill 1 • . ' I I I I. PI r I :1 4 . I . ,.• i ,I , • ‘ ' • 1. • 1, ... . . . . 1 1 f I I , I PI i 1 .• . 4 • . t I': . ' ., . •A . • . , • . • • . . - , . 1, 1 • ,_ , 1 : -, ' , ,• , a , . I ' i • ;tII 1 ''r,' f .1 It'' .., • . 1 . , , I f 1 • li; Irii • . , ,• • t 1 . ti , • , :,• I I . I. . . 3 /11'. ' , I I f : q I . a , i 1 W' 11• I • I"1 ' • • } I -• ., i•+r'• ko.Q. - • - , j. .. , ‘,1 I n,_..j" ..,:,„....i ! ..... 1::: I ' ,11 j • . — ' • - J - I 4e i I. J 1 .• _ _. _.. . ... . ' • ',fink- '•. .4; • -. - ' • . •• 4.' ...' ' • { = .. i •1 . • '. .... _ d..,... .••' ..... 1 .. 1 • •., • - - ••-0 vs-4 •• .c .i. . , .„. .. , .7.7.... ••• . :... 1, ;-.4:; Al -..• •• • • -- . • ......„.., . . • . ..:„..,..r.....,. , . . . . . . . , , - . ..,..._ ..........,. . . —......... ..... ...„. . • ,-.: .,.:Ittp, , . .. • • 4..1.r•-•,--..... :., . . . • .r.,"2:.'-.-.7..u.sEr- . . . ,-.•.' . ,.. .'r'z. .. , . •-•.,• - .Z. 3.....-- - -..:c.•;,. .,.• . . .__.„..• ..,..i'. KW:.,.ip.-.-! • • ""'";.: -.... • 1.4:2'..!7: ..-- ', . . .. •• .-., ....• ,,....J.-- ---s.—,•4 : .-T- I '-''' , .. ..... •. .. .....•aMm.it.„. •...... ..-....... .4 - •1 ap. ...••• ..,... n....,iii. ' .• .9: , ,r . • ':10 1' . ,r,‘,. :F. Z.IN .•,.....mm,... . ••• °I... . ., . . , ,,,,,, •..........._.• 044 4- 4. •. ' cL.-'11111, wore'•V 4. . - . , . . , . -. /.11 I ' '" ' •44 14'.4.21. ....,. .ir - . . ., ,.: I.., • , . . . , ,...._..... ....,.. . .... - —........--r- . ... . . . ...f . . ...... .. ,,,. • 1, . ;.....- . _ . • . .. T•' •1..* .,., , I Fl :-.i,1 ( - 1Z t? • , , ..• 1-.:•'711.7Ark (4,1171,• 14 ' ' , 7,, ,,,,...r.• ‘...,A,.. . ..... . .. .. , , DOC. ..... ,. _ .. . e •i,..-T.,--. P. , i'e..- ,-.0116`.`4 A „...,,,t. p _ .... .4 '1,4.•..a v.. ' '--: :.i'l.' • I I, ' ' .41 . , . ,_ ., • .' it'.: 41... ..L.1 4 364 RECEIVED AUG 05 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA ,._, `_. PLANNING DIV. M cif- 1> r � • I. sevitiv. 4.111-:.:,. • I . rgt•-:-.C5-„agilialliaX-ir:::4- • hilt a . ... • 0 .,.. II f I .ii S •� Ill!) I i` Nil' Lil i 1 I-. I : ! 1 k .flii , \."I 1' i; if . •* / 1 1 . 'l: 1 , 1 1 1 il 0 „ , ii i ir: % i f pp 1.. ''. - I .r ' i p r1 1 ! 7/ } ` tI. N 1 • it 0) . „.. ,11 , e ii . k . . , .•'-f' t. ..7`,• L'- . z7,. 1,_..p.r.:_,:,,,.i.1.i.,:r.;.,, EY-'+1.4J• IIIPFAIMIIM 111.11111 .1 1 •. : ..-, , ..4.k t.it-W I 7, ). . ,;, ,,, .„,,,,,,,,?,,, ,,, . 1 41 T •. .. r l .0 h r y.47 C • ,rr y3 -r. . ' , . 365 RECEIVED AUG 0 3 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 4 II., ,, ..7:ailivilA'' -• '.. . -.41g1... %.l''- • .. '''- .... ., i r, . .i. ,., ' ,. i . ' f : .(-7 , :-... .el'' ,. 1 . i ,i, , . : 1):/, ' 1 I4 . ' ', , ii, : y 1 ,• 1t1' • I e • it 11' II 7 1uhh' iI1' • I Iliciv It;I 1• . ' I. ! , ( t 1 , 4' i I, I I ;r •1 ♦ ._ .ti1.-w y� I �'1 I F•�.R .'.r.� �4p - • ' r. '• ■ + y ` ' ,I, I •y'! L ' 1 ' 4 +. a • • " r /v • • • r J. � • T ,L' •� f $ y I, , S,.P.)-t. 366 Nunez, Analilia RECEIVED From: sem10250@charter.net AUG 03 2021 Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2021 5:15 PM To: Ask Planning CITY OF YAKIMA Subject: Appeal response#001-21, WVSD PLANNING DIV. Attachments: Thela's response to appeal.docx; elevated terrain. elevated terrain 2.jp g;Jpg; elevated terrain 3jpg; elevation 4 jpg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Pictures (0,1,2 )were taken this morning, 08/03/21.There are many other pictures available from the field looking into our property. I have included one. DOC. 1 INDEX 367 RECEIVED Thela McCurdy AUG 0 3 2021 8 N 86th Ave CITY OF YAKIMA Yakima WA, 98908 PLANNING DIV. 509-494-2433 Sem10250@charter.net Reference appeal#001-21, WVSD To the Yakima City Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner, The following information is in direct response to the appeal of the building permit for Apple Valley School from the West Valley School District (WVSD). During the process of building the new school some changes were made to the initial permit without notification to the adjoining property owners or approval by the building code/permit department. I would prefer to be physically present during the hearing but am on a scheduled vacation during the week of the hearing. Please contact me before August 7th or after August 14th at the above contact information for further questions or comments. It is my understanding some of these changes have been approved, but one outstanding change has been denied and is being appealed.The elevation of the terrain is in direct opposition to the initial building permit. It was concerning during the building process to lose privacy in our yard and home, but it was our understanding based on the documents shown to the public the elevation of the property would return to the original level as stated in documents and permits.As it became apparent finish work was being completed at a much higher ground level a protest was lodged with WVSD and the City of Yakima.This resulted in an informal meeting with WVSD, their contractors,school board members, assistant superintendents,the Bond Oversight Committee, neighbors, and Joan Davenport (City of Yakima). During this meeting many questions were asked by the neighbors with a unanimous request for WVSD to honor their initial permit to retain and maintain the original playfield. I find it interesting WVSD did not maintain a field they had fixed in 2012 to protect children from a previously contaminated play area.There was plenty of room on the property for work on the school while maintaining this area. Was this a ploy to coverup their intent to raise the elevation without going through a change in the original permit process?Were they just planning to sneak it through using their presence in the community and state the proportional harm is in their favor not to follow the plan?Who decides the amount of harm to the adjoining property owners?Are you able to put a dollar value on what is lost with the terrain elevation? Harm to the neighbor's privacy is apparent if you stand on the field and view into my home (see attached photos). Any time of the day and night I will not be able to go about my personal life and activities without someone potentially looking at me and my family. During the process of the construction the contractors and by default WVSD did not follow through on keeping the exposed dirt covered. Do they think they can just do what they want without regard to the neighbors?An additional example of forge ahead on their own. DOC. INDEX # r'(P „RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2121 Continued:Thela McCurdy comments: CITY OF YAKIMA Providing site screening will not provide the same level of privacy as returning the terrain to the PLAI DIV permitted level and will impact airflow to our property.Additionally, who is responsible for damage from items going over fences from the elevated terrain? I invite anyone involved in the decision process to look at this from our yard and house. I have always supported schools and school districts to provide the best for children in our community in levies and bonds. When a school district only has their personal interest and cover up of errors it makes it exceedingly difficult to support in the future. I thought my comments were complete until activity on the field on 08/03. As of this morning, 08/03 contractors were working on the field outside our property to ready it for application of turf.This seems like padding the expense to increase their proportional harm to return the grade to the original plan. Why continue to be irresponsible with taxpayer's money and arrogant about the direct opposition to the approved building plan? Thank you for considering these comments and assessing the impact of a nonpermitted change to a plan. Thela McCurdy 8 N 86th Ave Yakima WA DOC. RECEIVED 369 Nunez, Analilia AUG 0'1 9021 From: John manfredi <jcmanfredi@outlook.com> CITY OF YAKIMA Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2021 12:59 PM PLANNING DIV To: Ask Planning Cc: Davenport, Joan; sem10250@charter.net;JULIA E; Lorena Mora; pviking1975 @gmail.com; undefined Subject: APP#001-21, WVSD, Written Testimony for Hearing August 12, 2021 Attachments: apple valley school app#001-21 appeal response.pdf; attachment1_emails fence.pdf; attachment2_plotted crossections at playground.pdf; attachment3_schoolyard earthwork photos.pdf; attachment4_schoolyard profiles.pdf; attachment5_views across schoolyard, from back yard.pdf; attachment6_email review and public hearing consistency with modification request.pdf Dear planning staff person, Please verify that our attachments have been received and given to the Hearing Examiner. We would appreciate verification before the due date, which Joan Davenport told us is Friday August 6, 2021. Thank you, John and Candace Manfredi Sent from Mail for Windows 10 DOC. 1 INDEX 370 To: The Honorable Gary Cuillier, Hearing Examiner RECEIVED From: John and Candace Manfredi Subject: Our Testimony regarding City File#APP#001-21;also regarding MOD#021-21 AUG 0 4 ,,n21 CITY OF 1'AKINiH Thank you for the opportunity to provide our written testimony. PLANNING HIV We object to the District's grade raise appeal,APP#001-21, and portions of the cities MOD#021-21. We and our neighbors have been damaged because the District's grade raise work was done with intentional disregard for the Dec 30, 2019 review and public hearing document,and Hearing Examiner's Decision, Feb 28, 2020.We believe that the District's APP#001-21,should be denied because it is based in part on misleading and conflicting information the District intentionally provided in their 2019 review and public hearing documents,and in their 2020 permit application. During the work the District repeatedly lied to neighbors about grade raises,and failed to inform the City of important constructive changes, which have had adverse impacts on neighbors. We also believe the City made mistakes and poor decisions that enabled the District's wrong doing.The District and City have both made a sham of the review and public hearing process and permit process,and greatly impacted neighbors.These things need to be rectified. Arguments and Responses to specific items in APP#001-21 Item 6.a.The District alleges an "error of law" regarding the 50%criteria. Response: We believe the 50%criteria is arbitrary and does not apply to raises in grade.The City permits group approved grade raises from 1'to 4'when they approved the building permit. That was a bad decision; on July 27, 2021,the City actually told neighbors their permit approval was done without considering the public review documents. Public review documents did not indicate any grade raises at the playgrounds.Approving grade raises greater than the permit will condone a bad decision and compound adverse impact to neighbors, see Item 6.b. below. Item 6.b.The District alleges the as built grading is an increase of"only 32%across the entire site". Response: They may be correct in their calculations, having the benefit of before and after surveys and CAD software. However, it is not the average% increase in grading that causes adverse impacts to the neighbors. It is the combination of height of raise and close distance that give people a view angle and proximity to see into neighbors back yards. Similarly the grade height and close distance obstruct neighbor's views across the school yard. For example grade raises up to 1.5' at the 40'from a 6' property line do not cause much adverse impacts to neighbors. However,the District has raised the grades from 3 to 4 feet, and more, at 20'to 40'from the property line;that combination of high view angle and proximity cause undeniable adverse impacts to neighbors. Each increment of grade raise more than approved in the City permit cause greater adverse impacts. We ask that grade raises more that permit values not be allowed. Item 6.c. The District states"the Administrative Official's finding that the as-built grading would cause an adverse effect is not supported by substantial evidence." Response: We believe adverse impacts including nuisance, and loss of privacy,security,view, and reduced property value are undeniable and substantial; if District staff lived in our homes,they would agree.We understand nuisance, loss of privacy, loss of security and view impact our daily lives, and those impacts are adverse effects. While the neighbors are not appraisers, we are longstanding property owners;we do have a sense of property values and how the adverse impacts affect market appeal and listing prices of our homes.We chose our homes, have lived here for years to decades, and prefer that the impacts be remedied by lowering the grade. However we also realize that adverse impact on property value could be mitigated by damage payment. In our case,the County assessed value of our property is$332,100.A more modest neighbor's house recently sold for$390,000. We believe our property resale value will be reduced more than 5% primarily due to lost view, and to a lesser degree by nuisance, reduced privacy and security. We believe the impact on our property value is DOC. 371 less than some neighbors and more than other neighbors. We also feel daily nuisance, lost privacy,security and view should be compensated. Neighbors will suffer these impacts for whatever time they continue to own and live in their homes.The District board and staff have shown no interest in considering adverse impacts or decreased property values due to grade raises. In fact they declined several neighbors June 14,2021, invitations to visit our properties,to see and understand their impacts on us. We discuss damage estimates more in 6.e. Response, below. Item 6.c. The District cites "the City's surface water engineer's analysis that the site does not create any erosion or drainage impacts, and the School District's agreement to mitigate aesthetic and visual impacts by installing view-obscuring material on fencing on the east and south sides of the school." Response to drainage impacts: District designs intended playground drainage to be intercepted by swales and conveyed into drywells. This was done to protect neighbors from schoolyard runoff.Along the South property boundary the District's design drawings show a 9"deep swale; it is actually built about 12 to 18"deep, but yet fine graded.When completed the South boundary swale will protect neighbors from school drainage.Along the East boundary the design drawings show a 6" deep swale.There would be no drainage impacts if a swale had been properly constructed there. However,the City surface water engineer did not notice the East swale was not constructed at all. Instead, he said a gravel berm will block surface water from running into private properties.That gravel berm is left-over,walkway path, base material; it is pervious and so small that it can easily be kicked through by a person in tennis shoes; it will not prevent drainage, and will not last any length of time.The contractor did not excavate the east swale into the subsoil grade, before placing the orange barrier fabric and 12"topsoil layer. East neighbors have no swale protection from drainage. We should note that 6" and 9"swales, as designed, are probably not deep enough to provide long term drainage;over time they will fill with thatch and become dysfunctional. Response to view obscuring material imm_pacts: View obscuring material does not mitigate for the raised grades. It will not block the public from looking down into the neighbor's back yards from the top of the raised grade; see 6.b. Response, above.A 9'to 10'tall property line fence,with view obscuring material, would be required to block the view from the top of the raised grade. We would be opposed to such a tall fence. Item 6.e. The District cites "imposition of a requirement to regrade the site is contrary to the nexus and proportionality test". Response: The District's appeal complains about no proportionality test, but offers no cost analyses' toward that end. We believe the Hearing Examiner should consider cost analyses'for remedial work and adverse impacts before making a decision on this appeal.The District is best able to estimate costs for lowering the grade,to permit levels. We do not trust the District to estimate costs for adverse impacts on neighbors, because the District denies that adverse impacts even exist. Reduced property values should be appraised by three or more local residential property appraisers,with credentials acceptable to neighbors. We suggest the City bear the costs for appraisals, because the City enabled impacts when they approved permit drawings without considering the review and public hearing documents. Neighbors should also be allowed to request damages for impacts to daily life, including nuisance, lost privacy,security and view. Neighbors will suffer these impacts for whatever time they continue to own and live in their hordes. We also ask the Hearing Examiner to adjust proportionality in the neighbors favor, because the District raised the grade intentionally and repeatedly,with complete disregard for the review and public hearing document,the approved permit drawing,the City and the neighbors. RECEIVED Additional Testimony,on the grade raise, is below. AUG 0y 2021 Additional Testimony, on the 5' path and site screening, is below. CITY OF YAKIMA Our Preferred Solution is below,following Additional Testimony. PLANNING DIV D' C. INDEX 372 AUG O 1-1Additional Testimony OiTY OF YAKIMA We are one of fifteen neighbors whose residences border Apple Valley Elementary School South arA'' Prid'tInds. We border the south side at 8615 Woodwinds Way. You should know that we campaigned and voted"for"Apple Valley School replacement bond three times. We object to three parts of District work that do not comply with the December 30,2019, review and public hearing document for this project, nor with the Hearing Examiner's Decision of February 28, 2020.The non-compliant work has had adverse impacts on the neighbors.The District has refused to acknowledge any adverse impacts,and has refused neighbors requests to correct the work. Instead the District requested three modifications,under MOD#021-21;they include a grade raise,a 5' paved path,and site screening modifications. MOD#021-21 disapproved the grade raise. On July 27,2021,the City informed us that we can object to the grade raises during the APP#001-21 public hearing process. Our Additional Testimony presents our objections to the grade raise. MOD#021-21 approved the 5'path and site screening modifications. On July 27, 2021,the City informed us that MOO#021-21 blocks our objection to the path and screening modifications. We think the City's process,analysis and decisions in MOD#021-21,for the 5'pathway and site screening are invalid.Therefore we respectfully ask you to also consider our Additional Testimony on the 5' pathway and site screening. We know our testimony comes late a bureaucratic process that is very confusing to us.The District and City have made wrong decisions that adversely impact us,faster than we can keep up with. We ask that you give careful consideration to our Additional Testimony,and that of other neighbors. The District should have to correct or mitigate all impacts they have caused to neighbors; and,the City should be accountable for mistakes and poor decisions they've made. Additional Testimony is presented in three parts. 1. Installation of a 5'walking path along the South and East Playgrounds. 2. Installation of site screening at some locations. 3. Raised grade for the South and East playgrounds. 1. 5' paved path -The City MOD#021-21 approved construction of the path, as a minor change. We do not agree that the 5' paved path is a minor change.The Administrator exceeded her authority by approving the path as a minor change.The path creates significant adverse impacts to neighbors along the South and East playground fences, by directing people to walk right next to our property lines.The adverse impacts include nuisance, a reduction of neighbor's privacy and security, and reduced property value. Neighbors along the school South and East fence lines do not believe site screening mitigates the path. Neighbors want the path removed.This path was not included in the Apple Valley School Replacement review and public hearing documents of Dec 2019. If included, it would have been opposed by all the neighbors.The path was conceived and added to the school replacement project by the District, as an afterthought and without consulting any of the neighbors.The work was performed by District's contractors as part of their general construction contract. Upon its construction, neighbors immediately objected to the path.The District invited the neighbors to a meeting June 14, 2021 to hear their objections to the path and other issues.The City also attended the meeting. All neighbors attending the meeting objected to the path, and continue to object. Ignoring neighbor's objections,the District requested the path be approved as a modification.The City conducted an Administrative review in which they also ignored neighbor's objections, ignored adverse impacts, and approved the path. We ask the Hearing Examiner to stay the Administrator's decision, and require a public review of the 5' pathway. 2. Installation of site screening at some locations -The City MOD#021-21 approved fence modifications and site screening as minor changes. We do not agree that site screening is a minor change.The Administrator exceeded her authority by approving site screening as a minor change. Site screening causes us significant adverse impacts. It is in direct conflict with the review and public hearing documents of 2019, and violates a special condition of the Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated Feb 28, 2020.The review and public hearing document states: "The proposed project would not obstruct any existing views in the site vicinity", and proposes to leave existing fencing in place, unscreened. During the Dec 2019 public review for this project,we provided written comments to Joan Davenport on 01/14/2020.Our comments specifically supported the Districts then request that the existing fence remain in place, unscreened. We know that our comments were clearly understood, because the Hearing DOC. INDEX AUG 0 y 2021 373 WY OF YAKIMA Examiner's Decision, Feb 28, 2020, acknowledged our comments in four places. For example, hewo�'aoV� preserve the visibility of areas of the school site that is currently provided by the existing chain link fencing". His decision said view obscuring material should not be added to the existing fence. We also believe fence modifications and site screening cannot be categorized as minor changes, because minor changes should have "no adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the project".View obscuring material will eliminate our view across the schoolyard (see Attachment 5)and reduce our property value. In fact in 2005 we bought our lot,and paid $12,000 to extend it south to the school property line,just so we could have a view out across the schoolyard. We explained these things to the District and City at the June 14, 2021 meeting(item 1. above),to emphasize the importance of view and to object to the grade raise which now blocks our view. Ignoring the Hearing Examiner's Decision, and ignoring our statements at the June 14, 2021 meeting,the District requested site screening be approved as a modification to mitigate impacts of their 5' paved path and raised playground grade,which themselves both violate the 2019 review and public hearing document.The City conducted an Administrative review, ignoring the special condition of the Hearing Examiners 2020 Decision to preserve visibility of areas of the school site,also ignoring our statements at the June 14, 2021 meeting, and approved the site screening as a minor change.July 27,2021,the City informed us that MOD#021-21 blocks our further objection to the site screening. None of the neighbors accept site screening as mitigation for the path and grade raises.Some neighbors may accept site screening their section of fence, as partial mitigation for the path;we do not object to those neighbors. However,we, and some other neighbors,still want to preserve what view we have left. We still want our view protected per the 2019 public review,hearing,and Hearing Examiner's Decision. If the path stays,and if in the future, public nuisance and loss of privacy from the path become greater issues for us,we may then agree to privacy slats. Following MOD#021-21 we made a reasonable request to the District,that they not install slats in our portion of fence at this time;the District has not replied to our request,or other inquiries we've made since June. There may also be a building code issue with the fence modifications and site screening. We believe that making the existing fence taller and adding view obscuring material will not comply with the local building code, i.e. industrial standards of the Chain Link Fence Manufacturer's Institute (CLFMI). Reading CLFMI standards we do not believe the existing steel posts and footings,which are intended for a 5'fence with open fabric, will meet standards for wind load on a 6.5'fence with screening. We have emailed the District and City of our technical concerns, including problems with the existing fence posts and footings, measurements, etc(see Attachment 1); neither the District no City have replied. We ask the Hearing Examiner to stay the Administrator's decision and require a public review of site screening. 3. Raised grade for the South and East playgrounds-(see Attachment 2) The District raised the grade of the South and East playgrounds 3 to 4 feet above original playground grades, and then requested the City approve those raises. In MOD#021-21, the City denied the District's request for raised grades, and directed them to regrade the site consistent with building permit plan drawing B200126 which has 1 to 4 foot raises. However, a statement on MOD#021-21, page 5, also allows grades 50% higher than on B200126.The neighbors disagree with both the District and the City regarding the raised grades.The original playground grades had existed for the entire school and neighborhood history. In 2012 a $1,100,000, DOE project replaced topsoil on the playgrounds;much of that project cost was to do work in a way that maintained the original playground grades. At a June 14,2021 meeting, neighbors of the South and East playgrounds told the District that the raised grades have caused adverse impacts. The adverse impacts include reduced privacy and security, reduced views,and reduced property value.The public can now easily look down,from raised grades, into neighbor's back yards.This is an extreme violation of neighbor's privacy and security that will adversely impact the neighbor's daily lives and their property values. Vandals can hide and hang out behind the raised berms, along the neighbors properties,jeopardizing neighbors security;we know vandalism is an issue because many times in the past 15 years we could see across the schoolyard and reported off-hour vandals to the police.Our view across the school yard, of kids playing,is now blocked by the raised grade (see Attachment 5); our view will be blocked even if site screening(2.above) is not installed.This is the same view which we paid$12,000 for,when we built our home in 2005. We sought to protect our view during the 2019 review and public hearing process,and the Hearing Examiner's 2020 Decision directed that views be protected. At the June 14, 2021, meeting,the neighbors unanimously asked the District to lower the South and East playgrounds back to their original levels. In preparing our objection to the raised grft ,ire have INDEX AUG 0 N 2021 374 CITY OF YAKIMA identified at least six times that the District and City used several legal processes wrong,to aacccromlpllish�iv playground grade raises.These wrong uses are described below: a. The 2019 review and public hearing process was used wrong because the public review document did not show or describe any grade raises for the South and East playgrounds.At the June 14,2021,meeting with the District and City,several neighbors stated said that raised grades for the South and East playgrounds were not expected because they were not described in the review and public hearing document of Dec 2019.That document stated nine times the South and East playgrounds would "be retained"and "remain". The document also states: "The proposed project would not obstruct any existing views in the site vicinity". The neighbors understood the multiple statements to mean little or no work would be done at those playgrounds. Neighbors had no understanding what-so-ever that there would be grade raises.The Hearing Examiner's Decision presumably agreed with the neighbors reading, as he wrote about neighbor's views across the school yard,and stipulated that existing fencing remain to preserve views across the schoolyard. Contrary to the review and public hearing document,grades were raised 3 to 4 feet at the South and East playgrounds.That grade raise work was very disruptive to the neighborhood, more disruptive than any other site work for the school replacement. Grade raise work involved more than one year of disruptive work very close to neighbor's property,including noise and dust from large earthmoving equipment and large unsightly dirt stockpiles and mounds. Raised grades will have a permanent adverse impact on neighbors. Because of the extent of disruptive work very near the neighbors,and because of the permanent impact of grade raises at the South and East playground,grade raises should have been carefully and clearly described in the 2019 review and public hearing document. Playground grade raises were not described at all. It wasn't until July 1,2021,that the neighbors learned that while the 2019/2020 review and public hearing process was ongoing,the District had also prepared and submitted building permit drawing B200126 showing topography with 1 to 4 foot grade raises for the South and East playgrounds.The City then approved that permit drawing,even though grade raises there were not mentioned in the 2019 review and public hearing document nor in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. (For ready reference,building permit dates are:submitted 02/11/20,approved 04/07/20,and issued 04/18/20.)We believe a wrong use of the review and public hearing process began when the District wrote the 2019 review and public hearing document with no mention of grade raises for the South and East playgrounds. We believe they did this intentionally, to not raise concern from the neighbors. Considering permit drawing preparation time,we believe that the District expected grade raises at the South and East playgrounds at the time the project planning/review documents were prepared. Instead of clearly stating in the review and public hearing document that there would be playground grade raises,their document included a statement:"Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of grading and excavation would occur during construction.The site is anticipated to be a net balance and no significant amounts of imported or exported soils are anticipated." It's not reasonable to believe that neighbors would understand the District's excavation and grading statement to mean grade raises at the South and East playgrounds. It is much easier to believe that the District knew there would be grade raises on the South and East playgrounds, and intentionally did not say so,to not raise concern from the neighbors. Not stating grade raises at the South and East playgrounds was a wrong use of the review and public hearing process, because it deceived neighbors. b. The building permit legal process was used wrong because City permits staff should not have approved building permit drawing B200126 which showed 1 to 4 foot grade raises for the South and East playgrounds. Grade raises were not described in the 2019 review and public hearing document,and grade raises would block views that the Hearing Examiner directed be preserved.We first thought that the City permit staff approved grade raises on the permit drawing by mistake. However, in a meeting July 27,2021,City staff actually told us there was no mistake.They said that they review and approve permit drawings without considering the review and public hearing documents,because permit review,and public review processes are two separate processes. We feel treating these as separate processes,with no coordination fails the Cities duty and fails to protect public's review. City departments should coordinate with each other. There can be no right-hand/left-hand justification or excuse. Whether by intent or by mistake, approving the building permit,significantly different than the review and public hearing document, was wrong. We believe DOC. 0N©7 AUG 44 2021 375 CITY OF YAKIMA :' that the review and public hearing process should be legally superior to the permit process. itly permit staff cannot fail to consider, nor override a review and public hearing document or Hearing Examiner's Decision. If they could do either,what would be the purpose of a review and public hearing in the first place? Nor can the District and City reasonably argue, more than one year after approving permit drawings,that implicit earthwork statements in the review and public hearing document support the grade raises shown on the permit drawing.Such an argument is far outside reasonable interpretation of the review and public hearing document that the public had; remember that the public did not have knowledge or access to the permit drawing. Lastly,the City cannot apply a 50% rule, meant to apply to floor area,to authorize grade raises up to 50% more than they had wrongly approved on the permit drawing. c. The District's construction process was used wrong because it included constructive,step-by-step grade raises at the South and East playgrounds as their plan to balance earthwork,and fix their earthwork quantity busts.This process took over a year, during which the District never explained the grade raises to the City. During that year the District misled neighbors about grade raises,several times, as the following construction chronology shows.The chronology months are as best we can remember. We didn't keep a log, but our memory of the sequence of construction earthwork is clear. We have attached a few construction photos that show the playground earthwork(see Attachment 3). Unfortunately the photos don't come close to showing the mess and illogic of the earthwork. May 2020, (first grade raise) We and another neighbor on the south side of the playground, became concerned that the contractor seemed to be raising the grade on the South playground. Neighbors that reviewed the review and public hearing documents had not expected any grade raises on the South and East playgrounds. Two of us neighbors happen to be retired engineers, so the contractor agreed to meet and show us their site drawings with contour lines. May 15, 2020,three of us met with Ron Huylar and his earthwork foreman. As retired engineers we expected them to roll out, and show us, large scale paper drawings on the hood of their truck. Instead,they tried to show us their construction drawings with grade lines, on their small tablet screen. Sunshine and Covid distancing made it impossible for us to see. They did not offer to show us large paper drawings such as contractors almost always have onsite, nor did they offer jpeg, nor pdf files of their drawings. Instead they clearly told us the construction drawings showed a maximum grade raise of 4' near the southwest corner of the South playground;that raise would slope uniformly north to meet the building grade. Going east, it would slope uniformly to a grade raise of 0'at the east side of the East playground. The finished grade raise near our home would be about 1.5'. We decided we could live with a 1.5'grade raise near our home; it would not reduce our view significantly. We call this the first grade raise because the review and public hearing documents did not say there would be any grade raises on the South and East playgrounds. June 2020E(second grade raise)We continued to watch a ridiculous earthwork show in progress on the entire South and East playgrounds.Topsoil and subsoil were being excavated, hauled, stockpiled, reworked, handled, rehandled;there were large scrapers, dozers,track hoes, skid loaders,front end loaders, rollers, highway and mining trucks, a water truck. It was an absolute circus. When we inquired about a huge mound and stockpile developing and dirt being moved and pushed around on the South playground, consultant Rob Gross emailed back. He explained that all the material above grade lines would be pushed to the SE corner of the playground where there was room for it. We knew that was impossible but politely accepted his explanation. About the same time as Mr. Gross' impossible explanation, Mr. Huylar told us they were surprised by the high quantity of excavation already dug, about 11,000cy at that time. He also said they would truck off the excess mounded and stockpiled material. We had been communicating with Mr. Huylar on several matters. He seemed an honest, competent person and respectful toward us neighbors. We trusted him regarding off haul. In June we thought the grade was being raised more than their indicated 1.5' near our home;we attributed the increase to the disorganized construction mess with so much large equipment handling and rehandling the dirt. Finally Mr. Huylar told us, by phone,that they reached their "finished top-of-subsoil grade"for the South playground. We looked at the playground area near our home, saw their survey grade stakes, and watched them fine grade to staked marks. We estimated near our home, • II.vI_1VGV AUG 04 2021 376 CITY OF YAKIMA with topsoil added,the finished grade would be 2.5' above the original playground surface. This was more PLANNING DIV. than the 1.5'finished grade raise that Mr. Huylar and the dirt foreman told us in May. However,they also began hauling some of their huge stockpile away,for offsite disposal. Mr. Huylar explained that the earthwork contractor had finally been able to arrange some haul trucks for a time, and any excess they didn't haul off at that time,they would finish hauling away in the fall.So we decided to live with the 2.5' grade raise.Although it reduced our view,we could still stand up and see across the playground,see kids playing etc.Also,we didn't want to be the only neighbor objecting to the work, and Covid made it impossible to gather neighbors to discuss the earthwork. It is worth mentioning that we walk the neighborhoods around the school almost every day. Often we talk with neighbors on our walks.A very frequent topic of conversation was why was there so much unproductive earthwork.Why the huge stockpiles;why weren't they digging and hauling the extra dirt away like the topsoil contractor did in 2012? Some thought the contractor must be profiting greatly,getting paid for every time they piled,spread, handled and rehandled the dirt. July and August 2020, (third grade raise)The contractor's South and East playground dirt fiasco was continuing.Then one week their scraper laid another 8"to 12" of subsoil over top of their previous "finished top-of-subsoil grade"south of our home.The added 8"to 12"of subsoil, plus topsoil,would cut off our view across the playground. However,we again decided that since they would haul off the rest of the stockpile, and since none of the other neighbors were complaining,we would just live with this third grade raise. We should also say that during this whole time we were at the contractor's mercy regarding dust control. In one particular phone call about dust,the earthwork foreman screamed profanities at me,over the phone, like a madman in a fit of rage. I took that as clue to the contractor's mentality and attitude. It made us appreciate Mr. Huylar,who had a very respectful personality and was doing his best to keep the worksite watered. Despite watering all the neighbors still got a lot of dust,almost daily. We did not want to lose Mr. Huylar's cooperation and watering, by arguing about grade.The whole earthwork show was intimidating, and dust was a constant conversation between neighbors. However,to our knowledge only we, and two other neighbors,ever complained to the contractor about the grade raise or dust. In the fall,the South and East playgrounds raised more by constant spreading dirt around and regrading, and new excavation was still being added to various stockpiles. We were disappointed that the stockpiles were not hauled away in the fall. May and June 2021, (fourth grade raise)The contractor began working the East playground.The east neighbors could then see playground areas and work that had been previously hidden from their view by a large topsoil stockpile.The eastside neighbors could also see the playground grade near their homes being raised about 3'.That completely surprised and alarmed them. With the addition of topsoil,we also became more displeased with the playground grade raise near our home and our loss of view. Including topsoil we estimated the grade raise near our home was more than 4 feet.The east neighbors complained to the City. With other neighbors complaining,the large grade increases on the South and East playgrounds apparently become too obvious for the City to ignore.The City issued a stop work order for the South and East playgrounds. How the City's onsite inspection staff did not notice the step-by-step grade raises and intervene much earlier is not known. We decided to join our east neighbors in objecting to the grade raises. During this time east neighbors obtained more information from the City, including permit drawing B200126; prior to that only the District and City had the drawing. In retrospect, it became clear that the District had planned grade raises at the South and East playgrounds from 2019,that there were many design errors and quantity overruns,that the District schemed for two construction seasons to raise the grade,that there was one controversial change order to haul some of the excess dirt off the worksite.The District agreed to pay that change order cost. One bond committee member objected to the change order cost; he wanted to hold the contractor responsible for errors and costs associated with excess dirt.The committee decided to pay the contractor. In June neighbors were again surprised and alarmed when the District quickly built a 5' paved path. They had decided about the path thru an internal District process, saying nothing to neighbors. Never during the year of construction did the District,their consultant or contractor, explain the earthwork overruns, several grade raises,or the paved path to the City or to any neighbors.The playground DOC. INDEX f-S RECEiiVED 377 AUG 0Li2021 grade raises and path greatly impacted neighbors, but all the business about both had all been kept internal. CITY of- YAKIMA Neighbors finally realized that from the beginning the District had disregarded the review and public hearing PLANNING DIV. process, played the neighbors and perhaps the City as fools.The District simply did whatever they wanted with playground construction. June 14,2021 meeting,Because the neighbors were complaining about grade raises and the 5' path as violations of the review and public hearing documents,the City recommended a meeting be held.They wanted the District and neighbors to discuss South and East playground grade raise and path, and come to some sort of resolution. One City staff member attended the meeting as an observer. At the meeting, neighbors strongly objected to the grade raises and the 5'path,and said they caused adverse impacts. Neighbors said that because the grade raises and path violated the review and public hearing documents they should be removed.The neighbors also said the District had lied to them, which made the grade raises and path worse.The District said they wanted: to be a good neighbor,to hear our complaints,to know what we wanted them to do,to personally look at our view and privacy concerns from our back yards,and to find a solution satisfactory to us. In a communication before the meeting Dr. Finch mentioned mitigation. But during that same time the District was preparing a request for modification, which asked the City to approve their playground grade raises and path, as-built. In June, it turns out that the District was listening to,and denying,the neighbors at the same time. Neighbors feel the District lied repeatedly: in their review and public hearing document,thru the construction work,and in the June 14, 2021 meeting. Neighbors feel the District should not be allowed to get away with this.Adverse impacts to neighbors must be corrected. d. The Cities MOD#021-21 process was used wrong for several reasons. In preparing MOD#021-21,the City should have recognized the grade raise was not in the 2020 review and public hearing documents, and that omission was fundamentally important. Neighbors were encouraged by a City email that the 2020 review and public hearing was being considered in the mod process (see Attachment 6). However, in their MOD decision,the City ignored the review and public hearing documents and gave priority to the 2020 permit. The City also ignored the number and magnitude of constructive grade raises the District made during construction;the City ignored that the District did not give any notice of the grade raises to the City;the City ignored that the District lied to and disregarded the neighbors during the construction process; and the City ignored that neighbors had significant adverse impacts. Most importantly the mod process was used wrong because the City did not recognize that the grade raise was important enough to warrant a public hearing. Because the problems listed above,the City should have referred the District's request for modification to a formal public hearing process. Instead the City Administrator determined she had authority to decide on grade raises by modification process. She issued MOD#021-21,disapproving the grade raises, but also indicating that grade raises could overrun building permit drawings up to 50%. We and other school neighbors have been damaged and disregarded by the District during this whole school replacement project. Good neighbors and lifetime school advocates have become victims and enemies of the District. This is unfortunate and didn't have to be. The District has misused the review and public hearing process and the building permit process,they presented false and conflicting information in those processes,they pushed ahead with large constructive changes during construction without giving notice to the City until the end of work,they repeatedly lied to the neighbors,they caused substantial adverse impacts and damages to the neighbors while denying that they caused any. Every day the neighbors see and live with these impacts;our property values are reduced.The District has said that views, privacy, nuisance, impacts are not within the scope of codes and regulations. We believe that a school district should do more than meet codes and regulations. We entrust the District with our money that we vote to pay, and we entrust the District to educate our children.The District should return these trusts,with truth, respect,fairness and ethics.We also believe that the District has enough discretion to weigh truth, respect,fairness and ethics into their decisions along with law, codes and regulations. Perhaps their legal counsel is advising them otherwise.The District has said their construction plan, raising the South and East playground grades,was the best and cheapest plan.Anyone looking at the South and East playgrounds can easily see the steep(10%)sloped perimeter areas caused by grade raises have wasted over 1 acre of playground. Losing 1 acre of playground was not best for the kids. South and East grassed DO . INDEX # c S 378 playgrounds could have been ramped down one foot along the north and west sides,and then gently sloped south and east,to make the entire playground area usable(see Attachment 4),As to cost,the contractor's earthwork has been a frequent topic of ridicule by neighbors,for blocks around the school. Neighbors who watched the contractor's year-long earthwork fiasco, believe it was wastefully expensive. Perhaps not wasteful from a contractor earnings point of view, but wasteful of taxpayer money. It would have been cheaper to load excess dirt directly from excavation and haul it to offsite disposal, rather than to excavate, pile and rehandle it many times for months. We are terribly disappointed in the coarse the District has taken throughout this project and the way they have treated us neighbors. It has become very clear to us that the District is a bully with a staff of expensive consultants,contractors, lawyers and a $35,000,000 budget.They consider us enemies and are playing in win/lose game to defeat us. We are so tired of fighting them. We also believe the City has violated the review and public hearing process, permit process and modification process. If the District and City violations are left to stand, it makes a sham of the whole review and public hearing process; it leaves neighbors as victims of a project that we voted for and will pay for by tax levies for the next 20 years. Our Preferred Solution to raised grades at the South and East playground is to lower the raised grades down to levels in the permit.We do not agree that these levels were properly authorized, but we believe we can live with them,and without compensation. If the raised grades are left as is,we want to be compensated for daily nuisance, lost privacy, security and view, and also compensated for reduced property value. Our Preferred Solution to the 5' path and site screening is that the path be removed and the existing fence be left as is, per Hearing Officer's Decision, Feb 28,2020. If the path is kept,we want to be compensated for daily nuisance, lost privacy and security and also compensated for reduced property value. If the site screening is installed we also want to be compensated for daily lost view and reduced property value. This whole mess is now in your hands. We hope that you,as Hearing Examiner, have enough interest in our plight and enough judicial discretion to make the District and City correct work they did wrong,or partially correct wrong work and mitigate remaining impacts to the neighbors.A right decision can do these things and set good precedence for future projects. A wrong decision will ratify all the things the District and City did wrong,damage neighbors who did nothing wrong, and set bad precedence. Sincerely, RECEIVED AUG 04 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV John and Candace Manfredi 8615 Woodwinds Way Yakima, WA 98908 Attachment 1-emails,fence Attachment 2 - plotted cross sections at playgrounds Attachment 3 -schoolyard earthwork photos Attachment 4-schoolyard profiles Attachment 5 -views across schoolyard Attachment 6-email, review and public hearing consistency with modification S S I N l±,JEX 379 Attachment 1 Emails fence Fence Damage by Burial From: iohn manfredi Sent: Friday,September 18, 2020 8:51 AM To: Ron Huylar Subject:Correcting earthwork along the Apple Valley Elementary School perimeter fenceline May I ask you to consider some corrective work along the Apple Valley elementary School perimeter chain link fence. The corrective work would fix work that was done wrong in 2012, by the contractor who removed/replaced contaminated topsoil and grass under a$1.1 million contract with DOE. During that job the contractor buried the bottom of the original chain link fabric fence under 4"to 6"of new topsoil. Burying the fence bottom was wrong, and quite,simply sloppy work. DOE or your field staff should have made the contractor fix that work in 2012, but did not. 2020 photos are taken along the South fence, are examples of how the chain link fabric remains buried,and also deflected horizontally. The original chain link fence was correctly installed, decades ago,with the bottom of the chain link fabric just above the grass surface.The work in 2012 should have finished the grass to be just below the fence fabric, but did not. Now is a good opportunity to fix this problem, by removing the excess topsoil placed in 2012.The new ground surface, new sprinkler system and new grass could then be finished to the correct levels. Perhaps your present earthwork contractor would do this work without extra cost to the district,as they did the work wrong in 2012. There will not be a better opportunity to fix the work that was done wrong in 2012. I appreciate your consideration. Sincerely,John Manfredi Photos along Apple Valley School south perimeter fence./P/hotos taken 09/17/20 ,......,...m.....,. 1 44!" ' dr . ' ... wie„ t iltal - • L• T i RECEIVFO AUG 0 '1 i, CITY OF YF,.,,,r,r, SANING Div O PNIDEX 380 Building Code Issue for Fence Raise and Slats From:John manfredi Sent:Wednesday,July 28, 2021 12:48 PM To:Codes; Peter Finch; Harrison, Bob Subject: FW:Apple Valley School Fence Modifications Gentlemen, We wrote you on July 9, 2021 to object to fencing modifications along our property. No one has replied to that email.We will resend it following this email,for your easy reference. We would still appreciate a reply,to let us know if you will leave the privacy slats out of the reach of fence behind our property. If you are still considering the fence modifications there are three of things you should also consider. Note,that we added Mr Glenn Denman to this email because he will probably want the fence built to commercial standards. First, Below is an email sent last year,to Mr Ran Huylar,your contractor's onsite man.The email asks that they fix a problem left in 2012. Mr Huylar spoke to me right after the email saying he would try to get the problem fixed. He was pretty confident he could do that as their earthwork contractor was the same one that did the work wrong in 2012. I spoke to My Huylar again last month, and he again said he was still working on it. Not long after that they paved your 5'walking path, making the fence corrective work very unlikely.So your existing chain link fabric and posts remain buried as explained in the Sept 15,2020 email, below. Realize that fencing standards say fabric and exposed steel posts to both be above ground level. Presumably to prevent soil moisture corrosion. Second, You have proposed to increase the height of the existing fence to 6'.Since you are proposing the fence/slats for privacy I would presume you intend that 6'tall is measured from the top of your asphalt pathway. I presume that you,and city codes,also want the fence to meet building code, presumably Chain Link Fabric Manufacturer's Institute standards.So, this is important:the existing fence posts and fabric are currently buried 4"to 6", and the paved walkway top is about 4" above the buried surface. To make the fence top 6'above the top of the pathway your fencepost height will be 6.75'to 7'above the fence post footings. CLFMI would consider that to be a 7'fence for purpose of steel post and footing designs. Third, Your existing fence posts are 1.9" OD steel, at 10'spacings. This is appropriate for a 5'fence posts without privacy slats; the concrete footings are probably similarly designed. However, existing steel posts and footings probably cannot meet current fence design standards with an increased height of 7'tall with privacy slats. I believe they will not meet wind load criteria. May I also point out that the fence is not on flat ground.The ground,south of the South fence centerline, slopes down at about a 2:1 slope, or steeper. So your fencepost concrete footing design should take the downslope into account. RECEIVED Sincerely,John and Candace Manfredi AUG 0 4 2021 CITY OF PLANNi`''.•; p''''' DOC. INDEX 381 Attachment 2 Plotted Cross sections of Grade at Playground Surfaces, plotted by Manfredi from pdf drawings received from City in June and July 2021 5� 6�,r.f �oeef�er� 'rant �k (/6//�,1 ,� , ro u� P/ar� z . RECEIVED �,rat l, b ���, � AUG o y �021 ' ; ���,� x��-l-"x CITY Of YAKIMF u.74, i' ,-„hrrl Eric c:;;: PLANNING DIV ~x Ij ii f/r:r ri'�t':r{;:F: -41si a / )'/bi ' • fix- E I i ' I �I o 6f 1 f>< 1 f GYa,4nd_ fr._Q_.- 1 I jZ a-- 1 1 I 174'6 40 ti l> :}° IC., /Zt� 1 1� I ' X '43.7Ci? i`/y�;t. ti(.)f) (/ 0, .r 1 • �:, -) j I / : --x. I f a . ' "::t1.1 ro,Y s . . ---.0- 1 I . 1 , , , , i I , . 1,01 ,, ,1.,;,0 rr , 1 j f I /UL(f I 1 , I I 1 i i . �c� o I ) rig. 1}•1 • . 1k;. 'V 1t , IV.[) �;,v t r C‘ e:i I I ff /7 1 f { h(.•ur5r01-4r: G'!?/ lam j , l �� rti i�� . :iio, I '0\ . - 1-- !-.1-1---— 1 1 . .: • ,,,'. I_1_1...:--q-... 1,11 - i-- A !� GX Iv I o X 3e.Goki,j-Fr r.resali /i°!t `{�,,r�, i i I I j EG is the existing (original) ground, surveyed pre-construction FG is theoretical finished grade, from approved B200126 permit drawing C1.10, 02/04/2020 AB is as-built grade, surveyed 06/17/2021. Dissaproved by MOD#021-21 Fence is existing chainiink fence along the school yard boundary X Section locations are near the named property owners lots 0-CC. INDEX # f— S AUG 0 y22021 CITY OF YAKIMA Attachment 3 Schoolyard Earthwork Photos PLANNING DIV Mounded and stockpiled dirt South and East playgrounds. Raised grades, swales, 5' path, fence r ' -1-401i'• S: - ...' _A411--ATAY'44 ."11111!----t _ I 11 1111 - f i ` 1, ,-.- .- , - . ,,, - _ , . . . . June 2020 stockpiles August/ Sept 2020 mounds/stockpiles ,-,:_iiiiii..-.-31 sj-prrit --midll Ailiiiiii;ace-, -''.044. .41 - . . I jillil'Ai `-_.. - • . ..• •..6l g7s�. _ _:r _ r w ,_ June /July 2020 mounds/stockpiles. Redlines show base of mound li pal; YIP-14 Y-4' • 1,SA � �. v . _ jay\'5 , •} "1�Fi• _ • 1.4v .` i .j?j,�1 is July 2021 E side playground, grade raised 3+' S side playground, grade raised 4+' 5' path, 6" swale not cut into subgrade 5' path, 9" swale cut 12" — 18" deep (top of fence concrete footings are 10" below top pavement, so a 6' fence will recite': tall fence post height) INDEX # f-S 383 Attachment 4 Schoolyard profiles: 4' raised grade vs gently sloped grade • . _ t , . At- 11- _ tr _ w 1 •, ' at y <'N r [ �M.. c •./ 1"71'•f F fR �.: • _.� 1 r%".. +4 z 1VL ` F . 1 tI j y1 'r • •�. Photo taken 06/17/2021, looking east from 88th Avenue. RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2021 White line is horizontal reference line. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV Green line is profile of schoolyard with raised grade. Grade at top inflection point is raised more than 4' above original ground level. Slope right (South) from inflection point is <-> 10%, making 1 acre of playground too steep / unsuitable, for kids use. Red line is playground profile that could have been built, with gentle slope from building, south to property fence. The red line profile could also have been easily lowered about 1' at the north end to provide a gentler slope going south. DOC. INDEX RECEI\VD Attachment 5 Views Across Schoolyard, from backyard AUG 04 2021 Photos - Views from patio toward Apple Valley School. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. '. • , - �� - � e 1 • - - .; _�+ 7 t li ill I' c = ;.'h`�,,.A1 '. 11 - -- ,.ti- - -- - - • 2007, view across schoolyard and beyond. Had open view across schoolyard, kids playing, thru chain link fence. ' ii,,,fuln,T ,:ri , , . ,, „,,,,. ,, t,,,,, ki, ,f• A.,tSf..1 R, •`' r',.. ram, '-'11 :14L-11;;T•4'cl f4.:•11WV''::: 1' --1 ---''.-4-1'. 14°1"-.4-- ''. ' --..‘-•—•:".,,,r'4;1:' 11-11 :•' II:1'11C— ,.., .., N -N.,,,, 1_ yr ' - -- f r f 2021, view across schoolyard blocked by raised grades. View across schoolyard is mostly blocked by 4' bank of dirt, raised grade. Raising upper 5' fence to 6.5' with slats, will block view even more. 30C. It 385 Attachment 6 Email Review and Public Hearing consistency with modification request From: Davenport,Joan<Joan.Davenport@yakimawa.gov> Sent:Tuesday,June 22, 2021 8:20 AM To: 'JULIA E' <jewels169@msn.com>;Crowell, Eric<Eric.Crowell@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Harrison, Bob <Bob.Harrison@yakimawa.gov>;Calhoun,Joseph<Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV>;Angela Von Essen <vonessena@WVSD208.ORG>; undefined<jaegerd@wvsd208.org>; Peter Finch<finchp@WVSD208.ORG> Cc:Jon Walls<pviking1975@gmail.com>; prisc00@hotmail.com<prisc00@hotmail.com>;sem10250@charter.net <sem10250@charter.net>; Lorena Mora<Iorymora33@gmail.com>;John and Candance Manfredi <jcmanfredi@outlook.com>; undefined<codeman8611@msn.com> Subject: RE:Apple Valley Landscape Good morning,Julia! The City of Yakima received the final modification information for the Apple Valley School project yesterday(Monday, June 21, 2021). We are now reviewing the information presented by the School District for consistency with the public hearing on February 20, 2020 and the subsequent decision issued by the Hearing Examiner. We anticipate the decision on the modification to be issued shortly. Thank you for your patience. RECEIVED Joan Davenport, AICP AUG 0 4 2021 Director of Community Development CITY OF YAKIMA City of Yakima 129 North 2"d St '! ANNINtG DIV. Yakima,WA 98901 Joan,davenport@ya kimawa.Rov (509)576-6417 DOCe NECEIVED 386 Nunez, Analilia AUG 0 `! 2021 From: Kevin ... <kasdc@hotmail.com> CITY OF YAKIMq Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2021 10:59 PM INNING DIV. To: Ask Planning Subject: Re: APP#001-21 WVSD:Apple Valley Elementary Landscaping issues Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Kevin and Melanie Cox 12 N 86th Ave Yakima WA, 98908 509-961-3755 kasdc@hotmail.com Reference appeal#001-21, WVSD To the Yakima City Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner, I am very concerned that there has been a complete disregard for the initial building permit for the grounds of Apple Valley Elementary as they border our property.The code says that there shall not be a building constructed in this area at the height that was requested for this school building.Yet, the citizens in this neighborhood agreed to a higher-than- code elementary school building for the needs of the children in this area. We were assured, through a rigorous process, that the concerns we had would be listened to and that agreements that were made would be adhered to. We compromised on the height of the school, but the landscaping portion of this process has not adhered to the original building permitting process. It now seems that builders/landscapers have no intention to discontinue their work as they continue (as of 8/3/21)to proceed even though a work halt order to their process has been issued.They are continuing to push forward with their plans in bad faith. We ask that the good faith that the members of this community have engaged in be respected and that the original design of the playing fields be utilized.The following supports this perspective. The builders have complained of a proportional harm to them.Yet they continue to act in bad faith by proceeding during the time they should stop the work and wait for this process to play out. Proportional harm to them is entirely one sided. 1.The proportional harm to my family of having damage to my property cannot be estimated with greatly elevated baseball and soccer fields with errant flying balls mere yards from the side of my house and its windows. I purposely did not buy a home on a golf course because this is a high risk. 2. The proportional harm to me for future home sales cannot be estimated by having this risk to my home be present. 3.The proportional harm to my family having an elevated dark night-time mound just on the other side of my fence places my daughters and wife at great risk from bad community actors as it does to every citizen in our position. Will the city assume the liability if something should happen to them? I think that that should be a consideration. 4.The proportional harm to my pets and our yard from having a walking path that is paved where animals and inappropriate owners will leave their feces that will be washed into our yard is unknown.All of that will be concentrated on a hard surface-the walking path-and will find its way into our yards. 5.Could I claim proportional harm against the city if I built onto my home without a permit or in violation of a permit granted to me by the city?Could I speak to proportional harm and the city would let the building stand,or would I be asked to correct my obvious error, tearing down the built portion and redoing whEi, ld have 1 INDEX been done correctly the first time?We all know the answer. 6. What is the proportional harm to me in purchasing a home that has a view of Mt. Adams and that view being destroyed by a high screen towering over the top of my property fence? I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THAT. I did not agree to that concept when the school was being designed. And I will never be agreeable to that! This also speaks to the value of our home for sale price. Having a tall screen over our 'fence obscuring our beautiful view will diminish our property values. What is the proportional harm to others not including my family?There are some catastrophic problems that are not being considered for only the financial well-being of entities who are not adept at following the rules. 1.The proportional harm to children obscured from view of school staff behind the baseball mound. 2.The proportional harm to women jogging their dogs while behind the baseball mound of dirt. 3. Lost equipment into the yards of the neighborhood at a cost to the school district. 4.The proportional harm to the children or other community members falling down the hill onto the asphalt or into the fencing in the dark. Who would assume the liability if this should happen: the school district,the planning commission or hearing examiner?You will have approved the poor design. I am hopeful you will apply the same standards to this situation as I know you would apply to any private citizen with the use of a building permit. I am hopeful you will consider that entities should do the right thing the first time and if they choose not to,that they need to make amends to build trust and exhibit good faith efforts in their partnership with the community. We are available via email,text or phone calls but will not be able to attend the meeting in person due to a prior meeting commitment scheduled at the same time. We are available at all other times for a discussion, however. ECEIVED Sincerely, !AUG 0 4 2021 CI Y OF YAKIMA Kevin and Melanie Cox PLANNING DIV° DOC. INDEX 2 # ,�� RECEIVED Nunez, AnaUlla AUG 0 ti 2021 From: sem10250@charter.net Sent: Wednesday,August 04, 2021 10:52 AM CITY OF YAKIMA To: Ask Planning PLANNING DIV. Subject: Stuart's response.docx Attachments: Stuart's response.docx This is in reference to:Appeal#001-21,WVSD Stuart McCurdy 1 1 1 DOC. NDEX 1 # -3 Stuart McCurdy 389 8 N. 86th Ave. RECEIVED Yakima, Wa 98908 Sem10250@charter.net AUG 0 N 2021 To the Yakima City Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner, CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. This is in reference to:Appeal #001-21, WVSD I am a neighbor on the east side of the Apple Valley School project. My property is directly adjacent to the school property. I would like to comment about my concerns in three main areas, and the potential for damage or harm from the manner in which the project has been handled. Nuisance: In the past our property has received various items from the schoolyard. Recently we have found a significant amount of material from the construction itself, such as plastic, wrapping, etc., as well as blown soil from the various uncovered piles around the yard. I realize that with the end of the construction phase that should end. However, even before this project we often had balls, frisbees, mitts, toys, and occasionally clothing come into our yard over our 6'fence. With the raised field I anticipate more material coming into my yard.The potential for foul balls, miskicked soccer balls, even the occasional golf ball will be greater now that the field is planned to reduce the height of my fence to approximately 2'. Safety and security: Building on the nuisance factor, if the golf or baseballs fly into our yard more frequently there is the increased potential for both property damage and personal injury. Furthermore, the raised field means less privacy for both the neighbors and the school. It is now possible for anyone to stand on the field and look directly into our yards and homes. It is also possible for someone to stand in our yard and watch the students. While I do not believe the walking path is a problem by itself, I do find issues with its location due to the raised field. With the path located at the level of the previous field it means that people can not be seen on the path.That will allow a potential for various activities without any way to oversee them by the school administration or other authorities.Also,the path is asphalt, and located at the bottom of a slope down from the field.As children play I anticipate that falls will happen, and injuries when they hit the asphalt would be more severe due to the hard surface. Planning and modification: It seems to me that the West Valley School District and its Bond Oversight Committee started with one plan, and then have mostly abandoned it in favor of expediency.The original plans called for minor modification to the field.As time went by several additional feet of soil and height were added to the project. There does not seem to be any real plan or any kind of notice to the community for these modifications. In conversations with the city planners I have found that they were not advised of some of the modifications until after they had been completed. It seems as though the school district used the philosophy that it is better to ask forgiveness that to ask for permission. I do not believe that is how the system is supposed to work. IOC. INDEX Harms: # - I see harms in each of these areas. In nuisance I see the potential for property damage and personal injury. In safety and security I see potential for injury, and privacy concerns. In planning I see damage to the relationship between the school district and community. I also see a lack of real planning for this project, and how it will affect the school, students, public who will use the field, and the neighborhood. One additional harm I see is that the school district has proposed site RECEIVED Stuart McCurdy 390 8 N. 86th Ave. AUG 0 y 2021 Yakima, Wa 98908 CITY OF YAKIMA Sem10250@charter.net PLANNING DIV. screening by raising their fence and using slats to block the view of the school.While that may seem like a real solution, it will harm all of us by depriving us of the territorial view that was part of the reason for choosing to live here. None of us complained when the district plans called for a two story building because we realized that it was necessary. However, we do object to the idea of site screening. As I was preparing to finish this and send it to you, I see that the construction company is continuing to complete the raised field. They are placing sod right now. If the appeal is denied, this seems like an additional waste of taxpayers' money. Clearly they believe that the appeal will be upheld, and they can continue ignoring the plans that were vetted by the city and the public. Please remind them that there are rules, and that school districts are supposed to be public servants with the responsibility and accountability to the public that provides their financial support. Thank you for your time, Stuart McCurdy DOC. INDEX e,3 391 Nunez, Analilia From: Michelle Mueller <mmueller6282@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 8:42 AM To: Ask Planning Subject: In support of WVSD's elevation plan RECEIVED Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed AUG U CITY OF YAKIMA To Whom it May Concern; PLANNING OM I am writing this email in support of the West Valley School District's latest proposed grading plan. As a taxpayer, I am strongly against the lowering of the elevation of the fields. Moving this dirt will be very costly and a waste of money. Additionally Iowering the elevation disturbs and exposes old orchard soil which could be contaminated, costing more time and money. This new school is a huge benefit to the community, it offers more playing space,as well as a wonderful new walking path, both of which add value to the community. Apple Valley Elementary has been in that location, along with its noise and foul balls, for decades (well before many of the houses were built). Residents purchased those houses with the knowledge they backed up to an elementary school. Noise and foul balls come with the territory of living there. Please approve the District's proposed plans to leave the site elevation as is so we stop wasting precious time and money. Thank you for your time, Michelle Mueller DOC. INDEX 1 392 Nunez, Analilia RFCE1VED From: JULIA E <jewels169@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2021 3:16 AM Alt2021 To: Ask Planning Subject: APP#001-21 of MOD #021-21 CITY YAMANNKIM I Attachments: APP#001-21 Appeal to MOD#02121 testimony.pdf;#1 attachment BOC- II� � Minutes-10-14-20.pdf;#2 attatchment BOC-Minutes-11-12-20.pdf; #3 attachment BOC- Meeting-12-15-20.pdf;#4 attachment Photos of AV school.pdf;#5 attachment Financial Report May 2021.pdf; #6 attachment beaten down terrain path.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Please find attached a total of 7 documents- my written testimony concerning appeal APP#001-21 of MOD #021-21 by WVSD concerning the AV school construction project and 6 additional attachments to go along with my testimony. Please verify you have received these and that all attachments can be opened and viewed, as soon as possible as I will soon be unavailable until mid-week next week. Thank you, Julia Ericson DOC. INDEX 393 RECEIVED 8/4/2021 AUG 0 5 2021 To: Gary Cullier, Urban Area Hearing Examiner, Yakima, WA. From: Julia Ericson,Apple Valley ElementaryNeighbor CITY OFN GY DIV. g PLANNING orv. Subject: Appeal APP#001-21 to MOD#021-21 I submit this testimony concerning the Construction Project at 7 N 88th Ave, Parcel numbers(s) 181319-42006, -42020, &-42021. There is a lot of relevant history and important information to impart and I respectfully ask that you read and consider my entire testimony. I am a homeowner whose property abuts the Apple Valley (AV) School properly, therefore a property tax-paying citizen who is a stakeholder in this project. I am shocked and dismayed by the West Valley School District's (WVSD) utter disregard for it's closest Apple Valley School neighbors and The City's lack of apparent oversight when it comes to a Classification 3 property nestled in a Single-Family Residential District. I feel bamboozled by the WVSD as they started out with so much transparency which led to a false sense of trust. In the beginning, we were shown 3 plans and were allowed to vote on which one we liked best. Superintendent Dr. Brophy was very responsive to emails concerning too much blowing dust stating "We are trying to be the best neighbors you could have.. Mike"and "thank you for your note... l have appreciated Ron Huylar's leadership in working to best serve our neighbors... Mike Brophy" Then we received documents in the mail from the City's Planning Division to include the "Notice of Application, Environmental Review, & Public Hearing" in which we were able to review and submit comment if we so desired and the "Notification of Hearing Examiner's Decision (3/2/2020)." At this point we all moved on with our lives and trusted WVSD to do what was presented to us. I never heard another word about the project and didn't even realize there were significant changes going on (on the East side we have our own 6 foot fences) until I heard and then saw they were laying an asphalt walking path right along the east side property line which continued on along the south side as well. (5/17/2021). All information I have learned has happened over the past 2 % months. I am left wondering how involving "adjoining Property Owners" in the process benefits us, if building permits do not require public review and changes can be made that affect us without our knowledge. WVSD submitted a building permit request three weeks prior to the Hearing Examiner's Decision and The City issued the permit five weeks after that. Timeline: 10/23/2019 Application for SEPA- environmental review and public hearing submitted 12/30/2019 Information mailed to neighbors - CL3#010.19, ADJ#027-19, VAR#004-19, SEPA#038-19, CAO#027-19 2/11/2020 B200126 - permit request submitted to the city (including re-grading of the south and east fields not disclosed to Hearing Examiner or property owners) 3/3/2020 Hearing examiner's decision (to include granted variance of sight-screening DOC. INDEX 394 RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2021 requirement based on "grass will remain" and "flat" land. 4/8/2020 Date building permit#B200126 was issued CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Another important time line is when the Construction Project Manager reported to the WVSD Bond Oversight Committee an excess in soil and another regrading plan of the terrain was conceived and a walking path was discussed. The walking path is relevant information in this context because the formulation of raising the terrain even higher required the walking path be placed just inches from the south and east fences. Had all the excess soil been removed from the property, the walking path could have been laid at a respectable distance, like they did at the other simultaneously built school - Summitview Elementary. West Valley Bond Oversight Committee meeting notes. (please find full meeting notes in attachments#1, #2, #3 respectively) Information pertaining tp Soil Removal: Bond Oversight Committee Meeting via Zoom https://wvsd208.zoom.us/j/93774996244?pwd=Ri9NeEd4dXR0aVROalpoWGFiZTVMQT 09 Wednesday, October 14, 2020 •Apple Valley CO 1/Contingency $85,000 Soil Removal (CCD 01 Soil Export) Since the Project Manager identified it as an architecture error, it was the Committee's consensus to discuss the error with Design West so that it can be remedied. The Committee would like to know what happened? Why? Who is responsible for the error? What action should be taken?The Project Manager also classified the change order as a District contingency. For the record, Hasan Tahat stated that the Design team should be responsible for this (soil removal) cost. It is not to be from contingency. The contingency is unforeseen. It was a mistake in the design by under-estimating the soil volume. It is not the contractor's responsibility. Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Summitview Elementary Construction Site Thursday, October 12, 2020 (should say November 12) •Apple Valley CO 1/Contingency $85,000 Soil Removal (CCD 01 Soil Export) The Committee discussed the basis for the soil removal at Apple Valley. Mr. Tahat believes it is a design team error, and they should have caught it before the Project went out to bid. Mr. Gross argued that the architect's contract allows for errors, and since the GCCM bid was rushed, it is acceptable that it was not considered. The soil removal cost is reasonable, and the fields will be better than initially designed. Mr. Tahat requested that Design West proved a letter stating it was their error. Mr. Gross will follow up with the architect. DOC. IND " 2 395 RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2021 is f Y OF YAKIMA Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Via Zoom PLANNING DIV. Thursday, December 15, 2020 Rob Gross reported the following: •The Apple Valley soil remediation will be $74,000 instead of$82,000, which is lower than initially anticipated. In the documents we received, cover letter dated 12/30/2019, the applicant stated multiple times that the south and east grass areas would remain or be retained. They stated in the Environmental Checklist, EARTH - page 5 "The majority of the Apple Valley Elementary School Project site is generally flat with a slight slope near the north edge of the site." and "The steepest slope on the site is approximately 15 percent and located to the north of the existing buildings." On page 6 they state "The site is anticipated to be a net balance and no significant amounts of imported or exported soils are anticipated." Given this information one could surmise the contractor did not disclose the actual amount of excess dirt and instead formulated a plan to raise the terrain to avoid having to remove it from the property and/or (not as likely)when they started grading the field they discovered there was even more dirt than they had anticipated and reported to the Bond Committee so they just kept piling it up, not wanting to return to them after the had argued over the responsibility of costs. The soil in question is considered contaminated with lead and arsenic, per the Department of Ecology. My response to the Appeal (APP#0001-21)to the Modification Decision (MOD#021-21): 6. I agree the Administrative Official exceeded her authority in issuing the Decision, but not for the same reason as stated by the appellant. I believe this review warrants a Hearing Examiner review, not an Administrative Review. 1. YMC 15.17.020 says "Minor changes to existing or approved Class (1), (2) or(3) uses or development may qualify for abbreviated review under the provisions in this chapter, if they meet the criteria listed below:" What is considered a "minor" change? It seems to me, going from "grass will remain" in the SEPA document to disrupting all the contaminated soil and using it to raise the land high enough that I can see people from the waist up and adding a pedestrian way right at the south and east fence lines is a major change. 2. The Criteria to qualify-YMC 15.17.020 (G) says "The modification does not include hazardous materials." In MOD#021-21, IV (Findings) D, 7- The administrative Official (J. Davenport) responds: "The proposed modification does not introduce additional soil containing hazardous material." Include and "introduce" have very different meanings. Also, the approval of the grade raises in Permit B200126 and the walking path approval, at its current location, goes against the "intent and purpose" for the sight screening standard and is not"consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance." As-built elevations should have been compared to the Hearing Examiner's Decision based on SEPA documents and not on a subsequent building permit. DOC• 3 INDEX 396 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV On 6/22/2021, Joan Davenport States: "The City of Yakima received the final modification information for the Apple Valley School project yesterday(Monday, June 21, 2021). We are now reviewing the information presented by the School District for consistency with the public hearing on February 20, 2020 and the subsequent decision issued by the Hearing Examiner. We anticipate the decision on the modification to be issued shortly." 6.a. In MOD#021-21 there is a 50% increase in elevation rule applied. It is my understanding "any expansion of use area or structure will not exceed fifty percent of the gross floor area" is a rule applied to buildings. I thought GFAwas based on width and length. Height would not be a determining measurement. No one at The City has been able to provide context to this and answer why it is reasonable to apply this rule to these land raises. 6.c. Although the Administrative official did not identify the negative impacts to neighbors in the decision, both WVSD and City Personnel are very aware of the impacts and concerns. I conveyed neighbor concerns to The City on 5/28/2021 and 6/9/2021. On 6/14/2021 neighbors conveyed these concerns to WVSD representatives, Construction and Design team and one City employee - Joan Davenport, at our"neighborhood meeting." Also, at the end of this meeting I handed Angela Von Essen, Assistant Superintendent, a hard-copy list. Later that evening I emailed the list to neighbors, Joan and WVSD to include Acting Superintendent Peter Finch, Assistant Superintendent Angela Von Essen and one School Board Member, who was present for a portion of the meeting. On 7/9/2021 I again emailed the list of concerns to neighbors, various city personnel and Peter Finch. Here is the list as it was conveyed on the dates mentioned: No neighbor is opposed to landscape changes that benefit the children of Apple Valley Elementary but also feel changes should not cause the taxpaying neighbor's hardships. Neighbor concerns that adjoin/abut property include: The newly added community walk-way will increase evening and weekend visitors exponentially- increased visitors puts us at risk for increased crime, especially because of the elevated terrain. The raised baseball field will increase fly balls resulting in possible injuries to people and pets and broken windows. It allows people to see into our yards and right in our windows. Seeing into our yards and windows is a privacy issue, but also a safety issue. East side neighbors can see people from the groin up looking out our back windows. (This was never an issue prior to new construction, we could hear people and dogs but never see them, nor they see us). DOC. 4 INDEX RECEIVED 397 AUG 0 5 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Security cameras on school property do not stop would be criminals (theft, rape) from scoping out who lives in the homes and targeting vulnerable individuals - single people, single moms, the elderly, children. Law enforcement no longer have a clear site line to our properties from 88th Ave to the west and Barge Ave to the north. The teens that come here after dark are now provided cover behind terrain, close to our homes, to do who knows what. One neighbor questioned the safety of the children with the potential to get out of site or fall from sloped terrain onto the path. Who would be liable for all these issues? possible reduction in property value or difficulty in resale. With the addition of the community walking-path so close to our properties AND the elevated landscape, we fear potential buyers will find our homes undesirable. 6.c. WVSD states "The City's record shows that grading would not have adverse effects based on the environmental review." The environmental review is based on FLAT land with no plans of changing existing grass areas. 6.c. WVSD states "School District's agreement to mitigate aesthetic and visual impacts by installing view-obscurring material on fencing on the east and South sides of the school." East side neighbors already have 6 foot wood fencing so this does NOT mitigate aesthetic and visual impacts, nor noise, privacy, safety and security concerns. 6.e. WVSD states "The City may only impose requirements that are proportionate to the impacts of the proposed action." Please refer to list of concerns as well as attached photographs (attachment #4). If I can see and take pictures of them, then they can do the same. 6.e. WVSD states "Even if there were adverse impacts from the as-built elevation, the imposition of a requirement to regrade the site is contrary to the nexus and proportionality test." They have a lot of nerve to state they are the ones to suffer an imposition. Had they been honest and transparent in the first place the costs would have been less then, than what they are assumed to be now. If current elevations are to remain, or even permit approved elevations, neighbors on the east side will be burdened in a way we have not been before. There is no reason why the grounds couldn't have been, and still could be, sloped at the asphalt playgrounds. Unlike the two houses at the top of the street, on the east side, who knew for a year and a half that a new parking lot was going behind them, we've had no time to plan. Those neighbors were able to talk with construction employees and attend DOC. 5 INDEX # F�/1 RECEIVED 398 AUG 0 5 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. school board meetings to address their concerns. We were not given that consideration. Besides them having the time and the ability to decide how they wanted to revise their own property in preparation, The Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) requires there be a planting buffer with trees and shrubs by parking lots. We have not been given this same consideration. We have a pedestrian way right at the fence line which adds about 5-6 inches in height and elevated terrain of 3-4 inches which leaves the burden of privacy, safety, security, and loss of property value on us. Please see attachment #5 - May2021 financial report, the most current report made available to the public, which shows the AV school project is 2.8M under budget. Ever since I became aware of all that was happening and started asking questions and expressing concerns, the WVSD and their hired hands have been playing games trying to justify what they have done. On 5/18/2021 when I questioned what they were doing, Rob Gross, Sr Project manager referred to original documents..."Both sites went through a Land Use Application and Public Comment period, and received a few comments during the Plans Examiner Hearing and ultimately moved the projects to Plan review with City of Yakima (whom is the jurisdiction who approved the Plans and issued the official permit.) to my knowledge site improvements is a requirement dictated by the City, that addresses the frontage of the property, i.e.. adding sidewalks, landscaping and Civil Improvements associated with retaining water runoff"and even now, with the appeal they state "The City's record shows that grading would not have adverse effects based on the environmental review." These parties are well aware that the building permit (which neighbors had not been aware of until 6/30/2021) and the work they have done is not consistent with the Land Use Application, Environmental Review and Hearing Examiner's Decision yet they keep referring to it to justify their actions. Sight-Screening YMC 15.07.010 Purpose The purpose of the chapter is to: establish site screening standards to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity, streets and structures; reduce erosion and stormwater runoff; protect property values; and eliminate potential land use conflicts by mitigating adverse impacts from dust, odor, litter, noise, glare, lights, signs, water runoff, buildings or parking areas. YMC 15.07.050 Table of required sitescreening standards. In the Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated March 2, 2020, Pg 8: "Sitescreening: YMC table 7-1 requires site-screening Standard C along the north, south and east property lines" YMC 15.07.040 Sitescreenig standards STANDARD C - A six-foot-high, view obscuring fence, made of wood, masonry block, concrete, or slatted chain link material. A three-foot-wide planting strip landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcover along the outside of the fence is also required when the fence is adjacent to a street, alley or pedestrian way. DOC. 6 INDEX 2 ECE1 V ED 399 AUG 0 5 202i i fy Of YAKINMA ,); A! 3.P The Administrative AdjustmentNariance, of the "Zoning Ordinance Standard of providing a 6ft Site Obscuring Fencing" that was submitted on October 23, 2019, included in our packet for review on December 30, 2019 and approved on March 2, 2020 in the Hearing Examiner's Decision was based on the proposal that the existing grass areas would remain the same. Any comments or lack thereof, from neighbors, was based on this Project Proposal. When I have questioned the raised terrain and the walking path several city personnel have cited this variance. East side neighbors already have 6-foot fencing. For every inch the ground is raised it lowers the height of our fencing respectively. Currently, outside my home, it is estimated the ground is raised 3 '/z feet, which respectively reduces the height of my 6 foot fence to be 2 %feet. Clearly the land elevation is not in keeping with the intent and purpose of the standard, specifically visual impacts (not just what we see now, but who can see us), protecting property values, and noise. Walking path The addition of the walking path is relevant to the raised elevation as now people are directed to walk right up against our properties and the raised terrain leaves them no room to move off the path and farther away as they used to respectfully do. Rob Gross (construction) and Angela Von Essen (WVSD) have both called what used to be there, a "walking path" making it sound like there has always been a path right by our fences. This is not true. What was there was beaten down terrain over the years. By the way, the beaten down terrain is why I thought they were removing the grass, just to plant fresh grass and make it look nice. Had I had any idea of what was to come I would have said something at that time. Please see Attachment #6 for a photo that shows how wide the beaten down terrain was. Currently several property owners whose property adjoins/abuts the school have dogs, as do I. Also, people will be walking their dogs on this path. The combination of the walking path and raised terrain is going to create so much more dog barking noise, not to mention the stress it will have on our pets. The second part of the STANDARD C sight screening states "A three-foot-wide planting strip landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcover along the outside of the fence is also required when the fence is adjacent to a street, alley or pedestrian way." I do understand that is says "along the outside of the fence" but given the owner decided to lay a pedestrian way on their property, adjacent to the fence, and a 3 foot buffer on the "outside" of the fence would not be feasible, because it is surrounded by individual homes in R-1 zone, it would stand to reason that a buffer should be placed on the inside of the fence to mitigate adverse impacts. Streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and parking lots are given more consideration than we are. Again, the purpose of the standard is to "provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity" and "protect property values" and "eliminate potential land use conflicts by mitigating adverse impacts." Property Resale Value While a walking path nearby would increase the likely-hood of resale and possibly increase a homes value, I do not believe this to be the case for us, when it is located right next to our fence. Also, the raised terrain which violates privacy and creates safety concerns is sure to be a turn off for prospective buyers. If I were touring my home and saw full heads bobbing across the fence and DOC. 7 INDEX RECEIVED 400 AUG 0 5 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. people from the waist up, standing on a 3-4 foot elevation, just a few feet from the fence I would no longer be interested. School bond levies, to replace Apple Valley and Summitview Elementary failed multiple times. It is my understanding the community has not trusted the district since the High School was built over poor decisions they made with the community's tax dollars (hearsay). With the 0.8% passing of this levy, after it failed multiple times, there is a reputation to salvage and they do not want to have to answer to every other taxpayer for the mishandling of this situation so they are sacrificing the few of us for the many. Originally I thought 'had they only involved us neighbors we could have come to a design that would have been acceptable to all' but once more and more information was discovered it became obvious not only did they not want our input, they did not want us to know until a time they thought would be "too late." The situation we find ourselves in seems to be about money and adult egos, not about the children. What WVSD has done and expects us to live with feels like some kind of cruel joke. We were already enduring the construction and the constant dust as well as losing our sunset due to the two-story building and getting used to lights on the second floor during the night. Then to end the project with significant changes that undoubtedly create an adverse impact to us has been so disheartening. I do believe that WVSD was done wrong by the construction company-they trusted them to recommend, advise and carry out a project that would be beneficial to all. However, once WVSD was made aware of the errors and heard the concerns of neighbors, they chose to push forward as is. The changes they proposed in their modification application are insufficient. If they wanted to create a "park-like" school grounds that would increase visitors during evenings and weekends, they should have created it in such a way that would not leave us uncomfortable in our own homes - it is the right and decent thing to do. The members of my household have expressed anxiety and fear about the lack of privacy and safety. Our home should be a place of refuge, a place of comfort and as it stands now that is being taken away from us. No neighbor is against improvements that benefit the children of Apple Valley Elementary. I am not opposed to baseball and soccer fields, but am opposed to them being raised in elevation. I am not opposed to a community walking path, but am opposed to it being 6 inches from my property. The neighbors of AV school are nice people and like living in this community, which is why many neighbors have made a home here for a long time. Several of us have children, grand children or nieces/nephews that attend Apple Valley Elementary and are very excited for them to learn and play at their new school. Mistakes need to be corrected and made right. What is done can be undone. I am sorry this would cause hardship to anyone, in order to rectify this situation, but it is they who chose this path. They have also wasted valuable time as it has been 10 weeks since the stop work order. Had they chosen to do what we teach our children -to own up to their mistakes and make it right- the terrain could have already been lowered by now. Correcting the fields will not stop or prolong school opening - I DOC. 8 INDEX RECEIVED 401 AUG 0 5 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV had been very worried about this but Angela Von Essen assured me of this when we spoke on the phone a couple days after the neighborhood meeting on 6/16/2021. Respectfully, I ask that you hold WVSD to what they submitted to public review in the original documents. I believe had they submitted this plan for public review there would have been much neighborhood opposition. I believe had they submitted this plan as a modification request for current elevations and a walking path at our property lines, PRIOR to performing the work, The City would have denied both. I believe for east side neighbors and at least one southside neighbor, any raise in elevation AT ALL is an issue and does not keep with the standards to mitigate adverse effects between uses of different intensity. We trusted the school district to treat us fair. We turned to The City in good faith thinking they would hold them accountable. I am deeply saddened how this process has gone and can not believe we are where we are right now. WVSD and The City of Yakima have attorneys to help them, whereas we are on our own trying to navigate a complicated system that many of us know nothing about. It just does not seem right that we would have to spend our own money hiring legal counsel to ligate a situation that should not be. Thank you for reading my testimony and considering what is just and equitable. Sincerely, Julia Ericson and family 6 N 86th Ave, Yakima, WA 98908 Attachment#1 - BOC-Meeting-10-14-20 Attachment#2 - BOC-Minutes-11-12-20 Attachment#3 - BOC-Minutes-12-15-20 Attachment#4 - Photos of AV school Attachment#5 - Financial Report May 2021 Attachment#6 - Beaten down terrain path C. 9 INDEX RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2021 Bond Oversight Committee Meeting CITY OF YAKIMA Via Zoom PLANNING DIV. Thursday, December 15,2020 Call to Order—The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Attendance— Committee members present for the meeting were: Peter Marinace,Natalie Shirzad, and Kory Voldman Hasan Tahat and Steve Ashbrooks were excused from the meeting. Board Member Representative-Michael Thorner District Representative-Angela Von Essen Project Manager—Rob Gross Changes to the Agenda—There were no changes to the agenda. Discussion Items— a. Project Manager's Monthly Report—November 2020 1. Rob Gross reported the following: • He does not anticipate any project delays. • Everything has been ordered with no lead time. • The rooftops have been installed. • The casework at Apple Valley will start in January. • The Apple Valley soil remediation will be$74,000 instead of$82,000,which is lower than initially anticipated. 2. Kory Voldman commented and asked for clarification on the schedule that August 30, 2020, is shown as the completion date,which is a problem with substantial completion in September. Commissioning should start earlier to be done before completion. 3. Peter Marinace inquired about the need for the Summitview change order 20 for approximately$13,000 of appliances. Mr. Gross explained the Child Nutrition program's appliances were missed during the design and omitted from the bid. b. Project Updates 1. District Project Database/Board Report Peter Marinace report there hasn't been material changes to the report. 2. Contingency Reports Rob Gross reported that we had used a minimal amount of our CM contingency and change order budgets of$450,000 and$1M, respectively. DOC. INDEX 403 RECEIVED AUG 0 5r021 CITY OF YAKIMA c. Meeting Updates PLANNING ow. 1. Project Team Meetings Peter Marinace reported that the District's IT Director was displeased with the quote of approximately $10,000,which was provided by Fatbeam to reconnect the fiber connection to the new schools. He thought it was included in the design/bid packet. Mr.Marinace also inquired about the sub-contractor schedule's status and the potential need to pay over time. Rob Gross assured the BOC that Chervenell is monitoring the schedule and subs. d. Outstanding Items 1. District Furnished Items Angela Von Essen provided an overview of the FF&E plan. 2. Remaining Bond Funds With the recent Board discussions regarding the use of the remaining bond funds and the Long-Range Facilities Committee recommendations,Michael Thorner stated he does not support using the remaining fund for anything other than returning it to the voters as promised. Angela Von Essen said she opposes the District administration using the excess bond funds, and the funds should be returned to the patrons. Kory Voldman stated he supports returning the bond funds,and the voters should approve additional projects. Peter Marinace commented on the Long-Range Facilities Committee presentation which leads a reader to assume the excess bond funds are available for identified capital needs, which is counter to the bond funds approved purpose for exclusively only for the two new schools. It is the consensus of the BOC that the District return all remaining bond funds to the taxpayers. New Business— a. Change Requests and CM Contingency Requests— The subject was discussed earlier in the meeting. b. Community Walking Path Natalie Shirzad commented that the schools' PTOs had expressed an interest in fundraising to add a walking path. She asked if a walking path could be considered. Rob Gross stated he would obtain pricing to assist in the decision-making. Next Meeting—Thursday,January 14,2021, at 5:30 p.m. via Zoom Public Comments—There were none. DOC. INDEX # � '1 RECEIIkD AUG 0 5 2021 Adjournment—The meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV DOC. RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2021 Attachment#6 CIPLANNTY Of YAKIMA Please note the width of the beaten down terrain on the school property to size of homeowING DIV. ner's yards. The beaten down terrain is a width of 10-15 feet. Also notice there is green grass next to the fence because people respectfully did not walk too close to property. It was mostly kids during mileage club that beat down the terrain, which is expected and not an issue. _ - •, _ it. ; I I •_ '04 • 4. rio\--tio __.... > .ii', . , .‘ Ik I ~ I I v _ ' f n' ts, 7)N 88th Ave Y p} • 4 • 1 A 4 ■ ill . , 0. , : .. ., . jit off.i tmil r.ftikti Aso 1111 . I,.. �DOC• 406 Bond Oversight Committee Meeting via Zoom}tttvsa/wvsd2O8.zoom.us/i/93774996244?i wd=Ri9NeEd4dXROaVROalpoWO iZTVMQT09 RECEIVED Wednesday, October 14, 2020 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. AUG 0 5 2021 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Call to Order—The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Attendance— Committee members present for the meeting were: Peter Marinace, Steve Ashbrooks, Kory Voldman,Natalie Shirzad, and Hasan Tahat. Board Member Representative-Michael Thorner was excused from the meeting. District Representative- Angela Von Essen Changes to the Agenda—There were no changes to the agenda. Discussion Items- a. Project Manager's Monthly Report- September 2020 The Project Manager did not attend the meeting. There were no critical questions or concerns noted. b. Project Updates • District Project Database/Board Report There were no questions or concerns noted. c. Meeting Updates • Project Team Meetings Mr.Marinace reported that there were no significant items or concerns to report. Before the meeting,the Project Manager forwarded a notice from the Department of Labor& Industries dated October 2,2020. It will be sent to the Committee for their review. d. Outstanding Items • District Furnished Items Ms. Von Essen explained the process and timeline, including District/Facilities,Technology, and Office Furniture(FF&E). The plan is to work with District staff and to identify items to be purchased. Items will be purchased from vendors directly, or the District will piggyback on other municipalities. Some items will require the - formal bid process. The goal is to solidify needed items during November and bid for most items in December. Ms. Von Essen will keep the BOC informed throughout the process. Mr.Ashbrooks confirmed the District had considered the timing of items for contractor installation. • Apple Valley CO 1/Contingency$85,000 Soil Removal (CCD 01 Soil Export) Since the Project Manager identified it as an architecture error,it was the Committee's consensus to discuss the error with Design West so that it can be remedied. The Committee would like to know what happened? Why? Who is responsible for the error? What action should be taken?The Project Manager also classified the change order as a District contingency. For the record, Hasan Tahat stated that the DOC. 407 Design team should be responsible for this(soil removal)cost. It is not to be from contingency. The contingency is unforeseen. It was a mistake in the design by under-estimating the soil volume. It is not the contractor's responsibility. • GN Northern CR 07 Pricing The Committee recommended approval of the pricing. However,they would like to know if the Project Manager is still okay with the amount since he initially disputed it. Is there still a credit? Are the markups reasonable? • Sod vs. Hydroseed The Committee discussed options and pricing and agreed to proceed with hydroseeding since the pricing was too high. New Business—The next meeting was rescheduled for Thursday,November 12,2020, at the Summitview Elementary construction site. Public Comments—There were no public comments. RECEIVED Adjournment—The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. AUG 0 5 CITY OF YAKIMr PLANNING DIV DOC. INDEX # F- 408 Attachment#4 Picture taken standing on the west side, south end of the walking path. As you can see from this view, the dirt is even with the roofs and it will look even higher from the parking lot. This is why we expressed our many safety and security concerns to include law enforcement no longer having a clear site line to our properties. RECEIVED AUG 0 5 912 CITY OF YAKlivi PLANNING DIV .J • • • :Tire. h. f•N� .. .• IT.. \N '51