West Richland receives update on Lewis and Clark Ranch planned‑action EIS and draft development code

West Richland officials received an update Aug. 26 on the Lewis and Clark Ranch subarea plan’s environmental review and a proposed SEPA planned‑action ordinance, and heard an introduction to a draft development code consultants said would shape building form, streets and open space in the project’s Phase 1 area.

Consultant Casey Bradfield of Burke said the planned‑action ordinance would be adopted alongside the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the ranch and would define where planned actions can occur, what types of development are allowed in the Phase 1 area and the area‑wide mitigation projects required by the EIS. "When the City adopts the final EIS for the ranch, they would also be adopting a planned action ordinance," Bradfield said. "That would establish where planned actions can occur… the types of development that are allowed there…and area wide mitigation measures, which would be based on that EIS."

The nut graf: A SEPA planned action lets a jurisdiction study and address the cumulative environmental impacts of a large, phased project in advance so that future individual development applications that meet the ordinance’s criteria do not require separate SEPA review. Consultants told the council this approach is intended to shorten permitting timelines and provide developers and the city more predictability on mitigation and infrastructure needs for the first build‑out area.

How a planned action would work: the city would (1) adopt the EIS, (2) adopt a planned‑action ordinance that maps the Phase 1 planned‑action area and lists allowed uses and growth thresholds, and (3) attach exhibits (a Phase 1 map, mitigation list drawn from the EIS, and a checklist for staff and applicants). Casey Bradfield said the ordinance would include monitoring language so the city could "look at the projects that have been approved and see how well are they doing at complying with the EIS and the mitigation" and could allow amendments if unanticipated impacts arise.

Consultants explained growth thresholds would be numeric limits tied to the preferred alternative already approved by the council this month; examples mentioned were total vehicle trips, sewer and water equivalent residential units (ERUs), jobs and housing counts. If a development application demonstrates it meets the ordinance criteria and mitigation, consultants said a planned action designation would let the city proceed with permitting without additional SEPA analysis.

The council and planning commissioners also received an introduction to a draft form‑based development code intended to implement the subarea plan’s land‑use designations. Consultant Oneiza (Burke) described the code as focusing on the built environment and the public experience: building form standards, street and connectivity requirements, frontage types, block standards, civic and park standards, and subdivision and administration rules.

Key code details discussed during the meeting included: recommended smaller commercial‑core block lengths (about 300 feet, with a sliding scale up to 660 feet and required mid‑block pedestrian connections when blocks exceed roughly 330 feet); a 15‑foot minimum sidewalk width in the commercial core to allow furniture zones and small outdoor dining; building‑form types such as linear, flex, courtyard and mixed‑use buildings; mixed‑use transition areas described as roughly a 40% commercial / 60% residential split (applied across the zone rather than to every single building); and allowance for buildings up to four stories in the commercial core. The consultants also said streetscape and xeriscape landscaping standards were being drafted to reflect the Tri‑Cities’ dry climate.

Council members and commissioners pressed on implementation and public‑safety details. Councilman Bluhm asked who would monitor the planned action and what criteria would be used; Casey Bradfield replied that monitoring provisions would be written into the ordinance and could trigger amendments if projects show impacts that were not studied in the EIS. Councilmember Kate asked for a written determination from the fire chief about safe building heights and fire access; Kate said she wanted documentation about which heights the city’s fire resources could serve before finalizing any allowance for four‑story buildings. Kate also asked about the viability of parking structures and whether they are commonly used in the Tri‑Cities area.

Consultants and staff addressed safety and design concerns. Planning Commissioner Nancy Aldridge and others noted design tools such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), lighting and sightlines can make parking behind buildings safe if designed properly; the consultants said parking could be permitted behind buildings while still leaving visible access points and lighting so lots are not isolated. Staff also said they are coordinating with the conservation district on drought‑tolerant landscaping and with public works on street cross sections and root‑barrier details for street trees.

Some council members said they were wary of adopting a form‑based code as a citywide mandate. Councilmember John Smart argued the city could achieve many of the same outcomes through existing zoning, conditional use permits and private covenants and said he did not want the city to require one particular development style. Staff and consultants countered that a clear code provides predictability for developers, consistency for the city and reduces the number of ad hoc conditional use reviews and associated litigation risk.

No final decisions were made at the meeting. Staff and the consultants said they will return this fall with drafts for formal review and potential adoption. The consultants asked council members and commissioners to continue providing feedback on specific standards before the code and the planned‑action ordinance are released for public review.

Ending note: staff said the planned action and code are intended as implementation tools tied to the preferred alternative the council approved earlier this month; adoption would not occur at the meeting and will require future council action and additional review.