West Richland council approves preferred alternative for Lewis and Clark Ranch draft EIS

The West Richland City Council at its hybrid meeting approved a preferred alternative for the Lewis and Clark Ranch draft environmental impact statement (EIS), directing staff to use a hybrid plan based on the city's reasonable alternative as the basis for the final EIS and subsequent subarea plan and implementation.

The preferred alternative, presented by Casey Bradfield and summarized by Community Development Director Eric Minnenhall, modifies the city's reasonable alternative (alternative 3) to address recent market trends, evolving state habitat guidance and updated plans for transportation and utilities. Minnenhall and Bradfield told the council the recommendation reconfigures some light industrial areas, realigns park frontage along arterials and phases growth to match utility service basins and transportation improvements.

Bradfield said staff recommends "a hybrid preferred alternative based most closely on alternative 3," noting the adjustment was coordinated with the property owner and informed by public comments and the planning commission's review. The recommended Phase 1 area is roughly 770 acres and is the portion the city expects to accommodate most growth over the next 20 years.

Why it matters: The council's action sets the version of the plan that the final EIS will analyze and that will inform a planned action ordinance for Phase 1. That ordinance is intended to streamline permitting for developments that meet the plan's mitigation measures; projects outside Phase 1 or projects that raise new significant environmental issues would still require additional SEPA review.

Key details: Staff said Phase 1 is planned to accommodate about 2,700 jobs and 3,800 housing units (rounded figures offered in the presentation). For the full subarea, staff estimated long-term capacity at roughly 20,000 jobs and 32,000 housing units, and noted full build-out could take 50 to 100-plus years and will require additional water rights and infrastructure. Eric Minnenhall told the council the overall Lewis and Clark Ranch plan covers about 7,700 acres and that full-site planning is a century-scale effort.

During council discussion members pressed staff on density, critical-area treatment and the phased approach. Council member Richard Bloom asked whether the preferred alternative increased density relative to the applicant's original proposal; Minnenhall and Bradfield said the preferred alternative sits between the applicant's higher-density submittal and the city's reasonable alternative. Minnenhall provided detailed counts on request: for Phase 1, the applicant's alternative (alternative 2) was listed as accommodating 2,937 jobs and 3,926 housing units, while the preferred alternative would accommodate about 2,684 jobs and 3,795 housing units. For the full subarea the applicant's numbers were 20,327 jobs and 33,879 housing units versus the preferred alternative's 19,586 jobs and 31,377 housing units.

Council member Kate Moran asked why areas identified as possible critical habitat were shown with a mixed-residential designation rather than as park or conserved land; staff replied the analysis shows potential habitat and geohazards but said state guidance and future comprehensive-plan updates could change requirements. Minnenhall said staff and the city had met with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and, because expectations and guidance differed, staff recommended leaving a zoning designation in place now and addressing conservation needs when future phases are more imminent.

On transportation and urban design, staff said the plan favors a grid street network, multimodal streets, and a pattern code that would be adopted separately this fall. Minnenhall said the plan includes trail and park connectivity and acknowledged trade-offs made to reduce park frontage on arterials for safety while preserving trail connections.

Public comment on the item was limited: staff said the planning commission public hearing drew one speaker (the property owner, in support), and only one resident spoke at council public comment, expressing concern that park acreage appeared small relative to projected population. Desiree Ashley said, "It looks like it's very small," in reference to the park shown on the map.

Action taken: The council moved to approve the preferred alternative for the Lewis and Clark Ranch draft EIS as presented. The motion passed by voice vote; the record shows a voice affirmative with no roll-call tally provided in the transcript and the mayor stating the motion carries.

What remains: Staff will prepare the final EIS using the preferred alternative as the basis for analysis and will bring details of the subarea code, infrastructure plans and the planned action ordinance back to council in future hearings. Minnenhall and Bradfield told council that later phases will undergo their own environmental and planning review as they approach development.

Ending note: Council members cautioned that much of the map is illustrative for a multi-decade horizon and that detailed development standards, density allocations and critical-area determinations will be addressed in future phases and code updates.