West Richland staff outline water and mitigation plans in Lewis and Clark Ranch FEIS review

West Richland held a joint planning commission and city council workshop where staff and consultants presented the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), a draft sub area plan and a planned-action ordinance for the Lewis and Clark Ranch sub area.

Consultant Casey, who led the presentation, said the FEIS documents the city’s preferred alternative under the State Environmental Policy Act and includes a new chapter summarizing public comments and the city’s responses, plus seven appendices. "The final environmental impact statement or FEIS ... provides review under the state environmental policy act," Casey said, noting the final document also describes the preferred alternative and Phase 1 boundary the city selected after public review.

City staff emphasized the planned-action ordinance’s role as an implementation tool that would allow the city to streamline project-level SEPA review for developments that meet the ordinance’s criteria. The ordinance includes Section 3 criteria for determining planned-action eligibility, maps of the Phase 1 area and a mitigation document listing measures projects must meet. Casey said the planned-action ordinance sets growth thresholds and capacity checkpoints; once those checkpoints are reached additional CEPA/SEPA review would be required.

On water and utilities, city staff told commissioners the applicant will fund necessary infrastructure. "They're gonna be building a new well for us and then dedicating that to the city, and then we'll take over ownership and operation of it," a city staff member said during the discussion, describing a new well identified as well 13. Staff said the developer will also pay for system upgrades and an inner tie to the Richland water system to provide the balance of Phase 1 capacity and to support future phases.

Staff said the city will require mitigation measures that may include either a development agreement with the property owner or a fee program to collect funds for cumulative mitigation across the Phase 1 area. The city intends to include a supplemental checklist for project review and monitoring steps so a master developer or a development-agreement framework manages mitigation obligations as projects approach trigger points. As staff explained, the planned-action ordinance and the development agreement are intended to ensure the costs of mitigation fall on the developer, not city ratepayers.

Commissioners asked technical questions about how mitigation triggers are tracked and how water ERUs (equivalent residential units) are allocated. In response, an agency official explained that ERUs are a capacity accounting method: once a required infrastructure project (for example, the new well or a wastewater-treatment expansion) is complete, a defined number of ERUs will be allocated to development and subsequent permits will not be issued until required infrastructure and mitigation are in place.

Staff laid out the procedural schedule for public review: the project will go to the planning commission for a public hearing on April 9, return to council on April 21, and could be considered for adoption at a May 5 meeting. There were no formal actions on the FEIS or ordinance at this workshop; the only recorded motion was a procedural motion to excuse Commissioner Michael Peterson.

The workshop closed with staff agreeing to bring the development-agreement checklist and mitigation monitoring details forward during the public hearing process. The next formal opportunity for public input will be the planning commission public hearing on April 9.