Richland Planning Commission reviews proposed parks and new natural environment element

The Richland Planning Commission reviewed proposed parks and recreation and a new natural environment element for the citywide comprehensive plan at its evening meeting.

Millianne Van Dever, a planner with AHBL, said the parks and recreation material is intentionally brief — a one-page element that will be adopted by reference to a separate, more detailed parks plan so the city remains eligible for Recreation and Conservation Office funding. "It's awesome," Van Dever said of the parks plan while summarizing its role in documenting park acreage, trails and program needs.

Van Dever said the natural environment element is being proposed to align with Growth Management Act guidance and state agencies including the Department of Commerce, Ecology and Fish and Wildlife. The chapter would bring together discussion of critical areas (wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas), the shorelines master program and best available science to guide policies and implementing regulations.

Mike, a city staff member, told commissioners the city's updated shoreline master program has completed local review and is in higher‑level review at Ecology; Ecology sent clarifying questions back to local staff and approval will follow once those are addressed. "It's only been 2 years and 2 months," Mike said of the timeline for that review.

Commissioners asked for clarification on public engagement and data sources. Van Dever said two surveys and an open house informed the drafts; the outreach asked residents to rank priorities and, she said, 41% of respondents were moderately concerned about environmental impacts of growth and 29% were very concerned. That input helped shape goals and policies proposed for the natural environment element.

Discussion focused on policy wording and the required mitigation sequence. Commissioners debated whether language that currently reads "avoid disturbance" should be softened to "minimize" or whether the plan should explicitly mirror the state-required mitigation hierarchy, which begins with avoidance. Mike and multiple commissioners said the avoidance-first hierarchy is part of state law and should be reflected, noting mitigation sequencing affects land‑use reviews and reasonable‑use determinations.

Commissioners also raised concerns about ongoing flood issues and drainage. One commissioner noted debris-blocked channels from recent floods have left some sites wet for months and asked whether policy language should include repair or restoration obligations; a commissioner suggested phrasing such as "protect and maintain" existing natural drainage systems so the plan stays within the city's scope for action.

Van Dever outlined next steps: staff will continue drafting remaining elements (land use and housing are expected to be larger efforts), the team will solicit edits and return to the commission for public hearings, and development regulations (including critical areas code and other implementing ordinances) will be updated after the comp plan hearings. She asked that commissioners funnel suggested edits to Mike sooner rather than later because changes in one element can require adjustments elsewhere.

The commission approved the meeting agenda and accepted minutes by formal motions at the start of the meeting. Chair Richardson adjourned the meeting and noted an open house workshop was scheduled to begin immediately afterward.

The commission did not take further formal actions on the comp plan elements at this meeting; staff will bring revised drafts and a schedule for public hearings back to the commission.