Special Planning Commission Meeting

City of Prosser PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Virtual Thursday, February 3, 2022 @ 6:00 PM Per Ordinance 21-3146, all Planning Commission meetings will be held remotely until further notice. The City asks all members of the public that wish to comment on Board agenda items, to please contact Community Development Director, Zetz via email at szetz@ci.prosser.wa.us or by phone at (509) 786-8212, no later than 4:00 p.m., the day of the meeting. Please state your first and last name, city of residence and the agenda item you wish to comment on. To join the meeting, please click on the following link from your computer, tablet or smartphone: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/590067637 You can also dial in using your phone: United States: +1 (646) 749-3112 Access Code: 590-067-637 New to GoToMeeting? Get the app now and be ready when the meeting starts: https://global.gotomeeting.com/install/590067637 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. BOARD ACTION a. Approval of Meeting Minutes December 30, 2021 3-4 PC 12-30-2021 b. Approval of Meeting Minutes January 20, 2022 5-7 PC 01-20-2022 4. PUBLIC HEARING a. AraBella West Preliminary Plat Subdivision (PAD) Public Hearing -Continued 8 - 37 Public Hearing Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the Planned Area Development Preliminary Plat for AraBella West and require compliance with mitigation measures identified in the MDNS and comply with any additional improvements that may be required under the traffic analysis. 5. BOARD ACTION Page 1 of 37  a. Findings Findings will be prepared and brought back for action at the next Regular Commission Meeting. OR Authorize the Secretary and the Chair to draft and sign findings consistent with the determination and conditions of approval as adopted by the Planning Commission. 6. BOARD DISCUSSION a. Training Opportunities: New Basic Short Course Videos Introduction to the Short Course. 5 minutes Comprehensive Planning Basics. 11 minutes Implementing Your Plan. 10 minutes Updating Your Plan. 10 minutes Washington’s Legal Framework for Land Use Planning. 7 minutes Constitutional Issues and Other Protections. 8 minutes Roles and Responsibilities in Planning. 7 minutes Public Participation and Effective Meetings. 7 minutes Open Public Meetings Act. 27 minutes OPMA Certificate Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. 17 minutes 7. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 37  CITY OF PROSSER PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY DECEMBER 30, 2021 CITY HALL (VIRTUAL), PROSSER, WASHINGTON CALL TO ORDER: The virtual meeting of the Prosser Planning Commission was called to order at 6:16 p.m. December 2, 2021, by Vice-Chair Don Howell. ROLL CALL: Members present: Commissioners Don Howell, Maricela Sanchez, and Ashley Swinehart. Trevor Day and Aaron Williams had excused absences. City Staff present: Community Development Director, Steve Zetz and Secretary, Howard Saxton. MINUTES: Given only three Commissioners were present, the Vice-Chair, by consensus of those present, moved approval of the minutes to the next meeting of the Commission. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIDDEN PARK VILLAS PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION: The Vice-Chair opened the public hearing. No con?icts were identi?ed for this hearing. Steve Zetz summarized the application for the Subdivision as follows: the plat proposes 11 lots with private streets, the shape and topography of property present unique circumstancesand challenges to develop it in a manner that is commercially feasible, the property is 1.69 acres, under the Prosser Municipal Code a Planned Area Development (PAD) must be 2.5 acres, the Applicant has requested that the Planning Commission grant a .81 acre variance in the required size of a PAD, the City lacks an in?ll ordinance to allow waiver of development requirements without using a PAD, the City mailed notice of the application to all property owners within 300 feet of the exterior dimensions of the Subdivision, the City provided notice of the application to agencies with jurisdiction over the Subdivision, one comment letter was received from John and Joharme Porter, approximately an additional 81 trips per day will result from full build out of the subdivision, the Market Street/Park Avenue intersection will continue to function at a LOS of C or better, the Applicant will complete frontage improvements to the property, the Applicant provides for a tum-around that is large enough to accommodate ?re apparatus and refuse vehicles, the number of lots does not require a second access, the City has issued a MDNS for the application. Mr. Zetz also indicated that the applicant will have to provide open space as required by the Prosser Municipal Code. Commissioner Sanchez asked if sidewalks were being provided on Park Avenue. Mr. Zetz indicated that sidewalks are present on the other side of the street and the Applicant can only be required to make improvements to its frontage. The Vice-Chair closed the public hearing. Mr. Zetz indicated that staff recommends approval of the variance and the PAD Subdivision. Commissioner Sanchez Page 3 of 37 asked if the trees on the top of the slope were being removed and whether the City had an ordinance requiring trees to be maintained. Mr. Zetz indicated that he did not know whether the trees would be retained, but the Applicant had no plans to build near those trees. He stated that the City does not require subdividers to maintain trees when subdividing. Commissioner Howell asked where the Porters’ property was located, and Mr. Zetz identi?ed their property on a map. Maricela Sanchez moved and Ashley Swinehart seconded that the Commission recommend approval of the Subdivision and Variance to the City Council, provided that the applicant comply with the written ?ndings to be issued in this matter and that the applicant comply with the MDNS issued in this matter All approved. Ashley Swinehart moved and Maricela Sanchez seconded that the Secretary and Vice—Chairbe authorized to draft ?ndings in support of the Commission’s recommendation to Council. All approved. FLOODPLAIN MANAGE ORDINANCE CA UPDATE: Mr. Zetz indicated that staff is working on an update to the CAV as required by the Department of Ecology. Staff anticipates a work session in F ebruary with a public hearing in March. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE: Mr. Zetz indicated that staff is working on a required update to the City’s Shoreline Management Program. The update should be ready for the Planning Commission to review in late Spring. The City will adopt a public participation plan for the update. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was ADJOURNED at 6:41 p.m. The next meeting will be on January 20, 2022. Respectfully Submitted, HOWARD M. SAXTON, III, Secretary Page 4 of 37  CITY or PROSSER PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY JANUARY 20, 2022 CITY HALL (VIRTUAL), PROSSER, WASHINGTON CALL TO ORDER: The virtual meeting of the Prosser Planning Commission was called to order at 6:03 p.m. January 20, 2022, by Vice-Chair Don Howell. The Vice-Chair took a ?ve-minute recess to wait for more Commissioners to arrive. The meeting was recalled to order at 6:08 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members present: Commissioners Don Howell, Maricela Sanchez, and Ashley Swinehart. Trevor Day and Aaron Williams had excused absences. City Staff present: Community Developmen Director, Steve Zetz and Secretary, Howard Saxton. t MINUTES: Since only threeCommissioners were present, the Vice-Chair, by consensus of those present, moved approval of the minutes to the next meeting of the Commission. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ALMANZA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION: The Vice-Chair opened the public hearing. No con?icts were identi?ed for this hearing. Steve Zetz indicated that the Applicant requested that this matter be continued to make some changes to their application. The Commissioners,by consensus, decided to take testimony from those present before continuing the hearing. Darren and Mel Bowden (600 Lincoln Court) testi?ed as follows: they are concerned about the increase in traffic and that they believe traffic will triple, the improvements in the subdivision could block their views that they have enjoyed for 50 years, and they are concerned about the noise and the number of homes in such a small area. Erika Hartliep (1401 South Kinney Way) testi?ed as follows: this is a unique property located westerly of Painted Hills, it is on a hill, she and her husband own the house on the top of the hill, her property is surrounded by this subdivision,the property is currently undeveloped and has been used for grazing in the past, they have an access easement to their house through the proposed subdivision, they want to maintain their access easement where it is currently located, the development is using 300 square feet of their property without their consent, the private streets are not appropriate for this subdivision and she does not want to access her property from a private street, she is concerned that the excavation could cause slides if appropriately engineered retaining walls or rock walls are not installed, the applicant has not accounted for the numerous irrigation lines Page 5 of 37 running through the subdivision that serve her property, and that she wants her private property rights protected. Ashley Swinehart moved and Maricela Sanchez seconded that the public hearing be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to be held on February 17, 2022. All approved. PRELIMINARY PLAT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ARABELLA WEST SUBDIVISION: The Vice-Chair opened the public hearing. No con?icts were identi?ed for this hearing. Mr. Zetz indicated that this subdivision is a Planned Area Development with 154 lots. Because townhomes will be built, the Applicant received a density bonus. A comment letter was received from the Washington State Department of Transportation. Anthony Potts testi?ed as follows: he works with the developer Ambiance Homes, he has no issue with half street improvements but does not believe the developer should have to construct curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting on the other side of Hoisington or on Albro, there is a substantial park/open space planned for the development including a trail, garden, dog park and other recreational facilities. Commissioner Sanchez asked about the width of the lots. Mr. Zetz indicated that they were twenty-?ve feet wide with proposed single family attached duplexes. Mr. Zetz indicated that the City’s SEPA determinationhas not yet been issued. Gavin Gervais, the Applicant’s representative, indicated that he would like to see the SEPA mitigation measures before they are issued. Maricela Sanchez moved and Ashley Swinehart seconded that the hearing be continued to a special meeting of the Commission to be held on February 3, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. All approved. DISCUSSION OF PRIVATE STREETS: Mr. Zetz indicated that The City Council had been making comments regarding private streets. He indicated that there are a number of existing private streets in the City including Desert Cove and Concord Court. He also stated that in order to have gated communities the City would have to allow for private streets. The Commissioners had the following comments: Private streets allow ?exibility for developers. 0 Hidden Park Villas would not have been possible without private streets. 0 Where only a few homes are proposed, it does not make sense for the City as a whole to pay to maintain these streets which are essentially driveways. 0 We need to make sure private streets are safe and that they are wide enough for cars to turn around and for ?re apparatus and refuse vehicles to operate safely. 0 Maintenance of private streets needs to be guaranteed. 0 Private streets should be accessible. 0 Streets that do not provide access to other parts of the City could be private so that the public does not have to bear the cost of maintaining them. Page 6 of 37  0 For larger subdivisions streets, even if they do no connect to other areas of the City, should usually be public. 0 Whether the new owners of lots in the subdivision have the ?nancial capability to maintain private streets should be taken into account before they are allowed. 0 More information is needed for the Commission to have a full discussion of this topic. 0 Staff should bring back sample policies from other jurisdictions regarding the issue. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the Plarming Commission, the meeting was ADJOURNED at 7:19 p.m. The next meeting will be on February 3, 2022. Respectfully Submitted, HOWARD M. SAXTON, III, Secretary Page 7 of 37  CITY OF PROSSER, WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Meeting Date: AraBella West Preliminary Plat Subdivision February 3, 2022 (PAD) Public Hearing -Continued Special Planning Commission Meeting Item Type: Action Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Planning Steve Zetz Steve Zetz 509-786-2332 Commission Cost of Proposal: Fund Name and Number: NA Amount Budgeted: NA Reviewed by Finance Department: NA Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. Application Packet 2. SEPA Checklist 3. Plat Map 4. SEPA Determination (MDNS) 5. Comment Letters Summary Statement: This is a hearing that was continued from January 20, 2022. The City of Prosser has received an application for a 154 unit subdivision under a Planned Area Development (PAD) for zero lot line housing. Applicant is proposing to construct the streets to City standards and dedicate those streets to the City. Applicant is proposing improvements to open space in order to meet the requirements of the PAD regulations. As proposed the applicant meets all minimum requirements under Chapter 17 and Chapter 18. A density bonus was calculated as per Chapter 17.20.030 C. Permitted Density. In single-family zones the permitted density in the zoning district may be developed with townhouses of equivalent environmental impact. The number of townhouses permitted shall be calculated as follows: Permitted single-family density x 1.43 = Page 8 of 37 The number of permitted townhouses. The number of permitted townhouses shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. Staff recommends conditioning approval based on the adopted MDNS and requiring a traffic analysis to determine what, if any, improvements would be needed at the intersection of Albro, Hoizington, and Wine Country Road. Consistent with Council Goal: Goal #1: Livability & Quality of Life, Goal #3: Promote Economic Development & Jobs, Goal #4: Infrastructure & Transportation Recommended Action/Suggested Motion: Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the Planned Area Development Preliminary Plat for AraBella West and require compliance with mitigation measures identified in the MDNS and comply with any additional improvements that may be required under the traffic analysis. Reviewed by Department Reviewed by City Attorney: Approved by City Director: Administrator: Steve Zetz N/A Date: Jan 27, 2022 Date: Date: Page 9 of 37  CITY OF PROSSER, WASHINGTON NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION AND OPTIONAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON SIGN IFICAN CE [MDNS] Arabella West Subdivision Notice of Application and Optional Determination of Non-signi?cance posted December 29, 2021 Type of Application: SEPA Checklist / Subdivision / Planned Area Development Date of Application: December 8, 2021 Name of Applicant: Knutzen Engineering / AAA renovation & Construction LLC/Anthony Potts Location of Project: Located west of Albro Road and south of Hoizington Road # 134942000010002 Description of proposed project: 154 lot subdivision under Residential Medium Zoning using the planned area Development calculation and density bonus (xl.43) for townhomes. VICENETYMAP O‘ I W HUI?-.|N?N R SITE Ezmm_..._ E... _§._u._... CONTACTS Other permits: The following additional permits are associated with this application: Building Permit The following studies have been required pursuant to RCW 36.70B.O70: SEPA Checklist Preliminary determination of consistency: The City has determined that this application is consistent with the City’s Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review: The City is using the optional process contained in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 197-ll-355to make its threshold determination. Page 10 of 37 The City expects to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non-signi?cance (MDNS) for this project. Proposed Mitigation 1. Determine what impacts to lift station 4 will occur and require payment for the developments impact. 2. Require half street frontage improvements to City standards for Albro and Hoizington Road 3. Require paved surfacing of the travel lane opposite the Albro road frontages to ensure north and south bound traffic abutting the development are adequate. 4. Require adequate recreation space as per PMC Chapter 17. A combined regional park with other developments is an option. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed project. A copy of the subsequent Threshold Determination for the project may be obtained upon request. The lead agency, the City of Prosser, will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the published date below. City of Prosser Contact: Steve Zetz Planning Director City of Prosser 1002 Dudley, Prosser, WA, 99350 Comments: The public is invited to comment on the application and environmental review. The public comment period shall be 15—days and will begin December 29, 2021. All public comments received on the Notice of Application must be received by the City of Prosser no later than 5:00 pm, January 12, 2022. Comments may be mailed or personally delivered to the; Attn: Prosser City Clerk PO Box 1639 Prosser, Washington, 99350 All available information and related documents for the application may be viewed at the City Clerk’s Office, located at Prosser City Hall, 1002 Dudley St, Prosser, Washington, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding of?cial holidays, or may be viewed at www.cit of rosser.com. The person(s) receiving this notice may request a copy of the ?nal decision in this matter. The ?nal decisions may be appealed in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70C). Page 11 of 37 Dated: December 20, 2021 Steve Zetz City Planner Published: Prosser Record Bulletin City of Prosser Publish Date: December 29, 2021 City of Prosser, Washington Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING January 20, 2022, at 6:00 PM Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given by the undersigned Community Development Director of the City of Prosser, Washington that the Prosser City Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing at a REGULAR MEETING at 6:00 pm, or as soon as possible, on Thursday January 20, 2022 for the purpose of receiving public comments regarding a request for a Planned Area Development Preliminary Subdivision Plat application for the same site identi?ed above. The Public Hearing will be held remotely/virtually Via GoToMeeting. Ordinance Per .. ._ ' 1.. . . A 20-3122 . .. 24, all Planning Commission meetings will be held remotely until further notice. The City asks all members of the public that wish to comment on agenda items, to please contact Community Development Director Steve Zetz via email at szetz@ciggofgrosser.com or by phone at (509) 786-8212, no later than 4:00 p.m., the day of the meeting. Please state your ?rst and last name, city of residence and agenda item you wish to comment on. To join in the remote/virtual Planning Commission meeting and participate in or listen to the Public Hearing, please join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone by visiting the following website: h s:// lobal. otomeetin .com/'oin/590067637 You can also dial in using your phone. Page 12 of 37 United States: +1 (646) 749-3112 Access Code: 590-067-637 New to GoToMeeting? Get the app now htt s:// lobal. otomeetin .com/install/590067637 All interested persons are encouraged to attend remotely/Virtually. No quali?ed individuals with a disability shall be excluded or denied the bene?t of participation in the Public Hearing. The City of Prosser asks all members of the public that wishes to comment on Council agenda items, to please contact City Clerk Rachel Shaw Via email at rshaw ci. rosser.wa.us or by phone at (509) 786-8218, no later than 4:00 p.m., the day of the meeting to make arrangements. Please state your first and last name, city of residence and agenda item or topic you with to comment on. All timely received written comments will be posted to the city’s website, www.ci 0 rosser. com , prior to the meeting or Public Hearing. Dated: December 20, 2021 Steve Zetz, Community Development Director City of Prosser Publication Dates: December 29, 2021 Page 13 of 37  LUA-2 LAND USE APPLICATION SUBDIVISION CITY OF PROSSER, WASHINGTON APPLICANTS NAME Knutzen Engineering, Nathan Machiela PROJECT NAME Hoisington Road - Subdivision PARCEL INFORMATION (Include all parce1(s)information. Attach additional sheets, if necessaxy.) project Address; 146403 W Hoisington Rd, Prosser, WA 99350 (Leave blank if not assigned) Parcel Number (Property Tax Account Number): 13494200001 0002 Legal Description; See addtionai information. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name: AAA Renovation & Construction LLC, Anthony Potts Address; 3 E Heleha PaSCO State: Phone: (509) 591 '51 35 Cell Phone: Email: am bienceanew mail-Com email will not be used for transmittal of official ?ndin E)s OWNERS AUTHORIZED AGENT: KnUtZen Engineering, Nathan MaCnlela Address: 5401 Ridgeline Dr, Suite 160 City; Kennewick State:wA Zip:99333 Phone: (509) 222'0959 Cell Phone: Email: ”atha”@k"‘”tze”e”9'“ee”“9- °°m email will not be used for transmittal of of?cial ?ndin s PROJECT INFORMATION 3 Preliminary Subdivision Plat II Binding Site Plan CI Alterations to Preliminary Plat '_'l Vacation of Subdivision CI Vacation of Street D Final Subdivision Plat CI Short Plat with Dedication of Right—of-Way 3 Alteration of Subdivision Cl Short Plat w/o Dedication of Right-of-Way 5 Planned Area Development (PAD) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes a Planned Area Development which divides the current parcel into 154 multi-family lots which will contain duplex units. The project proposes two public access roads onto Hoisington Road which loops around the development. A large tract is proposed and would be used for open space, outdoor recreation, and walking trails. City of Prosser 601 7"‘Street Prosser WA 99350 PMC-18 Revised 12-29- Page 14 of 37  PLEASE ATTACH THE RE UIRED VICINITY MAP ESTIMATED PROJECT VALUATION: $ 42 350 000.00 CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Company Name: T0 be determined Email: Contact Person: Contact Phone: Address: City: State: Zip: Con1Iactor’sRegistration No.: Expiration Date: I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information on this application and other submitted information is true and correct. In addition,I understand that acceptance of this application and fees does not constitute submittal of a valid applicationuntil so informed by the City. I have attached, enclosed, or submitted’ e pplicable fees for this application. ID12%? 0'1.» I 10/28/2021 Applicant Signature Date Owner Signature Date If the property owner is other than an individualsuch as a corporation, partnership or agency, please provide proof of signatory authorization. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: THE EAST ONEIHALFOF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NoRTHwEsT QUARTER, EXCEPT HIGHWAY AND EXCEPT ROADS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIONSOF RECORD 10-26-62. EXCEPTTHAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE EAST 27o FEET OF THE EAST HALFOF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH.RANGE24 EAST. W.M. (SEGREGATION PER AF#2011-011276, 4/19/2011 SUPERIOR COURT ORDER) CITY USE ONLY RECIEVED BY DATE APPROVED BY DATE RETURNED DATE REASON FOR APPLICATION RETURN PMC-17-051506 Rev 12-29- 07 Page 15 of 37  SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are signi?cant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures willaddress the probable signi?cant 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 ma use “not a |icable” or I onl when ou can ex lain wh itdoes not a DD‘! "does not a DDV " I and not when the answer is unknown. 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 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 signi?cant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the ?rst but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTALSHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (P art 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 1 Name of proposed project, if applicable: Hoisington Road Subdivision 2. Name of applicant: Knutzen Engineering (Nathan Machiela) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 1 of12 Page 16 of 37 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Nathan Machiela; 5401 Ridgeline Dr Suite 160, Kennewick, WA 99338. 4. Date checklist prepared: 12/08/2021 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Prosser 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Preliminary Plat: December 2021, Construction: March 2022 March 2023. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None currently. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A geotechnical survey was prepared by GN Norther, Inc in October of 2021. An archaeological study willbe prepared if required by the local jurisdiction. A hydrology report will be prepared to address stormwater management. 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. None known of. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Prosser Grading Permit; City of Prosser Building Permit, City of Prosser Right of way and utility permits. Department of Ecology General Stormwater Pennit. 11. Give 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. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional speci?c information on project description.) The proposal is to create a subdivision with 154 multi-family lots on the 17.97-acre property. City of Prosser standard residential streets willbe constructed to serve the subdivision. Two access roads to the site willbe from WHoisington and loop through the property. Public sewer, water, power, gas and communication mains and sen/ices willbe constructed to sen/ice the new housing. Stormwater conveyance and in?ltration facilities willbe constructed to collect and dispose of stormwater. Open Space requirements of PMC 17.20.030 E willbe met through the creation of the 5.46-acre "Tract A” which includes a 6-foot gravel path, Dog Park, and Community Garden. 12. Location of the proposal. Give suf?cient 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 2 of 12 Page 17 of 37  Parcel #134942000010002. 146403 WHoisington Rd, Prosser, WA 99350. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 6% slope. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classi?cation of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of |ong—term commercial signi?cance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The subsurface soil conditions across the site are non-uniform based on the completed geotechnical ?eld exploration. Soils on-site typically consist of non-plastic Sandy Silt (ML) overlying shallow weathered fractured bedrock and poorly graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP-GM) with some cobbles and boulders. A thin layer of silty soil overlies the weathered fractured bedrock across much of the site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known of. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any ?lling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of ?ll. Approximately 14 acres would be graded to accommodate the new subdivision. We anticipate approximately 15,000 CY of material to be moved on-site. The site is expected to balance without import or export material. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Wind and stormwater erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction activity but willbe minimized with the use of BMP’s, such as silt fencing, construction entrance and dust control watering. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 20% of the site willbe impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard erosion control and BMP methods willbe used, such as catch basin protection, silt fencing, and stabilized construction entrances. Dust during construction will be controlled by the use of a water truck as necessary SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 3 of 12 Page 18 of 37 2. Air a. 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. During construction dust and exhaust may occur. The ?nal project willhave vehicular traf?c which will contribute to vehicle emissions. b. Are there any off—sitesources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Dust control measure willbe implemented in accordance with recommendations by the Department of Ecology and the Benton County Clean Air Authority. Measures include but are not limited to watering, lowering speed limit of construction vehicles, dust control with a watering truck and reducing the amount of dust-generating activities on windy days. 3. Water a. 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 ?ows into. The Yakima river is approximately 1.4 miles away from the site. 2) Willthe project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of ?ll 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 ?ll material. None. 4) Vl?llthe proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year ?oodplain? if so, note location on the site plan. No. 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. No. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 4 of 12 Page 19 of 37 b. Ground Water: 1) Vl?llgroundwater 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. Groundwater will not be withdrawn in this site. Stormwater generated by impervious surfaces willbe captured and disposed of via surface in?ltration. 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 system, 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. N/A. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where willthis water ?ow? Willthis water ?ow into other waters? If so, describe. The new impervious areas on-site will generate increased stonnwater runoff. The stormwater system for disposal will consist of catch basins, conveyance pipes and surface in?ltration through a large pond. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, the proposed system has a built-in water oil separator device (Inverted tee) to eliminate storm water contamination. 3) Does the proposal alter or othenlvise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. The drainage patterns willbe altered within the project boundaries by constructing roads and grading the lots and directed drainage different than the natural pattern. The drainage collected through catch basins willbe routed to ponds to mimic the natural drainage patterns as close as possible. Allgenerated stormwater runoff willbe contained on—siteto preserve natural drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Runoff generated from pervious surfaces willeither in?ltrate into underlying soils or ?ow to on-site in?ltration facilities. Stormwater disposal willbe designed by a licensed engineer and submitted for review to the City of Prosser. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 5 of 12 Page 20 of 37 4. Plants Check the types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: ?r, cedar, pine, other X shrubs __grass pasture ___)_(_ _crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily,eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Sage brush, trees, and desert grasses willbe removed as needed for construction. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known per the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Plants and trees willbe planted in interior landscaped areas and around the perimeter of the site improvements. A community garden is also proposed, located in “Tract A” of the subdivision plat. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None known. 5. Animals a. lg any birds and 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, son birds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None have been observed on-site. The Washington State Department of Fish and WildlifePriority Habitat Species Maps do not identify the site as a priority habitat for any wildlife species. c. is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 6 of12 Page 21 of 37  Yes, the Columbia Basin is pan‘ of a migration route for a number of fowl. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None known per the WSDA Noxious Weed Data Viewer. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) willbe used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical willbe used for lighting, heating and other appliances. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? lf so, generally describe. No. 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: Use of LED light ?xtures and energy ef?cient infrastructure. Project willbe in compliance with the current State of Washington energy codes. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of ?re and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known. 2) 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. None known. 3) 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. N/A. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Typical emergency services provided through the City willbe used for this site. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None currently SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 7 of 12 Page 22 of 37 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traf?c, equipment, operation, other)? Noise in the area is generated by traf?c on local roads and Interstate 82. These noises are not expected to affect the project negatively. 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)? indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. Short tenn: Construction noises during working hours only while construction is taking place. Long term: Traffic noise from residents. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise impacts from construction activities and ongoing operations are expected to be minimal. All operations will be conducted in a manner compliant with City of Prosser Policies and Washington State Maximum Environmental Noise Levels (Chapter 173-60-040 WAC). 8. 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. Currently the site is undeveloped land. The development willnot affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties. b. 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 signi?cance 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? No. 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: There is farm/and adjacent to the site, but it is not expected to effect or be effected by the proposal. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A. e. What is the current zoning classi?cation of the site? Residential, Medium Density f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 8 of 12 Page 23 of 37  Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classi?ed as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify Yes, a portion of the site is classified as a wetlands critical area. It is unclear the reasoning behind the designation, as the land appears very dry with no signs of wetlands. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 385 people would reside in the finished homes. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project will be permitted through the local jurisdictions with all applicable zoning ordinances. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of |ong—termcommercial signi?cance, if any‘ N/A. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. 154 units of middle income housing would be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: lmpact fees as detennined by City of Prosser willbe paid and the developer will install City infrastructure to serve the proposed lots. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materia|(s) proposed? Approximately 30’. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views are expected to be altered or obstructed. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: All materials and required landscaping willbe in accordance with local ordinances. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 9 of 12 Page 24 of 37 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare willthe proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? There willbe street and house lighting during the dark hours of the day. b. Could light or glare from the ?nished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known of. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Proposed lighting willbe appropriately screened to direct light downward. All lighting will be in accordance with local codes. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Wine tasting is common in the general area. A local airport is located approximately 0.6 miles from the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? It so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. 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, speci?cally describe. None known of in the immediate vicinity. The project is designated as moderately low risk to moderate risk for environmental factors with archaeological resources, per the DAHP’s WISAARD mapping. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are 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. None known. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page10of12 Page 25 of 37  Internet search for project site Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Register of Historic Places in Benton County. 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. Upon any discovery of potential or known archaeological resources at the subject property prior to or during future on-site construction, the developer, contractor, and/or any other parties involved in construction shall immediately cease all on-site construction, and shall act to protect the potential or known historical and cultural resources area from outside intrusion, and shall notify, within a maximum period of twenty-four hours from the time of discovery, the City of Prosser Community Development Department of said discovery 14 Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways sewing the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site willbe accessed off WHoisington Rd and S Albro Rd, both of which connect to Wine Country Rd. b. 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? No, the nearest transit stop is about 1.9 miles. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? Driveways and off-street parking would be created. No parking spaces would be eliminated. 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). Yes, additional public ROW willbe dedicated along the the projects frontage on S Albro Rd and W Hoisington Rd. Street improvements willbe necessary to make the roads compliant with City of Prosser standards. e. Willthe project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. There is a local airport located approximately 0.6 miles from the site. f. 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 as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Approximately 80 PM peak hour trips and 895 ADT according to lTE Trip Generator Manual, land use code 230. g. Willthe 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. No. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any" SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 11 of 12 Page 26 of 37  The development willpay impact fees as determined by the City of Prosser and provide street improvements as required by WSDOT and the City of Prosser. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: ?re protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, the subdivision will need public services such as ?re and police protection. And the new residents will need public services such as public transit, health care, and schools. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any The project willpay impact fees for development and the completed project willprovide additional tax revenue for the City 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electrici , natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other 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 the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity Benton PUD — Sewer— City of Prosser Water City of Prosser — lntemet/Phone/Cable Charter— Irrigation City of Prosser C. Signature The above answers are true and com lete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relyin mt ak its decision. Signature: Name of signee Nathan Machiela . _ _ Position and Agency/Organization l'|nC|Pal Knutlen Englneenng Date Submitted: 12/8/2021 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 12 of12 Page 27 of 37  y Washington State South Central Region ~./. ».y:=‘ Dc]: rtmentofhvansportatlon :v3Qé.A JBDQ Rudkm.31‘. Road 98903-1648 \?.~'.k984.103-’l Lcr Sap, WA Union U; 6-2.; 3-3:: 5095!‘! 1 FAX -138: fs()9-£»'r'l~16{)()! 5"9--C?‘7— 1603 : 3').-; HY.. '1—8f 18008336388 U-";33«GS"E: www wsdot ..wa rgm.‘ .-y., ......-1. al . January 12, 2022 City of Prosser PO Box 1639 Prosser, Washington, 99350 Attn 2 Steve Zetz, Community Development Director RE: Arabella West, Subdivision, Planned Area Development I-82 milepost 79.45 Rt. Exit 80 vicinity — We have reviewed the proposed subdivision and have the following comments. The subject property is in the vicinity of Interstate 82 (I-82), a full control limited access facility with a posted speed limit of 70 miles per hour. WSDOT has acquired all access rights to the highway and interchange ramps. We are not opposed to the proposed project; however, we are concerned with the cumulative impact development in the area is having the I-82 Exit 80 interchange. The applicant is proposing to develop 154 lots and anticipates generation of up to 895 new vehicle trips. WSDOT expects a signi?cant percentage of these trips will utilize the Exit 80 interchange. Currently, the westbound off-ramp terminal experiences considerable delay in the PM peak hour and the additional traf?c generated by this project will further impact this intersection. In order to accurately identify this proj ect’s impact to I-82, we require a traffic impact analysis (TIA) be performed at this time by a licensed traf?c engineer, at the proponent’s expense and submitted to the city and WSDOT for review and comment. We request the TIA analyze this project’s impacts to the I-82 Exit 80 interchange ramp terminals and identify mitigation including implementation and funding strategies to offset any signi?cant adverse impacts. 1-82 is an existing facility, and the proponent is proposing a more noise-sensitive land use. The proponent and future residents should be aware this is an area with existing traffic noise. They should also expect traf?c noise to continue to grow into the future, and, as an essential public facility, I-82 may need to be expanded to accommodate future traf?c growth. It is the developer’s responsibility to dampen or de?ect any traffic noise for this development. Page 28 of 37 Steve Zetz Arabella West, Subdivision. Planned Area Development — January 11,2022 Page 2 0 Any proposed lighting must be directed down towards the site and away from I-82. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jacob Prilucik at (509) 577-1635. Sincerely, ?rfv Paul Gonseth, P.E. Region Planning Engineer PG: jjp/mnk cc: SR 82, File #2021_O46 Kara Shute, Area 3 Maintenance Superintendent 1_082_046_Prosser_Arabel1a \DEVREV\SR82\20Z \\wsd0t.loc\scdfs00\Public\4-59005 West_Subdivision\Prosser_Arabel1a_West_Subdivision.docx Page 29 of 37  VICINITY MAP arabella west NORTH SITE 182 5401 RIDGELINE DR. SUITE 160 KENNEWICK, WA 99338 1-509-222-0959 www.knutzenengineering.com CONTACTS NORTH RD Y S ALBRO RD TR CO UN E IN W J. MA AN CH T H W A SHI I NA OF N EL E G A STA N T TO PRELIMINARY PR R E 39372 R O FE G I ST E R E D EE SS IN ION A L E N G W HOISINGTON RD PATIENCE STREET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN ARABELLA WEST \2021\21060-Hoisington Road Prosser\DWG\21060SP01.dwg - Dec 07,2021 - 05:40pm - gge GRACE STREET 0' 25' 50' 100' 150' CALL 811 2 BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1" = 50' SP01 Page 30 of 37  CITY OF PROSSER, WASHINGTON MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT NAME: AraBella West Type of Application: SEPA Checl<list/ Subdivision Planned Area Development Date of Application: December 8, 2021 Name of Applicant: Knutzen Engineering / AAA renovation & Construction LLC/Anthony Potts Location of Project: Located West of Albro Road and south of Hoizington Road # 13494200001 0002 Issued Date: January 27, 2022 1. A Storm Water Drainage Retention Plan (Erosion Sediment control Plan) is needed for all construction sites as required by the State Department of Ecology. A City approved storm drain plan should retain storm water on site. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface water (this includes storm drains) by storm water runoff. Said retention and disposal may require the installation and maintenance of oil/water separators. Storm water runoff calculations and drainage facilities sizing calculations must be prepared by a Washington Registered Professional Engineer and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Storm Water General Permit may be required if there is a potential for storm water discharges from a construction site larger than one acre. Obtaining a permit is at least a 38 day process. Please submit a permit application to the State Department of Ecology or contact Ray Latham, of the Washington State Department of Ecology at (509) 575-2807. Please provide the City with a copy of the State permit if required. The property shall submit plans for lighting ?xtures that will reduce glare and light onto neighboring properties. All lighting must be directed away from adjoining properties and be installed in such a manner as to minimize light scatter onto adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting plans must be approved by the City and meet Prosser Municipal Code. Fire hydrants may be required to be installed as per the requirements of the City Fire Chief and or Prosser Municipal Code and or under Development Requirements. Any and all signage on the property will need to comply with the State Scenic Vistas Act of 1971 and the Prosser Municipal Code. All permits required by Benton County Clean Air Authority and the Washington State Department of Ecology shall be acquired prior to issuance of the building permit. A Landscaping Plan will be submitted and approved by the City of Prosser at least 45 days prior to the anticipated planning. Landscaping shall be installed to meet the Page 31 of 37  requirements of the Prosser Municipal Code. Such landscaping plan shall include appropriate vegetation and fencing to protect light and noise from adjoining properties. In lieu of a full traffic impact study the applicant will provide a traf?c impact analysis which will identify traf?c impacts and projections on Albro Road, Hoizington Road, and the intersection of Wine Country Road and Albro Road. Applicant may be required to make additional improvements based on the analysis and impacts to the levels of service as determined by the analysis. Applicant must provide proof that commonly owned private areas are maintained in perpetuity. Open spaces must be designed and maintained to be dust free and free of nuisance vegetation. 10. Applicant must make half street frontage improvements to City standards for Albro and Hoizington Road for the portions that abut the developers property. 11. Applicant must surface the travel lane opposite the Albro road frontage improvements to ensure north and south-bound traf?c abutting the development are adequate. Applicant may draft late comer agreements for these travel lane improvements. 12. Applicant must comply with all required setbacks and applicable design requirements in the Prosser Municipal Code. This mitigation measure is necessary to ensure the safety of the traveling public and is necessary to meet the goals as stated in PMC 16.08.l30(d)(l)(a)(b)(c)(d) and (f). EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 2022 f@‘é Steve Zetz, CDD City of Prosser // Dae 27 Z02‘; CITY OF PROSSER, WASHINGTON 1002 Dudley Street Prosser WA 99350 (509)786-2332 Page 32 of 37  City of Prosser Washington Mitigated Determination of Non—signi?cance (MDNS). Description of proposal: AraBella West Planned Area Development Preliminary Plat 154 lots Name of Applicant: Knutzen Engineering / AAA renovation & Construction LLC/Anthony Potts Location of Project: Located west of Albro Road and south of Hoizington Road 134942000010002 Lead Agency: The City of Prosser, Washington. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable signi?cant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.2lC.03O (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on ?le with the lead agency. This MDNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-1 1-355 There is no further comment period on the MDNS. Responsible Official: Steve Zetz Position/Title: City Planner Address: 601 7thStreet, Prosser, WA 99350 Date: January 27, 2022 F The Cit)’ of Prosser Washington, the lead agency for the proposal and is issuing a ?nal Mitigated Determination of Non-Signi?cance (MDNS) under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules (Chapter 197 -11 (WAC) Washington Administrative Code). After review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on ?le, the City of Prosser, Washington has determined this proposal will not have a probable signi?cant adverse impact on the environment provided the identi?ed mitigation measures are complete prior to the issuance of the ?nal occupancy certi?cate. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under Revised Code Of Washington (RCW) 43.21C.030 (2)(c). The environmental review and related documents pertaining to this project are available to the public upon request at the City of Prosser Planning Department and are available for review on the City of Prosser Website www.cityofprosser.com and include the following: SEPA Checklist Page 33 of 37 Site Plan Application The identi?ed mitigation measures include mitigation for potential impacts to the following: Earth, air, environmental health, land and shoreline uses, light and glare, transportation, and utilities. The full text of the identi?ed mitigation measures are attached There is no agency appeal Final MDNS Issuance Date: January 27, 2022 STEVE ZETZ PROSSER CITY PLANNER Page 34 of 37  STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1250 W Alder St • Union Gap, Washington 98903-0009 • (509) 575-2490 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 January 10, 2022 Steve Zetz City of Prosser 601 7th Street Prosser, WA 99350 Re: SEPA Register 202106624, 21-15 Dear Steve Zetz: Thank you for the opportunity to comment during the Optional Determination of Non Significance process for the Arabella Estates Hoisington Road Subdivision, AAA Renovation and Construction, LLC. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments. WATER QUALITY Project with Potential to Discharge Off-Site If your 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 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.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/. Please submit an application or contact Lloyd Stevens Jr. at the Dept. of Ecology, (509) 574-3991 or email lloyd.stevensjr@ecy.wa.gov , with questions about this permit. Sincerely, Gwen Clear Environmental Review Coordinator Central Regional Office (509) 575-2012 crosepa@ecy.wa.gov Page 35 of 37 January 12, 2022 City of Prosser PO Box 1639 Prosser, Washington, 99350 Attn: Steve Zetz, Community Development Director RE: Arabella West, Subdivision, Planned Area Development I-82 milepost 79.45 Rt. – Exit 80 vicinity We have reviewed the proposed subdivision and have the following comments. • The subject property is in the vicinity of Interstate 82 (I-82), a full control limited access facility with a posted speed limit of 70 miles per hour. WSDOT has acquired all access rights to the highway and interchange ramps. • We are not opposed to the proposed project; however, we are concerned with the cumulative impact development in the area is having the I-82 Exit 80 interchange. The applicant is proposing to develop 154 lots and anticipates generation of up to 895 new vehicle trips. WSDOT expects a significant percentage of these trips will utilize the Exit 80 interchange. Currently, the westbound off-ramp terminal experiences considerable delay in the PM peak hour and the additional traffic generated by this project will further impact this intersection. In order to accurately identify this project’s impact to I-82, we require a traffic impact analysis (TIA) be performed at this time by a licensed traffic engineer, at the proponent’s expense and submitted to the city and WSDOT for review and comment. We request the TIA analyze this project’s impacts to the I-82 Exit 80 interchange ramp terminals and identify mitigation including implementation and funding strategies to offset any significant adverse impacts. • I-82 is an existing facility, and the proponent is proposing a more noise-sensitive land use. The proponent and future residents should be aware this is an area with existing traffic noise. They should also expect traffic noise to continue to grow into the future, and, as an essential public facility, I-82 may need to be expanded to accommodate future traffic growth. It is the developer’s responsibility to dampen or deflect any traffic noise for this development. Page 36 of 37 Steve Zetz – Arabella West, Subdivision, Planned Area Development January 11, 2022 Page 2 • Any proposed lighting must be directed down towards the site and away from I-82. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jacob Prilucik at (509) 577-1635. Sincerely, Paul Gonseth, P.E. Region Planning Engineer PG: jjp/mnk cc: SR 82, File #2021_046 Kara Shute, Area 3 Maintenance Superintendent \\wsdot.loc\scdfs00\Public\459005\DEVREV\SR82\2021_082_046_Prosser_Arabella West_Subdivision\Prosser_Arabella_West_Subdivision.docx Page 37 of 37