Is being recorded and
summarized.
>> Good afternoon and welcome.
Calling to order. Clark County
Council. Tuesday, October 13th,
2026. If you'll join me, if
you're able and standing for
the Pledge of Allegiance and
remain standing for the
invocation, which will be
provided by Rob Poole with the
county wide chaplaincy. I
pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which
it stands one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> Thank you. Father, we come
to you this afternoon and we
recognize you and acknowledge
you, our father in heaven, our
creator, and that every good
and perfect thing comes from
you. We are also grateful for
your love, your grace, and your
mercy. Help us to consider the
Bible verse in First John
chapter three, verse one. Oh,
what manner of love has God
bestowed upon us, that we
should be called children of
God? Help us, Lord, to love and
honor you and to love our
neighbor as good Samaritans,
and to treat one another with
dignity and respect. Like the
father in the story of the
Prodigal Son. Help us to
remember that we are all
created in your image and are
therefore worthy of love and
respect. Lord, we ask you to
bless us, our community, our
families, friends and neighbors,
as well as everyone here today.
Give us wisdom this day to make
good decisions and to bring
honor to you. In your name we
pray. Amen. Amen.
>> Thank you very much. Okay.
We have a couple of
proclamations to start out with.
National Disability Employment
Awareness Month that will be
read by Councilor Little and
accepting will be Angela Gomez.
Aaron Brown from Community
Service, and Randy Knott and
Bob Friedland from the
Development Disabilities
Advisory Board. So you can come
up. Those of you who may be in
the room.
>> Anyone here from the. Those
names. Well, anyway, it's an
honor to read this. Whereas the
Americans with Disabilities Act,
Ada, which celebrates its 36th
anniversary this year together
with individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Idea
established the right of adults
and children with disabilities
to participate fully in all
aspects of American society.
And Whereas Clark County
supports the goals of equity,
opportunity, independent living,
and economic self-sufficiency
for people with disabilities.
And Whereas, the US Department
of Labor chose this year's
theme for the National
Disability Employment Awareness
Month as celebrating value and
talent, carrying the spirit of
last year's celebration forward
through 2026. And in honor of
America's 250th birthday. And
whereas the theme reflects the
fact that including people with
disabilities and their
contributions to the workplace
is a critical part of our
effort to build an inclusive
community and strong economy.
And whereas, National
Disability Employment Awareness
Month confirms our commitment
to celebrating the
contributions and talents those
with disabilities provide in
our community every month of
every year. And now, therefore,
the Clark County Council hereby
reaffirms the principles of the
Americans with Disabilities Act
and the individuals with
Disabilities Education Act by
proclaiming October 2026 as
National Disability Employment
Awareness Month in Clark County,
Washington, and urges citizens
to rededicate our community to
fulfill the letter and spirit
of these laws. Dated this 13th
day of October 2026 by the
entire Council.
>> Thank you. Chair. Council.
County manager. I'm Michael
Torres, the program manager at
Clark County Community Services.
So I'm here to accept it on
behalf of the department. Thank
you very much. You know, people
with disabilities are part of
our community. They shape our
community. They're present in
the workplace, and they
contribute on a daily basis.
And these laws have been
foundationally important to
helping communities recognize
that. So thank you for for this.
>> Okay. The next proclamation,
I'll be reading Hispanic
Heritage Month and accepting
will be Daniel Estrada from
LULAC, Vancouver Metro, Amanda
Medina from North County, LULAC
and Eduardo Torres from
Southwest Washington LULAC. We
have all three LULAC present so
you can come forward. All right.
Thanks so much for being here.
So whereas National Hispanic
Heritage Month observed
annually from September 15th
through October 15th,
recognizes the histories,
cultures, and contributions of
Hispanic and Latin Americans
and encompasses the independent
anniversaries of several Latin
American nations, reflecting
the deep and enduring influence
of Hispanic and Latin peoples
on the history and development
of the United States. And
Whereas, Clark County's
Hispanic and Latin community
represents a broad diversity of
national origins, cultures,
traditions, languages, and
experiences reflecting
indigenous, African, European,
Caribbean, Central American,
South American, Mexican, and
other histories that contribute
to the cultural richness and
growing diversity of our region.
And whereas Hispanic and Latino
residents have made lasting
contributions to Clark County's
economic, civic, educational,
cultural and social development
through entrepreneurship and
and commerce, agriculture and
skilled trades, education and
health care, science and
technology, public service, the
arts, community leadership and
advocacy. While local families
and organizations continue to
expand opportunity, preserve
cultural traditions, strengthen
neighborhoods, and develop the
next generation of leaders. And
Whereas the 2026 Hispanic
Heritage Month theme, Unidos
Somos Mas Together We Are More
recognizes the collective
strength and diverse
communities working together
and affirms the importance of
honoring the achievements of
previous generations,
recognizing the leadership and
contributions of Hispanic and
Latino residents today, and
supporting the opportunities
and aspirations of generations
to come. Clark County further
recognizes the important role
Hispanic and Latino voices in
advancing opportunity, equality
and justice, and reaffirms its
commitment to fostering a
community grounded in
inclusiveness, equity, and
mutual respect where every
individual is valued and our
diversity strengthens our
collective future. Now,
therefore, we, the Clark County
Council, proclaim September
15th, 2026 to October 15th,
2026 to be Hispanic Heritage
Month in Clark County,
Washington and encourage all
residents to recognize and
celebrate the history, cultural
heritage, achievements, and
continuing contributions of
Hispanic and Latino residents
to Clark County, Washington
State and the United States.
Dated this 13th day of October
2026 and signed by the entire
Council.
>> Should we accept.
>> You can accept it here to.
>> Take a picture of us.
>> Okay. Go ahead. Are we
speaking to them or what?
However you speak to the
audience.
>> Good morning. Buenos dias.
Members of the Clark County
Council and members of the
public on behalf of North
County, LULAC, Southwest
Washington LULAC and Vancouver
Metro LULAC. Thank you for
inviting us today and for
issuing this Hispanic Heritage
Month proclamation. Our
councils are deeply committed
to serving Clark County every
day through immigrant defense,
food distribution, community
health clinics, youth
extracurricular activities, and
civic engagement. We are
actively working to ensure our
county remains a strong,
welcoming, inclusive place for
all families, new and old. Both
longstanding residents and
those making this area their
new home. Today, we acknowledge
that our diversity is a core
driver of what makes Clark
County so vibrant and the true
beauty of Southwest Washington.
Together, we will continue
building a more prosperous
community for generations to
come. Unidos somos mas.
Together we are more. Buenos
dias. Miembros del Consejo de
Clark County y el publico
presente el nombre de la Liga
de Ciudadanos Latinoamericanos
Unidos, Los consejos de
southwest Washington LULAC,
Vancouver Metro LULAC,
Ridgefield, LULAC, agradecemos
sinceramente su invitacion el
dia de hoy y la mision de esta
proclamation por el mas de la
herencia hispana de accion de
nuestros consejos mantienen un
compromiso con el condado de
Clark definimos nuestra
comunidad migrante distribuimos
alimentos y comida sin cobro
impulsar clinicas de salud
comunitaria Promus actividades
para la juventud y aumentamos
la participacion ciudadana
trabajamos de manera constante
para Q es el condado sigue
siendo un hogar a Kolke e
inclusive para todas las
familias. Tanto las Kyann Yevan
generaciones aqui Como las Q
van llegando hoy confirmar cu
nuestra diversidad es el
verdadero motor de la vitalidad
del condado de Clark y la
ausencia de la belleza del
sureste de Washington Juntos
seguiremos construyendo un
futuro mas prospero para las
proximas generaciones Unidos.
Somos mas muchas gracias.
Daniel Estrada, presidente de
Vancouver Metro LULAC.
>> Buenas tardes. The 2026 Team
United. We are more remind us
that our strength lies in unity,
in celebrating family,
resilience, creativity, faith
and service. It is a call to
honor the diverse histories and
strengths our nation, and to
invest in a future where
everyone, everyone feels
include. Today, more than ever,
we need to stand together to
protect those who have been
targeted. As someone who has
traveled this path, I know that
being part of the Hispanic
community means having two
great loves. The land of my
roots and the community where I
am building my life. Vancouver.
It is not about choosing one
over the other, but about
embracing both and doing so,
enriching our shared heritage.
For this reason, I urge all of
us to celebrate our culture,
our achievements, and our
shared values. Let us gather
around our community tables,
share our stories, and
recognize that leaders, those
leaders who inspire us. In
accepting this proclamation, I
commit with the three Laolagi
here to ensure that our. In our
city, events and initiatives
will reflect the diversity and
creativity of our Hispanic
community. Thanks.
>> Good afternoon. My name is
Amanda Medina. I'm the
president of North County LULAC.
My. My speech is not as long.
This is my first time at a
proclamation, so bear with me.
Thank you to the county for
allowing this proclamation and
allowing the opportunity to
work on this. I have to say,
Hispanics and Latinos enrich
our communities. Sorry, my
phone just turned off, have
shaped our history and will
continue to do so. Our stories
and lived experiences
strengthen this nation, and I
encourage everyone to support
and recognize our beautiful
community outside of this
month's celebration as well.
Gracias.
>> Hello, everyone. My name is
Monica Zazueta taper, current
vice President of Vancouver
Metro LULAC. First, I would
like to start by apologizing to
court reporter Cindy Holly. I
know I speak fast, and so I'm
sorry that I was I was nervous
and so I just wanted to extend
an apology to you. So I'm going
to try to speak slower today.
So I wrote this. It comes from
my core. I truly hope you don't
fear. And you don't think you
know better than brown skinned
people. I am a firm believer. I
am no better or less than
anyone else because we are all
the creator's children. You
don't see many people of color
coming to testify, though. Have
you ever wondered why? Maybe
it's because we feel that our
voice doesn't matter, that it
wouldn't change anything. Or
maybe it's because when we do
come and speak, it doesn't get
heard anyway. And decisions get
made by what you all have
always wanted. Our land gets
paved over. Our people get torn
from their families. Our voices
get silenced. The reality of
the past. When your ancestors
migrated to Turtle Island, what
you now call the United States
States engraves the fear in us.
It's been beaten into our heads
to not speak out, to not share
any emotion, to just be good so
that we can fly under the radar
because we know what happens if
we speak up. If we show any
kind of strength, our land gets
paved over. Our people get torn
from their families. Our voices
get silenced. We have one
Hispanic representative today
that sits on the council. I'm
so proud to see him there,
because my children and other
children can see that being
proud is beautiful. Being brown
is powerful, and being brown is
something that they can be
proud of. Our culture is not
something we brought to this
land. It was born on this
continent long before the
borders that divide it now were
ever drawn. We are not
merciless savages. We are not
something that you can just
discard. We are not evil. We
are human beings just like you,
who feel, who love, that want
their voices heard to. More and
more of us are coming together
and feeling our worth and
believing in ourselves because
we're tired of our shared land
getting paved over, our
interconnected human family
getting torn apart and our
voices getting silenced. I
don't mean to hurt you. I mean
to share my truth. And I know
I'm not alone in this feeling.
I would like to finish by
saying this. May I allow you to
be imperfect? May I allow you
to make mistakes? May I allow
you to be a lifelong learner,
always learning life's lessons.
May I forgive you. And if I
cannot do so now, may I do so
at some time in the future. I
care about all of you. All of
you. Because I believe if one
hurts, we all hurt. Thank you
to those who made choices
towards humanity and towards
helping our Mother Earth. Thank
you for listening.
>> Okay. Thank you all for that.
Now moving on, let's move to
the roll call. Councilor young.
>> Here.
>> Councilor Belkot present.
Councilor here. Councilor
little here and Chair Marshall
here. Thank you.
>> Okay. Are there any
amendments to the agenda?
>> None today.
>> Okay. Thank you. We'll move
on to open public comment. And
you can also comment on the
consent and separate business
items. Just a reminder, you're
limited to three minutes. And
we'll go ahead and call whoever
has signed up.
>> Schelby baton.
>> Good afternoon everyone.
Thanks for hearing me today.
This is the first time I've
ever spoken at a council
meeting. My name is Shelley
Baton. I am the president of
the Heights at Pleasant Valley
HOA board, and I'm here to
clearly state our opposition to
the proposed R 36 redesignation
along northeast 1/39 Street in
Vancouver. All of the
neighborhoods in this
residential district are
carefully planned. Designed for
moderate density single family
homes. The proposed R 36 zoning
would break that framework.
Three and four story
Multi-building multifamily
buildings are not compatible
with the surrounding R 7.5
neighborhoods, and no
transitional zoning or
buffering is proposed. It is an
abrupt and inappropriate
increase in intensity in this
area, equal to putting a bright
neon green sofa in the middle
of your living rooms.
Infrastructure limitations make
this especially concerning.
Northeast 1/39 Street is a
local access road designed for
low volume residential traffic.
Northeast 50th Avenue is
another access point that
includes a small bridge that
crosses Salmon Creek. High
density development in this
area would elevate safety risks
for the children that attend
Pleasant Valley Elementary
School and worsen congestion.
This redesignation also
conflicts with HB 1181. This
area lacks transit service and
walkable or rideable streets or
sidewalks, and there is no
resources or services in this
area, meaning high density
residents would rely on driving
for every trip they need to
make to manage their lives.
Moving the county further from
its climate planning,
objections or obligations, our
HOA board understands that our
county is growing. This is such
a beautiful place to live. When
we support growth that fits the
infrastructure and established
development patterns, this
proposal does not. We implore
this Council to withdraw the
redesignation for this parcel
and consider our 10 or 12
zoning for the safety, health
and quality of life for those
Clark County residents that
live there. Thank you so much
for your consideration.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Just for people who
haven't been here before, we
don't encourage clapping or any
sign of support because there
may be people on a different
side. So just to make it
welcoming and feeling safe, I
just ask you not to not to
applaud. Thank you.
>> John Gilman.
>> Good afternoon. My name is
John Gilman and I live in
Philbrook Farms, which is
adjacent to the the parcels
that were just discussed. I
also object to the rezoning of
that area. I've been there for
months. It's a lovely
neighborhood. I really like it.
And I think and I don't have
any objection to more
development. Those lots that
are going to be developed are
right on the other side of my
back fence. I have no heartburn
about those being developed.
But this density just makes
absolutely no sense to me at
all. Have any of you been out
there? Looked at the area. How
about the the planning
commission? How about those
guys? Don't know. So I'm really
perplexed as to what informed
the decision to make this
proposal. I mean, why did why
was this done and what need was
there being filled with
pressure to do it that way? Was
there I can't figure out what
it was. If you go out there and
look at that area, you'd
realize that that a number of
new residents, my calculations,
somewhere between 6 and 7000
people, maybe 2200 new
residences. And it's going to
be a mess. We already have a
problem with traffic. A lot of
which comes through my right by
my front door. Don't object to
it, but if I have that a big
increase and every day there's
a long line of cars waiting to
get on to 50. It's going to be
a real mess, and I strongly
recommend or ask you to
reconsider that rezoning to a
lower density than what's
proposed here. If you don't,
it's it's really going to be a
problem in the future. And I
think the people that live
there now and the people that
are going to move there when
that development is completed,
deserve better than that. Thank
you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Carmen de Leon.
>> The public hearing. I don't
see public hearing on the
schedule because this isn't the
public hearing.
>> It's open public comment.
There's a public hearing that
will follow.
>> Okay. Because it's not on
the agenda.
>> It is right below.
>> It is. It's right after open
public comment.
>> Okay, then I'll save that
for then. Okay, so my name is
Melo. Also go by Carmen de Leon.
And there's a few things here.
Is the Spanish people still
here? Okay. Yeah. My parents
came from Guatemala and my
mother is half Spanish, half
Mayan. And the first priority
to come to the United States
was to learn English. So as a
credit to my race, speaking
English was the greatest honor
and show of dignity. As you
know, in the before time, the
Tower of Babel was being built
because everybody understood
each other and the. And then
somebody came and said, let's
confuse their language to make
it more difficult. So if you
want to make your lives easier,
speak English. I appreciate the
translation, but Miss Papa Sola
in English. Me, me because I'm
a US citizen. I came to the
United States. I speak English,
so thank you so much. I hope
you understood everything.
Anyways. And Wil Fuentes should
recuse himself because he keeps
voting himself money. Oh, by
the way, this is open public
comment. As long as I don't
threaten or campaign, then you
cannot silence me the way I
have been silenced before. Just
because you don't like what I'm
saying, and I have asked you to
keep Muslims and the like out
of our country, but you don't
want to take that to
legislation. I get it. You want
to listen to the city of
Vancouver because Vancouver, as
Fuentes himself stated, all of
Clark County shall become
Vancouver unabated, right? His
goal is to become Vancouver in
all of Clark County. So if you
want a redesignation and less
intensity right there is your
guy who is pushing Vancouver to
take over all of Washougal
Ridgefield. All the other
cities should be forgotten
because, you know, Vancouver,
with all its meth heads, should
be in charge. Anyways, enough
of that paid advertisement for
anyways, what is it? The
housing. Yeah, I agree with no
shoebox housing. It's
ridiculous. And as you know, in
the rich side of town, they
just put up a Lexus. Go buy
yourself a new Lexus over there
on 130th in Mill Plain. But on
Fourth Plain, they put up more
bike lanes. Yeah. Keep the poor,
poor, and let's do anything the
rich people ask because maybe
they want some more new lexuses,
right? Anyways, I can't even
see this all Clark County. Yeah.
And the next generation of
leaders. Yeah. My father came
here and his father was a
colonel, and my grandfather was
a general, and my great
grandfathers were presidents of
Guatemala. So I do understand
the next generation of
leadership. And I was hoping,
you know, to come to this
country and Keip the Lyons in a
military strength. But
obviously, I had a kid at 18,
so I couldn't join the military
as I had planned. So consider
this me being nice, because I
don't have anything but my
words as my weapon. So God
bless you.
>> Okay.
>> Chair, that's all that we
have signed up in the room.
Unless there was anybody that
came in late that would like to
provide public comment. We do
have a couple folks online.
>> Okay.
>> Caller, you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, and please
go ahead with your comment. Don
stinky.
>> Yes. Hello, everybody. This
this is Don stinky. I live in
East Clark County. State law
requires you to reduce climate
pollution. As part of the
planning process, I proposed
three amendments to the comp
plan to help you do that, and I
sent these in writing to you
yesterday. Consider amending
your comp plan to requests from
the gas company to use your
public right of way for more
gas lines. I asked this for two
reasons. Allowing gas line
extensions is inflationary,
because the cost is borne by
existing ratepayers, and two,
because we can't reduce climate
pollution by expanding its
infrastructure. Next point
consider charging rent or
franchise fees to the gas
industry for use of your land
for their pipes. In December of
2019, the Washington Supreme
Court ruled in favor of King
County, upholding a county
ordinance that allows a county
to charge electric utility
franchise fees or rent for
using public rights of way to
lay infrastructure like natural
gas pipelines. You could
earmark the income to help low
income residents convert to
more efficient heating systems.
Number three, this is time
sensitive because Congress will
be back in session in session
November 9th. Director of
federal lobbyist to ask our
congresswoman to protect
federal policies that require
automakers to sell a modest
number of zero emission
vehicles in the state of
Washington. Ask her to do that
by voting no on Hjr 205. Also
asked Congresswoman Perez to
protect federal policies that
require automaker fleets to
meet fuel efficiency standards
and emission standards by
voting no on H.j.r. Resolution
two, zero two and 211. Thank
you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. The next caller.
Caller you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record and please
go ahead with your comment.
>> My name is Jason Green, and
this is in regards to the 2025
to 20 2045 Comprehensive Plan
update on the 88 acre site at
northeast 139th Street, the
northeast 50th Avenue. I'm
sharing my thoughts on this 88
acre site at the intersection.
In supporting the redesigning
this Redesignating the site
from its current low density
residential zoning to medium
density residential zone. What
we object to how the county
plans to serve that density.
The zoning is the right land
use decision, approving it
without funded road, sidewalk
and parking solutions is not
why medium density is right for
this site. The Growth
Management Act directs the
county to plan for 20 years of
population and housing growth
inside urban growth areas, and
to do it with its urban
densities. 88 acres inside
Vancouver Vancouver's urban
growth area is a rare
contiguous block zoned for low
density. It yields limited
number of large lot homes zoned
for medium density can deliver
a broader mix of housing types
and prices. More households can
can reach, and it makes better
use of water, sewer and storm
water. Service area already
pays for medium density. Also
supports the county's own
direction on middle housing and
on consolidated in
consolidating residential
district. It spreads land and
infrastructure costs over more
homes and eases pressure on
expanded on expanded, expanding
the growth area onto farm and
forest lands, where we dissect
the transportation plan does
not match the density. More
homes means more trips at
medium density to cycle at
households and daily trips to a
road network that was built for
rural and lower density traffic.
The Comprehensive Plan and
Capital Facilities program did
not yet show how that demand
will be served. We see four
gaps. First, road capacity on
northeast 139th Street and
Northeast 50th Avenue. Carry
traffic on rural cross sections
with limited shoulders and no
turn lanes at key intersections.
State and county rules require
that transportation
improvements be made concurrent
with development. Residents and
applicants across North County
have already raised
concurrently concerns on
parallel corridors, including
northeast 179th Street. We
asked the county to show in the
plan which capacity projects
serve this site and when will
they be built. Second sidewalks
there are no contiguous
sidewalks along the site
frontage, on frontage or on the
routes or to nearby schools.
Transit stops commercial
services adding hundreds of
households to roads with no
walking facilities puts
residents, including children,
on road shoulders. The county's
own transportation needs work
tracks missing sidewalks linked
by roadway segment. The density
we are supporting should not
take effect until a safe.
>> Okay, thank you for your
comments.
>> We have a couple more. Chair.
>> Oh couple more. Okay.
>> Caller, you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, and please
go ahead with your comment.
>> Good afternoon, Kimberly
Gavenn Elbon. I just got a shot
of Novocaine. So thank you for
the prayer this morning as it
was very fitting. The Law and
Justice Council uses a loophole
that absolutely has banned we
the people, the public who pay
excessive taxes to this form of
government that rules over the
people and disregards the
Constitution, the Bill of
rights, other civil humane laws
of the land, and the boundaries
of our great Creator of life
who gave us those boundaries in
Scripture. This form of
government has taken God out of
any consideration of those of
us who lived here, and want to
add that the Law and Justice
Council uses was mandated by
the R, C, W, and without that
loophole, we the people would
be attending those meetings. So
why and what are you hiding?
The people demand to know and
stop the loopholes. I want to
speak about overpopulation,
pollution. We cannot sustain
any more here in Clark County.
So stop bringing people in. We
need to sustain and look up in
the skies for the chemtrails,
as they are polluting us over
and over and over again. My son,
excuse me. My son is poor and
he is in an innocent man who
for two years has been jailed.
He eats poor nutritional foods,
drinks daily fluoride and his
hair is thinning and falling
out. He has very poor bowel
movements. They're actually
killing him in there. And
recently was exposed to a man
that was accidentally let out.
Had it been another man that
was there a few weeks prior,
that man would have killed my
son. So we're going to take
some action on the jail that
has repeatedly allowed people
to get out without them
supposed to be. So this law and
justice here in Clark County
absolutely takes advantage of
the poor, and they're lining
their pockets with it. And I'm
not going to stand for that.
Proverbs 1431 he that oppresses
the poor reproaches his maker,
but he that honoureth him has
mercy on the poor. Tom. 11
excuse me. 113 seven he raises
up the poor out of the dunghill.
Psalm 346 this poor man cried,
as my son does that. And to the
Lord. And the Lord heard him,
and saved him out of all of his
troubles. My son is poor, and
he is an innocent man. And this
council, this law and justice
system here in Clark County
takes advantage of the poor.
You're lining your pockets. You.
You have the love of money that
is a sin, and it is the root of
all evil. So we're going to be
bringing more transparency.
>> Okay. Thank you for your
comments.
>> Thank you. One more chair.
>> Okay.
>> Kaliner you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, and please
go ahead with your comment.
>> Greetings. This is Rob
Anderson. I want to speak to
the voices urging this council
to choose little or no growth
and what that could do to
affordability. This is just
basic supply and demand. Clark
County keeps adding people,
whether we plan for them or not.
When demand keeps rising and we
restrict the land and the
permits to build prices go one
direction up every acre. We
refuse to plan for every fee we
stack on new homes pushes the
price of the next home further
out of reach for young families,
for seniors trying to downsize
for workers, this county
depends on the. No. Growth
doesn't stop growth. It just
rations, housing by price and
the people who lose are the
ones without money to outbid
everyone else. Today's
ordinance already is going to
dramatically increase impact
fees, maybe sometimes three and
a half times. Thanks to
Democrat lawmakers in Olympia,
the same who support affordable
housing have brought this
crisis to us. And now these
costs are going to land on
families. I also ask you to
notice the philosophy behind a
lot of the no growth testimony.
It's a worldview that puts
collective control ahead of
individual property rights. Our
system was built on the
opposite idea that people have
right to use and improve what
they own within reasonable
limits. Finally, fairness Chair
Marshall, you are president of
Friends of Clark County, a
group that sued the county over
in its 2016 Comprehensive Plan
and won ruling against the
county's growth boundaries in
2023. While that group had an
appeal pending against the
county, you voted on its side.
A judge with that history would
step aside, and the person with
half of the same amount of
ethics would do the same.
Speaking of, Councilor, Wil
Fuentes is openly and actively
not following the charter yet
the county manager, who makes a
quarter million dollars each
year to follow and execute the
charter and a PA staff sits
there looking the other way. I
hope that you tend to these
things immediately and adopt
growth and keep housing
affordable. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Is there anyone
else.
>> Chair, that concludes open
public comment.
>> Great. Thank you. Okay.
Moving on. Will open a public
hearing on the Sheriff's civil
service fee schedule update.
And I think presenting is Chief
Deputy Sheriff Haas. So welcome.
>> Thank you chair. If Emilina
Kozlenko here with me. She's
the manager of the civil unit
task. She really runs the whole
thing. I'm just the mouthpiece.
So she's here to answer any
tough questions that you might
have. According to the Clark
County Code 279040, it allows
once every two years, the
Sheriff's office may submit a
fee schedule to the board to
increase fees. That's what we
are doing here. The last time
these fees were looked at or
increased was 2017. Our labor
costs associated with the
operation of this unit
obviously have increased. And
so we're just trying to get
that more in line with the the
actual costs for providing the
service. We introduced this to
the council back on June 17th
of 2026 as kind of a heads up.
And we're asking the council to
move this forward to take
effect January 1st of 2027.
>> Okay. Was there more to the
presentation?
>> I did not prepare anything.
You do have the ordinance. I
assume the red line ordinance.
I didn't want to take up a
bunch of time and tell you
things you already knew, except
for to get this on the record
that we were requesting this.
>> Great. Thank you. Are there
any immediate questions or
clarifications before we hear
from the public? Yes, please go
ahead.
>> Yes. Thank you for being
here today. What I'm curious
about is there just looking at
the fee increases. Some of them
are fairly benign and some of
them are fairly significant.
I'm just wanting to know, like
the mechanism, how you
determine what those fees
should be and just have the
general question of how you
establish the cost for the
sheriff's office to provide
those services.
>> Sure. I worked with Manager
Kozlenko, and she can give you
the exact numbers if need be.
But generally we took what were
the actual time that was spent
on each activity, based it on
the lower salary of people
providing that service, and
then came up with it through
that.
>> So lower salary, that means
it's probably actually a little
bit less than actual cost
recovery.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yes, it's less, but we also
didn't want it to appear that
we were trying to profit from
that. We're just trying to
recoup our costs at all.
>> And that's the biggest thing
is just strictly to recover the
costs of providing those
services.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Has anyone signed up
to testify?
>> I don't have anybody that
has signed up on the sheet. Is
there somebody in the room that
would like.
>> No separate sheet for the
hearing? It was just the
comments.
>> So I.
>> That's why.
>> Okay, great.
>> Go ahead and step up to the
mic.
>> Go.
>> Okay. So in reference to
what he just said, you're not
trying to make money. So how
many times does a sheriff
actually make $85 for each
additional hour as per page two
of four line five, $85 an hour?
Really? Okay, whatever you say,
what you want to say. So
anyways, I kind of understand
the increase because the cost
of living keeps going up. And
it's really if it's really been
since almost ten years, sure.
Go ahead. But the ridiculous
part is what is it, $3 for a
page and then a dollar per page
for everyone thereafter. And
like we've just discussed, this
is a real slap in the face to
the poor because, I mean, we
just can't afford it. Coming
from a poor person, this just
going to court will bankrupt me
because I can't even get the
paperwork for a dollar a page.
What if there's 20 pages and,
you know, I mean, come on. So
nowhere did I read something
about a sliding scale fee for
the poor to say, let them pay
$0.25 or $0.50 instead of a
whole dollar. And when you say
we're not trying to make any
money off of this, I look back
at the $80 per additional hour
for service fee. Okay, so let's
talk about that because I have
been falsely served numerous
times. And her name is Patricia
Luna Ramos de Lehan, who likes
to go around serving people
fake and then saying it's legal.
So I think maybe you guys
should think about how much
fraud that's actually going on
in the court system that I've
seen for myself and been. One
lady went online and called up
for her court appointed
whatever she was on the phone.
So somebody else spoke for her.
Yeah. So she, she's over there
saying, this is me in court,
but it's actually the other
person. So, I mean, whatever
you want to do with these
little service fees, fine. But
just know that a large majority
are fake and people have no
problem lying to you guys about
these little fees and paperwork
stuff. So go ahead, ask for
more money, but just know that
it is questionable because like
I said, I really don't. I just
can't understand how you make
it $85 per hour of waiting. And
some people do not want to be
served and they will be hiding.
And shouldn't that be charged
to the person costing them 85
bucks an hour? Because I know
people who wouldn't go to work,
open the door or do anything
because they didn't want to be
served papers. So how is that?
We're paying 85 bucks an hour
for some jerk who wants to hide
while he sees a cops knocking
at the door because he don't
want to get served? I don't
know how you fix that. I'm just
saying. Because I don't have no
timer. Do I have a timer?
Because this is an assault on
the poor.
>> You have 10s.
>> Oh, there we go. Yeah. Have
a sliding fee for the for
whoever doesn't make money.
Shouldn't have to pay money. If
you make money, pay your dues.
>> Thank you. Anyone else?
>> Shari don't have anybody
else signed up or anybody
online.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are
there any other questions or
comments or anything you'd like
to respond to?
>> No, no.
>> Okay, then I'll entertain a
motion. Let's see. Is this a
roll call? This is a roll call.
I'll entertain a motion to
approve the updated fee
schedule.
>> So move. What is the
ordinance number?
>> The ordinance number is 2026
dash ten dash oh two. And
Councilor Belkot has moved that.
Would you like to. Second, it's
been moved and seconded. All
those in favor? Roll call. All
those in favor will can
participate in a roll call.
>> Councilor Yang.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot councilor.
I councilor little I and chair
Marshall aye.
>> Motion carries. Thank you
very much. Okay, moving on to
the consent agenda, we have one
through nine. Is there anything
anyone would like to pull?
>> No. Baugh chair, I moved to
approve consent agenda one
through nine.
>> Okay. Been moved. Is there a
second?
>> Second, second.
>> Moved and seconded. All
those in favor say I. I I I. I
motion carries. Okay. Separate
business item number one is
community planning. And
hopefully this won't take as
long as last Friday.
>> Chair I, I have something
I'd like to pull from that.
>> Oh from.
>> The business. Oh.
>> Oh. We'll talk about all of
the things on separate business.
>> Okay. Got it. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would
you like to give us a little
chair?
>> Just if I can, just to kind
reminder, we have the court
reporter online so you can
identify yourselves when you're
when you're having your
discussions.
>> Excellent. Thanks for that
reminder. Hi, Cyndie. Thanks
for being here. Okay, Oliver,
I'll turn it over to you.
>> Yes. Good afternoon,
Councilor Chair and councilors,
for the record and County
Manager for the record, Oliver
Orjiako, community planning
director. And with me is Jose
Alvarez, our program manager.
And what we have before you is
a request for council to
approve ordinance 2026-10-01 to
adopt the county or the Clark
County 20 Year Comprehensive
Plan. Periodic update to
include adopting an updated
growth management land use plan,
zoning maps and all the zoning
ordinances. The ordinance
captured all the items related
to the 2025 to 2045 periodic
update and reflects the action
of the Council. Unless council
has questions for us, we
believe that the ordinance has
prepared. The only thing I will
add is that I want to sincerely
thank my staff. After your
three hearings and the action
you took on the fifth, we went
to work quickly to prepare the
ordinance and spend a
considerable time trying to
capture all the way that you
voted, and that is reflected in
the ordinance. So if you have
questions for us, I don't want
to go through each of the
exhibits what is in there and
all of that. So I will stop
there and take any questions
that you may have. We have
because of the. Request from
community development. We have
we do this all the time. Any
time we have new fees we
request or the request that we
give them at least two months,
a month to 2 or 3 to help them
prepare. Input those new fees
into the system and test it and
make sure that it's working
properly. So that is that time
is also provided in the
adopting ordinance. And that is
the only thing I will add.
Other than that, we are here to
take questions. In addition. I
want to thank all the county
residents that participated
throughout the process. The
cities that we work with,
everybody didn't get what they
wanted, but here we are. I want
to thank the council as well,
and the county manager and our
legal team. This is what we
have before you asking for your
approval.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are there
any questions or comments? Oh,
yes. Yes, please go ahead.
>> Chair, I'm looking at I'm
trying to figure out where to
appropriately mention this.
It's the it's I'm looking at my
notes right now from our
spreadsheet, but it's a code
change. And I don't know all of
our what appendix this would or
exhibit it would be a part of
in the comp plan, where would
code changes be for located in
exhibit purposes? Like I see it
laid out on the agenda, but
where are code changes located?
>> Let me see if I can ask
Rebecca to go to the grid. I
don't have that memorized, but
we can go to the grid. I
believe it's in on. My staff
can help me here, whether that
is in exhibit B.
>> Okay. And I do have. So
before I mention for discussion
what I want to discuss, I just
wanted to make sure I have the
the right portion for court
reporting purposes for Cyndie.
And this is Councilor Belkot
Cyndie. So Council. Yes.
>> The the code is actually
embedded in the adopting
ordinance itself. All of the
code sections are included in
that document.
>> Got it. Okay, so my question
is for the amendment that we
adopted or incorporated last
week related to the cluster
developments. Because doesn't
wouldn't that have had to have
a public hearing so that the
public could make comments? And
also the different advisory
groups could also make comments.
>> Chair.
>> Isn't that wouldn't that be
the proper process?
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> This is Councilor Little and
Councilor Belkot, I hear you. I
actually was prepared to
reconsider my vote on that.
I've been doing some thinking
about it, and I heard the
concerns of Councilor Young and
Councilor Belkot about not
having enough time to review
the implications of it, and my
concerns about it are actually
about conservation. So what I'd
like to do is because I had
heard the intent of council,
the the chair that the
remainder portion, you know,
ends up being nuisance weeds
and such. I actually was
hearing from constituents since
I made that vote. And the
intent behind that clustering
is actually to allow not only
farmers to have a little bit
extra income through the
clustering opportunity, but
more importantly for
conservation,
>> To allow the landowner
farmer to actually keep the
remainder portion unpasturized.
So keep it in resources, in
conservation, in open space,
which I think is actually a
good thing for the environment.
It's a tool. So what I'd like
to do is do a motion to
reconsider, since I was in the
majority, and then discuss
about how we could revisit that,
because I do think it could use
some tweaks to actually enhance
how it's used for conservation.
So I'd like to make a motion to
reconsider that vote on
clustering of resource lands.
>> I second.
>> Okay. It's been moved and
seconded. Any discussion? I
think that had clustering
followed. You know the
intention that it be when it's
on resource land that the
development be on poor soils
that has not been consistently
applied. And there's no
requirement that it continue in
that particular resource or go
into open space. And so for the,
the bulk of them, that's,
that's been the case that it's
just reverted to weeds. So it
was reviewed by the
Agricultural Commission, and
they recommend this was one of
their recommendations to, to
prohibit that. I think what's
needed really is to examine how
it's been applied, because I
don't think there's been care
in, in, in really sticking to
the requirements. So at a
minimum, I think we need to, I
think a more at least a
moratorium. So we could examine
how it's been applied and look
for recommendations going
forward. So I could I could
support a moratorium with some
direction to examine how it's
been applied, what what changes
may be needed. I could be
supportive of that.
>> Thank you. Chair. This is
Counselor Little. I yeah, I was
just thinking that it is a
conservation tool that could be
used if it was strengthened a
little bit. So I would I would
be interested in doing that.
Counselor young, did you have a
question to.
>> Just a question of process.
When it's a motion for
reconsideration and we vote yes,
and we still have to have a new
motion? Correct. Following that.
>> I did a little research on
that. If you're in the majority
on a vote to vote a certain way
and you'd like to change your
vote or remove the vote, you
can do that if you're in the
majority, and then you can do a
new motion or amend the motion.
Yeah, it starts all over again.
Basically.
>> I think we could have a
motion to reconsider and then
we could vote on the, the
actual what you're what
actually you're proposing.
Amber. Okay. Amber, please go
ahead.
>> Thank you chair. Good
afternoon Council. Amber Smith,
chief civil deputy prosecuting
attorney, you are correct in
that regard, chair, that this
would be a motion to either
approve or deny reconsideration
of the previous vote. And then,
depending on the outcome of
this current vote on the floor,
you would then have an
opportunity, if reconsideration
is granted, to then go back and
revote on a majority decision
on what you would like that
particular language to be,
since you've essentially reset
back to no decision for the
particular ordinance that you
have before you today.
>> Okay. Thank you. Amber. And
then just one thing. I would
add, the creation of one acre
parcels. Those parcels
generally are very large,
expensive homes with a lot of
lawn. And it creates actual
conflicts. If the remainder
parcel was farmed or was put to
the resource use that it was
intended. So it has some flaws
on on a number of levels, but
it's been moved and seconded to
reconsider. Is this do we need
a roll call on this? No, we can
just do majority. Okay. All
those in favor of reconsidering
the the removal of cluster
developments on resource lands,
say I.
>> I I.
>> I opposed no, no. Okay.
Would you like to make your
motion then?
>> Well, maybe I'd need your
help a little bit, but I guess
my motion would be to have a
moratorium on the practice
until we can consider changes
or improvements to the
ordinance. I'd like to
emphasize that we could make
some conservation improvements
to it.
>> I second the motion. This is
Councilor Wil Fuentes.
>> Okay. It's been moved and
seconded. Comments.
>> Chair, just I'm just curious.
I'd like to ask staff what the
implications would be in terms
of needing to amend the
ordinance. Any other things
that you can think of?
>> I this is Oliver again I
think. The you can still pass
the. Because what I'm hearing
is you like the moratorium on
clustering, but you would like
to consider the implications of
that. Maybe you can say you can
put that on the planning work
program, or put a timeline of
when that could happen or send
it to the to the Art Commission.
But the moratorium will be.
Until that consideration
happens. And then you can
extend the moratorium.
>> Chair Oliver, I believe you
had mentioned that there was a
moratorium on clustering on
resource lands for 30 years
prior to 2016.
>> Yes. The previous
commissioners, prior to the
adoption of the 1994 plan, did
put a moratorium on clustering.
And that moratorium was in
effect until 2016, when then
the council at the time decided
to allow for clustering. When
we moved to AG ten and when
that act ten was repealed and
we went to act 20, the lifting
of the moratorium continued.
>> Thank you. Go ahead.
>> So I'd like to add to my
motion, if the second would be
amenable to ask staff to
present a menu of options for
us to consider on improving
that ordinance, have it also go
to the AG Commission for their
review, and then bring it back
within the next six months for
us to do a public hearing on it
and consider our options.
>> Could I just get a
clarification? So the ordinance
that's before you today is the
comprehensive plan. What I
think I'm hearing is that you
want to remove that one exhibit
that's in this exhibit.
>> Is just about that exact
clustering,
>> Right.
>> Ordinance, right.
>> That that there's one
exhibit, exhibit ten that's in
the adopting ordinance, and you
would like to remove that, and
then you would like us to come
back with some language in six
months to address that code
section.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And in the interim, have a
moratorium. So would we need to
pull that out at as a separate
I, I'm just wondering
procedurally how you'd like us
to do this. Amber. She'll have
the answer.
>> Thank you again. Council
member Smith again, just want
to make aware for you that
under our CW35A63220, that if a
legislative body adopts a
moratorium or interim zoning
ordinance without holding a
hearing on the proposed
moratorium or interim zoning
ordinance, shall hold a public
hearing on that moratorium or
ordinance within 60 days of its
adoption. My recommendation
would be, understanding the
language that's proposed here
is to have a six month hearing
on that, that I would recommend
legally with this, because this
is a new proposed moratorium
over the course of this hearing,
that you have that public
hearing within 60 days. And
then also by statute, it does
require every six months a
review of it as well. Pursuant
to this statute.
>> Yeah.
>> Chair.
>> Yeah.
>> Go ahead. So the second part
of my question you just
answered, this is the same
process as what we have been
working on with the mobile home
park.
>> Yes, moratorium.
>> Okay. I don't, I, I mean,
this is one of the reasons why
I voted no the other day is I
really do not know much about
this program at all. And I
don't even have a clue like
what kind of numbers my
question would be is. And I,
you know, if there is risk of,
of development, I would support
that moratorium. But I want to
make sure I mean, is, is there
any activity happening with
this? I mean, how, how much
risk is there that by not
placing a moratorium, we might
have a flood of applications?
>> Councilors, this is Oliver.
Again, it is hard to answer
that question because we don't
review actual application. My
understanding is that they've
been relatively small request
for clustering in the resource
that what they are community
development staff are seeing is
the remnant of those that
vested when we went to the Act
ten. So I'm not I can't give
you any data on what is
happening in the other
remaining resource, including
forest and AG, but that I'm
hoping I don't know whether
those that vested are still.
It's my understanding that
they're still processing the
application. They may be on the
last phase, but in terms of the
other resource area, I couldn't
tell you, sir.
>> April has her hand up. Go
ahead. April.
>> Good afternoon. Council.
April 1st, deputy County
manager. When we had the
discussion about this before, I
did reach out to staff in the
resource land. They have not
had an application for
clustering in the resource
districts in the last seven
years. So we don't have other
than ones that were vested
under the AG ten, which are
already vested.
>> I mean, that being said, it
doesn't necessarily for sure
mean that we won't see one just
based on the action that we
potentially could take. So I
don't you know, I know that
there's staff time involved is
what what would the cost of the
county be to issue the
moratorium and go through the
process and with at least, you
know, the first ratification
and then at least one renewal,
probably.
>> Councilors, I'm not sure
that there is any cost to the
county that I could provide you.
If the moratorium goes into
effect, as Amber indicated,
which is true and you alluded
to it, it will follow the same
process we did with the mobile
home park, but there wouldn't
be any cost to us except just
cost staff time to prepare for
further hearing with you and
maybe put a work program
together to resolve the matter
before you in a public hearing
as well.
>> Okay, we would have the
advertising expense of the
publication, which is minimal.
>> For going to preparing the
work program. No, depending on
the outcome and what staff is
working on, that would then
have to go to the Planning
Commission, because it will be
title 40. I don't think there
will be a need to do open
houses and all of that planning
commission, hearing, work
session and hearing. Of course,
we do provide the stipend, but
that's the cost to to us plus
staff time and then the legal
notices before we come to the
council.
>> Yeah. The legal notice. Are
they minimal expense?
>> Yes. We send them out
electronically. And I think we
have to post one by our CW. So
yes, there's no cost for that.
>> Yeah. And I, I think I would
support either either way
moratorium or no. But we do
have a motion at this point
that includes moratorium.
>> Yes we do. Councilor Belkot,
you've had your hand up and
then Bart's come to the table.
He. You don't want to say
anything. Okay, councilor
Belkot.
>> I'm just double checking the
moratorium is for what purpose?
For us to reopen it for just
after the AG Committee reviews.
>> It would be to not allow
clustering on resource land and
allow for a period of time to
evaluate it and seek input from
the AG Commission and the
public.
>> Okay.
>> Go ahead.
>> Yeah. I mean, the intent is
to modify it and improve it,
not end it. At least that's my,
my, my perspective. So the, I
think the only thing I would
have to do to modify this to,
to be according to the law is
to change it from six months to
60 days. Is that correct, Jose?
>> I think that's what legal
was advising us.
>> Okay. Well then.
>> Yeah, I think it was 60 days.
>> 60 days for the initial
public hearing. But then you
have another six months to
continue the work to come back
in six months.
>> Okay.
>> And then we could extend.
>> That would.
>> Be needed.
>> Okay. So just to ensure that
I can maintain my second
counselor, little, can you
restate your motion with the
appropriate information?
>> Come on. I'm sorry. Okay, so
I rescind the item ten.
>> I think.
>> You're just.
>> I'm making a motion to. Well,
I think Jose said we have to
rescind that.
>> You want to remove exhibit
ten from the ordinance. That's
before you.
>> Okay. Removing exhibit ten
and making a new language for a
moratorium on cluster
development on resource lands.
Until and. Asking staff to
review the current ordinance
and suggest some improvements,
with a focus on conservation.
Also to send it to the AG
Commission for their review and
then allow for public hearings
so that the public can comment
and help us make these
decisions. And this is
Counselor Little.
>> This is Counselor Fuentes.
Before I second, was that
correct? Is that sound about
right? It sounded right to me.
>> Yeah. I'm not an attorney,
but I would say that is
sufficient because we'll follow
the law with regards to the 60
days and six months.
>> Chair, I'd like to second.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any further
discussion? So it's been moved
and seconded. And that's two
remove exhibit ten and then
everything else that Councilor
Little said related to a
moratorium on cluster
development on resource land.
Okay. And this would be a roll
call.
>> Yes, yes.
>> Okay,
>> Counselor young.
>> I.
>> Counselor Belkot. I
counselor Fuentes. I counselor
little I and chair marshall.
>> I motion carries. Okay. Any
other questions related to the
adoption of the comprehensive
plan update?
>> Sure. I don't have a
question, but I do have a
motion.
>> Well, I have a question.
Okay. So let me ask my question.
There's been and I've received
a number of emails related to
that area, I think, on 139th
and 50th. That is going to be
up zoned to high density. And
it sounds as though they were
just concerned about 188 acre
parcel. So I'm curious if you
have I mean, this has been. In
in the works, this zoning
suggestion has been in the
works for a very long time. Can
you elaborate on that
particular area? And then also,
and I don't know if there's
anyone from transportation. I
know transportation there is
the concurrency issue, but that
I don't I don't know if the
transportation plan identifies
specific projects for this area
and that often it's the
development itself that is
paying for the transportation
infrastructure. So do you have
anything to add to that?
>> Do you go ahead.
>> As we've discussed
throughout this process, the
need for increased housing that
could meet those 0 to 80%
income band targets is part of
the driving force for the Up
zoning. This was an area, again,
there's this 80 acre parcel
that is one of the relatively
few larger parcels. This area
was, I think, most recently
brought into the urban growth
boundary in 2000. If it's not
716 time period. And so there's
been. Adjacent along 72nd, this
area is between 72nd and 50th.
There's road projects for 72nd,
that's on. That's going to be
considered. I have to rely on
transportation staff about 50th.
So that that those were the
sort of the driving forces for
that. I don't think there was
anything identified as part of
the analysis that was done that
had concerns. But again, these
this is going to be driven on a
project by project basis. And
so that's that's all of the
information I have for that.
>> Right. And some of those
projects might already be
underway.
>> Could be.
>> Could be okay. Sure. Thank
you. Yes. Go ahead.
>> So I'm trying to understand
here, and I apologize if I
heard some of the comments
incorrect or mis
misunderstanding, but did I
hear that it's currently zoned
R1 7.5 and that it's going to R
36. Yes. So R1 7.5 is about six
units per acre, right? Is that
correct?
>> With the changes that the
council made, it's up to 21.8
units per acre. Now. When we
did our middle housing code.
>> So R1 7.5, all of those went
to our. What did you say again?
>> Our the density allowed in
that zone is now up to 21.8
units per acre.
>> Okay. And so the R 36 is up
to 36.
>> 24 to 36.
>> 24 to 36. So we're going
from six units per acre to
somewhere between 24 and 36.
Correct. So we're four times
the density that it currently
was. I don't I appreciate all
of the comments that have come
in on this and. I, I don't want
to change anything at this
point. I think we are too far
along to be able to do that.
But one of the things that I
would like to do, I mean, this,
you know, the Comprehensive
Plan update is so extensive, so
massive, that I really, to be
honest and frank with everybody,
including the public, I don't
really know very much about
what we have decided to do in
the Vancouver Yuga just because
there's so many issues, so many
parts of this whole entire plan
that we've had to focus on. And
so I would like us to I know
that we've had some work
sessions in the past, but I
would like to, when we get
through with this, take a much
more intense look at what we
are doing and the Vancouver
Yuga, and see if any changes
need to be done. Following. Not
not at this point though.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Any other comments?
I'd entertain a motion then.
Chair yes.
>> I move to approve ordinance
number 2026 dash 1010 dash zero
one, which is the approval to
adopt the 2025 Comprehensive
Growth Management Plan.
>> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> I think he would need to say,
as amended.
>> As amended.
>> Good call.
>> Thank you.
>> Is there a second? Oh, I'll
second it. Okay. I think we're
ready for our roll call.
>> Councilor young.
>> Real quick before roll call
just comment. I appreciate all
of the comments. I mean, I'm
glad we left the record open
because there's been just a
slew of information that has
come in. But just I'm right
where I where I left the other
day. I think the, the change
that we made was good just
today. And I still am
disappointed with some of the
decisions that I have made, but
not based on whether the
decision was right or not. It's
more based on the consequence
of that decision. I think we
are really constrained as a
part of the Growth Management
Act, and some of those
decisions, unfortunately, I
think, are not in the best
interest of the county, but
need to be made based on. Our
best attempt to remain
compliant with the Growth
Management Act. So I just
wanted to make that comment.
And at this point, I'm ready
for that vote.
>> Okay, then let's proceed
with the vote.
>> Councilor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot.
>> I.
>> Councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little. I and chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries. Thank you
very much for all of your hard
work. This has been quite a
process and and we can move on
with all the rest of the work
that will follow.
>> Yeah. Thank you, councilors,
and thank you. County manager
will. We will move. And I know
I'm biased online. We'll move
to. See what happens, see what
happens with the growth board.
See if we can come. At least we
are now can say that we have
completed our 2025 plan update.
See if we can come into
compliance. I'm not going to
say before we get an appeal,
but at least see if we can come
into compliance. But I want to
sincerely thank all of you
councilors and my staff, county
manager and all that have
helped us to learn this plan,
and I am very grateful to you
and to my staff. There's a lot
of work to do. I agree with you,
Councilor Young. There's more
work to be done. The code is
not written in stone. Title 40
can always be amended as
development come in. We see
some challenges, maybe because
of the way the code is written
or the standards are written.
We take another look and use
that information to amend our
code. You heard from the
equestrian community. You
directed us to take a hard look
at the current standard and how
we can make improvement. The
motion you made on clustering
is the same. There are some.
You can look at clustering as
innovative tool. Some look at
it as not helping preserve
preservation of AG or
continuation of AG. So. The
comp plan will be revisited
again where we make mistakes or
we didn't get it right. We'll
have an opportunity to correct
that. And then there will be
new new laws. Until what I say
to folks when they call me is
until the law is repealed, the
county is a fully one of the
fully counties planning under
the Growth Management Act. So
that is the law in terms of
land use planning. And again,
thank you all. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay. Moving on
to separate business item two
Community services. And this is
Michael Torres. Good to see you
again, Michael.
>> I apologize chair Council
County Manager. For the record,
I'm Michael Torres, program
manager at Clark County
Community Services, and we are
here to request a county
authorization for the county
manager to sign the Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement with the
cities of battleground LA
Center. Ridgefield, Vancouver,
Washougal and the town of
Yacolt to administer for
administration of housing
benefit funds captured by House
Bill 2060 in our CW36 decimal
two two decimal 178. The
Washington House Bill 2060
establishes a surcharge on
documents recorded by County
Auditor's Office, designated
for housing programs that
benefit low and extremely low
income households. The
interlocal Agreement is
required by state legislation.
It prioritizes that these funds
be used for homeless shelter
operations, transitional and
permanent housing. That and and
homeless programs that serve
the entire county through a
grant application process that
is administered by the
Community Action Advisory Board.
The agreement will be in effect
until July 1st. Correction
until December 31st, 2031, and
it has been reviewed, in
addition, by Community Services
and the prosecuting attorney.
It has also been reviewed by
the membership of the Ending
Community Homelessness
Organization and was sent by
our policy advisor, Jordan Bogy,
to the Ending Community
Homelessness Organization.
Representatives of all the
jurisdictions that are present
in the Interlocal Agreement. We
did not receive any feedback of
requests for changes. I
received one question for
clarification from a counselor
and and Camas, and that that
was responded to to their
satisfaction. And I'm here to
answer any questions you have.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Does Council have any questions?
Yes. Go ahead.
>> Is are you allowed can you
explain what the question was
and the concern.
>> Absolutely.
>> Can you hear me? Okay. Sorry
about that. Absolutely. The
question was really whether the
interlocal agreement would
provide a mechanism for local
jurisdictions to directly apply
for and receive funds in new,
new programs and projects that
they designate. And the answer
to that is no. The. This
interlocal agreement supersedes
a prior interlocal agreement
that's been in place for about
ten years. We have not changed
any of the mechanisms that any
of the jurisdictions are using.
We have the changes are really
clarifying language and
explicitly prioritizing shelter
operations, which was a request
of those jurisdictions during
that prior ten years. And the
mechanisms for those funds to
be utilized is a public
solicitation of proposals and.
Doing a proposal selection
process that you are used to
seeing from the community
advisory board, and that has
representatives from the City
of Vancouver as well as the
county and cross representation
from the region on, mostly on
the nonprofit side. But it has
electeds, target populations
and service providers on that
board. So they'll do the
funding recommendations of
those proposals based on merit
and bring them to the council
for approval.
>> Okay, thanks. And the Camas
counselor was satisfied with
that. Yes. Okay, great. Thank
you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other
questions or comments, chair?
>> I'll move approval of
separate business item number
two.
>> Great.
>> Thank you. Second.
>> Moved and seconded. All
those in favor, say I.
>> I.
>> I motion carries. Okay.
Moving on to public works.
>> Thank you Council.
>> Thank you. Jeremy provenza
this is resolution 2026-10-03.
Hello.
>> Good afternoon Council.
Jeremy Provenza, county
engineer. I have with me John
Sorenson. He's our Clark County
surveyor. And before you today,
we're requesting that you adopt
by resolution our county policy
for the Preservation of Survey
monument ation. And admittedly,
this one is a little bit odd
from the items that we would
typically bring to you, in the
sense that this is a type of
policy that would typically be
under the purview of the
executive branch, except for it
specifically being called out
by Washington Administrative
Code as part of our standards
of good practice, that Council
adopt this written policy by
resolution. So if you have any
questions about the policy
itself or the process, John or
I are happy to answer those
questions.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are there
any questions? I don't see any
questions. Would someone like
to make a motion.
>> To approve separate business
item number three.
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. And for
the record this is resolution
2026 dash ten dash oh three.
All those in favor say I. I I.
I motion carries. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Does the county manager have
anything to report today?
>> Yeah. The only thing I
wanted to note, just because it
was not posted until Monday, we
are going to have a short work
session tomorrow morning on the
2027 budget. It shouldn't take
very long. And I, I know I
briefed council on in one on
ones, but just for the public's
interest.
>> Okay. Thank you. And we've
concluded our agenda without
objection. This meeting is
adjourned.