Okay. Good evening. Planning
commissioners, members of the
public and staff. I'd like to
call this hybrid public hearing
to order for. Thursday, August
20th 20th, 2026. My name is
Carl Johnson and I'm the
chairman of the Clark County
Planning Commission. The role
of the Planning Commission is
to review and analyze
comprehensive plan amendments,
zoning changes, and other land
related issues. We follow a
public process, including
holding hearings, during which
the public has an opportunity
to provide additional
perspectives and information in
legislative matters. The role
of the Planning Commission is
advisory. The county Council
will hold separate hearings,
consider our recommendations,
and then they will make a final
determination. Our rules of
procedure. The Planning
Commission will conduct a
public hearing tonight and take
testimony. All public comments
received before tonight's
hearing have been sent to PC
members and entered into the
public record. County staff
will be present, will present
first, and the Planning
Commission can ask questions.
Next, we will invite the
applicant to speak if there is
one, and then the members of
the public who wish to provide
testimony. When we get to the
public comment portion of our
agenda, we will provide more
information on how to
participate both virtually and
in person. However, if you are
in person tonight and wish to
provide comment on a hearing
agenda item, please sign up via
the sign up sheets in the back
of the room. I think they're
still there. During the public
testimony. You will have three
minutes to speak, and remarks
should be directed to the
Planning Commission only.
Please do not repeat testimony
that has already been provided
at the conclusion of public
testimony. Staff and the
applicant may respond to the
comments, and the public
portion of the hearing will
then be closed. The Planning
Commission will then deliberate
and make recommendations to the
Clark County Council for both
virtual and in-person members
of the Planning Commission and
staff. Please ensure that your
microphones are muted unless
you are speaking. Planning
Commissioner members, when you
make a motion and or. Second,
please state your name for the
court. Reporter. Any conflicts
of interest? Do any members of
the Planning Commission have
any conflicts of interest
related to tonight's hearing
items? Hearing none in person
or online. We will proceed with
a roll call. Jeff, can we do
that, please?
>> Brian Halpert here. Mark
Bergfeld here. Kyle Fadness
here. Ron Barca here. Jack
Heron here. Alicia Montgomery
here. Carl Johnson here.
>> We'll just quick some
general business items before
we start approval of the agenda
for August 20th. Can I get a
motion and a second please.
>> Commissioner Brian Halbert I
move that we approve the agenda
for tonight.
>> As Commissioner Burden.
>> Jeff, we have a motion in a
second to approve our agenda
for August 20th. Can we get a
roll call, please?
>> Brian Halbert. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle Fadness I Ron
Barca. I Jack Heron I Alicia
Montgomery I Carl Johnson I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes. Next. Can we
get approval for the minutes
for July 16th, 2026. I'll take
a motion in a second please.
>> Commissioner Fadness I move
to approve the minutes for July
16th, 2026.
>> Commissioner Halbert, I
second that motion.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Can we get a roll call?
Jeff?
>> Brian Halbert. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle Fadness. I Ron
Barca, Jack Caron I Alicia
Montgomery I Carl Johnson.
>> I motion oh sorry.
>> Sorry seven zero.
>> Motion passes. So next up is
communications from the public
which are not on tonight's
agenda. Is there anyone that
wishes to speak tonight on any
item that is not on tonight's
agenda, online or otherwise?
Ma'am, you can come up right
here. And it's just not
anything about what we're
talking about here. But if you
have something separate, go
right ahead. Okay.
>> My name is Susie Reed and I
live in Hawkinson. I've been
here living here for eight
years now, and it's kind of a
peripheral issue, so I'm not
sure where it falls in. When I
moved here, coming back to
Washington, having grown up in
Washington, I found a beautiful
property and I have had some
interesting experiences. And
I'm concerned as there is
growth, the things that I'm
interested in knowing is the
transparency of development in
terms of how bids are made, who
gets them, and the construction
pieces. Because in my
experience here and also in my
house in Sedona, I have had
what Robert Green refers to as
a real estate mobbing. And in
that pursuit, because I am a
researcher, I have researched
that for five years, and I have
found some things that concern
me a great deal in terms of
interconnections and workings
in the community and, and multi
state. And so I just want to,
if I'm going to live here now
and living here now, I want to
be sure that these transactions
with all of the things that are
going on with financial issues
in the country and that sort of
thing, that there's a very
transparent, open bidding
process. And I'm here to learn
what you do, primarily because
what I have found, not not
pointing any fingers here, but
I have found a network of folks
that I have concerns about. And
so I would like to see what
your processes are, what you
hope to accomplish, what the
design is as you add additional
housing and the access for that.
So we don't have, you know,
reflecting pool problems or
that sort of thing. You know,
it. I don't want to bring any
more of that up than what I've
mentioned, because this isn't
the appropriate venue, but it's
significant. And so the
transparency is really
important. And that's really
what I wanted to say. And then
I'm just here to learn. Thank
you.
>> Thank you for your comments,
Jeff.
>> Do we? Hold on. Ken.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Spell their last name.
>> Can you spell your last name?
REED Cyndie.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Yeah. Do you want to.
Yeah.
>> You have one more hand? Oh.
>> If you. Yeah. Come on up.
We'll do these first and then
we'll do that. Yeah. Just make
sure you're right on the
microphone. So our recorder,
can you spell your name? Okay.
>> Yeah. My name is James
Schrater. I live at 16716
northwest 61st Avenue in
Ridgefield. And I wanted to
give you some input about my
personal property, our personal
property, as it relates to the
comprehensive plan.
>> Can we hold that until we
actually, these. This time is
spelled out right now for what.
>> I came up because you said
if it was not on the agenda.
>> Yeah.
>> But that should come up now.
And I'm not it's.
>> No, no, no, no, it will be
the. We're going to be talking
about the comprehensive plan.
Okay. Yeah. This was just like,
let's say that's kind of
generic there. So if you can
give me just a second, we're
going to be coming and we're
going to. Okay. And I'll go to
the front line if you'd like.
Yeah, yeah.
>> For attendees using their
computer or WebEx application,
if you would like to speak,
please use the raise hand icon
for attendees using the
Telephone Audio only option,
press star three on your
phone's number panel to raise
your hand. For those in person
that would like to provide
comment, please raise your hand.
Once acknowledged, you may come
to the microphone towards the
front of the room. Public
comments are limited to three
minutes per person in order to
accommodate all speakers. Again,
this portion of tonight's
hearing is only for items not
listed on tonight's agenda. We
will begin with those in the
hearing room who would like to
make a general comment. Was
there anybody else who would
like to make a comment on items
not listed on tonight's agenda?
>> This is Commissioner LaDuke
Montgomery. I don't know where
this fits, but I'm out of town
today. Unfortunately for a
family funeral, and I may have
to leave the hearing a bit
early. And I just wanted to say
I deeply value all the public
comment that is, you know,
anticipated having seen some of
the folks that are in the room
from the Zoom. And so if I do
end up leaving in the middle of
the public hearing, it's not
because I don't care. And I
plan to review the recording
and the written testimony and
public comment that's been
submitted, and to participate
in any deliberations and votes
that occur. But thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. No one else in
the hearing room. We will now
call on those people on WebEx
or the phone that have raised
their hands. Nobody online.
>> Oh.
>> For those people using the
telephone options, press star
six on your phone's number
panel to unmute yourself. When
is your turn to speak?
>> Good evening. This is Jackie
Lane. I just might ask for your
recommendations to the council.
Is that you don't designate any
ag land, that you ensure your
recommendations follow the law.
>> Ma'am, we're going to we're
going to get to the
comprehensive part. These are
for items still that are not on.
We're going to get to that in
just a second. If you can hold
on, I apologize. That's okay.
>> There are no other raised
hands on wine.
>> Okay. So here we go. We're
going to go to the to our
general business and our public
hearing item reminders to the
public. If you are providing
public testimony in person,
please sign the sheet in the
back. And if you are joining
remotely, we'll provide those
instructions if you don't know
how to do it. So right now
we're going to dive right in
now to the the Comprehensive
Growth management plan. With
that said, we'll get a staff
presentation first from Oliver
or Jose. Jose, I never know.
Okay.
>> Good evening, planning
Commission members, especially
the chair, vice chair and
members of the Planning
Commission. For the record, my
name is Oliver Orjiako,
community planning director.
And with me this evening is Mr.
Jose Alvarez, who is our land
use program manager. I have
several of our staff here. I
cannot call them individually,
but I would like to sincerely
thank them for the work that
they have done. We had we had a
kickoff of this process in
early 2023, and here we are. So
great work. I also want to
thank the Planning Commission
for a series of work sessions
that you've had with the
planning staff, and some of you
attended open houses that we
had, and I also want to thank
the the county resident that
showed up at many of our open
houses. Why am I saying thank
you? You have a lot of
documents associated with this
process, and we were coming to
you in various work sessions,
going over what staff have
produced and what came through
the public participation
process as well. And here we
are. So I want to commend you
and commend our planning staff
and the general public for
their participation. We went to
so many. We had so many open
houses. We attended so many
other groups that have invited
us, various neighborhood
association, Nunag and others,
stakeholders that have
participated in the process. So
tonight I'm just going to give
you a general overview of what
is before you and help you to
the best that we can answer
your questions and help you in
making your recommendation to
the council. So tonight, if we
can go to the next slide, I'll
just go over quickly the agenda
or the format that we will
follow this evening. One is
overview and adoption process,
followed by a community
framework plan. And county wide
planning policies will then get
into the preferred alternative.
And that is what is before you
all the work that we have done
to date is reflective of the
preferred alternative, which
was the basis of the final
environmental impact study. We
will then highlight provide you
some highlights of proposed
changes, starting with the
major ones, compliant texts and
policies. Then share with you
which we have done and the
public changes made to title 40,
which is the County Unified
Development Code. We'll talk
briefly about the capital
Facilities plan to support the
preferred alternative, and also
the County Capital Facilities
Financial Plan, identifying, at
least in the first six years of
the 20 year plan, how we are
going to fund the necessary
services to support the plan,
will then talk about the
arterial atlas and then school
fire and traffic impact fees,
of which you have already made
a recommendation on school and
and fire. So you'll be that
will be before you again, but
the focus is going to be on the
traffic impact fee. And finally.
The environmental impact
statement that formed the basis
of us kicking off this hearing.
Next slide please. PC members,
you have seen this slide before.
This is our general project
schedule, which we have in four
phases. As I mentioned in the
beginning, we had a kick off of
this update in this room
January of 2023. You can see
I'm not going to go through
each item, but as you can see,
every phase, all the items
checked off have been completed.
We are now in the adoption
process, which is the final
phase. We have submitted to the
Department of State, Department
of Commerce all our documents,
even though it's all in draft
form. But the same thing that
is before you is what we have
submitted to the Department of
Commerce to start our 60 day
comment period. The Council and
you can make a recommendation.
The Council cannot make a
decision until that 60 day
comment period. We are now
where we circled is where we
are. We have had a series of
work session with you. So this
is the beginning of the hearing
process, where at the end
you'll be making your
recommendation to council.
Following that, we'll have a
work session with council to
review your recommendation. And
we anticipating that the
council will have their own
hearing, as you indicated,
Chair Carl Johnson, and take
additional public testimony
before they complete this
process. By. Our goal is by
October 16th. I see I didn't
mention them, but I see two of
our legal staff are here, David
Loriz and Rebecca Ward Bramel
tonight here. So if there are
any legal questions, they're
here to support us. They have
been supporting us and
providing us guidance since
Miss Chris Cooke retired. Next
slide. OPC members, I think I
will start with the Community
Framework Plan. We are not
recommending any changes to the
Community Framework plan, just
as a background, the Community
Framework Plan was adopted in
in 1993. It was a 50 year
vision of how the community
wants to grow, and this is
county wide, and we use this.
Framework plan to then develop
our 20 year growth plan
consistent with the framework
plan or that vision. This, I
believe, is the fourth or fifth
time that we have. We are
updating the the plan that was
adopted in 1994, and each
periodic update we readopt the
Community Framework plan. I
have been really teasing my
staff that the next periodic
update will require a check in
with the community to see
whether the vision. The 6050
year vision still remains. This
again was adopted in 1993 and
when this was adopted in 1993,
I think the county population
was a little bit of or less
than 260,000. Now we are over
540 000. So I think it's proper
to check in to see whether the
vision still stands. But I can
say unequivocally that we are
pretty much developing very
close to the framework plan. If
you look at even though it's a
conceptual map, but it provides
and reflects how the community
at the time wants to grow. Next
slide please. Under state law,
revised Code of Washington,
36782 ten counties are. Cities
are required to collaborate in
developing. Developing a county
wide planning policy to govern
the development of
comprehensive plan and also the
Washington Administrative Code
work. 300 65-196-305 ensures
consistency between
comprehensive plan of counties
and cities sharing a common
border or related regional
issues. We have come to you
going over various county wide
planning policies, and we will
touch upon 1 or 2 that. I also
want to give a shout out to all
the local jurisdictions in the
county. We have been working
with them, meeting with them
monthly since we started this
process. So I commend them for
our collaborative effort. They
have testified, and I see some
of them here in the room, so I
appreciate the working
cooperatively with the county.
These two sections that I
mentioned require us to work
collaboratively and to make
sure that our county and cities
plan are internally consistent.
And if I may continue, the
purpose of the county wide
planning policy is to
facilitate transformation of
local governance in the urban
growth areas, typically through
an organization. I think we
shared with our Planning
Commission and. And when we had
the work session with council
and annexation, it is according
to the growth management law,
the cities are expected
gradually, but one day to annex
majority of, if not all, the
areas that are within their
urban growth boundary, so that
urban governmental services are
primarily provided by cities
and rural and regional services
are provided by the county.
That is what the growth
management has called for. So,
as part of the purpose of the
county wide planning policies,
collaboration and agreement
between county and city cities
jurisdiction to include same
policies in each jurisdiction.
Comprehensive plan for
consistency. As I mentioned
earlier, the county wide
planning policy was first
developed in 1994. It was
amended in oh four when we also
did the periodic update. In oh
seven, it was amended again and
also in 2016. As part of this
process, we went through all
the county wide planning
policies and amended them where
appropriate and added 1 or 2
additional county wide planning
policy, one that calls for us
to. Coordinate and consult with
the tribe if we have any,
within our jurisdiction, we
have the Cowlitz Tribe. They
are part of our planning team
that we meet with monthly and
other service providers. Next
slide please. What is before
you is our second look at the
preferred alternative land use
plan that you made a
recommendation that went to
council. Council reviewed your
recommendation and made some
minor changes, which I will go
through with you briefly. But
what is before you is the
preferred. Land use plan, which
is the basis of this hearing
and this process. We are no
longer talking about
alternative one, two and three.
All those were studied when we
did the draft environmental
Impact statement. Now this is
the final. If we can go to the
next slide, please. Let's start
with the City of Battle Ground.
This is the battle ground urban
growth area as it's reflected
in the preferred plan that the
council advanced for the study
in of the final Environmental
Impact statement. If you recall,
Planning Commission members,
your recommendation was to
include both the middle area
East out and the Douglas Corner,
the City of Battle ground
moving west towards Douglas
Corner and the area to the
northwest of the current urban
growth boundary. The two red
circle area. So those are areas
identified in solid black both
to the north and to the west
are the two areas that the
council moved forward and
included in the preferred. They
excluded the Middle Glade area
as the City of Battle Ground
had requested. You're going to
hear from the City of Battle
Ground. Later in their
testimony. If there are any
other areas that would like you
to to consider, but I'll leave
that up to them. If you look at
the total acreage is roughly
488 acres. Total expansion. The
area Meadow Glade area excluded
is about 327 acres. So the
difference is about 161 acres.
In terms of expansion area. If
you look at it by acreage. Next
slide. Again this is battle
ground urban growth area. The
preferred alternative. The two
areas. The. Grove Field airport
to dead on the east side as
well as the property to further
to the east, known as the Navin
property. In your
recommendation on the preferred
alternative that went to
council, you only recommended
the Evergreen Airport coming
into Commerce or Bank road
boundary, while alternate.
While the Navin property was
studied in all three
alternative three, you did not
recommend that piece to be part
of this process, but the
council said studied it. So
total acreage day. If this is
accepted, is 244 acres. But
just want to highlight that in
your recommendation, you only
recommended the Grove Field
Airport. Next slide please.
This is the city of LA Center
Urban growth boundary showing
you in red. Scuderia Piedi
preferred alternative. These
are the two areas that the
cities as they may be. Other
areas in all three that were
not included. But this is
consistent with your
recommendation. Even though you
ask for. You made your
recommendation for including
the contingent on TDR, which
the Council did not move
forward on a total area for
expansion. Those areas that are
in green is a total of 121
acres. You can see the area to
the north. There is a wider
area in the middle. The city of
LA center may be testifying,
asking you to include that area
because you don't want to leave
that donut hole. But that will
be when they testify. If that's
going to be their acts. Let's
go to the next slide, please.
Planning commissioners, this is
the city of Richfield urban
growth boundary. A total of 239
acres. This is what is shown on
the preferred. There are other
areas in all three which the
Council did not. You and the
Council did not advance to be
included in the preferred. The
smaller area to the south of
this 239. The property to the
south. The. In red it's just
very small. I think it's 14
acres. It is known as the walls
property. When they testify. In
case they do currently SAG and
this other property to the
north is also. Argh! Let's go
to the next slide for the town
of Yacolt. Again, Planning
Commission members. This is
only 12 acres Yacolt expansion.
There are other areas that the
town of Yacolt asked for, but
you did not recommend them and
the Council did not. Only this
piece, the Council advanced as
you did. What about Vancouver
and Washougal? Those two cities
are not recommending any
expansion to the urban growth
boundary. That's why we didn't
include them. We can go to the
next slide. So in the Vancouver
unincorporated area these are
map amendments. This is more of
a summary we have been sharing
with you that we are amending
the zoning in the urban medium
and urban high. This will be in
the apartment multifamily
districts. Currently, we have
five residential and office
residential district. We are
trying to combine those to
three residential and office
residential district, in other
words, in the our district
would like to see our. 12 going
to our 24 hour 18 and our. This.
18 and numbers are units 18
units to an acre to. 22 going
to our. 36 and then our 30 our.
34 going to our 50. Similarly,
in the O.R. The O.R. is office
residential district. You can
do either office or multifamily.
Why did we recommend this? The
the housing work that we
studied prior to the
legislature passing several
housing bill, the Hozack study,
which some of you participated
in that committee. And we made
changes to the single family
district that are now allowed
for a variety of housing type,
from accessory dwelling unit to
triplex, fourplex, townhouses
and so forth that you can now
develop in the single family
zone that was prohibited prior
to the legislature, requiring
us under a House Bill 1220, to
consider opening up the single
family district that has been
exclusively zoned for single
family, detached or attached
single family homes to allow
for a variety of housing types,
which we accomplished through
that First Amendment
implementation of the Hozack
study. That action itself
increases the density in the
single family zone to about
21.7, or 21.8 units to an acre,
which is, you know, technically
22 units to an acre. So it
makes no sense to leave in the
multi-family zone to leave our
12 or 18 when you can get up to
22 units in the our district.
So this is why we are trying to
graduate this up. So that's one
of the changes that we are
recommending in the Vancouver
unincorporated area. Other
changes were very minor
amendment to the zoning in
certain R1 and R1 20 and R to R
175. And then we made other
zoning and compliant
designation on nine site
specific requests. Again,
within the existing urban
growth boundary. Again, as you
all know, there were so many
property owners that submitted
site specific requests, which
was studied in all three, and
none of those were recommended
to move forward by the Planning
Commission. And as well as the
council. There were other
requests, but the council and
decided not to touch forest or
deal with mining overlay. Given
the fact that we have no new
information to revisit, surface
mining overlay or revisiting
the forest designation. So with
that, we can go to the next
slide. So I can just share with
you, as I mentioned, part of
this periodic update, our focus
has been on housing and also
climate because and I can touch
on that briefly, I said housing
because this is not new to you
since we've been coming to you
and reworking our housing
element, we have been doing so
to be consistent with all the
new bills that the legislature
passed. The last legislative
session focused heavily on.
Housing, and you have 11 HB
1110. You have HB 1220. I
cannot mention all of them.
These are the two that I recall
remember quickly. But this
required us to no longer
encourage but to plan for and
accommodate housing for all
economic segments of the
population, including permanent
supportive housing. The new
policies also address racially
disparate impacts, displacement
and exclusion in housing. So
this new bills require us to
not no longer just say we are
encouraging, require us to plan
for and to do so, which we
share with you all that we are
now required to provide housing
or plan for housing by various
incumbents, and we can get into
that if you like, but we've
shared those with you. When we
did the allocation. The second
major bill that the legislature
passed, which prompted them to
give what I would call the 2025,
2026 and 2027 adopters.
Additional six months was their
late passage of the climate
element, which is the HB 1181.
We've worked. I commend the
committee that worked on the
new chapter. The county is now
required to adopt a climate
chapter, and with specific
elements such as resiliency and
greenhouse gas reduction,
environmental justice and best
available science requirement.
So we have a new chapter now
dealing with climate element.
It's no surprise I can say that
there was a study done a couple
of years ago growing healthier.
There were some folks who were
really not happy about that
study. But in that study, we
had a chapter on climate, you
know, climate chapter. What was
said in that report, if I may
not editorial. It's really
happening. We are beginning to
see severe. Temperature, if you
will. Severe flooding, severe
fire. And this new element has
this climate bill has so many
component in it. How to reduce
greenhouse reduction. We have a
target. And I'm hoping that
when the Council and you hears
testimony from the public and
those that worked on the
climate bill, you may hear
whether you you said the the
target 2050 or move that up to
2045, I'll leave that up to the
policy makers. But we are
recommending setting a
reduction target to 2050. But
that is just staff. Part of the
climate bill also require us to
look at our current
transportation element. And as
a result of that bill, we are
now required to also provide
and adopt reduction in vehicle
mile travel and strive for
equitably to implement
multi-modal transportation
network in a way consistent
with environmental justice.
That's one of the requirements
in the new bill. That's why I'm
highlighting those. And also,
we are now have a new
requirement to create Ada
transition plan for our
transportation facilities and
adopt active transportation
level of service standards. All
of those we have shared with
you. So those are the major
changes you will find in the
housing, climate and
transportation element. There
are other chapters now. There
are about 15 or 16 chapters or
elements. Those are the
chapters as we went through
with you in our work sessions.
Those changes were made as a
result of update required of us
because of new legislative
update. We also looked at those
chapters and update them just
for clarity. And then every
time you look at it, there must
be some Scrivener errors. So we
use this opportunity to correct
as many as we can. And then we
provided opportunity to various
advisory groups to review the
chapters and affected internal
departments to also review the
changes that we are making and
provide us input. So those are
the changes you will find when
you review the public review.
Each of the chapters. And as we
shared with you, there is a
table, like I said earlier,
there's so many documents that
we have put on your lap to
review to help you make your
informed recommendation and
findings to, to council. I
cannot thank staff enough for
the work that they have put
through. And all our partners.
In my meetings monthly, we have
Clark Regional sitting at the
table. We have the tribe, we
have C-TRAN, we have RTC. I
cannot thank them all enough.
But let me stop there. This is
a team effort, so I will turn
the rest of the highlights of
the amendment, starting with
our country code to Jose
Alvarez. I'll stop there and
let's see if you have questions
for me before I turn it over to
Jose. Otherwise, Jose, go ahead.
>> Make sure you state your
name. Any questions for Oliver
right now? Go ahead. Ron.
>> This is Commissioner Barker.
Did I hear something?
>> Duke Montgomery? I'll wait
till after Mr. Barker.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> So, Oliver, I'm interested
in you addressing what has come
in from Futurewise concerning
the climate elements. I heard
you go through a couple of
things. Do you believe that you
have adequately answered what
is Future Rises concerns around
the climate. I'm trying to
remember the exact phraseology
of it, but it's climate impact,
I believe.
>> I will say that. We have
followed commerce guidance in
writing our chapter. I do not
believe that the commerce
guidance. Stress what
development regulations we
should adopt. So my response to
you will be yes. If we have not
followed the commerce guidance,
I will be concerned. I will say
that I don't believe that
futurewise not a criticism, but
just an observation. I don't
think they have all the
supporting documents that we
have provided, and we have also
provided our climate chapter to
Commerce. If there are any.
Issues, I believe we will
address them. As you know,
development regulation, for
example, you can do it
concurrently with this process.
You can also do your
development regulation. You
have to come up with whatever
that is one year after your
adoption. So there are other
areas which we have shared with
you and our council. For
example, you know that whether
is requiring every new home to
be electric, electrified or
whatever, using electricity
other than gas, that is up,
hung up currently in the courts.
So I wouldn't be writing a rule
favoring electricity over gas
until the Supreme Court makes a
decision on that. I'm just
using that as an example. There
are some changes that will come
through the International
Building Code, which is not yet
in my shop. But when that comes,
I believe that our building
official will work to update
our building code to reflect
whatever the new rules may be.
So that would be my response to
your to your. That's my
observation in terms of the
comment from Futurewise. I'm
not downplaying that, but I
think they need to look at our
record and knowing that we have
followed commerce guidance.
>> Okay. So thank you for that.
I believe what I'm hearing then
is in regard to that you
believe you've already built a
record that follows Commerce's
instructions, and that when
that information or the
documentation from that science
is released or put into the
record, then it will go ahead
and prove the point that the
county has met the requirements.
>> That would be my conclusion.
And like I said, if there are
areas that Commerce says are,
here's the new development
regulation you have to put in
place, we will have opportunity
to respond. But have we
followed best available science,
best information and best
guidance provided by Commerce,
which. The law says that
commerce needs to provide
guidance to local jurisdictions
to develop their chapter. We
have followed that.
>> Thank you.
>> Alicia.
>> Thank you, Commissioner
Montgomery, I just wanted to
say thank you to the staff. I
know this has been a monumental
effort. It's still ongoing. But
just as a first time serving
commissioner, I've found the
materials and responsiveness to
questions extremely helpful.
And just wanted to say thank
you for that work by you and
your team and all of the county
staff.
>> Thank you Alicia. Thank you,
Planning Commissioner Alicia,
appreciate that.
>> Any other questions for
Oliver? Okay, Jose. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Next slide. For the
record, Jose Alvarez. Land use
program manager. So the county
code amendments, these are on
this slide, primarily housing
related to address the new
housing legislation that Oliver
had discussed, the
consolidation of the
multifamily zones that he
showed earlier and the uses
allowed in those zones. Also,
the amendments to the
manufactured home park to
protect those, and then
refinements to some of the
recently adopted middle housing
code that was adopted a couple
of years ago, I think exhibit
three in your documents has a
table of contents that lists
all of the all of the code
sections that will be amended.
Next slide. So this slide is
primarily dealing with the
transportation impact fee
section of the code. The real.
The biggest change here is
outside of some clarifications.
This was the inclusion of the
annual automatic adjustment to
the impact fee rate based on
Washington based Construction
Inflation Index. And then like
I said, some refinements to to
that section and a reference to
the appendix as opposed to the
traffic impact fee technical
document. Next slide. It's on
the capital facilities plans.
The Growth Management Act
requires that the land use plan
have sufficient infrastructure
i.e. capital facilities, which
are listed there on the slide,
and to serve the land use plan
and ensure that there's
sufficient resources to pay for
it. We worked with our
jurisdiction partners and also
service providers that also
participate in our monthly
meetings, and we've reached out
to them for input. And in
appendix E captures all of the
capital facilities analysis
that we received from the
jurisdictions and the service
providers to demonstrate that
they can serve the plan over
the next 20 years. Next slide.
The transportation costs. To
serve the 20 year plan, the
county has to demonstrate that
the funding is available to pay
for the needed infrastructure.
And if not, we need to identify
strategies that can close that
gap. This discussion analysis
is covered in appendix A. Here
we're showing that that we have
a deficit, rather large deficit
of over four, $540,000,550
million. And we've identified
some of the strategies that
could be used to narrow that
gap. And we've had that
conversation for Council for
their consideration and how
what the options they have
going forward to try to reduce
that gap. Next slide. So the
capital city's financial plan
is internal to the county. So
the county as listed, the
transportation parks and open
space, stormwater drainage,
county buildings and other
facilities. And you can see
what the sort of expenditures
are anticipated and where the
revenue sources are for that.
And that we have sufficient
resources identified for that.
And this is representing the
the six year, the most recently
adopted 2026 to 2031. Financial
plan for the county. Next slide.
So the arterial Alice is a
county man managed planning
document and GIS map that
designates the official network
alignment and functional
classifications. The principal
minor collectors or major
roadways in the county. We
worked with our GIS staff to do
an overhaul of how the document
is created, and try to set up a
system so that we can better
record changes that are made.
Sometimes when a subdivision
happens or through that
development process, a road is
identified on the arterial
atlas, and through that process
it may be shifted or moved, and
there isn't really a good
feedback loop to to record that.
And so we want to make sure
that we are able to capture
those more efficiently going
forward. And that's part of the
the work we did and why there
were so many errors that we had
to correct over this last ten
year period. Next slide. So the
school impact fees you reviewed
and made recommendation to
council on July 16th. We are
looking to have a separate
hearing with Council September
15th. This is just
informational item to to
include in the record. Next
slide. This is also something
that you reviewed the fire
impact fees on the same day.
And we're also taking that to
council for the September 15th
hearing. Next slide. The
transportation impact fees we
shared with you two weeks ago.
And we have updated numbers
based on our review of the
consultant's analysis, we found
that they had inadvertently
omitted four intersections from
the analysis. And when we asked
them to include those, the
changes you see are reflective
of those. The inclusion of
those four intersections. And
so that's why they're
highlighted and that's why
they're different from what you
saw two weeks ago. Next slide.
So the environmental review
that we undertook for this
comprehensive plan update. It
just looking at the proposals
and the alternatives to
accommodate the growth that's
planned over the next 20 years.
It's not a decision document.
It presents options and the
impacts, and the review is
covering the impacts from the
anticipated population and
employment growth over the next
20 years. We issued the draft
Environmental Impact Statement
in October, October 1st of 2025.
We had a 60 day comment period
on that. We've received over
330 comments, and then we
responded to those. And then
the final EIS was issued July
24th of this year. All we have
for presentation.
>> Any questions for Jose.
>> Commissioner Haroon? Jose? I
noticed on the. We had made a
recommendation on some impact
fees and they weren't reflected
in the chart, which which is
before us. Is there a reason
that that wasn't corrected?
>> No.
>> Specifically, like the
Woodland School District.
>> I this is Solevad. Orjiako
you're correct. Planning
Commissioner Jack Haroon Baugh
yeah, this is your
recommendation. The council
have not made a decision on
that yet. It's yet to go to
council, but I know you made a
recommendation not to approve
it. It was, I believe, four
three or something like that.
So we did share your
recommendation with the council,
but because they have not made
a decision, we left it as it is
here. But you're correct that
you did not approve woodland.
>> But isn't our final
recommendation based on our
previous recommendations? Like
I mean, because if we're having
a package that we're going to
vote on to give our
recommendation, and then some
of our recommendations aren't
accurate, accurately reflected
within outside of stuff that's
been highlighted because the
council had made certain
changes. How
>> How does that how does that
work? Because if we're thinking,
oh, we had a, we'd already
recommended this and then staff
doesn't change it in the
official documents, then we
vote on it. Again, we
technically changed our
recommendation.
>> Right. And I think what
we're going to have a separate
hearing. And within that
hearing, we're going to we're
going to share with the council
what recommended for each of
the school districts. This is
just showing the what the
school districts submitted to
us. And so that's that's what
their proposal is. We you don't
have to take another action.
What we're going to take
forward to the Council is your
recommendation to not approve.
This just doesn't say approve
or denial of any of these. This
is just what was proposed.
>> Okay. I guess I'm just a
little confused because I think
we're we're here to make a
recommendation in the total
package. Correct?
>> Right. And you've already
made a recommendation on these.
So you don't have to discuss
this.
>> But I guess I'm just
confused. It feels like it
feels like we've created a
document. No. And then the
document has been changed. And
then we're going to vote on the
document and they're like, oh,
see, you know.
>> No, it's not changed. If you
recall in my brief overview, I
said, you are not acting on the
fire and schools. You're going
to be voting on the traffic
impact fees. If you get to fire
and school, a motion can be
made that your previous
recommendation stands. I think
Jose is correct that what we
are showing here is what the
school district have have
provided us. I made the
observation that you have
reviewed this take, took a
public testimony, made your
recommendation. The council has
not acted on that
recommendation. We are
acknowledging that if you make
a motion today, it will be
consistent with what you
already made motion on before,
and that will also what will go
before the council. They have
not taken any action. So we are
obligated to show and orally to
inform the public that on
woodland, you did not vote to
approve that.
>> I appreciate that, but I'm
just looking at the title. This
is a school impact Fees
Planning Commission
recommendation. 716 and then it
has technically, what I would
read is then our recommendation
on this slide. So that's that's
all I'm highlighting. I'm not
saying there's anything I'm
just yeah, I'm just
highlighting that.
>> Not dead.
>> Ron.
>> This is Ron Baka for the
chair. I'm trying to understand
when do we vote on the capital
facilities plan itself as part
of the comprehensive plan? I'm
hearing components of it, but
I'm not hearing us adopting the
entire capital facilities plan,
which I believe is a
requirement per gmma so can us,
everybody here have a clear
understanding about when we're
voting on the capital
facilities plan. Is that on
here.
>> Jose, help us out here.
>> I think it's part of the
comprehensive plan overall.
We've. So we we've stripped out
the schools and the fire. So
when you adopt the rest of the
comprehensive plan, like I said,
the appendix A has the
facilities plan that has the
transportation impact fees
embedded in that. And so that's
when you would adopt that or
move to adopt that.
>> What about the cities? We
have we have we do. We got to
go through all the cities again.
>> No, I don't think the cities
are appendix E, but I don't you
don't have to weigh in on the
cities.
>> Right.
>> Okay.
>> So this is Ron again. So an
understanding then in the way
that you laid this out. We're
adopting it just with like all
the chapters all just rolled
into.
>> Unless you have specific
things that you want to call
out and vote on or make changes
or amendments to.
>> I very much want to break
capital facilities out
specifically. I actually
believe that when it comes time,
we should be voting on all of
the chapters individually
before we even get into the
land use aspect of it. I
believe the way that this is
set up, it's backwards from
what we would want to have
clear understanding of each of
the elements in the housing.
Transportation. ET cetera. ET
cetera. ET cetera. Before we
get into the land use. So that
would be my recommendation, but
specifically with
transportation, as you laid out,
we have about a half $1 billion
of problems to discuss before
we go forward, I think.
>> And you're when you say land
use, you mean the mapping
changes that are listed? Yeah.
>> Okay. What I'd like to do is
pull it back. Is there any more
questions for staff? I'll start
there. Anybody online? Okay.
Let's go forward with public
testimony then. Based on what
staff said, Jeff, can you.
Again just reminder. Okay, you
have the cities will come first.
How many cities do we have here?
I'll put you in alphabetical
order. So whoever's first
battleground, be first campus
center, Richfield, Yacolt and
Vancouver. So we'll just do
that if you can come up to the
reserve chairs.
>> Yes. It might be appropriate
for like about a five minute
break since we've been at it
for an hour and a half. I know
we have.
>> A. Let's let's try to get
the they have five minutes.
Let's try to get through the
cities first. Okay. That would
be helpful. So can I have the
cities come up to the reserve
part. Just see how many I have.
First, we're going to give you
a five minute time limit.
Please adhere to that. It's
just we have other looks like a
big list up here that a lot of
people are going to want to
speak. And so with that said,
do we have battleground here?
Make sure you state your name
and spell it.
>> Good evening, planning
commissioners. My name is Sam
Crumlich. For the record,
spelled CRUMMETT. I have a
letter. I'll go ahead and pass
out a hard copy if you'd like
to. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment. It's
been a pleasure also working
with county staff. It's it's
been quite the process, but
appreciate the collaboration.
First of all, battleground is
in support of the preferred
alternative shown in the final
Environmental Impact statement.
Specifically for battleground.
The big. The big effort here is
to expand our urban growth
boundary to the dollars corner
expansion area.
>> Can I just one second? Can
we try to mute that? I think
that's what's feeding back. I'm
sorry. We're here to mute here.
I don't that's not no. You keep
yours on. It's a feedback. Yeah.
>> I'd be happy to sit up there
too if that's easier. Okay.
There you go. Better.
>> Yes.
>> Much better for me as well.
Thank you. We do have a couple
amendments that we'd request to
make to the the preferred
alternative, and that's listed
as number 26 and number 27 in
the decision making package.
That's on the the, the large
matrix you have there. I'll go
over these briefly, first of
all, and there's some
illustrations in the letter
that I gave you. The first is a
35 acre parcel owned by the
City of Battleground, and we
have our water reservoirs on
that property. We would like
that parcel brought into the
city for permitting reasons and
just efficiencies of having our
utilities in the city. That
would come in as a low density.
Low density designation.
There's a conservation covenant
on that parcel, the city. It's
not city policy to have any
housing or anything on that
property. It would be strictly
for our water reservoirs. So
that's recommendation 26. This
didn't just come out lately.
This was supported by our
city's planning commission, as
well as the City Council. In
the fall of 2025. It was
included in all the
correspondence to you as the
Planning Commission as well as
county council. But I think
what happened is it just got
glossed over. It was in our
letters. But I understand
there's a lot of material to go
over. And then the other
amendment is three parcels.
This would be number 27 in the
decision making packet that you
have. These three parcels are
would would come in as
residential, again supported by
our Council and Planning
Commission, 17 acres
approximately. The big reason
for this is we have
subdivisions on the west and
south side of this project, and
then we have a half street
improvement that's made that
would essentially just kind of
stay a half street for ten
years, because the city
couldn't further develop in
this area. We do have a
developer that has shown
interest in that. I know that's
not really a part of your
decision making, but we find
that this would be a logical
place to add some additional
housing into our city. It would
be a minor amendment. It would
not materially affect our land
capacity analysis or any of
that. So those are our two
amendments. And I think I'll
just briefly speak to the
Meadow Glade piece, because I
know there's some discussion of
having that put back in our
urban growth boundary. The
reason we would rather not have
that in is because in 2020, we
did a major planning effort.
It's called the land Use Master
Plan. It's on our web web page.
And at that point we decided
it's best not to grow in that
direction, but to focus our
growth down the 502 corridor
toward the dollars corner
expansion that would allow for
some housing growth in the
commercial districts that we
would have in the dollars
corner expansionary. So we
really didn't want to
jeopardize innocence having XX
excess growth, particularly
knowing that we need to comply
with the Growth Management Act
at the end of the day. So we
have a conservative growth plan
that is going to accommodate
our needs for both jobs and
housing in the next 20 years.
Thank you for listening, and
I'm here to answer any
questions you may have.
>> Thank you. Any questions for
battleground?
>> I do. What is your
fundamental difference between
taking Meadow Glade out, but
then adding the parcels of.
Number 27, which is low density
itself? It's got surrounding
development on it. I would say
fundamentally it appears to be
the same other than the
direction of the growth.
>> Yeah. The fundamental
difference, I would say, would
be the proximity to existing
city infrastructure. Our
existing city infrastructure
isn't readily available in the
Meadow Glade area. We have
capital plans for that area
currently, but in terms of
being able to quickly get homes
built, those parcels, and again,
it's only 17 acres could could
readily be converted to housing.
>> But they're they're both low
density developments already in
place, right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And they're both
contiguous to your existing
city limits.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So what I'm hearing is
battleground is foregoing any
future development to the South.
>> Essentially at this time. It
could be in ten years. We come
back during the next periodic
review and say, we think we're
now ready to pull Meadow Glade
back in.
>> We want to pull it back in.
>> But really the planning
exercise, I'll go back to our
land Use Master Plan update
2021. We looked at all sides of
our city North, South, east,
west. We've. For technical
reasons, I won't get into at
this point, growing westward
was the most feasible place to
go and that was particularly
for job growth.
>> Okay. And I guess I
understand the aspect of
wanting to expand in the
purposes of job growth. It
still comes back to me. I think
for us looking at balancing
budgets, working out details,
you're giving what you think is
less desirable area for your
purposes, giving it back to the
county for the county to absorb
it back into their budget and
have to deal with the aspects
of whatever growth is able to
come towards it, regardless of
battlegrounds growth. It's
going to be the growth that the
county then permits and allows
and pays for.
>> Well, it's currently in the
urban growth boundary. It's
still Clark County's
jurisdiction. It's still the
county's. However, in terms of
growing efficiently, urbanizing
and really a cost efficiency,
not not county versus city, but
the most efficient way to grow,
we believe, is not going south
toward that meadow Glade area,
but where our existing
infrastructure is, particularly
the SR 502 now four lane
highway, which is a major
investment. We find that that's
where we want to put our
investment is where there's
where there's already an
existing significant investment.
>> On the north side of the
highway, only.
>> Primarily the north. Some
sections of the south side. We
did avoid agriculturally
designated areas along that
corridor.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Commissioner Fadness.
>> Yes, Commissioner Fadness,
this is a question for the city,
but all of you might need to
jump in as well. My my
understanding was that these
amendments weren't included in
the final EIS. These areas that
you're asking for in the
amendment. So I just wanted to
know how that would affect our
process, since I don't believe
these were studied. Correct.
>> They were studied. They were
included in the draft
environmental impact statement
under alternative three that
included all of the site
specific requests around
battlegrounds. So they were
studied.
>> Okay. And I guess what's the
process then of including that
into the final EIS?
>> I don't think there would be
there wouldn't be any
additional analysis. It would
just be your recommendation
whether council agrees or not.
>> Okay. Thanks. Yeah. I just
wanted to understand, there
wasn't going to be a lot of
additional work if we were to
bring these in, so thank you.
>> Commissioner. Just to to.
Address Commissioner Marcus
comment on I know we shared the
same concern on polling medical
aid back like that were dumping
an expense back to the county.
I remember amongst somewhere
that there was I think it was
from staff or something that
said that that we were mistaken
and that that there was
actually no cost, that it
wasn't going to cost the county
anything additional. That was
my like, I remember like it was
an after the fact, I don't know
what letter it was or at this
point what, what in the
thousands of pages of documents.
But I think there was there was
something addressing our
concern that we had regarding
that. So but I'm not sure.
>> So we have any more
questions for the applicant.
Hearing none. Thank you. Next
up. Thank you chair. Sorry.
>> Before we go forward, I just
want to address what
Commissioner Ryan had said. I
think fundamentally, this is
still back to the idea that
they're taking it out of the
urban growth area, which it
should be part of their plan
for annexation. They should be
planning for it for capital
facilities. They're taking it
out. So the county is going to,
at some point in time, be faced
with the aspect of the growth
along that, that boundary line,
and have to deal with that. And
we're shifting it to their
westward expansion for the
purposes of jobs. But how much
of that area ends up becoming
like the tent pole for growth?
And I don't believe that
looking at the boundary, that
it's going to be feasible to
think that there isn't going to
be a need to bring it back in
or to have the adoption, unless
the city is really committed to
not growing southerly anymore.
So my concern is it fits the
purposes of this particular
growth plan at this particular
moment, but it isn't really
long term planning.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Kamea we have
representative from campus.
Campus is not here. Let's
center.
>> Okay. Sorry about that. Good
evening, planning commissioners.
My name is Angie Merrill,
MERRILL. I'm the city planner
for the city of LA center. And
I'd like to first note that
we're sorry that Mayor
Strohbehn could not be here
this evening as he's out of
town. The city of LA center
would like to express its
support for exploring the
employment, exploring and
implementing a Transfer of
Development Rights, or TDR
program for the agricultural
land lands. As the center has
worked through the
Comprehensive Plan update, our
city leaders and staff
repeatedly engaged with
residents and stakeholders to
understand their vision for the
community. We have consistently
heard three important
priorities maintaining a small
town charm and Phiel of
downtown LA center focusing
growth near the I-5 junction
where transportation and
infrastructure can support it,
and creating family wage jobs.
So LA center does not become
simply a bedroom community. Our
City Council unanimously
adopted a preferred alternative
that reflects those priorities,
including targeted growth
around I-5, as well as downtown
and Tamine Landing Subarea
plans. We believe this approach
provides opportunities for
needed housing and employment
while preserving the character
that makes the center special.
LA center understands and
supports the importance of
preserving productive
agricultural lands. At this
time, we believe we need to be
innovative, and we need
innovative tools that allow us
to accomplish both goals.
Protecting valuable
agricultural land while giving
smaller cities the ability to
accommodate responsible growth.
The small town character of LA
center is one of the very
reasons people choose to live,
work and invest in our
community. We want to preserve
the character while planning
responsibility responsibly for
the future. We appreciate the
county's consideration of a TDR
program and encourage the
Planning Commission to support
the innovative approach to
balancing agricultural
preservation with the growth
needs of Clark County. Smaller
cities. I'd also like to
address. Oliver had noted that
in our preferred alternative,
there was a donut hole. As far
as expanding. Oh, you have it
pulled up here. So the parcel
that is in white, it's parcel
986027200, is owned by Clark
Public Utilities, and we
initially didn't ask to bring
it into the city, but we we
don't want to leave a donut
hole. So that is something that
we have requested to bring into
the city as well. And so I just
want to thank you for your time
and the opportunity to give
testimony this evening. If you
have any questions, I'm here to
answer them.
>> Questions for LA center.
>> This is Commissioner Leduc
Montgomery. I just wanted to
clarify. So LA center is in
favor of a TDR program in
conjunction with proposed UGA
changes?
>> Yes that's correct.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Commissioner Halbert,
I want to understand that donut
hole just a little more. Is it
on one of the on the matrix
here that we're going to be
voting on?
>> It is so up at the to the
north, the northwest right
there, you can see there's the
green, the parcels in green,
and then there's just a donut.
>> I got that. I'm just
wondering where it's at on our
matrix for voting. Oh number 28.
Okay, okay, okay, maybe that
answers it. Let me take a look
at 28.
>> Number 28. Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions for the
center? Okay.
>> Quick question for staff.
>> Ron.
>> You're really quick. You're
really quick. Yeah. This is Ron
Barca in regard to number 28.
It's a five acre parcel owned
by Clark PUD. It also says the
designation of agricultural
lands is this Clark PUD parcel
AG land.
>> Designated AG. Correct. It
is. Yes.
>> And what's its utilization
right now? Is it being used as
egg?
>> I think it's a station.
>> Yeah. There's some kind of
substation.
>> Substation on it. Okay.
>> As a substation it can be
allowed in the AG.
>> Okay. Certainly. I was just
wondering how it showed up in
the agricultural study, whether
it showed it as prime land or
how that just was working. Okay.
Thank you. Yes.
>> Yes it did.
>> Prime land with a substation
on it. Okay, okay.
>> Soil and other
characteristics.
>> Any more questions for the
center? Okay. Moving on. Steve
Richfield.
>> Good evening, chair, members
of the Planning Commission. For
the record, my name is Steve
Stewart. STUART. I am the city
manager for the City of
Richfield. We're here to number
one, thank you for all of your
work and thank staff for their
coordination with our team. It
has been extensive working
through all of the changes in
GMA, including providing
adequate affordable housing, a
climate element, and all of the
changes that we're now working
toward completion. Secondly,
we're here to support the
preferred alternative that went
into the FEIS and the Planning
Commission's recommendation on
those items associated with
Ridgefield. Those
recommendations, we believe,
meet our community's vision
that has been established
through extensive process in
envision 2045, our comp
planning process. It also
assures that we meet GMA
requirements for providing
affordable housing and adequate
jobs for our community into the
future. It does so by targeting
our density in the places where
it makes sense, using mixed use
hubs that have the services and
amenities to support them
primarily within our existing
boundaries. But we also to meet
our requirements moving forward,
are looking at limited
expansions in areas already
characterized by urban growth.
Those two areas that you see on
the map that is on the screen
at this point. The first one is
what we call the mall property.
That is approximately 14 acres
that was spoken of earlier.
That area is surrounded by the
City of Ridgefield Urban Growth
Area, almost completely
surrounded by the city limits
of the city of Ridgefield. It
was surrounded in 2007 and has
been a donut hole since that
time. It is characterized by
urban growth and development in
a variety of ways that we have
submitted into the record, and
are willing to give additional
detail to, as requested. The
second piece is what we call
the North Industrial Urban
Reserve area. This area was
placed in industrial Urban
Reserve 30 plus years ago in
1994, as an area to be used for
future industrial and job
growth. That is 30 plus years
from where we sit now. It is
characterized by urban growth
as it is surrounded on three
sides by the city of Ridgefield.
It is bounded on the east
boundary is I-5. On the west is
an arterial that connects the
city of Ridgefield with the
Cowlitz Tribal Reservation that
is directly north of this
property area. These targeted
expansion areas give us the
opportunity, again to provide
adequate affordable housing and
jobs in mixed use hubs, which
is the proposed uses for those
areas. Finally, we see an
opportunity. We see an
opportunity that has not
existed for many years to be
able to do better. And thus the
city of Ridgefield has joined
the city of La center, city of
Camas. Others who have promoted
a transfer of development
rights program to actually
create opportunity for
affordable housing and jobs,
while also preserving
commercially viable farmland in
Clark County. This opportunity
will be expressed more deeply
by the professional that the
three cities of Camas, LA.
Center and Ridgefield have been
working with later in testimony,
so I won't go into any
additional detail. We remain
committed to that concept. We
remain committed to the
connection between this
expansion and a TDR program,
and our City council is willing
to put their words in writing
and create that letter of
intent. An interlocal agreement
with the county that solidifies
that partnership moving forward.
I'm happy to answer any
questions you have, and thank
you for your time.
>> Thank you. Any questions for
Richfield? Go ahead
Commissioner.
>> Oh, go ahead Ron.
>> Oh, that lag time.
>> Yeah.
>> This is Ron Baka on the map.
There are several small parcels
that also show themselves as
job creation or urban low
density residential. Is it the
city's intent to go ahead and
annex those and bring them in,
as well as these large parcels?
>> Forgive me, Commissioner,
are you speaking to the areas
that are currently there?
Cross-hatched and are in urban
holding?
>> Yes, yes.
>> There are subarea plans for
both the Cado Road subarea,
which is the southern
Cross-hatched area and the Gee
Creek Plateau subarea, which is
the Cross-hatched area. We used
to call it the Donut Hole, but
Gee Creek Plateau sounded a lot
better. There was a subarea
plan adopted for both of those
areas, with implementing code
and the implementing code and
sub area plans were done in
close connection with the
people who live there, the
people who have established
that unique character in those
areas, and making sure that as
it develops, it develops with
that unique character in place.
We do not see the need to
upzone every area of the city
of Ridgefield. You can create
density through targeted areas
of mixed use without having to
hurt or harm existing
neighborhoods. Integrity. So
these two areas do have a
unique character. They have
really tough topography, a lot
of ridges. Thus Ridgefield. So
we have a lot of areas that are
not developable. If you look at
the VLM in those areas. So the
answer is yes.
>> The answer is yes.
>> Yes. We are actively
annexing those areas as we
speak. I actually have an
annexation proposal for one of
those areas on our agenda next
Thursday.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Commissioner Montgomery.
>> Thank you. And I appreciate
the City of Richfield's efforts
in developing concepts around
the TDR program and putting
some proposals in writing. So
appreciate that. And just the
same question, as we said to
the center, does Ridgefield
support a TDR program in
conjunction with the proposed
UGA changes?
>> Yes.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you. Any other
questions for Richfield? Once
again, great job Steve. Thank
you. Appreciate it. Up next is
do we have Yacolt here? Any
chance is Yacolt online?
>> Hi. I'm here.
>> Okay. You have five minutes.
City of Yacolt.
>> Thank you. Good evening,
Chair and commissioners. My
name is Allison Baker. It's
BAKER. I'm a planner with
Jackson Civil, and I'm
testifying on behalf of the
town of Yacolt. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment
tonight. Yacolt does not
support the preferred
alternatives treatment of our
residential land capacity, and
we're asking the Commission's
help to get the record
corrected before the
comprehensive plan moves
forward in November 2024.
Yacolt planner of record, Paul
Dennis told the commission that
a 20 acre parcel in town had
developed into 47 homes over
that summer, consuming land
that Yacolt was counting toward
its 150 unit housing allocation
through 2045, Mr. Dennis asked
the county to reflect this in
their capacity numbers and to
consider a possible UGA
expansion to replace those
units, and that is part of the
record from that 2024 meeting.
The October 2025 draft, EIS
proposed a 90 acre UGA
expansion for Yacolt, which
included both residential and
employment growth. And under
that alternative, which became
the preferred alternative,
Yacolt showed a 118 unit
housing surplus, so a total of
228, I'm sorry, 268 units of
capacity against the 150 unit
target. However, the final EIS
published this July cut that
UGA expansion to just 12 acres
for employment only. The
residential component is gone,
and Yacolt housing units
changed from the 118 unit
surplus to now a seven unit
deficit. So it's a 125 unit
swing using what seems to be
the same capacity estimate. And
and we couldn't find an
explanation for the change. I
checked the parcel that Mr.
Dennis flagged in 2024 using
the county assessor and auditor
records, which confirm it was
subdivided into 47 lots in
January 2024 and sold
individually that February, and
building values were already on
record. The county's
jurisdiction map for the
preferred alternative shows the
land as vacant, while a more
current 2025 Vbm map shows that
property as built out. So if
the preferred alternatives
capacity figures are based on
an outdated map, that seven
unit deficit is likely
unreliable and the true
shortfall could be even larger.
So, you know, we'd welcome
clarification on how this
figure was recalculated.
Disclosure matters for
transparency and understanding,
especially when considering a
change that determines whether
Yacolt has room to grow. Yacolt
has low housing inventory
already, and the lots sell
quickly. People want to live
there, and that demand won't
necessarily be redirected to
neighboring jurisdictions,
where the county's models show
surplus, as suggested in the
FEIS Yacolt rural development
pattern means that infill and
density tools that other
jurisdictions use to absorb
growth won't necessarily pencil
here until a certain level of
development exists, and unmet
demand will translate into
higher housing prices or sprawl,
which is what the Mas boundary
system exists to prevent.
Yacolt and the surrounding
areas will absorb the impact,
and every unit not built in
Yacolt is property tax base,
utility revenue and commercial
activity removed from the
community. So we're asking the
commission to do three things.
First, we would like the county
to explain the drop in Yacolt
capacity between the draft and
the final EIS, including
whether it reflects that parcel
that Mr. Dennis mentioned in
the 2024 meeting. Second, until
an explanation is provided,
we'd like you to not treat that
seven unit deficit as the full
extent of Yacolt shortfall, as
the true number might be larger,
and we'd like you to not close
the door on the residential UGA
expansion within Yacolt based
on an unverified figure. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. Is there any
questions for Yacolt.
>> As Commissioner Harun?
>> So question for you. The
what land are you asking to be
brought back in?
>> It's actually near what is
circled in what looks to me
like teal here at the southern.
I'm sorry, could you repeat the
question? I'm not. I might have
misheard you.
>> My understanding is, is
you're concerned that that
Yacolt had come before us and
asked for certain parcels to be
brought in. We didn't
necessarily follow your
recommendation or your request.
And that could be based very
much on faulty data and faulty
assumptions. Which parcel is
there a specific parcel number
that you. Because we can't even
recommend if you have a
specific recommendation like we
would like. This parcel
included these 20 acres, these
50 acres, these hundred acres,
which ones and where are they?
And then. Yeah. Does that make
sense?
>> Yes. I believe the parcels
are in the south and southwest
portion of the UGA. If it's
possible, I can confirm that
and circle back with you.
>> I think that'd be helpful if
you had a if you had a very.
The City of Battleground came
with some very specific
requests and recommendations
that are actionable. I would I
would recommend that you would
include that for the record. To
us, that would be really
helpful.
>> Certainly.
>> Jose, do you have any
clarity on that?
>> Yeah. We can provide you a
map that shows where those
parcels are. What was in
alternative to that wasn't
moved forward in the preferred
alternative. And that's why
there's a difference between
the numbers and the eyes and
the eyes because of the removal
of those three areas. There's
to the southeast and then two
to the northeast in terms of
the development that occurred,
I had a conversation with Mr.
Dennis and explained to him
that the projected growth was
from 2023 to 2045. So any
development that occurs is
captured within that projection.
So that's why we didn't exclude
it from the model, because it's
already incorporated in that
anticipated growth.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you for the
clarification.
>> Any other questions for
Yacolt. Commissioner Barker?
>> Mr. Barker, I'm going back
to our conversation about
Yacolt before, and I'm hoping
that someone from staff can
remind me, was there
limitations that were placed on
Yacolt growth based on the
aspect of septic penetration
and the lack of sewer?
>> 12,000? Yeah. So I think
that they they don't have sewer.
So the septic requires a 12,500,
I think square foot lot minimum.
>> Okay. So it puts it into the
aspect. That's their minimum
lot size at 12,000. Okay.
>> Correct.
>> Any other questions. Okay.
Vancouver.
>> Good evening, Brian
Snodgrass SNODGRASS on behalf
of the City of Vancouver here
first of all to to thank this
group, the City Council or
excuse me, the county council,
county staff and our small city
counterparts for for reaching
this point, which is a very
important milestone, I think,
as as our letter, you should
have in your in the record this
week from Council member Eric
Paulson, indicates one of a
congratulations as well for the.
The proposed plan, fulfilling
one of its most important tasks
and providing more than ample
growth opportunities for the
future as. As you may recollect,
the plan was originally
anchored on. On aggressive
growth forecasts. Those are
then accommodated through a
model which had quite a bit of
review on, at least on the
residential side, not so much
on the job side, but the result
there is that some outdated
assumptions are resulting in
more capacity than than is
actually, we believe, than
being reported. So ample growth
opportunities. And important to
emphasize that those are not
only for rental opportunities.
That's been some of the
discussion, but also ownership
as well. And the best
indication of that, I think, is
in terms of metrics, as you can
look to the FEIS, for instance,
notes that more than three
times as much land countywide
is zoned for low density
development, that housing
development than it is for high
density housing development and
mixed use combined. The. There
are a couple of areas that, in
our view, need to to be
addressed to bring this process
to a successful and defensible
conclusion. One of those is
within the Vancouver UGA, the
existing UGA unincorporated
area. Some emphasize. Some. It
doesn't have to be a large
amount. Zoning needs to be
provided, in our view, in the
many areas where residents are
being forced and current zoning
essentially forces them and
proposed zoning does as well.
To drive over a mile to the
nearest work or shopping
opportunity. And we had this is
inconsistent with climate
requirements. It's inconsistent
with current county policy that
says interrelated uses should
locate near each other. And we
had earlier provided about two
years ago a list of potential
sites that that could
accommodate supportive zoning.
None have been included. Most
of those lands are now proposed
for zoning that either outright
allows disallows, excuse me,
any of those supportive
commercial or employment
opportunities, or in a few
cases, it's mixed use that
would allow it, but doesn't
necessarily incent it. The
going forward. We understand
there's there's quite a bit on
the Planning Commission's plate.
We would simply ask that you,
if you're unable to address the
zoning issue in the in these
hearings, to at least recommend
that the City Council consider
it in future work plans post
adoption, that this be
addressed. It's an important
issue to the city of Vancouver
and I think, to the to the
livability of the residents in
the area, and I think to the
Defensibility in terms of GMA
requirements of the county plan.
The other issue raised, and
it's in the letter as well, is
in regards a couple of issues
that. Legal issues that need to
be resolved one way or the
other, and how they get
resolved, I think is of
potentially regional
consequence. And so we just
would very much want to have a
hear a discussion, I should say,
among yourselves, among staff,
among county counsel, of how
these are going to get resolved.
One of those is the there is a
sizable county wide surplus, as
you know, land surplus. The
most recent information we
could find in the record before
you about that was in the phase
which said there was 10,000
more housing unit capacity than
there is forecast county wide.
That's if that's not resolved,
and I trust it will be in some
way. That's a fairly basic GMA
violation. There's a more
nuanced issue surrounding that
doesn't affect us directly, but
it does indirectly surrounding
the agricultural land study. We
are on record as supporting the
self-determination of the other
cities. That hasn't changed how
that how the issue gets
resolved is of some importance
and need some discussion.
Certainly what we had heard in
our understanding of the study
was that it found that that
agriculture was viable. If
there are other interpretations,
that's a matter that I think
also we would we would want to
hear discussed. Both of these
issues raise important
questions for us. And I think
in the the region, the one of
those is will the growth
forecasts or assumptions be
changed at the 11th hour? Were
somewhat wary of that because
that happened earlier in this
process. In the Vancouver, UGA
triggered a couple of at least
temporary proposed expansions,
which made no sense on the
ground in the county. I think
wisely pulled back from those
if small city expansions
requiring agriculture are
adopted, but then removed by
the hearings board as they have
been in the past. Will the
growth have to be made up in
the Vancouver UGA? And I think
lastly in the Vancouver UGA, on
the question of of capital
facilities adequacy, what are
the implications if if the
county is found in GMA
violation, as it has been quite
often in the past on these
issues and becomes grant
ineligible, what are the
implications for for service
adequacy in those areas? So
those are our questions or
comments. Happy to answer any
questions.
>> Questions for Vancouver. Mr.
Barker.
>> Ron Baka so looking at the
capital facilities plans, are
there elements of fees or.
Regional zones that you've had
to come up with different
taxation policies to try and
raise the revenue higher than
what is currently in place for
the city of Vancouver now?
>> That's a detailed question
I'd have to get back to you on.
The short answer is, I don't
know. As I sit here about what
what if I understand you're
asking, what changes have we
had to make in the capital
facilities plan that we just
adopted? We adopted all our
plans this past June that not
just that that do things
differently. Is that is that
your question? Sorry if I
understand your question. It's
in the Vancouver City of
Capital facilities plans. What
have we done differently in
this recently adopted plan? Is
that the question?
>> That's correct.
>> I mean, it's a range of
things, but I can give I can
follow up with a more detailed
answer if that's what you need.
Okay.
>> Yeah. Look, looking at the
capital facilities plan as it's
outlined in, I think it's
appendix E, most of the cities
just show like a completely
balanced budget. They got
whatever their expenditures are,
however many millions of
dollars it is. And then it
shows on the other side, there
is revenue to pay for it.
Vancouver is the only one that
put in the aspect of the actual
funding mechanisms. And so
that's why I was wondering
whether you've gone down enough
detail to understand what that
is, which I think puts you
above what the other cities did.
But I was wondering whether
that also included the aspect
of saying, there are some
places where revenues had to
change to meet those demands.
>> Yeah. Let me follow up.
>> Thanks.
>> Any other questions? With
that said, we have a that's the
end of the cities. So we have
about a little less than 20
people. What I'd like to do
right now is take a.
>> I think we have is cameras,
online.
>> Cameras online. I thought
I'd call them out.
>> Earlier.
>> Okay, so it looks like cam
is actually here.
>> You should be able to unmute
now. Alan.
>> Yes. Hello. Hello. Hi, this
is Alan Peters. I'm the
community development director
with the City of Camas. I
apologize, it wasn't able to
sign on to the meeting earlier,
but here now, I wanted to think
first of all, Chair Johnson and
the Planning Commission. We're
here today at a another key
milestone in the county's
periodic update process. And
we're looking to the Planning
Commission to make a
recommendation at this time to
the County Council on adoption
of the county wide 2045 plan.
Cam is, of course, appreciates
the partnership we've had with
the county and the opportunity
we've had to work together on
this update with your staff, as
well as the other the other
cities in Clark County. We
support the draft plan and the
inclusion of the two expansion
areas requested for Camas
included in the EIS preferred
alternative. First of all, grow
field. We believe this presents
a unique opportunity to bring
in public port property that
would be committed to job
creation, including grow field
in the Udy a would provide
zoning and infrastructure
needed to advance the port of
Cannava as well. Shingles
economic development goals
while helping us meet our job
targets. The Nevin property is
another important expansion
area located in proximity to
urban development and
infrastructure and Camas and
Washougal. While this property
is largely zoned agricultural
and undeveloped, it's 160 acres
include five acre lots that
could be developed with single
family homes, and we believe
inclusion in the Nevin property
into the Camas UGA to allow for
urban development is a better
use of this property and in
better alignment with the GMA.
So we would encourage the
County Planning Commission to
forward a recommendation,
including Camas request. And
then finally, I want to also
reiterate our support for
incorporating transfer of
development rights policies
into the plan. These programs
have been successfully
implemented across the state,
and I believe that the time has
now come in Clark County for
this opportunity. There's some
momentum for it, and I think a
TDR program presents an
important opportunity to
connect our desire to preserve
AG lands and provide land
capacity for jobs and housing
in our city. So, again, wanted
to thank the Planning
Commission and encourage you as
we conclude this process, to
get us across the finish line
here and support campus growth
plans. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Questions for
Camas.
>> Is this Commissioner Baka.
>> Again?
>> Please go ahead. Alicia.
>> Alicia.
>> You go really simple and I
think you already answered it.
But does the City of Camas
support a TDR program in
conjunction with the proposed
UGA changes?
>> Yes. The city of Camas is in
support of a TDR program.
>> Thank you.
>> Commissioner Baka. I would
like a little bit of
clarification, please. On the
244 acres that's shown on the
map. Is that to be considered
urban low density?
>> So there are two components
to that expansion request. The
grow field property. We would
designate a mix employment
which is a type of light
industrial zone. The 160 or so
acre property. It is included
in the preferred alternative as
multifamily. Hi. That was our
initial request. The city later
amended that request and
actually requested an
employment designation. But our
understanding is that request
came in too late. And so it was
included in the EIS as
multifamily.
>> Okay. That's what I wanted
to try and get some
clarification on. So for the
Nevin property specifically,
you're going to anticipate
bringing it in as employment
land, not any type of housing.
>> Well.
>> That that would have been
our intent, our understanding,
again, based on the timing of
our request, not making it in
time for the eyes. So the eyes
evaluated this as high density
residential. And so that is
what the proposed plan shows as
being included in. And I think
we we would accept that
designation. Our preference of
course, would be commercial.
And I think that's something
that if it is brought in as
residential, you know, we would
certainly keep in mind the
possibility of, of, you know,
perhaps being a mixed use
development or something like
that that would be still
consistent with whatever the
adopted plan is.
>> Okay. Underneath the Grove
Field property, you are
creating as the vernacular is
now somewhat of a donut hole by
not being contiguous in
adopting those parcels into the
urban growth boundary as well.
Is there a particular reason
why you didn't look at those
parcels, but you went up to
Grove? Is it specifically for
job growth?
>> Yes, that's absolutely
correct. This request was made
specifically by the Port of
Camas, Washougal, and it is
linked specifically to their
property that they own. So it
does you know, I think of it
more of a as a peninsula, but
donut holes fine to it. It
certainly does create an
irregular boundary, but we have
no interest at this point in
expanding in this area. This is
a largely par sized part of
firm prairie with a lot of
smaller rural lots. And really
I don't think fits in with our
our plans, but the opportunity
to bring in Grove Field again,
it's it's strictly for jobs.
And this came at the request of
the Port of Cannava as well.
It's something that we felt
much more comfortable with. It
also avoids AG lands. A lot of
the property in that area. Some
of the property in that area
would include ag land, and so
we sought to avoid that in this
instance.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions for
Camas. Hearing none. Thank you
very much. Appreciate your time.
With that said, we are now done
with the cities and we are we
have about 17 or 18 people
potentially signed up, but I'd
like to do right now is give
our recorder about a ten minute
break, and then we'll start up
with the testimony from. You
guys. Okay, so let's take a ten
minute little break here and
we'll get going.
There's four chairs up here and
two microphones here. And as I
call your name, I'm going to
call for a time. So just for
expedited, come up. Sit up here
and then you could come up
front. Just be clear to spell
your name first and last. And
you know, talk slowly. You'll
get three minutes. And I'll
just try to respect that
because it gets going here. So
the first four people I have on
the list here, do we have
anybody online to speak of
first.
>> We we do have several people
online, but we thought we were
going to do.
>> All right. We'll do this
first. Angie. Meryl, are you
here still? Oh, city. Dawn.
Thank you, thank you. Dawn,
could you just come up? You'll
be first on Claudette. Dawn.
You could actually come right
up to the mic. Susan, are you
going to speak again? Is she
still here? I think she already
spoke. Jan, wait. No, no. Linda,
are you here? Linda? Yes. Go
right there and then. Janet,
are you here? Go next. Linda.
And then. Is that David? David?
David, are you here? Okay.
Sorry, I can't read these. And
then the next one will be Peter.
No, not Peter. Excuse me.
Teresa Hardy, are you still
here? Teresa, can you come up
to the last. Can you slide over
one? David. Thank you. Oh, wait.
Yeah. Hold on. Teresa. I'm
sorry I mixed it up. We had
someone still coming up. Okay,
we'll take off now and chair.
Yeah.
>> Before we get started, I do
need to read our instructions.
>> Okay, go ahead and read your
instructions.
>> Please. Note, to be a party
of record, you must submit
written testimony before,
during, or prior to the close
of tonight's hearing or provide
oral testimony at the public
hearing or request in writing
to be a party of record. If
written comments were received
prior to August 20th, 2026,
they were submitted to the
Planning Commission members and
posted on the Planning
Commission website. Tonight's
hearing is being transcribed by
a court reporter, so please
spell your first and last name
and speak slowly. Public
comment time is limited to
three minutes. Okay?
>> Okay. Go ahead sir. Thank
you.
>> Testing. Is this working?
Yes. Hello, everyone. My name
is Don Steinke. I live in rural.
Oh, stinky STEINKE. I live in
rural East Clark County. I was
on the climate advisory group.
I'm here to support the
recommendations that they made
and urge that you pass them. We
unanimously agreed to recommend
approximately 150 goal and
policy proposals. I suggest the
consideration at some time of
an additional issue that did
not surface until six months
ago, after we had finished
meeting the. The new issue is
grid scale batteries. Grid
scale batteries vary from the
size of dumpsters to shipping
containers. The Columbian
newspaper reported last week
that the Pacific Northwest and
Conservation Council said we
needed 5.2GW of battery storage
regionally by 2032. Batteries
are needed to shave peak demand
and to store daytime solar
energy for use in the evening
grid scale batteries vary in
power from 1 to 9MW. We need
approximately 1500 grid scale
batteries regionally by 2032.
Currently, we have one in the
entire state. Portland has 30
right across the river from
here. We need 1500 more in the
region, but maybe only 50 in
Clark County by 2032. The
question is where do we put
them and how will we regulate
them? We need them. About two
years ago, a developer tried to
install one battery in rural
Thurston County and people
protest, protested their
protest, was motivated by a
serious battery fire at the
Moss Landing Battery complex in
California. That battery
complex was not properly
regulated. The project in
Thurston County was eventually
approved on the condition that
the fire department approve of
it. The Pacific Power Council
says. We also need. We need
grid scale batteries. Do we
concentrate them in industrial
areas like Portland General
Electric has done, or do we
distribute, distribute grid
scale batteries on commercial
roofs and in church parking
lots like Minnesota is doing?
Or both. The law requires us to
reduce emissions. Batteries can
help us do that. Batteries also
provide some resilience in the
event of a cyber attack or
wildfire. I'm suggesting that
we welcome grid scale batteries,
but also develop regulations to
minimize the risk. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your
conversation, sir. Next up is
Claudette.
>> Can you hear me? Okay. My
name is Claudette Dorokhov and
I live at Cascade Park Estates,
which is a manufactured home
park.
>> And can you spell your name,
please?
>> Oh, spell my name. Okay.
First name you want spelled
also? Okay, CLAUDETTE. Last
name DERRICOTTE. We've lived
there since 2018. Since 2018,
and I lived there with my
husband, who is a Vietnam
veteran. We have a lot of us.
My colleagues are here to
advocating to preserve the
manufactured home parks in
unincorporated Clark County. So
I have. Been given shared by
Glenn a memo on June 22nd, and
it talks about the 34
manufactured home parks that
are home to over 2000
households in are both urban
areas and rural areas. And what
we are trying to advocate is to
keep our manufactured homes
manufactured home parks. And we
appreciate the work that you've
all done to include us in that
plan. And what it says in the
memo of the manufactured
housing park code concepts is
that. This is a form of housing
that we can, you know, most of
us can afford. I'm sorry. I'm a
little discombobulated right
now, but in here, what they're
what you're saying is that I
what I'm hearing and what I'm
learning because I'm still
learning the process of all of
this is that we when you make
your plan there, there's the
idea of having high density.
And what we need to do is to
preserve the parks so that
running out of time. So we. So
we want to just remind you that
when you go to consider
something viable or non-viable,
maybe there should be some
extra support in there as to
what is non-viable so that we
don't lose our manufactured
home parks to rezoning. Thank
you.
>> Thank you for your testimony.
Mayor did a great job. Yeah.
>> Just one moment, Claudette,
before you go.
>> Sorry. Yes.
>> Are you aware of the work
that staff has done?
>> Oh, yes.
>> Okay. And have you seen that
particular document in in the
proposal.
>> Yes. I was going to try to
overview on it, but it's the
idea of, of, of protecting them
and, and the equality of the
people because there's so many
of us. I mean, I spoke to Mr.
Silver, who's the CEO of the
Vancouver Vancouver Housing
Authority on Monday. They had a
meeting at the library. And he
has approached many times for
people to buy for them to buy
the manufactured home parks.
But we need funding if we can
get funding and have it
available, then us, our
communities can buy them also.
So in the whole concept of 20
years down the road, there are
options. We could become co-ops
and own the property. A lot of
us want to improve our
properties and our homes, but
we can't because we're like on
the edge of the cliff, waiting
to be rezoned and kicked out.
And the r, c, w is two years. I
mean, we have to get out in two
years, and we do not get the
value back from our homes. So
yes, I understand what you have
all done and we have been
following it and we appreciate
it, but we need to preserve our
housing in the state, not just
unincorporated. There are
approximately 1200 registered
manufactured home parks in
Washington state. Maybe those
that aren't registered there,
1600. That's 65,000 households.
>> Okay, so just for my
understanding, you've you've
been working with staff and
you've seen the proposal and
you're in favor of it. And if
there's anything else, I think
in regards to your group, if if
there needs to be continued
contact, you know who to
contact. Yes we do. That's what
I was hoping for. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> So much.
>> Appreciate it.
>> Linda.
>> Mr. C Petris Clobes. Okay.
>> Do I need to turn anything
on? Okay. My name is Linda
Huddle, HETTL, and Linda with
an I. I live in Cascade Park as
well. I am the president of the
Resident Association. I would
like to thank you for
clarifying the role of the
Planning Commission and the
County Council. I've been in
front of the County Council on
more than one occasion looking
for the moratorium, which was
preventing redevelopment of
manufactured home parks, which
they passed. My understanding
is that expires in April or
early of next year, and that
they are working on a more
permanent solution for us.
After listening to everything
that you said tonight, with
increasing density in the
zoning and increasing the
number of people, I'm just
questioning how that impacts
the manufactured home park. And
I also have a concern because,
as Claudette said, if we are
sold or redeveloped, we get a
percentage of appraised value
for our houses and lose all of
our own equity while having to
pay lot rent until we move and
having to pay for demolition of
our homes, which is a
significant issue for seniors
and for people of low income.
So I am asking that you
continue to support the council
in a moratorium about
redevelopment, and I have a
comment on a personal level, as
I'm aging in society, I thought
my biggest concern was going to
be that my children were going
to choose my nursing home. And
now my biggest concern is that
I have to be concerned about
the possibility of losing my
home. So I thank you for your
time and appreciate your
efforts.
>> That was a great testimony.
Thank you, ma'am, I appreciate
it, Janet.
>> Good evening. My name is
Janet Isley, JANETEASLEY. My. I
am a resident as the others are
of Cascade Park Village, which
is a manufactured home park in
Clark County. I read with
interest the proposed wording
of Clark County code 4251 20
entitled Manufactured Home Park
Overlay District. To summarize
the sections intended to
preserve existing manufactured
home parks and prevent the
displacement of existing
residents. Redevelopment of
manufactured homes would be
limited. I am uncomfortable
with section E use exception
exemption. A property owner of
a manufactured home park may
seek a zone change for the
property for several reasons.
The last reason is the
applicant proposes to redevelop
the site with affordable
housing and will assist
existing residents to minimize
displacement, including
relocation assistance, etc. I
assume the Planning Commission
would subject any such proposal
to analysis before approval. I
have several thoughts about
this. The owner of a
manufactured home park can
probably easily determine that
he or she can earn more money.
If more affordable housing is
built on the manufactured home
site. We have 170 homes. If 300
multi-family homes or
apartments could replace 170
manufactured homes, then of
course, the property owner will
receive much more money in rent
and lease payments. Our
manufactured home park is
located in a commercial area,
and the property is certainly
subject to redevelopment
pressures. Present residents of
manufactured homes on the site
will be forced to move. They
will not receive full value for
their homes and their homes
would be destroyed. In our park,
residents are seniors, most
have fixed incomes and some
live solely on Social Security.
Moving will be disastrous for
them. Some may become homeless.
Does the county really want to
destroy 170 manufactured homes?
The wording here appears to
allow exactly what we have
spoken to the county Council
about our fear of being forced
to move from our homes. I
suspect that this section is
included to assure the present
owners of manufactured home
parks that there is a way for
them to redevelop their
properties for another use and
make more money. I plead that
this wording would be changed
or eliminated. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your testimony,
ma'am. Yeah. Next up David.
Real quickly, Theresa, if you
can come up in the chair. Doug,
are you here? Doug Berger, are
you speaking tonight? No. Doug.
Okay. Dale. Sharon. Sharon,
come up there. Sharon. Jim, I
think it's Jim. Are you here?
Jim? Yeah. Come up here, Jim.
And one more. Jim Slater is you
come up Jim. Come up. Jim. Man
main. Then how about Bobby?
Bobby Jericho Bobby, are you
here? Come on up. And you're
going to speak just up here.
Okay. Thank you very much, sir,
for being patient with me. Go
ahead.
>> Thank you, chair and members
of the Commission, David Toyer
DAV I'd last name TOYER with
Toyer Strategic Advisors. We're
a land use planning and
economic development consulting
firm located up in Everett. And
we've had the privilege of
working with the cities of
Ridgefield, LA Center and Camas
to provide technical advice and
expertise on transfer of
development rights. As you
heard from the cities earlier
this evening, relative to their
proposed expansions, they do
support creation of a county
wide TDR program. And one of
the things that we've done in
working with the cities was
help them propose language that
is in the land use element. On
page 31. It's county wide
planning policy. 1.1.24. And
that establishes a specific
policy that directs the
creation of a transfer of
development rights program. And
it also sets it up to allow the
county Council to require that
UGA expansions can be done
contingent upon participation
in a transfer of development
rights program, and ties that
to the execution of an
interlocal agreement. And so we
appreciate the work that the
Planning Commission did earlier
this year and last year to make
their recommendation in favor
of several of those urban
growth boundary expansions for
the cities. And then you you
did make your recommendation
contingent upon the creation of
a transfer of development
rights program and recognizing
the need to to make sure that
there's a policy framework and
a process that would be in
effect. That's where the
genesis for this language has
come from. It has been shared
with the Council, and we would
encourage the Commission. As
you contemplate the
recommendations you made
previously in support of those
expansions that made it into
the preferred alternative, that
you also likewise make sure
that you you take a look at
that language in the land use
element and reconcile how that
fits with the previous
recommendation you made. And I
think your desire unanimously
as a planning commission to
want to, to, to put in motion
really a unique and innovative
approach to preserving
agricultural land, as well as
providing for helping cities
accomplish their growth
planning goals. So thank you.
I'm happy to answer any
questions you may have.
>> Any questions? Thank Alishia
none. Thank you sir. Thank you
for your comments. Let's go
with not Teresa. You're up next.
>> Good evening, Teresa Hardy
HARDY. I have two concerns. The
first one I'm going to read,
many of us, many of us in the
community, were eager to see
new planning commissioners who
we saw as wanting to protect
our natural resources, but were
surprised when we watched you
support a preferred alternative
that needlessly expands Udy GAS
and destroys designated
agricultural land. In the case
of battleground, egg quality
rural land that should be
designated as AG. We are
confused by this decision,
given that it's been reiterated
time and again that the BLM
shows that it is unnecessary to
expand UGA's to accommodate the
projected growth population.
And as Brian Snodgrass, City of
Vancouver, just addressed now,
the county's final
environmental impact statement
has put this fact in writing as
well. It states given the
planning assumptions for growth
rate and jobs acre, the
preferred alternative
alternative exceeds the land
capacity needed to accommodate
the housing and job growth
projected for the next 20 years.
So even if you stay with your
previous position to expand
UGA's like you did with the
preferred alternative, we
believe you owe it to the
public to really discuss this.
We believe that the UGA should
be expanded. Why explain why
you believe the UGA should be
expanded when that's not what
the BLM shows is necessary when
the county's own FEIS document
states so. And when it violates
the Growth Management Act to
needlessly expand UGA's, which
will which will predictably
land the county on the losing
end of a court battle that
could potentially cost
taxpayers a lot of money. The
next that I want to address is
that as a Sierra Club, we would
like to see that you not move
forward with approving the
changes that have been made
four years ago, which was
multifamily, residential,
outdoor area standards and that
are now multifamily,
residential amenity standards,
recreation and landscape has
been taken out of that.
Originally, four years ago, it
was the D who brought it, and I
have it in those packets. The
first thing was when they
brought it to council as an
interim ordinance, and that was
just a combined landscaping and
recreation. Then it went to the
it went to the biannual, and it
was Brian Engh at the time who
said that it should not go
through the biannual because
there were unintended
consequences. There were
density implications that it
was not a minor amendment. It
should be considered under
policy Planning Commission went
ahead and approved it. It went
forward. Then it went through
the multifamily housing options.
It went through the tech forum.
The tech forum did not include
any public input on that. The
only way you could do anything
is to attend those meetings and
send an email in later. We feel
that there is not enough public
input that has been put into
this, that there are a lot of
unintended consequences.
There's equity issues around
this because now in the 2026
latest draft, it's not just
multifamily housing, it's
transitional housing, permanent
supportive housing. This needs
to be addressed. It needs to be
looked at more closely for
climate equity and everything
else. There's a lot of changes
that have been made, and the
public doesn't know anything
about this. So we're asking for
you not to move this forward in
the comp plan.
>> Thank you. Thank you for
your testimony, mayor. Who's
next here? Is it Sharon up
there? Yeah.
>> Good evening. My name is
Sharon Peavy. PEVEY. And I am
also a manufactured home owner
in Cascade Park. And. Oh. I
need to. Okay. Oh, okay. Yes.
Well, I'm also a homeowner in
Cascade Park community and it's
been quite. A, an experience
living in one of these
communities. We are now an
investment for most of the
owners. And it's a widely known
they're buying and selling like
crazy. And as soon as I moved
in, the price increases started
for rent. I originally, well, I
paid $140,000 for my house. If
we lose our home, we only get
17 at the most and 10,000 for a
smaller home. But so anyway,
because of all the changes and
what was happening, I joined a
statewide group and we fought
to pass bills in Olympia, and
we were the ones that passed
the the rent stabilization. And
it was heartbreaking. We were
in Olympia and, and most so
most of these communities are
for senior citizens. We have
young families as well, but a
lot of senior citizens. And we
were hearing an 81 year old
woman talk about her $1,000
rent increase, and she was
headed to the street. And so
our policy makers were we were
all in tears that day. But so
anyway, we did get the rent
stability, but we have a bed
amendment on the bill now also.
So we have a hard time even
selling our homes. When we sell
our homes, our owners get a one
time rent gouge to whoever
wants to buy your property. And
so our our houses have to come
way down in price in order to
sell even right now. So we've
been through a lot. We really
appreciated working with the
the county on trying to protect
our homes and trying to help us.
And so we really appreciated.
They spend a lot of time with
us trying to get to know what
we are dealing with, actually.
And we're senior citizens. We
thought we were going to live
affordably the rest of our
lives. And so we are hoping and
praying for overlay, overlay
zoning for stability. At least
we we would appreciate that. So
am I off? Do I have a little
more time? Oh, no. I'm done.
Okay. Thank you so much for
listening.
>> Thank you. Who's next? Jim
trying to get you. There we go.
>> My name is Jim Schrater.
SCHLATTER. And the reason I'm
here tonight is to give you
some input about the property
my wife and I own. That's west
of northwest 61st Avenue at
169th Street. It's 23 acres.
And it was in the comp plan
when they changed it. They made
our property only ten acre
minimum with all the other
property in every direction
around us. Five acre minimums,
which was hard to understand. I
the only speculation that I
could make was maybe it was
because it was the remainder of
a cluster lot development that
was done 33 years ago, and.
However, if you look at the
cluster lot plat and if you
look at the cluster lot
regulations, nowhere on there
does it say it should be zoned
a lower density because it was
previously part of a cluster
lot development. It simply says
that. It cannot be further
developed until the zoning
changes period. So there's no
reason to have made our
property only ten acres when
everybody else is around us is
five. And in fact, south of us
and adjoining us, there's six
one acre home sites north and
adjoining us, there's seven one
and a quarter acre zone sites,
and to the northeast of us is
somewhere around a dozen 1 to 2
acre lots. So. But really, all
I'm asking for is to correct
this mistake and and showing
the comp plan five acre parcels
is fine. That's what was given
to everybody else. Okay, good.
I have more time. So anyway,
I'm asking you to please
consider looking at that and
realizing that it was a mistake.
I'm going to have to go through
a zone change request, which
costs a great deal of money
because of this mistake. And so
I'm hoping that you can at
least change, correct the comp
plan to where our property is
the same as everybody around us,
the five acre parcels. And you
can look on your comprehensive
plan map and there's our little
property that's brown and
everybody else's is the five
acre color around us. So I
appreciate your time. I hope
you can consider this. I did, I
wrote a letter that I'd like to
turn in if that's that's okay,
I. I just had one other comment.
I'm a retired developer, home
builder, both single family
multifamily. And when I hear
about zone changes going up to
43 and 50 units per acre, you
make land almost unsalable and
you force a developer to build
something that people don't
want. You end up with four
story, 400 square foot studio
apartments. And so I just think
that density is just is too
high. And anyway, thank you.
>> Hold on. We have a question
for you, Jim.
>> Commissioner. Brian. Sure.
Could you give me your cross
streets again so I could look
up the property?
>> Oh yes it is. I can give you
the address, but it's northwest
61st Avenue.
>> Okay.
>> At northwest 169th Street in.
It's west of the west side of
of 61st Avenue.
>> Great.
>> Thank you. The address is
16716 northwest 61st Avenue,
Richfield. I can give you the
parcel number two. Okay.
>> Thank you for being patient.
Being? You're the first one to
walk up. Wait this long? Well.
>> Sorry for the mistake,
anyway. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Next is. Sorry. So,
Bobby, come on up, Bobby, and
then give me a second here. Sam.
No. Let's see. Walter? Walter,
are you still here? You take a
seat there, sir. Diane, are you
here? Come on. Up to the front
row. Janet, are you here? Janet,
can you come to the front row?
Dave, row! Come on up. Dave and
Burt. No. Burt, do you want to.
Burt. Here? I don't think Burt
wants to speak. Okay, I think
that's all. Is there anybody
else that wants to speak that I
didn't get? Okay. Go ahead. Sir.
Thank you for being patient.
>> BOBBYDERRICOTTE, just to let
you know, sir, I never signed
up to speak here. I do not talk
in public. I do not talk. Give
speeches. All I'm going to
share right now, sir, I'm going
to tell you the truth about
what and who I am and what my
hope is for the future. All of
these ladies and gentlemen here,
I live in the compound with
them, with my wife, Claudette.
I love where I live. First of
all, I never had a home. This
is the first real home I ever
bought in 2018. Lived in
rentals as a kid, joined the
service, did my time in Vietnam,
almost got killed, but not in
Vietnam. In Cambodia. But God
saved my life through another
human being. Because if not, I
wouldn't be talking and sharing.
So all I can tell you, sir, is
I was homeless when I was 50
years young in Long Beach,
California. I still had a job,
but I gave everything away to
my ex-wife. I didn't want
anything because she never had
anything. But I knew that if I
gave everything to her, the
house, everything gave her half
my pension from the company. I
worked in Long Beach, and I was
in debt up to my neck, went
back to Hawaii, met Claudette.
She helped me pay my bills off.
So we got married. I retired
from Hawaii, came here. We
bought a manufactured home park
here. If you have ever been
homeless, I'm going to tell you
the loneliest thing about
homelessness. I feel it for
those ladies and gentlemen out
there. Even senior citizens my
age of 85. Being all alone.
That's terrible. And finally,
my children. I have two sons
and a grandson. Oldest grandson,
50. I mean, oldest son, 58. My
youngest son, 56. My grandson
was born in 1988. I haven't
seen him ever since he was born,
so I pray for him. I hope that
things will be better for the
future generation. I don't care
about me. I care about the
future generation. You think
about it because they're going
to be homeless. My grandson, my
sons never have a home. And I
want to thank you and God bless
you for doing what you do. Sir.
>> Sir, thank you for your
comments and especially thank
you for your service too. We
appreciate it.
>> You're the first gentleman
that told me that nobody else
told me that except you.
>> My daughter. Right now, real
quickly, my daughter's in
Vietnam right now. Yeah, I just
thought of. So thank you for
your service, sir.
>> Thank you for your kindness.
>> Okay.
>> So thank you for your
service. Yours too.
>> Okay. We got that back
together.
>> I don't like you people, but
I love you because you're a
human being like me.
>> Diane, is it Diane? You're
up next. Okay.
>> Hi. Good evening. Thank you
all for sticking through this
evening. It's a long evening,
Diane Dempster, I live in. I
live in Vancouver,
unincorporated Clark County,
and I'm very concerned about
the loss of agricultural land
that will occur if the if the
preferred alternative is
adopted. Clark County has lost
so much agricultural land and
farmers in the last 30 years
that a once thriving
agricultural economy struggles
to even be recognized as an
industry with a growing
population, we need all the ag
land we have left to feed the
current and anticipated demand
for local food. The AG Land
study shows that most of the
land in Clark County is prime
agricultural land. Approving
the preferred alternative would
result in the designation of
509 acres of prime agricultural
land. It's a myth that we need
more more land to create
affordable housing. Single
family homes are the more
expensive to build, take up
most of the land and are out of
the price range. For many Clark
County residents. Building on
land outside the Ugb costs more
in infrastructure such as roads
and sewers. The county's own
studies show that there is
plenty of land inside the urban
growth boundary to meet the
upcoming demand, and it's
cheaper to build there. The
housing we need is for low to
moderate income families, not
single family homes in rural
parts of the county. Thank you
for your time.
>> Thank you for your comments
tonight. Let's see. Janet.
>> Good evening, Chair Johnson.
>> Can you turn it on? Just hit
the button there. Yeah, I want
up. I'm there. Oh there we go.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Good evening,
Chair Johnson. Commissioners.
My name is Janet Hedgpeth.
JANETHEDGEPATH. I'm a citizen
of Clark County. As I've
watched the comp plan process,
it has become evident that the
intent from the very beginning
was to craft a comp plan that
continued business as usual as
I saw decisions made,
disregarding data and trying to
skirt the mandates of the G, M,
A, and the new legislation. As
the City of Vancouver
wonderfully outlined, I recall
that old dictum, follow the
money, and I ask, who benefits
from these choices and who pays?
This comp plan accommodates
developers and some of the
cities who use the myth of
needing more land and relaxed
standards and fees to create
affordable housing. Whether
this commission and council
still believe this ruse, or
just use it as a convenient
excuse doesn't really matter
because the results are the
same. Citizens live with more
low density zoning or sprawl,
and less ag land, and no more
affordable housing. Taxpayers
pay the increased cost for
utilities, roads and services
that weren't covered by TFTIFS
and no more affordable housing.
And we all feel the loss of
grants and state monies in the
county's efforts to continue
developing as it has previously.
With no more affordable housing,
taxpayers pay for the lawsuits
that result from allowing
questionable development and no
more affordable housing. So I
ask, as you move forward,
please give more consideration
to the impacts on everyday
citizens and the cost to the
taxpayers, and not just the
development community and what
is best for them. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments,
ma'am. Let's see. It looks like
we have Dave. Hey bro. Come on
Dave bro, come on up. Is there
anybody else in the audience
that. Oh, okay. Think we got it
up here Dave.
>> Anybody?
>> This thing came off.
>> Dave row ROWE. I live in
battleground. I gave a handout
for you to look at. It's. Clark
County has an underutilized
asset on the comprehensive
growth plan. Little mention of
the Prairie Railroad in the
comprehensive plan that a map
behind me was drew out in 1894.
And that Chelatchie Prairie
Railroad is on that map. It's
over 130 years old. We don't
use it enough that that would
help our our county. The
handout I just gave you talks
about rail bikes. Rail bikes
are used in many other rail
lines such as Mount Hood,
National Mount Hood Railroad,
and they charge $199 per bike,
with two people putting crook
rail bike charges 260 $500 or
200 260 $500 for two people.
Bike and Nora River River in
California charges $495 per for
four person bike. So what I'm
asking you, could we just talk,
think about utilizing that
railroad to a better degree. If
we would use rail bikes there,
they would sure help our
schools. Some of the income
could be revenue to help our
school budgets, which is sorely
needed. Truckey Clark County
upgraded that corridor so it
could be used by rail bikes. So
I'm just asking you to kind of
put in, in your comprehensive
plan that there's other things
to be used other than just
railroad. It is a freight train
right now, and it could be put
in for passenger rail too. I'm
wearing this conductor's
uniform because I'm a conductor
down in Lake Oswego. We could
have more conductors like they
were in in 18. They were
running from 1802, 1902 to 1932.
They were running freight on
this line, and they were
charging a $1.70 for passengers
back in that time. And they
they hold quite a few
passengers in Portland from
1915 to $1924 million. 4
million people a year rode the
trains in the Willamette Valley
up to Vancouver. So I'd like to
see them come back. Thank you.
>> Perfect timing. Thank you
for your comments. Is there
anybody else in the audience
that would like to speak? Come
on up, ma'am, and just go ahead
and take the mic. State your
name.
>> Chair. Just for the record,
I, I want to do that rail bike
thing. So I think we should at
least get one and explore the
opportunities and maybe for a
weekend.
>> I agree. Yeah.
>> I'll second.
>> The motion. Thank you. Go
ahead ma'am.
>> Thank you. My name is Lisa
Rowe, ROWE. I don't think we're
related. I am also a resident
at Cascade Park Estates. I'm
actually the newly elected
treasurer secretary. So I'm
trying to get caught up on all
of this stuff that affects me.
So when I moved here, I
actually I wasn't prepared to
speak. But now I feel this is
personal. So because I'm scared.
But when I moved here, I was
planning on moving to Portland
area and I just happened to see
online these manufactured homes
that had garages and yards.
That's where I want to live. So
I ended up buying the house,
spent every penny I had, and
frequently now every week on
Facebook, there's many posts
that say we're moving to the
Vancouver area from Florida or
whatever, and they say, what's
the best area to live? Where's
good schools? 90% of the
responses are, don't move here.
Crime is bad. Homelessness is
bad, rents are up. Don't don't
move here. So I don't think
that I mean, I'm all for
progress. Growth is necessary,
but I don't think people are
going to be scrambling to come
to Clark County to live in a
box in high density area.
Mobile home parks are a great
example of affordable housing.
And so I think that, again,
growth progress is great, but
it shouldn't come at the
sacrifice of our already
affordable housing because
people don't want it. Like I
have medical issues, physical
limitations that I can't go up
and down stairs. I can't go in
an apartment and take groceries
in and out, take my dog in and
up and down. You know, young
families that want to buy a
house can't afford it. And the
mobile homes are great option
for that. Seniors can live
independently. It's just it's
just a great option. I lived
before I came here, I lived in
one for 23 years and I loved it.
But I think it's just an option
that shouldn't be taken away
and we shouldn't be be growing
at the at the sacrifice of our
our homes. I think it's yeah.
Because I mean, I lose
everything. If if they take
away our homes, I would have to
leave Washington and go back to
probably California, Nevada,
somewhere where I have some
support. And I mean, nobody
cares if one person leaves, but
it's it's not going to be just
me. Nobody's going to come here
if there's nothing, there's no
options. It's got the same high
density apartments that are in
every city. There's going to be
nothing unique about this area
that's going to draw people in.
It's not going to be appealing,
you know, so we do I do know
about the moratoriums and stuff,
and we definitely appreciate
that all the work that's going
into that. But we need a more
permanent solution. So thank
you.
>> Thank you for your comments.
We appreciate that. Yes, ma'am.
Yes. Come up. Make sure you
state your name.
>> Spell it this time.
>> My name is Susie Reed,
SUSIEREED. I've been listening.
I came here to to learn and
like I mentioned, for me, I'm
educational specialist. It's
like learning a foreign
language. And so I've, I have
an awareness level now that's
pretty minimal, but I
appreciate learning this, but I
wanted to share with you my
when I moved here and I won't
go into detail, I started
having real estate mobbing. I
have prime property. I even had
somebody walk by the house and
say prime real estate. And then
it started, you know, backflow
valve was taken out, dirt put
in the sprinklers. That kind of
thing is happening on a regular
basis. I cannot get help with
it. And as I listen to these
other people's stories, one of
the things that, you know, I
worked for 50 years and I and I
knew if I'm anxious to ask you
about it, but when when I was
my son was six, I had cancer
and he came out, he'd had a
dream. And he said to me, mom,
I had a dream last night. I
have a message for you. And I
said, you know, I just thought
it's a kid thing. He'd been
watching TV with mom again, and
he looked at me and he said,
why would you look for anything
with your head when you can
find it with your heart, when
you make your decision? Because
an interesting kid, when you
make your decisions, be sure
that you use your heart. And as
I listen to these people
tonight and, and I listen, I
ask the knowledge base that you
gentlemen demonstrated in the
types of questions that you
asked was very impressive. I
don't know what it all means,
but I could tell that there was
a strong knowledge base behind
those questions. So that's the
head part. This is the heart
part. And in anything that we
do in life, I worked with kids
with autism. Anything that we
do in life. But the question
becomes, what is our our
purpose? What are we trying to
accomplish? Are we trying to
accomplish a grand scale, or
are we trying to reach the
individual person and make life
a quality of life where people
don't say, don't move here? I
was excited to come back, and
I've had one heck of a time
since I've been here and I
refuse to give up. I've learned
to walk three times. I'm not
giving up, but I really like
you to consider these people's
needs and and make sure that
they don't lose. I mean, I
worked for 50 years and I could
lose everything and Michael
join you, but they can't. You
can't start over. And then
there's our kids. What are they
going to do? So that has to be
part of the configuration. What
is affordable housing for those
that come after us? Because
we're all just a little bit
away from disaster. Thank you.
>> Thank you again. Okay. That
that said, I think that was it.
Do we have anybody online that
would like to go and do your.
>> All right. We will now call
those participants that have
joined remotely via computer or
telephone. Please raise your
virtual hand or press star
three on your phone to let us
know. You would like to provide.
Comment. For those using
telephone options, press star
six on your phone to unmute
yourself when it is your turn
to speak.
>> So, chair.
>> We have several people
online, but only a few raised
hands. So far, the raised hands
have come up in order, so I'll
just call on them in the order
that they raise their hands. So
first I'm going to unmute Steve.
Steve Thalberg, go ahead when
you're ready. And. Steve, I've
sent you an unmute request if
you would like to speak. Go
ahead. Otherwise, we'll move on.
Okay.
>> Who's speaking? Is that Jeff?
>> No, this is Bart. I'm sorry.
Cyndie Bart catching.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay, so Steve has lowered
his hand, so we'll go to caller
two. Caller two I'm sending you
an unmute request if you could
identify yourself.
>> Hello?
>> Yes.
>> This is Steve Thalberg. Can
you hear me?
>> Oh, well, now we can. Steve.
Yes.
>> Okay. I had a problem on
clicking the unmute button. It
didn't work.
>> Okay. Go ahead, Steve, we
can hear you now.
>> This is Steve Thalberg,
STEVETHALBERG. I'd like to
address the climate element.
The Planning Commission and
county should adopt measures to
protect and enhance tree crown
cover, as tree crown cover is
associated with multiple health
benefits, and I. Please see the
document that I sent to you
guys earlier today. Housing
development is a concern in the
county and the construction of
homes, especially high density
dwellings, frequently results
in the destruction of trees.
The county should adopt a tree
protection and replacement
program. The City of
Vancouver's Urban Tree and
Forestry program can be used as
a template, a measure to
protect and enhance tree crown
cover will also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions,
improve air and water quality,
and enhance the quality of life,
which are all part of HB 1181.
>> He's talking.
>> With regards to chapter four,
Environmental element. I'd like
to see added to 4.3, 4.4, 4.5,
4.1.2. The adoption of a public
benefit rating system, commonly
known as a PBRS, is currently
adopted in 20 of Washington's
counties. A PBRS will enhance
the success of meeting all the
goals of the environmental
element and those goals
mandated in HB 1181. Regarding
chapter five, the
transportation element, I'd
like to see added to 5.0.116
the approval of development
projects, whether they're
residential or commercial,
should occur without exceeding
the volume to capacity ratios.
The VC ratio of 0.9 and this
will also reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, which is also
addressed in HB 1181. Regarding
the preferred alternative, the
Planning Commission is urged to
reconsider their adoption of
altering the urban growth
boundaries for the cities in
Clark County, as those changes
are inadequate in the goals for
concurrency, traffic and
infrastructure, and the county
admits that there is a
projected $554 million
shortfall in funding necessary
for transportation improvements.
The current system further sets
up conflicts with adhering to
goals for concurrency and the
loss of agricultural land. I
refer you to the document that
I sent to you guys earlier
today for other issues that I'd
like entered into the record.
Thank you.
>> Great timing. Thank you, sir,
for your comments.
>> Next in line chair, we have
Jackie Lane. Jackie, I've sent
you an unmute request.
>> Good evening commissioners.
I'll keep this pretty short
because a lot of people have
spoken more clearly than I can.
But I would ask that you do not
designate any ag land in this
comp
>> Plan.
>> That you ensure that your
recommendations follow the law.
Specifically, the GMA and I
would listen to the City of
Vancouver as regards the
county's actions in the
Vancouver Yuga and ensure that
impact fees and the cost of
infrastructure supporting new
is covered by developers. The
taxpayers like me, who've been
here for years and years, years.
I don't want my taxes going up
in order to somebody else
speaking in order to cover
development growth, and I don't
want traffic to get worse
because the county can't afford
the infrastructure needed for
new development. So that's it.
Thank you. Have a great night.
>> Thank you for your comments,
ma'am.
>> Next up we have first name
Heidi. Heidi, I've sent you an
unmute request.
>> Hello, my name is Heidi Pozo.
H e I'd IPOZZO. This plan adds
density. Where the. Excuse me?
The county's records say it
cannot be served. Not the roads,
not the creeks, not the schools,
not the parks. On concurrency,
more density is being added to
the 1/79 and Salmon Creek
corridors on roads that are
already. Project problems in
May, in the 1/74 Street
subdivision case, the
applicant's traffic engineer
identified road segments that
exceeded the county's adopted
0.9 volume to capacity standard.
The RMA requires a concurrency
ordinance that denies
development, dropping a road
below the standard Clark County
has one. These segments fail,
and the developments are
approved anyway under a code
section. Never written to
approve a failing test. A
program set. A program never
says no is not a concurrency
program. The GMA also requires
the housing and transportation
elements to balance. That
cannot be determined here. This
plan requires bike lanes and
paths on 106 miles of County
Road. That space comes from
buying land or existing lanes.
The county has not designated
which roads lose lanes, so none
of it is modeled. The analysis
was run on the network as it
exists today. The housing this
plan assigns here needs to be
reassessed. Stormwater. Two
creeks take all the water from
this corridor. Whipple and mill,
both too warm and both eroding.
Whipple ran over the
temperature limit for fish on
71 of 93 days. Some of that is
existing development, but
everything this plan adds makes
both creeks worse. The water
can't infiltrate here, so the
developments hold their runoff
in detention facility, then
pushes it to the creek. The
facility slows the water down,
but the water still arrives and
the forest is coming down. In
the Mill Creek catchment, the
county projects two thirds gone
at the build out, with hard
services more than doubling.
Every development complies, but
nothing adds them together and
together they are eroding the
banks and heating the water. A
Basin Plan is the only tool
that looks at a whole stream.
Neither creek has one. The comp
plan commits the county to
basin planning in two policies,
then assigns density to two
basins without one. The
analysis has not been done. My
fuller comments are in the
record. From a parks
perspective, a 90 acre deficit
of parks on the east side of
I-5 exists, and the park
district will pause new
development. From a school's
perspective, Richfield and
battleground plans were written
on the heels of the pandemic.
Updates are required every four
years and that didn't happen. I
ask you to recommend that the
county reapply the urban
holding until the county
answers questions the studies
raise. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments,
ma'am.
>> We have one more raised hand
right now, Jim Byrne. Jim, I'm
unmuting sending you an unmute
request. Jim, if you want to
speak, unmute yourself. Okay.
Hearing none now we have call
in user two. Sending you an
unmute request. Could you
identify yourself?
>> Hello, my name is Peter Fels.
I hope you can hear me spelled
PETER. FELS. 13 years ago, the
University of Washington
published Climate Change
Impacts and Adaptation in
Washington state. That study
predicted most of what we're
now facing increased
temperatures and heat waves,
more severe rainfall events,
increased areas burned by fires,
drought, lower snowpack,
decreased steam flows, stream
flows, and the other things
that we're facing, such as more
days of poor air quality due to
wildfire smoke. Those
predictions have come true. In
other words, climate change is
here, globally and in
Washington, the study said. How
much and how fast climate
changes occur depends on both
the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions and how the climate
changes in response to those
emissions, the legislature
required consideration of
climate change as part of the
Comprehensive Plan process.
Clark County should be doing
its part to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and help us all
have healthier lives and and a
healthier planet. Your Citizens
advisory panel recommended the
county adopt the same
greenhouse gas emission
standards as Vancouver. We all
live in the same airshed, and
we're all equally impacted by
what happens in the city and
the county. I urge you to
recommend adopt adoption of the
same emission standards as
Vancouver. The legislature also
required the county to have
sufficient supply of
agricultural lands to sustain a
local agricultural community or
economy. I agree with pretty
much everything Diane Dempster
said about that. I think Clark
County has the potential to
have an even more vibrant
agricultural economy than we
have now by supporting local ag
and value added crops such as
wine, grapes, organic
vegetables and the many things
that our local farmers are
already producing. However,
they can't be sustained without
full use of all available
agricultural land. The county
should withdraw its approval of
extensions of the urban growth
boundaries over any
agricultural land, allowing
upzoning of ag lands not only
harms the agricultural economy,
but also increases the need for
more vehicle miles traveled and
reduces the benefits of more
density toward reducing
greenhouse gases. Please honor
the recommendations of your
Agricultural Advisory
Commission. Finally, I want to
urge you to consider working
with C-TRAN to subsidize fares
so all bus travel within the
county is free. You'll increase
ridership at a small cost,
because fare income is only
about 15% of the total C-TRAN
revenues. This will also
improve greenhouse gas
reduction by increasing use of
mass transit and by increasing
transit use. You may reduce
impacts on the Transportation
infrastructure budget, which
Dean mentioned. You have a
deficit. I've lived in this
county for over 30 years.
>> Sure we've run. We've run
over your time. If you could
wrap it up, please.
>> I am wrapping up my last two
sentences here.
>> Okay.
>> I've lived in the county.
I've lived in the county for
over 30 years and watched
increase urbanization and
reduction of agricultural and
farmlands. The quality of life
has suffered. I'm concerned
about the future my children
and grandchildren face. Please
recommend adoption of policies
that will begin to reduce the
chance of climate change. Thank
you.
>> Thank you for your comments.
>> Okay. Jim Byrne has his hand
raised again. Jim, why don't
you try unmuting yourself again?
I don't know why we're not
getting. There. Hello? Yeah.
>> Hello? Can you hear me?
>> Yes, sir. We can hear you
now. Go ahead with your
comments.
>> Thank you. My name is Jim
Byrne. BYRNE and I live in
Richfield. Brian Snodgrass, the
Vancouver City planner, stated
earlier today that there exists
a surplus of building lots in
the Buildable Lands inventory,
and he was concerned that there
may be potential litigation if
the current. Preferred
alternative is accepted, and I
would agree with him. We suffer
a loss of agricultural lands,
and you'll have to designate
those agricultural lands. I'm
also concerned about climate
change. The Growth Management
Act says we need to deal with
climate change. In HB 8111, and
I think that the preferred
alternative will cause an
increase in greenhouse gas and
an increase in vehicle miles
traveled. I believe the county
should adopt the City of
Vancouver's greenhouse gas
criteria. I also have a concern
over concurrency, but that was
addressed thoroughly earlier.
And thanks. Thanks for
listening. Thanks for the work
you do. Thanks for going
through this process.
>> Thank you for your comment,
sir.
>> Chair, we have a hand raised
again, but it's caller user
call in two again, which I
thought was Peter. I'm going to
request unmute and confirm that
before we move off of it.
Because I don't know who it is.
I've sent you an unmute request.
Call on user two. Could you
identify yourself? And hand is
lowered. So. That is the end of
the raised hands online.
>> Okay, so we have all of the
people online. Is there anybody
else in here that hasn't
commented that would like to
comment? Seeing none, we will
now close the portion of the
public comment and bring it
back to us here. What I'd like
to do. It's 15 minutes to ten.
I would like to leave this
hearing open and resume it for
discussion with the Planning
Commission on what's the date
again? September. Help me out
here. Jose. 20th September
third. September 3rd. Correct?
Correct. Yes. And so we will
come back. And so those of you
that have waded through all
this, we have so much stuff and
we had a lot of stuff sent to
us today that we have to get
through. So what we'd like to
do. Bring it back. And for
those of you who waited
hopefully for us to resolve
this, I don't think it's going
to happen tonight. Is there any
comments from the commissioners?
Yeah. Ron.
>> This is Commissioner Bach. I
have a couple questions for
staff. One is, with all of the
focus we've had on the
manufacturing housing ordinance,
I want to make sure that I
understand where our discussion
is on that in relationship to
all of the exhibits and
chapters that we have, where do
we see it and discuss it?
>> Let's see. It's in the code
changes section, and I can we
can provide you the specific
code section that deals with
the mobile home park overlay
and the proposed changes.
>> I've also asked for. Next
time we meet a clarity on what
we will be voting on. Exactly.
So I know there's a lot of
relevant confusion on how we're
going to do this. So I've
spoken to Oliver, and Oliver is
going to bring it back to where
we can see these things. And
maybe that's one of the things
that we're looking at there too.
Ron.
>> Right. I just wanted to make
sure if it was part of a bigger
chapter, that we were making
sure that we had an opportunity
to get into it, as expressed
here for the the concern. And
so I am anticipating that we're
going to go through the
individual chapters, which
gives us an opportunity to add,
subtract or agree with, as
stated by staff. And it's also
going to have to include, in
some cases, the exhibits,
because that's where most of
the capital facility questions
arise is. And I think it's
exhibit E. Yeah. And and
there's a lot that we need to
go through on that. So I'm fine
with going through them. But
the question was, where would
we find that portion of it?
That was a question that I had
open. And so Jose said he'll
find it and I trust him and
we'll get to it.
>> The. You can find that in
exhibit three. The proposed
title 40 code changes, and then
it's under the table of
contents. It's listed as page
109, which is the manufactured
home Park overlay 40.250 .120.
And there's also a 40.260 .140,
which is manufactured home park
standards and requirements.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Any other questions for
staff? Okay. Go ahead.
>> Oh, I don't have a question
for staff, but I do want to
assure everybody thank you for
coming staying late testifying.
I know we're like up here a lot
of times we're looking at our
phones, but we're pulling up
documents. And we do read your
comments. We do very much
appreciate your input. And it's
don't don't think you're not
being heard because we are we
are reading, we are listening
and we're paying attention. So
thank you so much for coming
out.
>> Sure.
>> Yes.
>> You said a date, but not the
time.
>> That would be 630, right?
>> Correct.
>> As usual, they're not
feeding us that.
>> They want to be on the
record.
>> Any other comments? We're
not closing this. I do any
other general business or
whatever. Any comments from the
Planning Commission.
>> Is public testimony closed
now?
>> Public testimony is closed.
We've closed that. And but the
meeting is still I guess we can
close the meeting. Right.
Whatever. I'll just leave it.
You guys figured out any
questions? Thank you again for
staying so late. We appreciate
it. And thank you for being so
kind to it. Makes it easier for
us. So have a good evening