Tonight will be a little bit
different. We won't call the
meeting to order. We're going
to go into executive session,
but we're going to do a roll
call first. So the we'll come
back in. The meeting will be
called to order. Just a mental
note, all public comment had
been closed from the time
before. So if some of you are
waiting to comment, that
portion is closed, we'll come
back and deliberate. But right
now what I'm going to do is
call a roll call real quick.
The meeting is not open yet
officially, but we will. I'll
call a roll call. We'll go into
a quick executive session.
Shouldn't I don't know how long
that'll be. It shouldn't be
that long. Then we'll be back
here to deliberate on the what
we've been working on. So with
that said, Jeff, can we get a
roll call please?
>> Brian Halbert here. Mark
Bergthold here. Kyle Fadness
here. Ron Baka here. Jack.
Karen here. Alicia Montgomery
here. Carl Johnson here.
>> So with that said, where are
we going to go officially back
to the back court. So we'll.
>> Down the hall down.
>> That way. Okay. So we'll go
down that way and we'll be back.
Public beach, please be patient.
>> Okay, chair, chair, chair.
We do. We do need to put on the
record the amount of time. My
suggestion at this point is 30
minutes.
>> Says that on here, 30
minutes with no potential
action. I'm just reading what
was said on here. Yeah. So
we'll just put.
>> Was talking.
>> Carl is that was that was
Rebecca Ward Palmerton that was
the our attorney. Okay. Sorry.
Cyndie. But we'll 30 minutes.
30 minutes. Council 30 minutes.
Okay. And then we'll just go
down there for no more than 30
minutes or whatever. Okay. All
right. Thank you. Hybrid public
hearing to order for Thursday,
September 3rd, 2026. My name is
Carl Johnson. I'm the chairman
of the Clark County Planning
Commission. The role of the
Planning Commission is to
review and to analyze
comprehensive plan amendments,
zoning changes, and other land
use related issues. We allow
excuse me. 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 they will
make the final decision. The
Planning Commission will
conduct the planning public
hearing tonight. We have closed.
I'm going to kind of change
this. We have closed public
comments, so this part does not
pertain to what's happening
tonight, other than if you're
speaking about something that
is not on the docket. And I'll
get to that in a minute. Okay.
We will deliberate tonight and
make recommendations to the
county council for both virtual
and in-person members of the
Planning Commission staff,
please ensure that your
microphones are muted unless
you are speaking. Planning
commissioners, when you make a
motion or second, please state
your name for the court
reporter tonight. Are there any
conflicts of interest from the
planning commissioners that are
here tonight? Seeing none, we
will proceed. Jeff, can we get
a roll call just for the record
again, please?
>> Brian Halbert here. Mark
Bergthold here. Kyle Fadness
here. Ron Baka here. Jack.
Karen here. Alicia with Duke
Montgomery here. Carl Johnson
here.
>> I need a motion for the and
a second for the approval of
the agenda for September 3rd,
2026.
>> Commissioner Fadness I move
to approve the agenda for
September 3rd, 2026.
>> Commissioner Bergthold. I'll
second that.
>> We have a motion a second.
Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Ryan Halbert a Mark Provolt.
I Kyle Vanise I Ron Barca I
Jack Roeun I Alicia Duke
Montgomery I Carl Johnson I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes. Can I get
another motion? And second for
approval of the minutes for
August 20th, 2026.
>> This is Commissioner Barca.
I'd like to make a motion to
accept the minutes as written.
>> Commissioner Haroon, I
second that.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Jeff, can you get a
roll call, please?
>> Ryan Halbert I Mark
Bergthold.
>> I.
>> Kyle Vanise I Ron Barca. I
Jack Karen I Alicia Duke
Montgomery I Carl Johnson I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes. The next
section of our hearing tonight
are communications from the
public of items that are not on
the agenda tonight. So if you
came and you wanted to speak
for three minutes regarding
something other than what's on
here, you can do that right now.
Jeff, do you see anybody online?
>> I'll go ahead and give
instructions first. Okay, great.
We'll do that. Thank you. 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. Please
raise your hand and the chair
will call on you to come up
front to the microphone. Please
provide your first and last
name for the court reporter. I
don't see any raised hands in
the hearing room. We will now
call on those people on WebEx
or the phone that have raised
their hand. For those people
using the telephone option,
press star six on your phone's
number panel to unmute yourself
when it is your turn to speak.
We do not have anybody online
with a raised hand either.
>> Okay, hearing none, we'll
now move on to the main hearing.
Again, I want to thank you all
for waiting while we were in
executive session and your
patience. It will be a long
evening. We have a lot on here
to get through our. Our idea
tonight is to try to get
through this, to get it to
county in a timely manner. So
it is a lot. So please be
patient and just listen away.
So right now we're going to go
into deliberation with the.
Commissioners regarding the 200
or excuse me, 2025
Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan update. Clark County is
updating its comprehensive plan
to meet the Growth Management
Act. A deadlines are
established in RCW 36.7 a. The
update process began January
19th, 2023. The County Council
adopted the population and job
numbers. The 20 year planning
horizon that ends in 2045. The
council also adopted Public
Involvement Plan that the
county has implemented. The
environmental review process
included an analysis of three
alternatives and a final
Environmental Impact statement
on the preferred alternate was
released on July 24th, 2026.
The purpose of this hearing is
for the Planning Commission to
take public testimony we've
already done. But it's to
deliberate and make
recommendations to the Council
on the topics listed below.
Changes to the Comprehensive
and Zoning plan map updates the
policy and text in the
Comprehensive Plan document.
Changes to Clark County Code
Title 40, the county's Unified
Development Code. To implement
the map, change the arterial
Atlas and update the capital,
facilities and capital
facilities plans and update the
school fire and traffic impact
fees. That is, in a nutshell,
is what we're going to try to
do. We have 104 items of which
some will be able to go right
through. But what I'm going to
do tonight, and hopefully staff
can challenge me and stop me or
correct me or help me out here.
Jose. I'm just going to start
from the top with battleground
and go down through these. And
then if you have something to
say, go ahead. You need. Yeah,
yeah.
>> Go ahead. So I there's two
things I want to bring your
attention to. One of the the
arterial atlas was omitted from
the decision matrix. So we want
to add that as number 29 A. And
then.
>> And that was the arterial
atlas.
>> Item 23 is a site specific
request. There's no change to
what's on the table. But I just
wanted to disclose that on the
map. It's showing as R 50. And
that's a remnant from
alternative two. So if you make
the the motion to approve it as
is written, that will be
updated and reflected in what
goes to council.
>> Okay. Chair. Yes,
Commissioner Berthold go ahead.
Is it possible to have the maps
on display while we're
discussing the options?
>> Yeah, we can pull those up
for you. Okay. As needed.
>> As needed. Yeah. Okay.
>> Thank you. Sure.
>> Are there any other
questions from on process from
the commissioners? Okay. So we
will start off with
battleground UGA to expand the
UGA towards dollars corner for
additional employment capacity.
That is, I'm the one where we
go down. 502 is there any
amendments discussion regarding
our recommendations? If not on
any of these, I am open to
taking a motion in a second as
needed.
>> This is Commissioner
Montgomery regarding kind of
starting off here with the
various UGA expansion decisions,
our prior, you know, vote
regarding which alternative to
study as part of the FEIS. And
now coming back to us for a
final vote, we recommended
alternative two, but contingent
upon implementation of a TDR
program. And we had a lot of
discussion about no net loss of
agricultural lands. And how do
we balance these competing
issues of development and and
housing and employment capacity
with preserving agricultural
lands. And so I'd like to
either now or at the applicable
time. But before we vote on any
of the UGA expansions, propose
an amendment to policy. 1.1.2
for regarding a TDR program for
the county to put forth perhaps
a more concrete framework of
what that TDR program might
look like, such that when we're
voting on these UGA amendments,
we, as each of our
commissioners, would kind of
know what we would be voting on
in terms of that TDR
contingency.
>> Yeah, that I was five
through nine are the
designations of AG. So that's
kind of where I was going to
lump them in. So I was hoping I
was going. So for example, one,
two and three here on
battleground were not ag
related. So and there's others
obviously, but I was just going
to go down those. And then when
we got to five through nine,
okay, we could put that
amendment. Maybe you could drop
an amendment that then we don't.
We could say the amendment once
and then drop it on all nine
for efficiency. What do you
think?
>> Sure. I'll come back to you
on that.
>> All right. Back to
battleground. Will we take a
motion in a second on
battleground, or is there any
discussion? Can we.
>> This is this is Commissioner
Baka. Can we have the map
pulled up, please? I believe
it's the far left that drives
out towards dollars corners.
>> So is that the red or the
blue I'm looking at?
>> It's both.
>> Both. Okay. So we see the
expansion there. The red and
the blue is the part of it.
>> This is Commissioner Barker.
I believe blue is considered
rural land in the zoning
designation. And the red pink
color is going to be commercial.
Is that correct?
>> The blue is proposed to be
industrial employment and the
red is commercial.
>> So in its current state. The
same amount of commercial land
is out there. Because Dollars
Corners was a rural center.
>> Okay. That's that's the
current.
>> Okay.
>> So portions of the blue are
RC one. The red is primarily
the CR two, which is commercial.
So the blue is mostly RC one
and R5.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Commissioner Bach
again. So it has the appearance
that mostly the commercial land
is overlaid on on what is
commercial now with a little
bit of changes to it, but the
industrial land goes all the
way through the R one
designation, RC one.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah that's correct.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Thanks.
>> Commissioner Halpert here. I
want to make a motion that we
accept the battleground UGA as
presented.
>> Do you have a second?
>> This is Commissioner Fadness.
Would you be able to was that
just for item number one?
>> Yes. For one.
>> Okay, Commissioner Fadness,
I'll second that.
>> We have a motion and a
second to approve battleground
states expand UGA towards
dollars corner. Can we get a
roll call, please? Jeff.
>> Ryan.
>> Albert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Provolt I.
>> Kyle I.
>> Ron baka.
>> No.
>> Jack.
>> Yes.
>> Alicia Montgomery yes. Carl
Johnson. Yes six one.
>> Motion passes.
>> Didn't hear Alicia's vote.
>> Yes.
>> Map recommendations. Number
two battleground UK to expand
the use UGA to the north for
additional residential capacity.
Can we see that on the map
please? Oh, that's that little
sliver right there. Okay.
>> So it's the R3 and R7.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Is there any discussion on
this if not a motion and a
second would be appropriate.
>> Commissioner Fadness, I move
to approve the expansion of the
UGA as presented.
>> We have a second.
>> Commissioner,
>> Bertha Lodahl.
>> Second down we have a motion.
And second. Jeff, can we get a
roll call, please?
>> Ryan Halbert. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle I Ron Barca.
>> No.
>> Jack Caron. I. Alicia
Montgomery. I Carl Johnson I
six one.
>> Motion passes to expand the
EGA to north for additional
residential capacity. Number
three item number three
battleground to remove the
southwest portion of the U G, a
from. And this would be
commonly known if I'm wrong, is
the medical aid. This is the
medical aid move.
>> That's correct.
>> And correct. Council has
brought that back and said
battleground wants that removed.
And Council correct me if I'm
wrong said they.
>> They agreed with that.
>> They agreed with
battleground.
>> To remove it. Yes.
>> Okay. Just take it. Just
take it. Okay. So again I'll
take any discussion or a motion.
Either way.
>> This is Ron Barca. The I
think the point for me with all
of the battleground votes is
the idea of how battleground is
going about doing their long
term planning, the idea that
even if the council is okay
with just giving back Meadow
Glade, I don't believe it's in
the best interest of the county.
It doesn't move the agenda
forward for the county to take
on more of the urban
development. And I think it's a
mistake on our part. Even if
council voted 3 to 2 to to
accept it, I'm looking at the
idea of how difficult it's
going to be for the county to
make ends meet, and the idea of
taking this parcel of land back
on, I think, is just convenient,
but not thought worthy. And it
should be thought worthy. So my
other two votes were predicated
on the same one. That
battleground isn't looking at
long term planning. They're
looking at immediate
gratification through the
industrial land and the
commercial land. And my
position on this is that all
three of these parcels needed
better inclusion in their long
term planning.
>> Any other discussion?
>> Commissioner Leduc
Montgomery, I agree regarding
the Meadow Glade expansion, or
I guess giving it back to the
county on that point.
>> This is Commissioner Farris.
I guess just to clarify what
you're saying, Commissioner
Barca, is you keep mentioning
that the county would have to
take on urban development. But
if if this parcel is taken out
of the urban growth area, I
don't believe that that dense
urban development that you're
talking will be able to take
place. Jose Oliver, could you
speak to what the zoning would
resort to if it's taken out of
the UGA and what could be
developed in that area?
>> This is Oliver. Thank you.
Planning Commissioner Carl.
Vanise. The area, if removed
from the battleground UGA, as
they propose, that area will
revert back to rural zoning,
predominantly rural five and in
some cases two and a half acre
lots and five acre lots. But
it's going to be rural. However,
if there are. Colete Sherrieb
Kol, it will be the
responsibility of the sheriff
county to respond. But broadly
speaking, the area will revert
back to rural zoning.
>> Thank you. Oliver. Yeah, I
mean, I just don't really have
a concern, I guess, with
bringing this back to the
county because what's what's
the difference of, like you say,
if it's not densely developing
and there's a sheriff's call,
there's really not a difference
whether it's two miles to the
west there or it's just in this
corner here. It's not like
we're bringing in a lot of
sewer storm and and county or
city provided utilities that
the county would have to pay
for.
>> Commissioner Baka here, I
guess, in that regard. First of
all, I think it's meadow. Glade
is a rural center. And so the
zoning is down to one acre, is
it not?
>> Yes. So if you look at the
map, the property to the east
would be one acre RC one, and
then the middle would be RC 2.5.
And then on the west would be R
five. And that's what had
essentially been zoned prior to
it being incorporated in the
battleground UGA.
>> And so Commissioner Vanise,
I think also in the context the
state allows us, with a recent
law change that we have not
adopted yet, but I believe that
rural lots are going to be able
to all have an Adu. That's a
detached Adu on them. They can
have attached ADUs. Now,
realistically, we could look at
a 2,025% growth increase
without doing any kind of rural
land changes at all in there.
And should the density get
taken in closer than it would
be able to go even higher? In
that regard, we did hear from
the fire district that serves
that. Now it's the fire
district out by the fairgrounds
that's serving it, not the fire
district that serves the city
of battleground. The sheriff's
office, even if this is perhaps
not the strongest case for it.
I think what we're looking at,
though, is the idea that
jurisdictions need to pick up
their responsibility. And I
don't believe that the city of
battleground is so small now
that it can go ahead and just
decide that it doesn't want to
take in land that it desired
before. This shows me that
there's a lot of land that
battleground has not even
annexed yet, but they want to
drive out towards the money of
the industrial and commercial
lands in dollars corners. I
going to go back to the idea
that I don't think the city is
doing long term planning. I
think they're doing immediate
gratification, and it serves
them best just to get that off
their books, so they can go
ahead and take the other parcel
up to the north and bring that
in instead.
>> I do understand what you're
saying, but I will disagree
just because, you know, they
are developing where the the
corridors have been, the roads
have been improved and where it
makes more sense to develop.
And that's kind of my final
statement on it. Thank you.
>> Any other questions?
>> Commissioner Montgomery? And
I think just echoing somewhat
Mr. Barker's point that if
there's multiple requests to
expand, I think they need to
keep what they already have and
take care of it. If they're
wanting to expand, they need to
already take care of what's in
their, you know, jurisdiction
to care for. And so that's
again, why I'm against the
removal is in tandem with, well,
they're wanting expansion and
they need to also maintain care
for what they've got.
>> I think it's known that
battleground. That's why 502
was widened. That's why
battleground needs commercial
land. It needs industrial land.
And I think like you said, I
agree with you Kyle, that
that's where they're going. I
I'm not sure where it's at. But
if council is there, I'm I'm
inclined to say, okay, you know,
let's remove it back to the
county. That's my, my place.
But I would look at a motion
and a second from anybody.
>> This is Commissioner. I move
to remove the portion of the
UGA as presented.
>> Do we have second on that?
>> Commissioner Halbert? I will
second that motion.
>> So I have a motion in a
second. Jeff, can we get a roll
call, please?
>> Brian Halbert. I Boerke
Provolt. I Kyle I Ron baka. No
Jack.
>> Karen I.
>> Alicia Montgomery no. Carl
Johnson. I five two.
>> Motion passes. Now we move
on to the campus UGA to expand.
This is just the airport one
the Grove airport. Which is out
north of. Campus right there.
It's just the airport and the
area. Is there any discussion
on this?
>> This is Commissioner Baka
for staff. The way the map is
shown right here is the white
section underneath the airport
remaining in the county.
>> I think it wraps around like
that. It's a donut.
>> This area here that.
>> Yeah, that area there.
>> That's correct. The only
thing that there adding to the
UGA is the area that's
designated airport. And
unfortunately. I think that's
all of it. I know there's a
portion that's of airport
that's they're not proposing to
annex, but. Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Questions or comments
regarding this? I take a motion
or a second, if not.
>> Commissioner Hubbard, just
to be clear, is it is the
purple color that is being
annexed okay.
>> Being added to the UGA.
>> Then Commissioner Halbert,
I'll make a motion that Kamea
UGA expand to include the Grove
Field airport.
>> We have a motion to expand
the campus gate at Grove Field.
Is there a second please?
>> Commissioner Heron, I second
it.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Jeff, can we get a roll
call?
>> Ryan Halbert. I Mark
Bergthold. I Kyle Vanise I Ron
baka. I Jack Caron. I Alicia
Montgomery. I Carl Johnson. I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes. Now we're
going to go through five, six,
seven, eight and nine. Each of
these are are include a
designation of ag land. So I
know that we had talked about a
TDR. If somebody wants to speak
to that now and that maybe we
could just get that discussion,
I don't want to say out of the
way, but we could just attach
it to each of those.
>> Thank you. This is
Commissioner LaDuke Montgomery,
and what I have is a proposed
policy language change to
policy, 1.1.2, for which I
think staff had prepared a
proposed policy to for a TDR
program. And we've had
discussion about that. And I
just wanted to propose amended
language. That it was adopted
in my mind would then tie any
vote to expand the UGA through
the designation of agricultural
lands. Those designations would
be tied to the implement of
implementation of this TDR
program. So that's where this
proposed policy change is
coming from. And so I can read
my proposed language of the
policy. And then I have a quick
statement on why I think this
is more defensible. If we are
to move to designate any
agricultural land. So proposed
policy language 1.1.2 for Clark
County and participating cities
shall cooperatively adopt and
implement a county wide
transfer of development rights,
or TDR program to permanently
conserve agricultural lands
while accommodating the urban
growth adopted through the 2025
Comprehensive Plan. Periodic
update UGA expansions that
include DWA designated
agricultural lands shall be
subject to an Urban Holding
designation until applicable
TDR requirements are satisfied,
the county and affected city
shall enter into an interlocal
agreement establishing TDR
requirements, implementation
responsibilities, conservation
objectives and timelines. The
county wide TDR program shall
be fully operational no later
than December 31st, 2027. The
program shall ensure the
permanent conservation of, at
minimum, one acre of
agricultural land for each acre
of designated agricultural land
converted through UGA expansion,
while also ensuring no net loss
of agricultural resource lands
resulting from adopted UGA
acreage or planned housing
population or employment
capacity resulting from
implementation of the TDR
program. The program shall
include a mechanism for
identifying and evaluating
rural lands for suitability of
designation or redesignation as
agricultural resource lands. If
sufficient TDR credits are
unavailable or if the TDR
program is not operational by
the implementation deadline,
the county and affected city
shall use purchase or transfer
of development rights,
permanent conservation
easements or another mechanism
providing substantially
equivalent permanent
agricultural conservation
failure, delay or insufficient
participation in the TDR
program shall not result in
removal, reduction or reversion
of an adopted UGA expansion or
a reduction in its planned
urban capacity. Future UGA
expansions involving designated
agricultural resource lands
shall participate in the TDR
program and provide permanent
agricultural conservation at a
minimum 1 to 1 acreage ratio,
or provide an alternative
mechanism achieving
substantially equivalent
permanent agricultural
conservation. So that is my
proposed policy language, and I
can talk briefly about where
I'm coming from with that. So
the alternative to UGA
expansion involves D
designation of agricultural
lands. And we had talked
previously about adopt tying
that to the adoption of a TDR
policy. And I think that that
policy needs to be meaningful.
If we're talking about actually
designating lands, especially
when the county has already
been sued for noncompliance
with the timelines around this
comp plan. Thinking about
Defensibility, in my mind, as
an individual commissioner, the
GMA requires us to reconcile
two obligations. RCW 36.78.060
requires the county to assure
the conservation of designated
agricultural resource lands,
while our. CW 36.78.110
requires UGA to contain
sufficient areas and densities
to accommodate it to
accommodate projected urban
growth, the Department of
Commerce's rules are also
relevant. Wanke 36519631 ten
states that UGA should not be
expanded into designated
agricultural or other resource
lands unless no other option is
available. And Wanke 365196815
explains that conservation
means keeping resource lands
available for commercial
production and preventing their
conversion into incompatible
uses. And then there's been
some Washington Supreme Court
decisions that reinforce the
importance of taking the
agricultural conservation
obligations seriously. In the
case of King County versus the
central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Board, the
Supreme Court considered uses
proposed on designated
agricultural lands and held
that the challenged amendments
did not comply with the GMA.
The court was recognizing the
Act's agricultural land
provisions that protect
continued viability of
agricultural resource lands and
industries, and the lesson I
take from that is that
conservation under the GMA
needs to have some sort of
substantive meeting, not just
calling land agricultural while
adopting policies that
undermine continued
availability for agricultural
production. And similarly,
there was a King County versus
central Puget Sound Growth
Management hearings board case
in 1999, where the Supreme
Court made clear that an
individual UGA designation
remains subject to substantive
review for compliance with the
Growth Management Act. So I
think some of these concerns,
certainly we've heard in our
own record throughout the
process, there was the
environmental review that
identified potential conflicts
with alternative TOS,
conversion of ag land and the
GMA's requirement governing
expansions into designated AG
land. We had our whole
discussion about TDRs during
our original recommendation for
what to study. There was the
Agricultural Advisory
Commission that unanimously
recommended maintaining
existing AG land resource AG
land, and we've heard
significant and repeated public
comment throughout the process
about the need or the desire of
the community to conserve
agricultural land capacity. And
then there's, you know,
references and feedback in the
FIS the Vacant lands Model and
others written testimony that
we've received to this effect.
And so for me, the TDR provides
an. The policy I propose
provides an important means of
reconciling those concerns with
the urban growth that's been
contemplated in alternative two.
Our. CW 43.362005 and 0.010.
Expressly recognized TDRs as a
mechanism to permanently
protect sending lands while
transferring development
opportunity into receiving
areas. And I think that's along
the lines of the balance we're
trying to achieve here or
that's been discussed. And so
my position is that I find the
UGA expansions being proposed
are substantially more
defensible under the Growth
Management Act, when there is
conversion, when we're talking
about conversion of
agricultural land, if it's
paired directly with an
enforceable commitment to
permanently conserve ag land
elsewhere, that results in no
net loss of agricultural
resource land. So if there's a
designation in one area, there
would need to be a designation
redesignation protection in
another area so that we're not
having a net loss when there's
potential concerns about is
there enough demand for the
capacity in the first instance.
So that's why I support a no
net loss approach on both sides.
On the one hand, one acre of
qualifying ag land permanently
conserved for every acre
designated land that is
converted while preserving the
UGA acreage and housing, you
know, population, employment
capacity that's being proposed
to be adopted through this comp
plan update. I also wanted to
ensure that our TDR proposal
includes a date, certain and a
fallback in case there isn't
something durable. So we don't
end up in a situation where we
vote to agree with certain AG
Lande designation, but there's
not really an enforceable or
durable TDR process, then that
TDR process doesn't come to
fruition. And so then it's
essentially the UGA, you know,
is expanded regardless without
that intentionality of the ag
conservation goals. And I think
we saw that with our last round
where we said, yes, we were
voting to approve these various
designations of ag land tied to
a TDR program. And then the
council agreed with the D
designation, but took out our
recommendation about tying it
to TDR. So that's my reasoning
for wanting to propose a more
specific and hopefully durable
connection of voting to
designate certain AG lands with,
on the one hand, voting to
update this policy, saying it's
expressly being subject to a
TDR. So there's no net loss of
ag land. I know that's a lot,
but that's. I put some thought
into it.
>> So with that said, let's
just we're going to get there.
So we're going to start with
number five. Thank you for the
for that part of that
Commissioner. So we're going to
start with the Kamea UGA, which
includes the designation of
agricultural resource land and
a UGA UGA expansion to the East
for housing. So with that said,
we're going to discuss that one.
So if there's discussion about
the TDR and whatever, this is
where that begins. But we're
going to specifically start
with each one of these. So
Commissioner Barker go ahead.
>> This is Commissioner Barker.
I'm I'm sorry, chair, but I
think to go forward with
Alicia's recommendation, we
need to go to number 33, the
chapter one, and get that
revision at 1.124 put in place.
Before we go forward with any
discussion of any designated
land.
>> This is Commissioner
Montgomery. I agree, I think a
fastest approach or a
streamlined approach would be I
we go to that section. I
propose this policy and then
whether or not it's adopted, we
can then quickly vote on the
others in light of whatever the
outcome is.
>> Okay, so let's jump to page
five, which is number 33,
chapter one, Land Use element.
We went through all these
chapters before, so I would
take your amendment Alishia
however you want to do that,
and we could vote on that up or
down and then we could go back.
Okay.
>> Can, can we discuss?
>> Oh yeah, sure. We're doing
33 now.
>> 33. Yeah.
>> But discussing the TDR.
>> Yes.
>> Correct. Okay. This
Commissioner Harun. So I liked
what we passed originally. I
would recommend that we go back
and just send back what we had
passed originally. There was
quite a bit of debate and
thought about that. The no net
loss provision is a death nail
to the development, because in
essence, what you're saying is
you're going to have to go find
some. You're going to have to
parcel together. Like if you
had 100 acres or 500 acres,
you're going to have to go
purchase 500 R5 lots and
designate them permanently
agricultural land. And it's
economically infeasible because
all of a sudden your your cost
per acre goes to an
extraordinary amount. You're
$700,000 for a five acre lot.
And so, so what happens is it's
just a backdoor way of just
killing any, any of the D
designation. So that's so
versus taking large portions of
agricultural land in that you
can purchase in blocks. And we
were talking about the, the
farmers are, are, are putting a
permanent covenant easement.
However, that the TDR program
works, it makes it more viable
for the farmer. And it and it
helps with the, the existing
agriculture. And it ensures
that that in perpetuity is
going to remain agricultural
and productive agricultural
land. The the the no net loss
provision is a poison pill to
any development because you
cannot functionally purchase
stuff that's zoned for
residential and, and then flip
it to agricultural to do that.
So so 100% on board for the TDR
program. I like it because I
think it helps the farmers. I
think we can get larger blocks
of land that's more functional.
And I like what we had passed
originally, but I appreciate
the spirit of the no net loss.
But I live in a there's a
practicality to it that it
needs to be functional as well.
So that's kind of my that's my
concern. I'm. Yeah. Okay.
>> Commissioner Barker, are you.
>> Yeah. So, Commissioner Harun,
I think you're mistaken
somewhat in the context of this.
This is the purchase of
development rights, not the
purchase of the land. This is
only the idea of having the TDR
program buy up the development
rights of some other parcel for
the sake of moving forward into
the D designation aspect of it.
So it isn't the full blown
purchase, it's whatever number
is an agreeable number for the
sake of getting that purchase
of development rights taken off
of a new parcel, and then added
back into the ability to
develop in the AG land that is
become d designated.
>> I appreciate appreciate your
thought process there, but it's
kind of a distinction without a
difference in that if you take
if you if you take a parcel
that you could build a house on
and then make it so you cannot
build a house on it, right. You
you're not, you're stripping
all of the value. So whether or
not you're taking physical
custody of the land, you've
stripped the value from the
land. So it's the same thing in
residential building right now.
A one acre parcel, a three acre
parcel and a five acre parcel
are all pretty much the same
price because it's about the
it's about the authority to be
able to build a single family
house there. So it doesn't
matter the parcel size. So if
that if I'm trying to, to, to
answer your your your concern
there, but the, the that's the
note what happens with the no
net loss provision. If you're
just if you, you're stripping
out the ability to make it a
viable product. Does that make
sense?
>> No, it doesn't make sense to
me because in the context of
what you're doing is you're,
you're changing the hierarchy
of what it's used for. So
you're saying in the context
that there's the ability to put
a single family dwelling on it.
And what we're saying is,
through the purchase of the
development right now, the
highest utilization for it
remains in the context of
agricultural production. Over
the long term in.
>> But then you would no longer
be able to put a single family
house there.
>> That's right. Because you
purchased that development,
right.
>> Makes the land fairly
worthless from a development.
>> So. All right, so I guess
we're back to the idea of
saying highest and best use in
your, in your estimation, the
aspect of highest and best use
is only if you build some
development on it, a single
family dwelling or whatever the
case is. I think what Alicia
pointed to though, is there's
pretty strong language already
in the state law about needing
to preserve and to utilize that.
So we have already just
recently had in the county a
particular farm, get the
purchase of development rights,
come off of it from Farmland
Trust, I think it was a farm,
something like that. In that
regard. They made a conscious
choice. They weren't in the
context of making their land
less valuable to them. What it
does is it allows them the
ability to get paid up front
for them to be able to do more
with it. So this is only for
people. This is for only people
that want to agree to it,
though. Jack. And I think what
you're doing is you're saying
you're making their decision
for them by saying that the
only way that they can make
money on that land, in your
estimation, is if they decide
to convert it.
>> No, you're and this is and
what I'm talking about is the
code language specifically. But
what you just referred to of
the farmer permanently sold
their development rights. Okay.
That's exactly. But it was
already zoned AG. The land, the
farm was already nagged land.
And what I'm saying is that
that's exactly what the
original stuff that we passed
allowed to do that we go to
that farmer say, hey, you got
this farm, we're going to
purchase any future development
rights that the zoning change.
This will permanently be AG and
then here's, here's, you know,
some financial consideration
for that. What so, so there was,
there wasn't in, in this case,
with a no net loss, it wouldn't
apply. Okay. Because because
what, what my understanding of
the code language that Alicia
has proposed is we then have to
go find land that is not
currently zoned agriculture,
purchase those development
rights and turn it into
agriculture. And so, and that's,
that's the that's the concern I
have, which makes it
financially infeasible. And you
won't the program won't work.
So it's the. No. Net loss is
what I have real concerns with
some of the timeline stuff. I
think I want to look at the
whole clock on the adoption and
how quickly you know, it can be
implemented, but that's. And
that's why I like the original
language that we originally
approved.
>> Any other discussions on.
>> On this?
>> Commissioner Montgomery? I
think there's another
perspective, which is. What
what we pass or, you know,
refer to the council and then
gets passed is also there's
already a legal challenge in
court. And I think that absent
a no net loss provision, it's
going to be a lot less
defensible before the hearings
board or any appeal for the
county that it's taken this
long. And then we're still
getting to a place of an
alternative to and all this
designation that isn't really
fully supported by the full
record. Going back through this
whole process.
>> You understand that it
doesn't work that that a TDR
with a no net loss does not
work.
>> I don't agree with that.
>> Well, okay. Explain to me
how the finances work behind
that. It doesn't it doesn't
work. This is this is a really
big deal because we have these
cities that desperately need
this land and, and then you
make it financially infeasible
for it to be developed because
they would then have to go find
something that's non-resource
land. And so we're not helping
the existing farmer. We're
finding somebody that has has
developable land that's
non-resource land, right? And
then asking them to convert it
to undevelopable land or, you
know, be agricultural land. And
then the finances behind that
work because, because you're
saying, hey, can I give you X
amount of dollars for you never
to develop here? And you're
like, well, this is what the
land's worth. So and then if
you strip those rights away,
you strip all the value away.
So you would have to enumerate
that, which then doesn't work
from a development standpoint
for the for the developer. So
it, it doesn't work. And I want
to pass something that actually
can work. And that actually
helps our current agricultural
committee. So that's it's a big
deal. The no net loss thing is
a is a huge deal.
>> So I guess just to clarify
in your mind, if somebody had
land that was zoned, say,
residential, but they were
using a large portion of it for
agricultural uses, and they
were willing to convert part of
their property to the ag ag
resource land to or for the
purposes of TDR conservation.
You think that wouldn't work
because that person just
wouldn't agree to it, right?
>> Well, so so so let's say you
have 40 acres, right? And it's,
it's all zoned residential.
It's worth, I don't know, I
want to say right now, like
$500,000 an acre, right? If
it's agricultural land, it's
probably worth, call it $30,000
an acre, $20,000 an acre. Right.
So there's a $470,000 nexus so
that you would have to then
purchase those rights for, for,
for it to be even. Steven.
Right. I guess where.
>> I'm coming from.
>> So what you're, you know,
unless they're altruistic and
go, well, you know, I'm 80
years old and I wanted to keep
them farming, but that's,
that's different. I mean, I'm
just looking at it from an
economic standpoint, right?
>> And I'm saying economically,
some people do actually value
agricultural use on residential
properties such that they would
agree to something like that
because they do want to
conserve agricultural uses.
>> I'm not disagreeing that
there is definitely people like
that. I'm just saying from a
marketplace standpoint, I mean,
you're looking for the unicorns
versus the you know, and I've
read some articles, you know,
with the data center people
telling them they were offered
20 million, but they took two
and put it in a permanent
conservation. And I applaud
them for it. But I'm saying
from a market reality from,
from a functionally a
functional market, which is
what we're trying to create
with a TDR that doesn't that
doesn't work.
>> I mean, I would do it with
my own land. I currently have
residential property in Clark
County, and I use half of it
for agricultural purposes. We
raise turkeys, we have an
orchard, we have gardens. And I
would sign up for this program.
>> I'm not I'm not disagreeing
with you that there are
individuals that value that,
but I'm just saying at scale,
it falls apart.
>> I guess I just I've we've
heard so much public comment
and participation in this whole
process that it sounds like
there is a significant portion
of the community that does
value the agricultural aspect
of land use in Clark County,
that there probably would be a
market for it. And I'm also
concerned about the basis for
the UGA expansions absent a no
net loss. From a legal
standpoint, when we're talking
about it being challenged. And
so that's just kind of my final
position on it is, I think no
net loss is the most legally
defensible, and it's consistent
with a significant amount of
public feedback. And the AG
Commission study and the vacant
Buildable lands model. To me,
it's it's that middle path that
is the most defensible approach
to trying to address this issue.
>> Any more discussion on this?
>> I do have something in that
regard. This is Commissioner
Baka. I guess I would look at
it right now as the Planning
commission has a lot of very
difficult decisions in regards
to the aspect of it's hardly
ever the case where we have a
full win win in. Everybody's
happy with what the outcome is.
We are the arbitrators of
somebody being disappointed
somewhere along the line. But
what I see with this is our
opportunity to Jack, is to the
idea of give the people that
are interested, whether they're
unicorns or maybe they're much
more available in the
marketplace than you think.
Give them an opportunity to
participate in the program. And
the way that Alicia has put the
wording in place is if the
program is not viable in that
regard, then it collapses back
to the idea of the
jurisdictions either get a
purchase of development rights
on their own, that they're able
to pull forward, or that the
land reverts into the UGA. And
that's a closed deal and it
never happens again. So I think
the way that Alicia worded it,
it we're putting it into the
context of having some belief
system that there is going to
be able to be a TDR program
with purchase rights that would
be viable based on what the
county did and come forward. If
we go back to the aspect of
what you're saying is, I have
the same concern as Alicia
already spoke on, the idea that
it's much more along the line
of the. The development
community will see that there's
an opportunity to go forward,
but I don't think we're having
the strength of presenting this
growth plan to the state for
review and have it hold up in
that regard. So to me, if we
don't have a very viable
program that we believe that
the public is asking for and
we're going forward in that
regard, then we're really in a
position that says we don't
have the foundation for us to
be able to even bring in any of
this designated land.
>> So. In our in the the land
use element, we have a TDR
that's been placed in it.
That's, that's the one you're
looking at right now, correct?
One point, one, .24, whatever.
Is that correct? Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> That's correct. So what
seemed to be the disagreement
here is it sounds like some
some of you want to some of us
want to put in something more
added to this, or we approve
the land use element with the
TDR already in it. So for to
get moving on this, I can see
everybody's position. It seems
to me I would like I would I
would entertain a motion to
either accept the land use
element chapter as is with with
the TDR program that's you're
looking at on the board or. Or,
or not. And I want to be very
clear if if you say if we make
a motion that says, I want to
add this, and then we say, no,
it's voted down, we're going to
have a land use chapter that's
messed up. So my point is be
careful in how we make this
motion. So whoever makes the
motion, they make the motion.
But the reality is, is there's
a TDR right there. And to me it
has. I'm reading timelines for
limitation of transfer of
development rights and any
requirements or limitations
placed on the expansion area at
such time. The TDR program is
implemented. We don't have this
until we approve this chapter,
and we're going to be approving
or not approving designations.
So these are happening
simultaneously. So I'm looking
for a motion that either up or
down on the land use element as
is with TDR or not.
>> This is Commissioner.
>> Okay. I move that we accept
the TDR as written and as in
the record in 1.124.
>> And can you add an approved
chapter one would you. Friendly
amendment. I mean we're
approving the land use element.
>> And improving the land use
element. Yes.
>> We have a motion. Do we have
a second Commissioner?
>> In a second.
>> We have a motion and a
second to approve chapter one
of the land use element. I'll
have some discussion. Land use
element with the TDR that is
currently written in front of
us. 1.124 okay, that's the
motion. And second on the table
discussion.
>> Thank you, Commissioner
Montgomery. I think I read this
provision and I'm glad that
there is a starting point
included, but my concerns
remain the same, that it
doesn't have specific dates
certain, and it feels a little
too nebulous. And I'm concerned
about durability here. And so I
had proposed, you know, some
date certain. And again, the
the no net loss aspect to me is
really important for a legal
defensibility standpoint, to be
able to feel confident in
voting to approve these
multiple agricultural land
designations. And so that's
where I just wasn't fully
comfortable going with a
designation vote with the
current starting point language.
And so I took that and tried to
expand on it to make it a
little bit more durable to
where I felt comfortable. And
so that's where I was wanting
to propose the language I read
earlier to basically replace
what's in the 1.124 in front of
us.
>> We currently have a motion
and a second to accept the land
use element with. The existing
TDR. So unless there's a
friendly amendment added to
that, which probably not, I'm
looking for a roll call and
let's wait. Is there any more
discussion on.
>> Well, I'm concerned. Yeah.
Sorry Commissioner Halbert here
just concerned. I, I think
Alicia, you need to make an
amendment at this point. And
then we vote on that amendment
to accept your language changes
here or not, and then come back
and approve the whole chapter.
I have some concerns over your
language also, and that I'd
like to know more about it and
the impacts of it. And, you
know, Jack's brought some, you
know, some valid points up. And
I'd like to know that, you know,
have some time to figure out
the economic impacts of
actually implementing a lot of
shells in that shell does in
that no net loss language. And
so just I'm struggling with it
at, from that standpoint
without having the chance to
absorb it and understand how it
actually is implemented in the
process here. So does that make
sense to make it? Yes.
>> It does. The only way I
think we can get around that is
withdraw the motion and vote on
Alicia's amendment or whatever,
and then redo that if the
motion is willing to be
withdrawn.
>> I would like to vote on the
motion.
>> Okay. Motion is on the table.
Can we get a roll call, please?
Jeff?
>> Brian. Albert.
>> Excuse me, but what
Commissioner Howard, what
motion?
>> Chapter one.
>> Disapproving as presented.
>> Presented land use element.
Yeah.
>> As presented. Thank you. I.
>> I Kyle I Ron baka no. Jack.
Karen I Alicia Montgomery no.
Carl Johnson I five two.
>> Motion passes on chapter one.
Now we can write that in. Now
what we can do is understanding
that the TDR that we're
approved just now you're
looking at it would apply.
Correct me. Right. That's what
we're doing. We're putting that
TDR over the top of these
designations. Correct. Jose.
All right. So when I'm
approving or disapproving these
designations, it's with the
understanding that the TDR that
is written in the land use
1.1.24 is part of that.
>> That's my understanding of
how that would work.
>> Okay. Moving ahead, then
we're going to start with
number five, Camus UGA include
the designation of agricultural
resource land and UGA. Can we
flip that map up? I'm assuming
that is the one to the east of
between Washougal and Camus.
There it is, the big square
there.
>> This is Commissioner Haroon.
The on here it says expansion
to the East for housing. My
understanding was that Camus
had changed that like an
original like like it was like
a mixed use. Was that correct?
>> I believe they after we did
the DEIS, they proposed a
change to non residential use.
And so a non residential use
was not studied in the DEIS.
>> Any discussion on the AG.
And it also would be a good
time. Also just to reiterate
positions on TDR two as we go
through these. For the record.
>> This is Commissioner Vanise.
I just want to make sure Jose.
That doesn't affect. Since it
wasn't studied in the in the
DEIS that does not affect us.
You know in that aspect that it
that it would be zoned.
Commercial instead of
residential.
>> I think. So the at this
you're not making a motion to
change the zoning. If upon
annexation, the city decided to
change the zoning, this process
will have long terminated.
>> Okay, that's that's what I
thought. I just wanted to make
sure that it didn't affect us.
>> Any other discussions on the
campus? Ron.
>> This is Commissioner Bach. I
just for the record, then based
on the vote that we just took
on the land use chapter, I
don't think any of the
designated parcels are going to
be viable based on what the
county needs to do. So I'll be
voting no on all of them.
>> Okay.
>> Commissioner Montgomery and
I end the same position for the
same reasons. I kind of already
discussed. And I just think
from a defensibility standpoint,
without the no net loss, I
don't think things are going to
be in a strong position.
>> Any other discussions on
this?
>> Just real quick, I just want
to reiterate a point that I had
brought up a long time ago. The
the land is already like half
of the land that they're asking
to bring in is already five
acre parcels, you know,
Gentleman Farms and the it will
get developed as as McMansions
ranches. I think having either
its housing density or
commercial use is going to be
much better use of of that
property. So I would be voting
to let them bring it in.
>> I would take a motion or a
second unless there's more
discussion.
>> I. Commissioner Haroon, I
move that. We approve number
five to include the campus UGA,
the designation land.
>> Commissioner Fadness. I'll
second.
>> We have a motion. Second,
Jeff, can we have a roll call,
please?
>> Ryan Halbert. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle I Ron Barca no.
Jack. Karen I.
>> Montgomery no.
>> Carl Johnson no. 4 to 3.
>> 4 to 3 passes 4 to 3. Okay.
We're moving on to the next one.
Center UGA designated
agricultural resource lands and
expand UGA to the north of
additional employment capacity.
Any discussion or motion and
seconds.
>> This is Commissioner Fadness.
I just couldn't remember when
we had done the initial vote on
this one. Did we vote to
approve?
>> Yes, yes.
>> Okay.
>> This is Solevad. You voted
to approve with the tying it to
the TDR motion, as was in your
previous motion, and we can
pull that up so that you can
see that if you like.
>> That's okay. I just wanted
to confirm.
>> Yes.
>> Any other any other
discussion? Looking for a
motion or a second?
>> Commissioner Halbert, I make
a motion that we accept less
than UGA number six here to
designate agricultural lands.
>> Commissioner Bergthold, I'll
second that.
>> We have a motion. Second.
Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian Halbert. A Mark
Bergfeld.
>> A.
>> Kyle Fadness I. Know Jack,
Karen. I Ayisha. Doerk.
>> Montgomery no.
>> Carl Johnson I 5252 passes.
>> Moving on to Senator UGA
designate agriculture resource
lands and expand the UGA to the
southwest for additional
employment capacity. Discussion
or motion.
>> Commissioner Halbert.
>> Can you.
>> Slow down just a little bit,
please?
>> Yes, I sure will. No problem.
I was just reading it. Cyndie
sorry. Go ahead.
>> Commissioner Halbert here on
this one. I just don't recall
again, like you were asking,
Kyle, how did we deal with this
particular one last time? I
couldn't even find that we
voted on this one last time. At
least I.
>> Thought we did. I thought.
>> We did. Yeah. This is. This
is Commissioner Faville.
>> Another donut, right?
>> No, this was the the one
that goes down to the south on
the on the west side of the
highway. Okay. And I know that
Commissioner Baka had had
brought up a point, I believe,
of, of the center getting
hemmed in by the, by the tribe.
And I correct me if I'm wrong,
Commissioner. And you know,
this one I, I had trouble with
seeing bringing this one into
the center urban growth area.
It just it seems like an
expansion, like way off kind of
not within the center of, of
the center development there. I
do understand the concern of
getting hemmed in by the tribal
lands expansion, but, but I, I
do have difficulties with, with
seeing this one come into the
UGA myself.
>> I've seen the center with
schools and everything
constantly try to go from the
town down the hill and up
towards the casino. So I
understand that it's out there,
but there's a history of the
center and the center schools
and everybody else trying to
get that connection to I-5. So
I think this is the attempt. As
best I can see, that was just
my $0.02. So either way, we're
still back to where we were.
It's a it's a agricultural D
designation. Again, I'll look
for a motion and a second.
>> This Commissioner Haroon I
will move that we accept the
number seven the center
designation of the agricultural
land to the southwest for
additional employment capacity.
>> We have a motion. Can I get
a second, please.
>> Commissioner Bergthold, I'll
make a second.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Jeff, can we get a roll
call?
>> Brian Halbert. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle Fadness no.
Ron baka. No. Jack.
>> Karen I.
>> Alicia Montgomery no. Carl
Johnson. I four three.
>> Okay, moving on to number
eight Ridgefield UGA. This is
the first designation for
Ridgefield Agricultural
Resource lands and expanding
the UGA to the north for
additional employment and
housing capacity discussion.
Which one was this? This was
the little one or the big one?
Big blue. Big blue. Okay. Any
discussion? I think Steve did a
pretty good job in explaining
this. I thought it was really
like made a good point. So
emotion.
>> This Commissioner Haroon
number eight, I recommend that
we approve the designation of
agricultural resource lands and
expand the UGA to the north for
additional employment. Housing
capacity.
>> We have a motion. Can I get
a second, please.
>> Commissioner Halbert? I'll
second.
>> We have a motion a second.
Can we get a vote? Jeff?
>> Brian Halbert. I Mark
Provolt. I Kyle Fadness no. Ron
baka no. Jack. Karen I Ayisha
Doerk.
>> Montgomery no.
>> Carl Johnson. I I or four
three.
>> Number nine. The second
Ridgefield expansion of the
designation of agricultural
resource lands and expand the
UGA to the southwest for
additional housing capacity.
This has been referred as the
mall property. That little
piece right there, I believe it
again, discussion or motion.
>> Is that the donut hole?
>> Commissioner Halbert, I was
going to ask the same question.
Is that the donut hole property
that we've.
>> Talked about? That's one of
the many donut holes we've
talked about.
>> That's correct. Yes.
>> Yeah. Okay. So any
discussion? Motions, seconds
something.
>> Commissioner Halbert I'll
make a motion that number nine
Ridgefield UGA to designate
agricultural resources land and
expand UGA to the southwest for
additional housing capacity.
And that this has been referred
to as the mall property motion.
>> Can I get a second
Commissioner?
>> Bergthold? I'll second that.
>> We have a motion in a second.
Can we get a roll call, please?
>> Ryan Halbert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Kyle
Fadness I Ron baka.
>> No.
>> Jack.
>> Karen I.
>> Alicia Montgomery no. Carl
Johnson I five two.
>> Motion passes. We move now
to number ten Yacolt UGA. We're
expanding the UGA to the
southeast for additional
employment capacity to
compensate for employment. Land
converted to parklands. Jose,
did anything change on this
since we dealt with it before?
Is this still the same reason
and rationale?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
>> Any discussion on the Yacolt?
Motion?
>> I move to approve number ten
as presented.
>> I get a second.
>> I'll second it.
>> We have a motion and a
second roll call, please. Jeff.
>> Ryan, Albert. I. Mark
Provolt. I Kyle I Ron Barca. I
Jack Haroon. I Montgomery. I
Carl Johnson I seven zero.
>> Motion passes. We are now
done with the first page.
Cyndie. How are you doing? All
right. I'm gonna go a little
bit longer. We'll give you a
little break if you need it.
We're trying to just get going
here. Number 11, the Vancouver
UGA. We're going to amend the
zoning of the urban medium and
urban high residential
districts from five residential
and office residential
districts to three residential
and office residential
districts. Our 12 to our 24
hour, 18 to our 22 to our 36 R
30 and R 43 to R 50. OER 15 to
OER 24 or 18 and or 22 to OER
36 or 30 and or 43 to OR50.
There's a lot there. Okay. So
Jose, can you just give us a
little quick on this? This was
just help me out on this one.
Vancouver.
>> So currently we as you've
read, we have five different
multifamily essentially zones.
And there's some overlap
between those. We thought it
would be best to consolidate
that and remove some of the
overlap in the densities
between those. And this is part
of the housing strategies to
try to accommodate more housing,
and also the affordability with
the multifamily zoning and to
meet our requirement as to
provide housing for at all
income levels.
>> Okay.
>> Any discussion on the
Vancouver.
>> So this is Commissioner
Fadness, and I've spoke about
this before. I have really
strong objections to the
minimum housing densities
proposed in these, you know,
the R 30 up zoning to R 50. I'm
all for the zoning. I think
it's great to give the options
but but up zoning R 30 to then
have a minimum of 40 units per
acre is it's just not feasible
by the market. We're also
encouraging because Andy
brought this up in their letter
that they sent to us. We're
encouraging building studio and
one bedroom apartments because
we don't have the density
bonuses proposed. As I
understand, we don't have the
density bonuses proposed like
the city of Vancouver does,
where you get, sorry, not
density, but the unit bonuses
where you get a bonus if you
build a two, a three bedroom.
And so so we're building these
apartments and they're not
going to be able to serve
families. And it's going to be
hard to meet these minimum
densities. I really think that
we need to take a look at what
Deeb has sent over. You know,
they're the experts in this
kind of of planning. And they
know what the market can
support. And it almost seems
like a lot of these minimum
densities were brought in to
make the vbm make sense and
work for not having any UGA
expansion, but in real in the
real world, just things aren't
going to get built now. So now
these lands are just going to
sit because it's not feasible
to build. Nobody wants. There's
not going to be people flocking
to the fairgrounds area to live
in a studio apartment. There's
not going to be developers
flocking to build out there.
And so I think that what we
have proposed here is, is
really flawed and it needs to
go back and more time needs to
be spent on any of this before
it gets implemented.
>> Thank you.
>> This Commissioner Haroon. I
would agree with that. Deeb
sent over a a series of
recommended changes that they
approved a few hours before our
our meeting here. I would I
mean, I would I would propose
accepting the recommendations
and then adjusting the proposed
land use plan with the zoning
presented accordingly. That
would take a fair amount of
work from a from this. But I
think I think that needs to be.
I would I would move that we
would. Accept their
recommendations and then direct
staff to adjust the proposed
land use plan to reflect these
recommendations. And then. And
then, however, that either we
have to table this section
until then and then go to the
next section. But it's it is
really, really significant that
the difference in how the City
of Vancouver approached the
development of high density
land was a very stark
difference than how the
>> County approach that where
the city came in and said, hey,
these are the zoning changes
that that we need to do. What
development community? What do
you need from us to make this
feasible? And it was a very
collaborative process. The
county I, you know, I think
either a lack of resources or
time or, or vision hasn't done
that. And I think we really do
need to listen to, to Deb's
recommendations.
>> Commissioner Halbert here.
And I may be wrong, Jack, and
correct me if I am. But number
11 here that we're voting on is
the Vancouver UGA changes and
DBS letter is all about the
county, not the city.
>> It's DBS letter is about
Vancouver, UGA in the county.
>> In the county.
>> When when Jack and I are
speaking on what the city of
Vancouver did, that's within
the city limits of Vancouver.
>> So. Okay. Thanks.
>> This is Commissioner Baka.
So understanding what Jack is
proposing, it feels like once
again, I think we rushed into
the idea of the city boundaries
without going through the
chapters where what could have
been in the context of DBS
recommendations were pulled out
one by one, and we could have
gone through them. It's not
realistic to get such a lengthy
document hours before the
hearing, and expect us to have
an opportunity to go through it,
and I'm not going to just
accept the DBS recommendations
carte blanche and just say that
whatever they said should be an
accepted practice. But I do
think there is an opportunity.
You can choose to turn
something down and say, review
the DBS recommendations before
it goes before county council.
That, to me, feels like a
realistic proposition on how to
go forward. If if you're not
satisfied with that. But this,
I don't know, it's got to be
close to 20 pages.
>> Seven. Eight recommendations.
>> With with the idea that you
need to go into each one of
those. Yeah. I just, I think
we're at this place right now
that we're going to say either
we accept it or you're able to
pull from the recommendations
specifics, or we turn, you turn
it down and say, there's too
much that needs to be done for
us to accept it in its current
condition.
>> Well, I'm going to take a
harsh perspective here. Staff
didn't work with D or didn't
listen to. Deep staff has a
tendency, my perspective to.
Punch the boxes, hear us, and
then not take any of the
recommendations, because rarely
do I see any of our
recommendations reflected in
the code before us. We are
consistently having a workshop
and then 14 days later have.
Have a hearing with no code
changes. And then we're told
that we have then the
opportunity to make any
recommendations to their code
changes. But it's force fed
completely different than the
other planning commission of
the city that I was part of,
where we would have multiple
work sessions. They would they
would answer like any anything
like this would come before us.
We would work together. There
would be recommendations.
They'd say, Commissioner Haroon,
you had concerns with this,
Commissioner Marcus, you had
concerns with this. Staff has
shown that that we could say,
hey, could you please go back
and work with DBH and come up
with something better? And they
won't. So it kind of forces
your hand here when you have
you have DBH, which is really
it's it is the leaders of the
development community and
really the land use planning
and extremely technically, you
know, proficient. And then this
is their formal recommendation.
And so I'm, I'm, I'm very much
for them. Like I would, I would
lean on them over staff and,
and so that would be my
position is that I would
recommend, I would recommend
that we adopt this.
>> This is Commissioner
Montgomery. I would push back
on some of that and that I do
think throughout this process,
the staff has been, on other
pieces receptive to our
feedback, for example, on the
TDR program. I think initially
staff was explaining, you know,
we've tried this in the past,
it hasn't worked. And yet when
we passed our recommendation
and then it was, you know, we
just looked at a proposed
multi-paragraph policy they
developed that was just
approved. So I do think that
there is, you know, our
feedback is heard and policies
are developed. And I just think
that that same reasoning you
propose about why the DBH
memorandum should just be
quickly accepted and adopted,
because they're the experts in
that area. I mean, that same
rationale could have been
applied to the Agricultural
Commission and adopting their
recommendations and report
regarding agricultural land
conservation and no net loss
and no D designation. But we
didn't really take that just at
face value after a lot of
discussion. So I just.
>> I, I appreciate that. I
appreciate that and, and I'm
not saying that staff never
stuff, but I'm just saying from,
from my experience with past
commissions and my experience
with staff here, when we get to
some of this technical stuff,
it's, it's very it's very short
sighted and, and they don't
seem to listen. And it's really
frustrating. So.
>> Okay. Is there any more
discussion? Just a mental note.
You know, when you do get
something that dense in front
of, you know, and I'm as the
chairman, I'm I've been here
long. Ron's been here a long
time and staff has always
responded to me. So I'll just
keep that at that and keep my
opinion to myself. But I, I
don't, I don't look at this
like information is not being
put up. I look at it like we're
doing the best we can. And it's
very unprofessional for DBH to
drop something on us at the
last minute. So they lose
credibility through me by that.
So therefore, I would look for
a motion to approve the
Vancouver Udy a number 11. Is
anybody up for that. And it
could have an amendment or not.
>> This Commissioner Bergthold
and I'll approve. I'll make a
motion to approve
recommendation on number 11
with Vancouver UGA.
>> Do we have a second.
>> Commissioner Halbert? I'll
second that motion.
>> Motion in a second. Jeff,
can we get a roll call, please?
>> Brian Halbert,
>> I.
>> Boerke Provolt I Kyle no.
Ron baka.
>> No.
>> Jack. Karen.
>> No.
>> Alicia Montgomery no. Carl
Johnson yes. 3 to 4.
>> Motion fails. 3 to 4. Okay.
Moving on to Vancouver. UGA
amend number 12. Oh sorry.
>> Just I guess a point of
order is so so since we vote no
on this as as approved, do we
have an opportunity to
recommend something else to to
council? Whether it's like Jack
was saying, whether it's
accepting the dbw as as written
or whether it is exploring, you
know, maybe some of the code
changes that that DBH had
presented here.
>> I my hope is from a
practical standpoint that they
listen to our testimony because
I wrote, you know, that was
what I was kind of looking for
was a recommendation. But we
got a straight up or down vote
on it. So hopefully they listen
to this and say, okay, look,
look at the DBH, they'll have
time. And, and my hope is that
they'll say, okay, wait, let's
try to let's implement some of
those. So I know we're rushing
through this. I'm not trying to.
What I'm trying to do is
encourage. If we're going to
put an amendment in Second
Amendment in, we'll vote it up
or down. And in this case,
hopefully they listen to our
testimony. Is that.
>> Answer your question? Okay.
Yeah. Yeah, I do agree. And I
don't I don't think that a
motion straight, straight
across to accept would pass
anyways.
>> Yeah, yeah. Okay.
>> Okay I did this is Ron Baka.
I did want to just make sure
that Kyle's question was
answered in what I thought was
the appropriate fashion. If you
wanted to put an alternative
motion forward, you are able to
do that. Whether it would be
seconded, whether it would be
accepted, we don't know the
outcome. But in the alternative,
if you had wanted to put
something forward after that
failed, you are able to do that.
>> Okay. Yep, I appreciate that.
Thank you.
>> Can I.
>> Okay, is there any more
discussion on that?
>> Can I just clarify? So I did
read the letter. I think what
their recommendation was to
change the zoning, the code,
these are map changes to make
the map to add these zones.
Their their recommendation was
to change the densities in the
new zones, not to go back to
the existing zones. If you'll
read the letter, I don't think
they were proposing to not have
these zones. What you guys are
talking about are code specific
things that we have other
sections in title 40 that deal
with those code specific things.
This is just changing the
zoning on the maps and to
consolidate from 5 to 3
different zones.
>> Could could you reference
where in the code changes those
are then which which item
number that is.
>> I think in their letter they
specified the last email from
Mr. Galeano this afternoon.
>> But the, the, the code
changes. I mean, one of the it
it's it's keeping the minimums
and then increasing the
maximums. So they were they
were all for increasing the
maximums, but keeping the
minimums.
>> To what zones.
>> And then these were. And
I'll have to get back into that,
you know, like we're going to
our 12 to 24. The opposition
isn't isn't the up zone. It's
the bringing up. It's the
minimums. So that would be the
the thing I think. From
functionality standpoint,
getting through the Vancouver
thing, you know, I'm happy to
make a, you know, a motion to
recommended county Council to
take a strong look at the
recommendations for specific
stuff. And they could direct
staff, however. But yeah.
>> Okay. So why don't you
clarify that? So you're in
motion. What now for regarding
number 11, your your I mean,
let's get some clarity on it.
Okay. 11 A maybe you want to
call it.
>> So this. Commissioner Haroon,
I recommend that that we
recommend to county council to.
Look at the the DBS proposed
code language changes more
thoroughly with staff.
>> As it pertains to.
>> As as it pertains to.
>> Number 11.
>> Number 11, and any of the
the land use zoning.
>> Do we have. Do we have a
second Commissioner?
>> I'll second that motion.
>> Okay. We have a motion in a
second. Just just. Yes.
>> I was going to. I believe
that Commissioner Haroon made a
recommendation, but there
wasn't a formal motion.
>> I said.
>> I moved. No you didn't.
>> I'll say it again.
>> You recommend I recommend, I
apologize.
>> No, no. Perfect.
>> It doesn't matter.
>> It's important. Yeah. This
Commissioner Haroon, I move
that we recommend to the county
Council to take a serious look
at the DBS recommendations as
it pertains to the land use
planning. And they're
recommended changes.
>> Commissioner Hobart, second
that motion.
>> We have a motion on the
table and a second to ask or to
recommend that County Council
look at the recommendations
regarding the Vancouver,
specifically the Vancouver, UGA
and other. Other map changes.
Can I get a roll call? Jeff?
>> Brian. Howard.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Provolt. I Kyle I Ron
Barca.
>> Point of clarification.
We're actually we're doing a
motion to instruct the county
council to do something.
>> I said recommend.
>> Okay, we're recommending
that the county council do
something.
>> I said that's exactly.
>> What I said. Okay. I I'm not
in favor of giving any
instruction to the county
council. No.
>> Jack. Karen. I. Alicia
Montgomery, no. Carl Johnson. I
five two.
>> Amendment passes.
>> Mister chairman.
>> Yes, sir.
>> This is Oliver. Jacob. I
have been sitting here and
listening quietly. I take issue
with. Commissioner Jack Roeun
why I cannot sit here silently
and take the criticism of my
staff, and I want to put that
into the record. Why deep
members have served on the
Hozack study from the beginning
until now. You served on it.
They have served on the housing
forum. Members of deep. We have
gone to them multiple times in
a work session in in their
meetings. We have a housing
consultant who is listening
online for you, Jack Haroon,
planning Commissioner. To
insult myself is not acceptable.
It's not acceptable, and I will
not accept that Deep is
appointed by the council, not
even required by C w they don't
build. They are not known, not
for profit builders. You should
be consulting via. You should
be consulting those that
provide affordable housing. So
my point into the record is do
not, do not. I know it's your
opinion, but do not insult my
staff. This is should be your
last insulting my staff. Don't
do that. It's unprofessional.
And I have to put it into the
record.
>> So stated. Yes you may.
>> Okay, so my apologies if you
feel your staff was insulted.
That is never my intention. I,
I understand that that is not
my intention there. I have
certainly had frustrations with
feeling not listened to that.
My process was rushed for
multiple years. And so. You
know, and when I look at, you
know, maybe it's the best you
can do, but I've been
frustrated with some of the
work that I've seen. It's so
appropriate for me to say. So
it's, it's not insulting. I
don't mean to to be insulting.
And I'm not trying to take
personal shots at anyone. So
for what it's worth, my sincere
apologies because I do not
intend to insult anyone. But
this is an important public
process and I'm trying to get
it right for the community.
>> Okay, let's move on if we
can. Please.
>> Chair. I'm sorry. Just just
going back to I'm not against
Upzoning. And so I would like
to revisit this with Jose's
clarification that he had there.
And so going to my issue is
with the minimum density
requirement, which outlined in
the Dbw memo in code change,
40.200 point zero 40, which is
number 63 on our on our list.
And then I also have issues
with number 65, which is also
called out in the letter. But.
Which is which specifically
goes into the the minimum units
per acre. And so I'd like to
revisit, I, I would be
comfortable going back and
approving the up zoning if we
can not recommend the code
changes in those two sections
that I just outlined. And so I
would like to make a motion.
>> To start. I don't think you
have to. You can just ask, can
we move to.
>> Okay, I would like to move
to recommend no on number 63
and 65 of the in our
recommendation sheet.
>> Okay, so we have a motion.
All right. So this is where it
gets messy.
>> Okay.
>> I know if we can hold on,
hold on, hold on. What I'd like
to do is make a motion and then
vote accordingly on that motion.
So if you are wanting to us to
move to number 63 on page six,
if anybody's lost 40.200 dash
040 minimum and maximum
calculations. So if we want to
make a motion to approve that
and then vote accordingly,
that's easier than saying no,
you understand what I'm saying.
And then we're doing it
backwards. You can do it either
way you want. I vote to not
approve it. But everybody needs
to understand that what we're
doing is you're voting to vote
that.
>> To vote it down. Yes.
Correct.
>> Okay.
>> So and I'm not going to make
a motion to approve it. So.
>> Okay. So do we have a let me
start off, do we have a motion
to approve minimum maximum
calculations on number 63?
>> I guess point of order. I
just made a motion. I will
withdraw and I'll make a new
motion. Okay. So I make a
motion to recommend no on
number 63 as presented.
>> Okay. So we are voting. If
you vote yes on this motion.
Well do we have a second?
>> No.
>> Okay. So we don't have a
second.
>> This Commissioner. I'll
second it.
>> Okay. We have a motion to.
To vote no on the on the
minimum to not approve the
minimum and maximum
calculations. And what we're
saying is if you vote yes,
you're voting this one down. I
know that's confusing already.
So what I'd like to do is get a
roll call for number 63. The
motion is that we are voting on
to vote down the minimum
maximum calculations.
>> Point of clarification. Yes.
So we are saying that all of
the wording that's in 63 is
going to be void.
>> That I do not recommend it
to council.
>> That's the motion.
>> Okay. 100%. Everything in it.
All right.
>> Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian? Albert.
>> No.
>> Mark Bergfeld no. Kyle
Fadness I Ron Barca no. Jack.
Karen I Alishia. Duke
Montgomery no. Carl Johnson no.
>> So that motion fails.
>> 3 to.
>> 4 3 to 4. So we move on to
do you want to do 65 at all. Do
you have a motion for 65 or not.
>> I thought it's five two.
>> I feel like we're getting.
>> Three four.
>> Because you had.
>> Mentioned 65 residential and
office residential district.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. So 65 pertains to the
minimum densities that we
talked about, the minimum
density requirements in the
multifamily housing changes.
And so I make a motion to not
recommend number 65 as
presented.
>> We have a motion to not
recommend residential and
office residential districts.
Number 65. Do we have a second.
>> Commissioner Marinel. Second.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Jeff, can we get a roll
call, please?
>> Quick point of clarification
on the previous vote number 63
I, I incorrectly counted that
it was actually 2 to 5.
>> 2 to 5. Thank you Jeff.
Let's go back down to 65. Can
we get a roll call please?
>> Brian Halbert.
>> No.
>> Mark Bergfeld no. Kyle
Fadness. I Ron Barca no. Chad.
Karen I Duke Montgomery no.
Carl Johnson no. 2 to 5.
>> 2 to 5. Motion fails. And
now we're going to go back over
to our maps again. Drop back
around. We're getting through
it. We're doing.
>> It.
>> A quick I guess point of
order question since what we
just voted was like no. On
rejecting them, do we then need
to revote on are we accepting?
>> I might just do that for
clarification as we go through
those. So just so it's not
messy either way, I'm not
trying to do anything, but I
just I'll come back to that
when I get to that. So we are
now on number 12. Actually, I'm
gonna let's give us a little
break here. I know we've got so
much to do, but we're just
going to die here on the bike.
And how about we get back here
at about 9:00? Is that okay?
Are you guys good? That's fine.
All right, all right. We're. No
we're not we're not done. So.
Back on now. I know we're
settling in here.
>> I'm wondering if Pahlka.
>> Thanks. What I like to do
after talking to staff is to
get for efficiency once again
is to group numbers 12 through
24 together. Okay. These are
all. All Vancouver. These are
parcel related and I think we
can group them together. Unless
you have something that is that
you have a problem. Is there
any buddy, I, I don't need a
motion, but is there anybody
opposed to me working the
process that way? So 1212 to
through 24. So all Vancouver
site specific. Okay. Except for
there's a zoning. Yeah, yeah.
She's currently zoned zoning
certain properties. Yeah. Okay.
Is there any questions,
problems with that. Okay. All
right. With that said, we are
looking at number 12. Amend the
zoning for certain properties
currently zoned urban low to
urban medium and urban high 13.
Amend the zoning for certain
properties zoned R 1 to 10, R 1
to 20 and R 1 to 7 .514.
Amending existing mixed use
code from a minimum of 20% to
10% of a site to be used for
non residential uses and
reflect that in the vacant
buildable lands. Model 15
include the capacity of
residential.
>> Development and talking.
>> Yes. You okay?
>> Oh.
>> Sorry about that. You were
muted. My my our fault. My
fault. All right. Vancouver
number 15 include the capacity
of residential development and
the highway 99 Sub-plan area
underlying commercial zoning
and treat as mixed use for
estimating capacities in the
Vbl m 16 amend comprehensive
land use zoning and parcel
number 117896271 and the Salmon
Creek Fire Station to p f from
ILCC to p f and remove the
split zoning 17 amend the
Comprehensive Plan. Use zoning
parcel number 185955700 to
UMR24 from Uhl r ten. I'll just
take those right now. I'll
group them in two groups, so
I'm looking at for a motion for
12 to 15 on the proposed on the
map changes. Do I have a motion
or is there any discussion.
>> This is Commissioner. I move
to approve numbers 12 through
17 as presented.
>> As presented. Thank you. We
have a motion. Do we have a
second.
>> Commissioner Halbert? I'll
second that motion.
>> Okay. So we have a motion
and a second. Jeff, can we get
a roll call?
>> Ryan Halbert. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle Fadness I Ron
Barca. I Jack Harun I Alicia
Montgomery. I Carl Johnson. I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes on all of
those. Okay, so now we move to
our last page of maps 18. You
guys can see these as we go.
I'll just Vancouver UGAS SR 19.
That was the those lots and
parcels. The two parcels you
see there in the numbers. 19
amend the comprehensive plan.
Use zoning on parcels. There
are 123, four there from U l, R
one dash ten to community
commercial. Amend the comp on
number 20. Amend the
Comprehensive Land Use Planning
and zoning on parcel. The three
there 123 from CC to UMR-3621
to amend the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and zoning on parcel
number 986041875 from RM to
UMR3622. Amend the
comprehensive land use for
these two parcels from m x to
UMR3623. Amend the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and
zoning on parcel 182138000 from
RM to UMR24 and finally,
Vancouver UGA amend the
Comprehensive Plan use for
zoning on parcel 181200000 from
OR22 to OR24. What I'm looking
for is either discussion or a
motion on numbers 18 through 24
as read.
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> This is Commissioner Baka. I
have a question for staff.
Weren't some of these items
brought up by the City of
Vancouver in the context of
changing the zoning? They were
putting in a letter
specifically about the idea of
trying to have more commercial
activity. And so I think it was
the mix parcels. They had a
concern about. I tried to go
back and find the Vancouver
letter while Carl was going
through them, but I'm unable to
find it at this moment. But I
was under the belief that it
was conversion of the RM to the
designation that they had a
concern with. If you can find
the letter, that would be great.
>> I think what they were
wanting us to do was to look at
allowing more commercial uses
and having more commercial uses
allowed, where there is a sea
of residential. So. Hazel Dale
area east of Hazel Dell Avenue
to look for opportunities to
find lands that could be
designated commercial. So it
would be easier for people to
have commercial next to them.
And they had provided some
specific parcels that they
wanted us to look at, but those
are not included in any of
these.
>> Those okay, so these are not
those parcels, but the letter
did get brought up. And so it's
talking in more generalization.
Yes. But without. So it was
asking for action. But the
county didn't act specifically
on the request.
>> Correct. We they had given
us a bunch of parcels to look
at for some of that and for
some up zoning. And we looked
at that for some of the areas
that we looked to up zone and
incorporated some of those
recommendations through that
for some of the commercial
areas, a lot of the areas
either were could have been
churches or existing buildings
that wouldn't have yielded any
capacity in the vacant
buildable lands model. Nor did
we think that they would be
viable, given the proximity in
that area to the large
commercial along Hazel Dale
Avenue and Highway 99. And so
we didn't pursue those.
>> Thank you for the
clarification.
>> Any other discussion or I
would entertain a motion. For
18 through 24.
>> Okay. Yeah. It's okay.
>> Commissioner Hobart, I'll
make a motion that we vote our
recommended for approval items
18 through 24.
>> Do I have a second.
>> Commissioner? Berthold? I'll
second that.
>> Thank you. I have a motion
and a second. Jeff, can I get a
roll call chair? Yes.
>> Can I make a friendly
amendment request? Yeah.
Pulling out item 20, which is
looking at community commercial
specifically and voting on that
one separately.
>> Yep. We could do that if
that's okay with you. I guess
that's.
>> Your answer, Commissioner.
Let me amend my motion to
include parcel numbers 18, 19,
21 through 24, leaving out 20
for this vote.
>> Can we get a second on that
motion, please.
>> Commissioner Burget I'll
second that.
>> Motion as amended. Jeff, can
we get a roll call, please?
>> Bryan Talbot. I Boerke.
>> Provolt I.
>> Mark Kyle I Ron Barca. I
Jacques Caron I Alicia Leduc
Montgomery. I Carl Johnson. I
seven zero.
>> Okay. Motion passes. Now we
will go back to number 20. This
is Vancouver UGA SSR to the
Comprehensive land use plan and
zoning on parcel 986042747.
Parcel 201 47000. Parcel 202
00000 from Keesee to UMR-36.
Discussion.
>> This is this is Commissioner
Barker. I'll just make a motion
to go ahead and deny number 20
as staff recommends it.
>> Can you tell me. Why or just
explanation?
>> Trying to keep the
commercial and commercial.
>> Okay. All right.
>> All right.
>> This Commissioner Roeun.
I'll second that.
>> Okay. We have a motion to
deny the zoning or excuse me,
approval of number 20. So make
sure you reverse your vote.
That said, we have a motion and
a second. Jeff, can we get.
>> A roll call? Can we have
some discussion? Oh, yes. Could
we pull this up on the map
because I, I guess I'm just not
familiar with what I'm voting
on right now.
>> Okay. It looks like.
>> Yes. So this is property
just south of 1/19 along 503. I
believe the issue is the
proximity to the intersection
where they're they've had
difficulty getting access for
commercial from the state at
this location. And so the
proposal would be to change it
to multifamily. I believe
there's access. There's
alternative access through the
back, which wouldn't have the
same implication as it would
for commercial development.
>> Hozack which parcel was that?
>> And this is a request from
the property owner or. Yes. I'm
sorry, Brian.
>> What what parcel was that on
the map here is and there's
three parcel numbers.
>> Right? Yes. They're all
together in this. Yeah. So this
is. All of the parcels are in
that orange area.
>> Thanks.
>> And the surrounding purple
zoning or whatever color it is.
>> It's it's that's community
commercial.
>> That's community commercial.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> The.
>> The this Commissioner, the
purples community commercial.
And then is it the orange one
that we're looking at? Is that
yes.
>> Yes. That's the proposed
change.
>> Okay. So everything else
around it, those community
commercial. Yes. Except for and
then he's asking for that to
community commercial. Yes. Okay.
Got it.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Any other
discussion? I would entertain a
motion, remember. Oh, there's a
motion on the table. Do we have
a we have a second. Yes. So
therefore any more discussion.
None. Therefore can we get a
vote. This is a vote to
disapprove.
>> This. Ryan. Albert. No. Mark
Bergfeld.
>> I'll approve it.
>> I can't hear you guys. I
didn't hear Brian.
>> Yeah. Sorry. Brian is a no.
>> Mark is a yes.
>> Kyle Fadness I Ron baka I.
Jack Karen. I Alicia Montgomery.
I Carl Johnson. No 522.
>> Yeah five two to disapprove
okay. Thank you. All right so
we are now through the proposed
the maps we now go to page four
and we'll group a couple of
these. But basically we got to
go through them. So the the
first one on the table is the
freight rail dependent use
overlay. And this is Jose. Can
you just give us a quick blurb
on this just so we. I don't
have to read all those numbers.
>> Okay. So. This is as a
result of action that the
legislature took that initially
allowed freight rail dependent
use as a use in two
jurisdictions, Okanogan County
and Clark County. The
legislature took an action to
rescind that and only allow
that to occur in Okanogan
County. So it's no longer
applicable in Clark County. So
we're making the changes to
remove this overlay. And in the
comp plan, we're removing the
language related to the freight
rail dependent use.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any
discussion on this? I remember
when this came up. Yeah. Before
this bike. No discussion. I
take a motion.
>> This is Commissioner. I move
to approve 25 as presented.
>> Commissioner a second.
>> We have a motion. Second
Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian?
>> Albert I.
>> I Kyle I. Ron baka.
>> I.
>> Jack. I Alicia Montgomery. I
Carl Johnson. I seven zero.
>> Motion passes. Moving on to
number 26 battleground UGA
expand the UGA to include 35
acre property owned by the city
of battleground containing
water reservoirs. This was
previously included in Altree
and was included in the DEIS.
>> This Commissioner Haroon. I
move that we approve item
number 26.
>> We have a second.
>> Commissioner Hubbard, I
approve. I second that motion.
>> A motion and a second. Jeff,
can we get a roll call, please?
>> Right.
>> Discussion. Excuse me. I'm
sorry. Is there any discussion?
I'm fine.
>> All right, a discussion. I
appreciate Sam Crumlich
explanation of why we need to
bring this or why they asked to
bring this in. And so it was
really helpful to hear them.
Thanks. I'll be an eye chair.
>> Yes.
>> I just want us to be really
clear that we are bringing in
an island.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I mean, once again,
we're looking at the aspect of
we're not being contiguous in
the thought process about how
we're expanding the city
boundaries.
>> Go ahead. Commissioner. I
completely appreciate your
point. And I would be more with
you, except this is their water
reservoir and they're just
trying to bring it in within
their city boundary so they can
do their permitting. So. And I
get it.
>> Yeah. Okay. Jack, under the
circumstances, what prevents
them from making it contiguous
and bringing in their water
reservoir? Not not.
>> That any other discussion.
Okay. We have a motion and a
second. Can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian. Albert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Colf I
Brian Barker.
>> Reluctantly, I.
>> Jack Roeun. I Alicia
Montgomery. I Carl Johnson I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes number 27 the
battleground UGA to expand to
include three properties
totaling 17 acres for urban low
density residential land. This
was previously included in all
three and was included in the
DIS. Can you give us a little
bit on this one, Jose, I can't
remember. I know you talked
about this.
>> I think this is the city had
identified. There was a road I
think that straddles the
boundary. And so they wanted to
bring that in to complete the
road and include the properties
of the North to allow that to
develop.
>> Okay. That's right.
>> Okay. Is there any
discussion on this or take a
motion or a second.
>> I would have. No motion.
>> There are no motion.
>> Commissioner Halbert, I'll
make a motion that we. Let's
see. Make a motion that we vote
on. 27 as as presented.
>> I have a motion. Can we have
a second, please.
>> Commissioner Berthold? I'll
second that.
>> We have a motion in a second.
Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian Halbert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Kyle
fadness no. Ron. Baka.
>> No.
>> Jack.
>> Karen I.
>> Dick.
>> Montgomery no.
>> Carl Johnson I 43.
>> Passes. Okay. Number 27
listener UGA to designate
agricultural resources, land
and expand the UGA to include
the five acre parcel owned by
the Clark County public
utilities would make expansion
requests to the north,
described above, contiguous on
all sides. This was not
included in the DEIS. Jose, can
you give us a quick update on
that one, Commissioner?
>> Yes, point of clarification.
You listed that as as line 27.
It's actually line 28.
>> Line 28. I just did 27.
Excuse me. Thank you. You'll be
seeing more of those.
>> Later.
>> Later.
>> So this is a parcel that's
this one in the center here.
Yes. In here where the city
realized late that they omitted
this from their expansion. And
I believe it's one of the
utilities that owns the
property. They it it was late
and it wasn't included in the
EIS.
>> Okay, great.
>> Any discussion on this?
>> This is Commissioner Baka. I
just want to make sure that I'm
clarifying for the record,
because it's surrounded by
urban development by itself is
not reason enough for me to
bring a piece of agricultural
land in, but its current use is
the reason why I'm going to go
ahead and vote for this. It has
no reflection on any of the
other designations of
agricultural land that we have
been discussing this evening.
>> Any other discussions?
>> Commissioner Montgomery, I
echo what you just said, Mr.
Baka. I'm also concerned that
it wasn't studied in the DEIS,
but given the parcel size and,
you know, the utility use, I
think again, I would treat it
differently than some of the
other D designation requests.
>> Any other discussions or
motions.
>> This is Commissioner Baka.
I'll make a motion to bring in.
Its line 28.
>> Yes. Line 28.
>> As written and by staff and
for D designation.
>> Do we have a second
Commissioner?
>> Marinel second.
>> We have a motion and a
second on line 28 as written.
Jeff, can we get a roll call?
>> Ryan.
>> Albert I.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Kyle Vanise
I Ron baka. I Jack Karen. I
Alicia Montgomery. I Carl
Johnson. I seven zero.
>> Motion passes the final one
here and the purple on page
five will be number 29.
>> Second to last second.
>> And this is the mobile home
park overlay to create a mobile
home park overlay on the
existing mobile home parks
within the unincorporated
Vancouver UGA that would be
subject to new development
regulations. Those are all the
parcels that we're talking
about. And any discussion. I
know we had a lot of people
here earlier and probably still
here from the mobile home park.
But yeah, I'm sorry that you
got going so far down.
>> Yeah. This is.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Fadness and I
want to commend the I know the
three that are out in the
audience are supporters of the
overlay. So I commend you for
sticking through this for three
hours. I'd like to make a
motion to approve number 29 as
as presented.
>> As Commissioner Berthold.
Now make a second to that.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Any discussion?
>> Yeah. Commissioner Halbert
here. I, you know, appreciate
the language that it is
intended here is intended to
preserve the existing
manufactured home parks and
protect long term affordability,
prevent the displacement of
existing residents. And this
district promotes community
stability by limiting
redevelopment of manufactured
home parks while allowing the
continued repair, replacement
and expansion of manufactured
homes in accordance with the
standards of this title. That
will be title 4252 50. So I
think it maybe doesn't prevent
everything or protect them from
everything that could happen in
the future, but it certainly is
a step in the right direction.
And yeah, if it wasn't for so
many of the residents that were
here two weeks ago, I don't
think we would have looked into
it as as diligently as we did.
So thanks.
>> Great job guys.
>> So we have a motion and a
second. Jeff, can we get a roll
call, please?
>> Brian Halbert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Provolt. I Kyle Fadness.
I Brian Barca. Hi. Jack.
>> Karen I.
>> Alicia Montgomery. I Carl
Johnson. I seven zero.
>> Motion passes now yes.
>> Question there was a 29 a.
>> I'm getting ready to do that.
>> Yep. Okay.
>> Yeah. So Jose we're on 29 A
which is the arterial atlas.
Can we get an explanation when
you get a chance.
>> So this is the. An appendix
appendix of the comp plan. But
it identifies all of the roads
in the county road system.
There were a series of changes
that were made. We discussed
that with you at a work session.
There were some feedback we got
from. The the community in
terms of when a development
happens, a road is on on the
network and identifies. The
location may not always stay
the same when development comes.
And so there are some things
that are lines on the arterial
atlas that no longer warrant
because the development has
happened. So we're going to a
series of changes that were
being made to clean up a lot of
those types of mistakes. And
then there was we're showing
all of the new any new proposed
proposed roads that are part of
the comp plan update. And so
that's those. The gist of the
arterial Atlas is just the
mapping of the road network
that the development community
relies on, and that we look to
enforce.
>> Do we have any documentation
on the arterial atlas or like,
was there a map or anything
that. Yes, that was just I mean,
just for the record, I think
it's fine, but yeah.
>> Do you have it?
>> To take a vote on. This
because this is an overlay
overlay map to put this on the
comp plan or it's an overlay.
What he read was something from
the code was from 68. That is
the motion. So less than we
take a.
>> So they read 68 and voted on
68. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yes please. I thought they
did.
>> Sorry. For the record, my.
>> Name is Harrison Houston.
I'm a transportation planner
with community planning. So
this document right here, this
is linked in the meeting
materials. It's about 95 pages.
And each page is basically a
section of the road atlas. And
there's sections here that just
kind of display well, it
displays the whole county, but
once you get into the
unincorporated parts, it does
show the comp plan designation
for roadways in the
unincorporated areas. And so
these kind of tie back to, you
know, we have comp plan
designations for different
roadway types. And then these
designations tie back to kind
of the standards that they're
built out to in the future. So
the arterial atlas really
depicts the future, what the
future of the roadway really
looks like. And it's really the
main implementation tool of our
CFP and kind of other
transportation related
documents. And so you can kind
of go through all of these,
these, this kind of the static
map of, of the arterial atlas.
And then I'm just kind of going
to jump to the back of the
arterial atlas. And it will
take a long time to load.
>> I don't think so. They just
voted on this. Okay.
>> It doesn't.
>> I apologize. I'm trying to
figure out how far I need to go.
But I guess my main point in
the back of the arterial atlas,
we do have kind of listed any
circulation studies that have
been previously adopted by
council. So as you can see,
this is kind of the outline of
the county and how it's broken
up by page. And then we kind of
have conceptual levels of our
different cross sections for
the different types of roadway.
And then these are codified,
codified basically in in title
40 with the exact dimensions
for every aspect of the roadway.
But these are just kind of the
conceptual, you know, high
level understanding of these
roadways. And then in the back,
we do have our circulation
studies that have been
previously adopted. So there
are a number of the circulation
studies. So I think exhibit 63,
exhibit 64. And then I think
this would be exhibit 65. And
these had all been adopted
since our last 2016 update. So
these were new circulation
studies that we added to
document in the back.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions
regarding the arterial Atlas
updates changes? Okay. With
that said, I could get a motion
in a second.
>> Mr. Commissioner Burke I'll
make a motion to accept item 29.
A arterial Atlas updates.
>> We have second, please.
>> Commissioner Fadness second.
>> Motion and second. Jeff, can
we get a roll call? Oh. Any
discussion?
>> This is Commissioner Baka. I
just think in the context of
the same reason, like getting
the DBS letter, this is the
same kind of scenario. I don't
doubt the work. I haven't had a
chance to go through it in any
fashion. I will let County
council go through it, and they
can make their determination
about what they want to do with
it. Looking at our capital
facilities plan, I'm not quite
sure how much the arterial
atlas is going to weigh in on
the final discussion about what
gets built or doesn't get built,
so I'm not too worried about it.
So I just want to have a
clarification of why I'm going
to be voting the way I'm going
to be voting.
>> Any other discussions? Okay.
We have a motion and a second
on the table. Jeff, can we get
a roll call, please?
>> Ryan Halbert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Kyle
Fadness I Ron Barca.
>> No.
>> Jack.
>> Karen I.
>> Alicia Montgomery no. Carl
Johnson. I five two.
>> Motion passes. Okay, now we
will move on to the proposed
comprehensive plans and
chapters. So Jose on things
like table of contents
introduction. Is that just
going to be like do we group
them together? Do we are those
something we would vote on?
>> Or I think it might make
sense to see if anybody has
anything that they object to.
>> I'll just go like that. Okay.
>> Well, just ask, ask your
fellow councilors.
>> Okay, so 30, 31 and 32, is
there anybody that has any
objections to grouping those
together? This is context
introduction, community
framework.
>> This is Commissioner
Montgomery. The only chapter I
did have proposed changes or
discussion on was chapter one.
And just for purposes of voting,
I would be fine with putting
all of them in. I don't know.
If one of all of the proposed
comp plan chapters. I don't
know that everybody feels that
way.
>> Does anybody have any more
of that they want to pull out
of the chapters one through 15?
>> Yeah, Commissioner.
>> We'll pull out. We'll revote
on one just because
>> Make it clear.
>> With Alicia on 33. And I'd
like to amend our proposal
amendment for 40. 33 and 40.
>> Okay, so I propose we vote
on everything. Unless there's
others except for 33 and 40. Is
that correct? Do you have
anything?
>> Yes, this is Commissioner
Barca. I have some wording
changes I'd like to see. And
number 34, chapter two, housing
element. I have some discussion
I'd like to do concerning
number 38, chapter six capital
Facilities Planning. And there
was one more. Did we where did
we stop on our discussion?
>> That's good.
>> Oh all the way.
>> I'm just going through six.
I'm looking through 61 right
now. I'm trying to just take
care of the the.
>> Okay. Then it would be
number 46, the climate element.
Okay. As well.
>> Is there any others that
need to be pulled out? With
that said, what I would like to
do is lump 30, 31, 32, 35, 36,
37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47,
and then the rest of those with
all the appendixes. Is there
anybody opposed to us grouping
those together and making a
singular motion to pass those
chapters? Hearing none, may I
get a motion? And you can
either say them or, you know,
basically what I'm looking at.
I can, I can tell you which
ones they are, but to make
reference to them again, ready?
3031 and 32, 35, 36 and 37, 39,
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, and
then 48 through 61, which is
just all the extra appendixes.
Okay. So can I get a motion for
that unless there's discussion.
>> Commissioner Montgomery,
I'll move to approve those
items. As stated. As stated.
>> Okay. Is there a second.
>> For that, Commissioner
Bergthold, I will have a second.
>> Okay. We have a second for
the approval of stated chapters
in the proposed and appendices.
Two in the Comprehensive Plan.
Is there any discussion on this?
Hearing none. Jeff, can we get
a vote on that?
>> Brian Albert. I Marc Provolt.
I Kyle. I Ron barca.
>> I.
>> Jacques Caron I Montgomery.
I Carl Johnson. I seven zero.
>> Motion passes. So now we
will go back to the ones that
we want to pull out, starting
with number 33. And it sounds
like we wanted to get some
clarity on that. This is the
land use element. So discussion
on that.
>> This is Commissioner
Montgomery and I just wanted to
clarify didn't did we already
approve this chapter? Like, can
we revote it? Well, we voted.
>> It down. So I don't know. I
was going to vote it. Like, do
we pass or not? But it's been
voted down. So I guess we don't
have to.
>> I thought it was voted to
approve it as written and
proposed by staff, but my
proposed a change to it was not
accepted.
>> Correct. Yes. Correct.
>> Is that you already voted on?
>> Okay. So 33. Thank you for
the clarity. 33 is already
voted on. Yeah. So now we go to
34. Ron, was that yours?
Housing element. Yes. Okay. Can
you discussion on chapter two
housing element.
>> Give me a moment. I'm
looking for my notes right here.
>> Amendment because you did
have a date.
>> Just for point of
clarification before we move on
on. On 33, the council or
commission voted to pass as is.
But if Commissioner Montgomery
wanted to make a motion with
respect to.
>> That particular policy.
>> That particular policy, she
certainly could do so.
>> Thank you. I'll do that for
the record.
>> Is that miss Ward? Paul
Motschman? Yes, speaking.
>> Yeah. That was. Yeah. Miss.
Palmerton. Yes. Ward. Palmerton.
So we go back to 33 and clean
that up. Alicia, do you want to
do something there?
>> Thank you. Yeah.
Commissioner Montgomery and I
would move to amend. Item 33,
chapter one to include replace
the currently approved policy
language in 1.1.2 for and
instead replace it with the
following 1.1.2 for Clark
County and participating cities
shall cooperatively adopt and
implement a county wide
transfer of development rights.
Parentheses. TDR program to
permanently conserve
agricultural lands while
accommodating the urban growth
adopted through the 2025
Comprehensive Plan. Periodic
update UGA expansions that
include De-designated
agricultural lands shall be
subject to an Urban Holding
designation until applicable
TDR requirements are satisfied,
the county and affected city
shall enter into an interlocal
agreement establishing TDR
requirements, implementation
responsibilities, conservation
objectives and timelines. The
county wide TDR program shall
be fully operational no later
than December 31st, 2027. The
program shall ensure the
permanent conservation of, at
minimum, one acre of
agricultural land for each acre
of designated agricultural land
converted through to UGA
expansion, while also ensuring
no net loss of agricultural
resource lands resulting from
adopted UGA acreage for planned
housing, population or
employment capacity resulting
from implementation of the TDR
program. The program shall
include a mechanism for
identifying and evaluating
rural lands for suitability of
designation or redesignation as
agricultural resource lands. If
sufficient TDR credits are
unavailable or if the TDR
program is not operational by
the implementation deadline,
the county and affected city
shall use purchase or transfer
of development rights,
permanent conservation
easements or another mechanism
providing substantially
equivalent permanent
agricultural conservation
failure, delay or insufficient
participation in the TDR
program shall not result in
removal, reduction or reversion
of an adopted UGA expansion or
reduction in its planned urban
capacity. Future UGA expansions
involving designated
agricultural resource lands
shall participate in the TDR
program and provide permanent
agricultural conservation at a
minimum, 1 to 1 acreage ratio,
or provide an alternative
mechanism achieving
substantially equivalent
permanent agricultural
conservation.
>> Can we get that submitted?
No matter what happens, for the
record. So at least the county
because it's on it's on your
computer, right? Does the
county have that.
>> Councilors have that. I can
provide a copy of this.
>> Yeah. I just thought it'd be
nice that if they. Because
there's a lot there, whether
you agree with it or not. All
I'm saying is is it appropriate
to go here? Councilors, maybe
you ought to just look at what
she's writing.
>> Because the text on what was
voted on can can certainly be
provided.
>> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's it.
So we have a motion adding
state what was stated her what
she said. Do we have a second.
>> This is Commissioner Barker.
I'll second it.
>> So we have a motion and a
second for an amendment on
chapter one. Land use element
to update the TDR section. I
can't remember the numbers, but
1.1.24.
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> So can we is there any
discussion on that? I know
we've had a lot already.
>> But yeah, this commissioner
just just reiterating that that
a there's a lot there to unpack.
Be the it blows up the TDR
program and makes it
nonfunctional. And, and we
can't do that to our cities. So
that's the I mean, I appreciate
so much, which is why I'm for
the TDR program preserving
farmlands, but. So I'll be
voting no.
>> This is Commissioner Barker,
just as a opposing thought
process on that. Every one of
the cities came forward and
asked for TDR program. Every
single city that was getting
the designated land came
forward and said they were for
having the TDR program. So when
you say it blows up what the
cities want to do, I don't
think we have the data.
>> It's the no net loss
provision. That that's that's
the issue.
>> This is our professional
disagreement, but it isn't what
the city has asked for.
>> The cities never asked for
no net loss.
>> So this is it's a good
debate in the spirit of keeping
it moving. Is there any other
discussion on this? I just want
to say one thing that I. I want
this for the record, that the
TDR is in there, and I was
concerned with why wasn't the
TD like, why did that get
removed when we did push that
forward? It wasn't staff. It
was the councilor said, no,
they don't want that. But I
think the devil's in the
details. I think it's somewhere
in the middle. I think it's
mostly about, hey, you can't
just be doing this and not and
tell us you're going to have a
TDR. But I agree with the
spirit of what you're doing. I
do think it's. We really start
to him it in. But let that be.
I want it for the record to go.
Whatever we're doing with TDR,
it's it's obviously we've done
this before. I mean, we've
talked about it till we're blue
in the face. But the reality is,
is that I want Council to hear
from the commission that, look,
all of us agree that TDR need
to be there. Staff did a great
job in presenting what this is.
I think now the question
becomes they've got to work out
what it is, and my voting for
it is not saying no, because I
kind of like what you got there.
But some of that stuff, I
really feel like maybe we're
there. So I don't want to
debate me, but I'm just saying,
I think there's something there.
Is there any other discussion
on this.
>> As Commissioner Montgomery
and I agree, I appreciate that
we've been able to take the TDR
point this far by generally
consensus, consensus, and a lot
of these finer points I've been
putting on it are for my
particular concerns about legal
defensibility in terms of the
legal challenge, as well as a
lot of the community feedback.
And so I appreciate there's,
you know, agree to disagree
positions been presented, but I
am glad we've been making some
progress.
>> At least we just we do need
a mechanism and I think we're
all working for it. That said,
if there's no more discussion,
I have a motion and a second,
can I get a roll call? Jeff?
>> Brian. Haubert.
>> No.
>> No.
>> Kyle Fadness no. Ron Barca.
I Jack. Karen.
>> No.
>> Alicia Montgomery.
>> I as my friend.
>> Carl Johnson.
>> Sorry, as my friend Ron
Barca says it's hard, but I'm
going to vote no. But
reluctantly.
>> Ron 2 to 5.
>> Okay. We are off of number
33. Excuse me. Yeah 34 who had
34. Ron, is that you again?
Okay. Yeah. You're working on
that. Yeah. Let's go.
>> So chapter two. I want to, I
think present this in the
context that there's a lot in
chapter two. But what I want to
work on specifically was
there's a component of it that
talks about ideas for reducing
cost of development. And I want
to make sure that we're
targeting specific areas in the
home ownership aspect to 80 to
80% to 100%. AM I because our
limited funding, I think, is
not going to be able to go
across the board. We in the
county have a 1% tax. Now,
that's specifically for what I
believe is 60% Ami and below,
but there's nothing that covers
the 80% to 100%, nor is there
anything specifically around a
mechanism to help home
ownership. So what I'd like to
do is propose a few things that
I believe we could add that
would genuinely reduce cost.
One is waive permit fees for
qualified buyers that hold the
house for a period of time. I
can suggest five years, but
perhaps there's a different
time frame that makes sense to
people. But I would look at the
aspect of qualified buyers in
the 80 to 100% Ami. They're not
going to flip the house.
They're going to live in it for
at least five years. We could
use a portfolio of pre-approved
plans where we know that staff
would be able to have that at
their disposal. And if the
developers come in with a
specifically already
pre-approved plan, that should
get them to the top of the list
and help move them through. I
believe that we could look at
the aspect of implementing
outcome based approval for site
development, and not get into
the aspects of following the
code as written. Now, I think
there's an opportunity for us
to modify code much more for
outcome based procedure, and
that would give any of the
developers more opportunity to
do it in different ways, rather
than the prescribed way that a
specific plans examiner expects
it to be done. I also believe
that we need to have
interagency agreements to lower
these barriers. Just as we're
asking county planning to do. I
think the Utilities and
Department of Health need to
come forward with the same kind
of program for the 80% to 100%
Ami ownership opportunity, and.
The last thing I've got, I
think I wrote down at 2.3.8, we
use the word encourage, and I
think we need to work that out
into some very firm incentives.
And the last thing is what we
don't have in our housing
element right now is specific
metrics that are going to be
measured and reported out on,
with the idea that adjustments
would be made within the time
frame of the comp plan. So we
we have some targets about how
many houses we want to build,
but we don't have mechanisms
that says, what do we do if
we're not getting there? And
how are we measuring whether
we're getting there or not? So
I know that's a lot. I can try
and put it into more specific
words for incentives and go
back over it as a motion. But I
wanted to kind of lay that out
on the table to see how people
were thinking about it. And I
believe my fellow commissioner,
Brian Halbert, has some
additions that he wanted to put
in on the same element.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. Thanks. Commissioner
Halbert here. And yeah, Ron, I
like what you're saying. And as
you were talking, I was putting
those notes under 2.1.9. It
seemed like that was the place.
Is that where you were talking
about? And then before I go
into some of my other ones,
there is a housing planning
tool that was part of the
appendixes that seemed like
that was the tool to track how
we were doing. Did you have a
comment on that, or did you see
that as a tool that would.
>> I didn't see it as a firm
requirement.
>> Okay. Yeah. I don't know if
it was a you shall do this or
just a tool that could be used
to show the how the process is.
Maybe Jose could help us out
with that one.
>> So the. The appendix that.
>> Appendix J.
>> Okay.
>> The housing for all housing.
>> For all planning tool.
>> Okay, so the legislature
essentially with the
requirement to plan for by
income bands, I think there's a
check in at the five year mark
where we're supposed to report
out how we're doing and sort of
address some of those concerns
of why, why we have or haven't
met our targets and what our
plans are to achieve those
goals that are coming into
compliance with that.
>> My, my two point, 1.9
suggestions really were covered
even better by what you said,
Ron. I was, you know, saying,
let's reduce impact fees and
tax burdens on all Clark County
people to make housing more
affordable. But your suggestion
about permit waiver fees for a
five year ownership is an
awesome incentive for a buyer,
and the pre-approved plans also
should help a developer move
quicker.
>> Paradise. The fire or the
fire was. They have like that's
what they do. They're all pre
drawn so people don't. You can
go build your house back up,
but you could also go in there
and just here you can you get a
set of plans and there's no fee
for that. So I know that's a
different thing, but it's very
effective. That pre set of
plans. I don't know. We might
be getting too far in the weeds
with this. But I get what
you're saying. Affordability I
think is the the big outcome
here. Is there any other
discussions on this. And Ron
you're going to have to craft
your amendment.
>> I got one other one on
policy, 2.1.11 and just a
language change. I could I have
it written out. I can or hand
it out. It's about promoting
home ownership opportunities
for low income and moderate
income families and individuals
while recognizing historic
inadequacy and and inadequacies
in access to home ownership
opportunities for communities
of color. And I want to strike
of color. When we saw this back
in July of 2025, the CAG
recommended this. The community
group that wrote these policies.
And it wasn't until July of
2026 that we saw an update on
chapter two. The Housing
Element code changes, and in 26,
chapter two talked about
racially disparate impacts and
displacements. So table 2.13
used the words and households
of black, indigenous and people
of color. So BIOPC groups as
those were all the groups that
were had that were
substantially under the. Income
ability to purchase homes. So I
want to just strike the the
words of color and add in and
households of black, indigenous
and people of color, the BIO
groups in that language.
Because it wasn't just one
group. There was five groups in
there that were that did not
meet the income standards. And
if it helps, I'll hand it out.
Take one, pass it down, and
then I'm handing out the
language written out. And then
also table 2.1, 2.13. Here's
one. Okay, I'll keep that. And
in 2.13 the table based on race
and ethnicity just shows the
percentage of median income of
these different groups. And,
and uses the words that Yedda
Bipoc households of black,
indigenous and people of color.
Okay, that's, that's my
amendment for.
>> Okay. Is there any other
discussion on. The housing
element chair?
>> Yeah. Before I go ahead and
make a recommendation for
wording, I want to make sure
that the Commission understands
my focus is specifically home
ownership towards the 80 to
100% Ami for the aspect of
coming up with ways to go ahead
and lower the cost of housing
from what is capable within the
county. Looking at the idea
that the income bands at below
that for affordable housing are
going to be handled within the
tax structure that has already
been passed by county Council
for 60% and below, if that's
agreeable, then that would be
when I put the wording in, and
that's what you would be voting
for. And if there is some
disagreement with that, I'm I'm
open to understanding your
point of view before I do the
wording in case we want to
modify in any fashion.
>> So my understanding is
basically where, where, where
you're going is you support
what's there, but what you're
really looking for is
affordability targeted towards
changing the thresholds just a
little bit. But, but basically
you're just looking at
affordability. You still are in
support of the basis of the
work done, the chapter done.
You just want to add a little
bit of clarity to it. And I'm
kind of asking both of you,
that's what I kind of got out
of what you said, and I don't
know if it's me, I'm inclined
to say, yeah, that's that
doesn't sound right. But you
got to craft the, the.
>> Yeah. So in generalization,
the answer is yes. I'm just
trying to be a bit more focused
on who we're able to actually
help in some fashion. There's
limited resources and we're
going to be in a position of
having to pick and choose where
those resources go. And so if
we're strongly of the belief
that homeownership is better
and supporting that middle
class, that 80 to 100% Ami is
important for us, then that's
my direction.
>> Any responses? Rich, it's
yours to go. If you want to
make a motion. Ron.
>> All right. Thank you. Chair.
So this is Commissioner Baka.
So my recommendation in chapter
22.1.9, we're looking at home
ownership in the 80% to 100%
Ami waive the permit fees for
qualifying buyers that hold the
house for a five year period.
Use pre-approved plans to lower
the approval time, implement
outcome based approval for site
development. Craft interagency
agreements to lower the
barriers. As stated above, and
then at 2.1, point one,
incorporate Commissioner
Halbert's request to change the
wording to include Bipoc and
2.3.8. Remove, encourage and
come up with some firm
incentives that I don't have
enumerated. And the last item
was in the appendix where we
were talking about metrics and
tracking. I'm interested in
staff fleshing that out to talk
about what they're going to do
with the information, since
most of it was considered
encourage and propose or
promote. So I'm looking for the
metrics, being able to actually
have some levers that would say
we would go back and do
something different if we're
not hitting our targets.
>> The discussion. We have a
motion, we have a motion. Do we
have a second for that?
>> So, Commissioner Montgomery,
I'll second.
>> Okay. Here's what we have.
We have we have a motion
regarding approving chapter two,
right, which is. Which is
chapter two, which is the
housing element with the
amendment as stated. Now, is
there any discussion on what
Commissioner Baka just advanced
this?
>> Commissioner I I'm not
opposed to it. But the what
we're voting on got kind of
skewy at the end there because
it was all in the when you
started directing to staff, so
I. The first couple. I'm like
tracking the the last section,
I got a little bit confused on
what you were asking for us to
approve. So maybe, maybe we
just do bum, bum, bum and then
kind of clean up the last one.
But that's kind of.
>> My, I'm open to a friendly
amendment to pull the aspect of
the metrics that were in the
appendix.
>> Yeah.
>> Friendly amendment. I would
make that friendly amendment.
>> Okay. We have a motion on
the table. Any discussion with
the friendly amendment? I know
this is dense. There's a second.
Any discussion? Seeing no
discussion. Let's get a roll
call on approving chapter two
housing line item number 34
with Commissioner Berkus.
>> Amendment Brian Halbert. I
Boerke Provolt. I Kyle.
>> I.
>> Ron baka.
>> I.
>> Jacques Roeun. I Ayisha
Montgomery. I Carl Johnson. I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes. We now move
to number 30. Let's see you are
on. Was it Ron? Did you want 38
or 3738 capital facilities plan.
So we are looking to approve.
I'll either take discussion or
a motion on capital facilities
plan element chapter six,
number 38.
>> So I wanted just to bring
this one up from the standpoint
I don't have a specific
amendment to bring forward. I
wanted to clarify my vote, and
that is based on the testimony
that has been put into the
record over the last couple of
months. It has the appearance
that many of our projects from
our previous comp plan have
been stacked onto the
concurrency on this comp plan,
the half $1 billion
transportation package, I don't
believe is realistic, and it
has the appearance that Public
Works has been approving
projects that would not be
passing in the context of the
test of concurrency. So. From
the funding aspect, I don't
believe the capital facilities
plan is well developed or
realistic for the funding
that's available within the
county, and I'll be voting no
on the capital facilities
aspect.
>> Any other discussion on line
item 38 Capital facilities plan?
If not, I would hear a motion.
>> Commissioner Montgomery I
would say I just share some of
the same concerns and reviewing
some of the public comment
today to prepare. I mean, there
was a lot of testimony from
folks about concerns of new
development, where the existing
infrastructure, you know,
wasn't going to be able to
service it from their
perspective. And then, as we
had heard in prior meetings,
there's a very long list and it
seems like a lot's getting
added to it. And so I would
like to be able to come forward
with a solution to the problem,
but I am just concerned about
adding more in if we're not
able to keep up with that type
of development.
>> So okay. Any other
discussions on that? If not, I
would hear a motion for the
chapter six Capital Facilities
Plan element.
>> This is Commissioner Baka. I
would like to make a motion to
deny the capital facilities
plan as written.
>> Do we have a second.
>> Commissioner Montgomery?
I'll second.
>> Okay. So we have a motion to
deny the Capital facilities
plan element. Chapter six. Any
there's any discussion? No
discussion. Jeff, can we get a
roll call, please?
>> Brian? Albert.
>> No.
>> Mark Bergfeld no. Kyle.
>> Vanise no.
>> Ron Baka. I Jacques Caron no.
Dick Montgomery I. Carl Johnson
no. 2 to 5.
>> 2 to 5. So in this case
Council this I don't it passes
then. Correct.
>> So well.
>> You it doesn't.
>> Motion to deny it as written.
So you'll need to.
>> Motion to approve as written.
>> Okay. So we'll need so we
need to we need to do another
one then. Okay. So can we get a
motion to approve chapter six
capital facilities plan element.
>> Commissioner Fadness I move
to approve chapter six as
presented.
>> Do we have a second?
>> Second.
>> Is there any discussion?
Hearing none. Can we get a roll
call, please?
>> Brian Halbert I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle. I Ron Barca.
No. Jack Karen. I Alicia
Montgomery no. Carl Johnson. I
5 to 2.
>> Motion passes now we go.
Commissioner Barker to number
40 chapter eight. Historical,
archeological and cultural
preservation element. What do
you got.
>> I don't have anything on
that one.
>> Oh I thought you did. We
didn't vote on that one.
>> Commissioner Halbert.
>> I have oh, sorry.
>> One word amendment on that.
I think we just left off. And
I'll set this down the line
again.
>> Look at.
>> You and item.
>> I can't I can't understand
you Brian.
>> Or is it the way.
>> I think it's your mic.
>> I think it's.
>> Your mic.
>> Just lean forward. Pull the
cords as closest to you.
>> I'll try again. And if not,
I'll use my neighbors. Maybe
I'll just try my neighbor's mic.
Okay, so policy 8.1.3 says
facilitate nomination of
historic and cultural resources.
But I believe that the heading
is historical, archeological
and cultural preservation
element. So I think it should
have the word archeological in
there. Facilitate nomination of
historic archeological and
cultural resources. That's my
proposed amendment.
>> Okay. So we have amendment
to chapter eight changing and
making sure we're adding the
word archeological. Is there
any discussion on that? If not,
can we get a motion?
>> This. Commissioner Haroon I
move to. Approve a approve
adding the word archeological
to 8.1.3 and accept the chapter
as a whole or the which number
and number 40 and number 40.
>> This is Commissioner Bach. I
seconded.
>> So we have a. Is there any
discussion? We have a motion in
a second. Seeing no discussion.
Jeff, can we get a roll call?
>> Ryan Halbert,
>> I.
>> Mark Provolt. I Kyle. I Ron
Barca.
>> I.
>> Jack I.
>> Alicia Montgomery. I Carl
Johnson. I seven zero.
>> Motion passes. Moving
finally to chapter 14 the
climate element there was some
Roeun. Was that you yeah. Okay.
>> Okay. So commissioners I
initially was going to add
language about no net loss in
ag land for the current use
taxation policy to promote
local food production. But I
already understand the winds
that are blowing here about no
net loss. So I'm going to
withdraw that. I want to go to
14.20, which has to do with
solid waste. And I would like
to make an amendment that solid
waste system becomes owned by
the county, and then we can use
that aspect of solid waste
collection system for the
aspect of being able to help
facilitate our climate element
requirements by having direct
control over the solid waste
system, as opposed to having to
contractually request changes
to the policies that the solid
waste operator uses now. So the
amendment would be for the
county to pursue ownership of
the solid waste system in in
Clark County.
>> Any discussion?
>> Was there a second?
>> Oh, we have a second. I'm
sorry. Thank you. Is there a
second to that motion, that
amendment to that the climate.
>> I'll second that amendment.
>> Okay. So the we have a
second now. Is there any
discussion?
>> So this. Commissioner Haroon.
So just to clarify, we're
directing the county. To pursue
or to look into purchasing,
developing the waste program,
not we're not directing them to
take it over, but we're
directing them to. You're
asking to take a look at taking
it over is that.
>> I believe we're in contract
negotiations now, and there's
an opportunity to buy the
facilities at. It might be a
dollar. But the cost comes in
the aspect of operations. The
opportunity, as I see it, comes
in the idea of helping protect
the county in the context of
the climate model, where you
could use the tip fee for
promoting behaviors that are
beneficial in the county.
Whereas right now, once you
lease it out, you are unable to
affect the tip fee and how it
is handled.
>> Commissioner Fadness, I
guess I would be hesitant to
support such an amendment until
I saw what the operating cost
differences and the rate
differences might be with the
county operating the solid
waste versus contracting it out.
So I'm not I don't really think
I can support this just because,
you know, I think there's a lot
goes into this that we're not
considering.
>> Any more discussion. Okay.
>> So Commissioner Halbert, you
know, Ron, you mentioned that
the county is in negotiations
now. I, I think I read that
they're looking at purchasing
the waste transfer stations,
not the waste handling
necessarily of it. Does that is
that how you saw it?
>> Yeah. This Commissioner
Barker yeah. That's how I saw
it was taking over the transfer
stations for handling the vast
majority of the solid waste
that comes in and out of the
county or comes out of the
county.
>> Okay. So they're already in
that process. How how would we
word that in this policy then?
Or the goal is a goal?
>> I would put it into the
context of adding it to the
policies.
>> As commissioner, I
appreciate the goal, but I
there's a lot to unpack here.
And so I'm hesitant to just
throw something at this late
hour up that's substantially
different than what's there.
>> So I'll go ahead.
>> Yeah, okay. I wanted to also
propose a potential amendment
to this chapter. And and then
we can come back and maybe lump
them together for a vote.
>> Well, let's right now we
have one amendment right now
and we'll come back. We can try
another one. So what I'd like
to do, if there's no discussion
on this motion, which is
acceptance of chapter 14 with
the proposed amendment that
Commissioner Barker put forward,
is there any discussion on that?
Seeing none. Can we get a vote
on this, Jeff?
>> Ryan Halbert.
>> I yeah, they did.
>> Mark Myrvold. I Kyle Fadness
no. Ron Barker. I Jack Caron no.
Alicia Montgomery. I Carl
Johnson no. 4 to 3.
>> Passes for correct. So that
amendment passes. Okay. So now
we move forward adding an
amendment. And by the way, that
was with chapter 14 passes with
the amendment put forward by
Commissioner Barca. Now.
>> No.
>> That was just the amendment
because it wasn't there were
another chapter 14 amendment.
>> Yeah. But the way I worded
that was this is acceptance of
the chapter with his amendment.
So therefore, now we can make
another amendment to the
chapter which is now go forward
now.
>> Yeah.
>> There you go.
>> Sure. One of the CAG members,
Don stinky, put together a
climate element email to us
regarding scale, grid scale
batteries, something that
wasn't even in the language two
years ago when CAG made all
their recommendations. And, and
just as a, a goal or a part of
a policy is for the county to
work with the PD and the fire
department to develop
regulations that welcome grid
scale batteries in as many
places as possible while
protecting public safety and
establish an emissions
reduction goal. So we know that
grid scale batteries can help
reduce energy greenhouse gases.
And it was something that
wasn't even considered a couple
of years ago. So I would say we
add it to chapter 14.1, 5.5 as
a what?
>> That's your motion.
>> Sorry, this is my motion to.
>> Could you could you read the
specific motion? Because. Sure.
I would like to be clear.
>> On that. Let me hand that
out. Okay. Okay. Commissioner
Halbert, I'd like to make a
motion that we add to chapter
14.15.5, that we work with the
PUD and the fire Department to
develop regulations that
welcome grid scale batteries in
as many places as possible,
while protecting public safety,
and establish an emissions
reduction goal.
>> So we have a motion for
amendment to chapter 14. Do we
have a second?
>> This is Commissioner Bach. I
second.
>> So we have a motion and a
second. Is there any discussion.
>> This. Commissioner Haroon, I.
I would like to potentially
change the language of that.
That. That work with the PUD
and the fire Department to
develop regulations to allow
for grid scale batteries. And
just to make it real clean
versus the. To welcome grid
scale batteries and as many as
possible while protecting
public safety. I mean, just to
me, for code language, it
doesn't, you know, that that
makes more sense to me.
>> That a friendly amendment.
>> That would be a friendly
amendment if that.
>> Okay, so what was the word
you wanted to change there?
>> I would say work with work
with the PUD and the fire
department to develop
regulations that allow for grid
scale batteries.
>> Allow for would you accept
that? Is that something
different?
>> Maybe.
>> Yeah. Commissioner Halbert,
I'd accept that friendly
amendment.
>> So we have an amendment. And
the only thing we're doing with
that is we're changing. I'll
welcome to allow for to his
amendment. Okay.
>> So just you would need a
motion on that.
>> On that.
>> Okay.
>> I got a motion. I got a
motion and a motion here. So,
so let's, let's deal with this
first motion first. Okay. All
right. So we have a motion in a
second on just this. We'll get
yours in a minute. And so is
there any discussion.
>> No friendly.
>> Amendment friendly. Changes
it.
>> Correct the original.
>> But I didn't hear a motion
on your original.
>> Well okay I did.
>> I just heard this.
>> I thought I did. So
Commissioner Halbert I'll make
a motion for that. We add to
chapter 14.15.5 that work with
the PUD and Fire Department to
develop regulations that
welcome grid scale batteries.
Period.
>> Okay.
>> Is there a second? Is there
a second?
>> This is Commissioner Bach. I
second okay.
>> Is there any discussion on
that amendment? All right. We
have a motion on the floor with
a second. Jeff let me get a
roll.
>> Ryan Halbert.
>> I.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Kyle
Fadness I Ron Barca I. Jack
Karen. I Alicia Montgomery I
Carl Johnson. I seven zero.
>> Okay. So that passes. So now
we're going to want to go back
to you Jack. And you want to
make a friendly amendment or
just.
>> We're close enough. We're
close enough. Okay. All right.
>> Where's 50 all the way. Okay.
So now we are done, am I right?
Yeah. Because that was climate
change. So we have completed
all of the proposed
comprehensive plan chapters and
appendices. Right on. Okay, so
let's go down now. Now these
are the code changes. So I'm
going to do the same thing. And
I'm going to ask you, and I
know we've got a couple in here
that we try to do things with,
but I want to go through these.
Are there any from 62 to 91? Is
there any of those that need
discussion?
>> I.
>> I know we've got we've dealt
with the other ones. We'll
revote it to pass it, but for
now it's.
>> Yeah, I'll, I'll say I'd
like to pull out obviously, 63,
65 and 67.
>> Okay.
>> So we're going to pull out
63, 65 and 67. Are there any
more.
>> Chair. I have some wording
changes that I was looking for
on the manufacturing home park,
but I'm concerned that I needed
to actually have done that.
Earlier. I don't I with yeah.
40.2 5120 well, let's roll with
it. Manufacturing home park
overlay.
>> Okay, so you want to pull
that one out? Yeah. So I'm
pulling out 63, 65, 67 and 74.
So here we go. We're going to
vote on this page, right? Oh
sorry.
>> 68.
>> You said overlay.
>> Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let me just make sure I'm right.
Well 63 right. 65, 6667 home.
He wants 67. Hold on. And Ron
did you want 74 or 68.
>> 74 is.
>> Standards and requirements.
>> I stand corrected it looks
like I want 74.
>> Yeah that's what I thought
you said. So I have four of
these that we're pulling out
once again, 63, 65, 67 and 74.
Correct. Okay. So we're going
to just go right now and block
these out. So we got
definitions. I'm going to go 62,
66, 68, 69 and 70. So I'm
looking at. 62 and 64. Yes.
Sorry. Thank you. So 62, 64, 66,
68, 69 and 70. I'd like to
block those together. So I
would take a motion to pass.
I'm just on this page so I can
move to the next page and see
what.
>> I'm looking at.
>> 91 what's that. No, no. I'll
go to that page next. I just
want to make sure we're looking
at every one.
>> Of these.
>> Go ahead, Commissioner
Halbert. I'll make a motion
that we vote on the numbers
that you've listed.
>> Thank you. All right. Can we
have a second.
>> Commissioner Berchtold? I'll
second.
>> Okay. We have a second and
we are voting on the
definitions. Low density
residential districts,
commercial districts,
manufactured home park overlay,
ambulance, dispatch facility
and co-living housing. Is there
any discussion?
>> Yeah, this is Commissioner
Fadness. I just want to point
out that, Brian, you said that
we vote on you didn't say
approve.
>> Thank you.
>> Change my motion to approve
the numbers that you've listed.
>> Kaliner.
>> Okay. And a second on that
again, please.
>> Second Commissioner
Berchtold.
>> Okay, so we have the proper
motion and the second, Jeff,
can we get a roll call on that,
please?
>> Brian Howard. Hi, Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle. I Ron barca.
I Jack Karen. I Alicia
Montgomery hi Carl Johnson. I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes. Moving to the
next page for now. We're going
to we'll come back to those
ones. So now we're going to do
all. We're going to group 7172
and 73 community building
social halls, lodges, fraternal
organizations, clubs, public
and private schools, private
recreation facilities. We're
going to do compact lot
developments. 73 is emergency
shelters, transitional housing,
emergency housing, permanent
supportive housing. 75 is
multi-family residential
amenity area standards, 76 is
nursery schools, preschools,
kindergartens, child daycare
centers, family daycare centers.
77 is zero. Lot line
developments 78. Science
standards, 79. Landscaping,
escaping and screening on
private property 80. Parking
and loading standards 81.
Street and road standards 82.
Uses subject to review and
approval. 83. Planned unit
development and the appendixes
definitions, traffic impact fee
formulas, impact fee revisions,
impact fee schedule, collection
of impact fees and impact fee
credits. So I'm going basically,
with the exception of 74, I'm
going from 71 to 91. Is there
any discussion on that or a
motion?
>> Commissioner.
>> Montgomery I move.
>> To approve 71.
>> 72, 73.
>> And 75 through.
>> 91 as stated.
>> Awesome. Thank you. We get a
second, please.
>> Commissioner Bach, I second.
>> So we have a motion and a
second as stated. Is there any
discussion? Okay, Jeff,
>> Brian Halbert, Mark.
Bergfeld. I Kyle Fadness I Ron
Barca. I. Jack. Harrison I.
Alicia. Montgomery I Carl
Johnson. I seven zero.
>> That was quick. Okay we go
through this. So now we're
going to go back page before
we're going to come back to 63.
We're going to have to minimum
and maximum calculations. Kyle
that was your first one correct?
>> Yeah that's correct. I I'll
just I'll go back to. That. I
believe that the minimum
density requirements are flawed
as presented. I think they need
to have another look taken at
them. Obviously my motion
didn't pass last time. So I
will let somebody else make a
motion here.
>> Is is that the same or is
that the same discussion like
on 652.
>> That's for 63 and 65. Okay.
Yes, 67 just relates to some of
the mixed use.
>> All right. We'll pull that
one out separately. Yeah. Okay.
All right. So I'd like to start
with 63 minimum and maximum
calculations. Is there any
discussion any more discussion
or motions. This is to pass.
Not not the one we had before
anything.
>> Chair.
>> Previously. Sorry. Just
because I it looks like
Commissioner Burke had a
question. Oh, sorry. Previously
on item 63 and 65. There was a
motion to recommend not passing.
So this would be.
>> This is what I'm saying.
Yeah. This is the.
>> This is there just appeared
to be a question so I apologize.
>> No it's okay. Stop I can't
I'm getting loopy.
>> So this this would be to
vote in the affirmative to pass
these.
>> So do we have a motion?
>> I'm sorry.
>> Chair, we have our housing
consultant, Elizabeth Decker,
who has her hand raised.
>> Okay. Oh, wait. We have we
know she's not she's staff.
Right. She's staff. Yeah, yeah,
yeah.
>> Good evening. I just wanted
to offer Elizabeth Decker, jet
planning consultant for the
county, working on these
housing code updates. And I
just wanted to offer one
clarification. Item 63, the
minimum and maximum
calculations is only about
methodology. It is not the
actual minimums and maximums
proposed for each of the
districts, which is included in
item 65.
>> Thanks, Elizabeth. Part of
my reason for including item 63
is that the family size unit
credit calculation would have
been included in that.
Discussing back to my
discussion of of as currently
written, the the proposed
changes. They. They lead
developers towards having to
build studio and one bedroom
apartments versus getting that
that credit for building two,
three and four bedroom
apartments that would would
help support families.
>> Thank you.
>> Absolutely, Commissioner. I
just wanted to offer that
clarification that despite the
name of item 63, a lot of the.
What you've been discussing is
also in 65, but. Okay. Point
taken. Thanks.
>> Great. Thank you, thank you.
So do we get a motion? Do we
have a motion for approval for
minimum maximum calculations.
>> Yeah. Commissioner Howard,
I'll make a motion that we
approve. Item 63.
>> We have a motion. Do we have
a second to approve? Item 63.
>> Commissioner Burke, I'll
second that.
>> We have a motion. And a
second. Is there any discussion?
No discussion noted. Can we get
a roll call, Jeff, please?
>> Brian Halbert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Bergfeld. A Kyle
Fadness no. Ron Barca no. Jack.
Karen. No. Alicia Montgomery hi,
Carl Johnson. I 4 to 3.
>> That's passes 4 to 3. We go
down to 65 same thing.
Commissioner Fadness I'm
assuming that was the same
thing you're talking about.
>> That's correct. Yeah this is
the zoning.
>> So yeah. So residential and
office residential districts.
Is there any discussion on that
one hearing none. Can we get a
motion please.
>> Chair I'll make I'll make a
motion to accept item 65 as
presented by staff.
>> We have a motion. Can we get
a second?
>> Commissioner Halbert?
>> Second motion. We have a
motion and a second. Is there
any discussion? Hearing? No
discussion. Jeff, can we get a
roll call, please?
>> Brian Halbert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Provolt. I Colf no. Ron
Barca.
>> No hold on, I cannot you
need to start over. Jeff. I
can't hear Brian and I can't
hear Alicia. You guys are mute
on my end.
>> Okay?
>> We're working with
microphones. We'll get you
straightened out. Can we go
through the roll call again,
please, Jeff. Thank you.
>> Brian Halbert. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Ron Barca.
>> No. What happened to Kyle?
>> Sorry. Kyle.
>> No.
>> Jack. Karen. No. Alicia
Montgomery. I Carl Johnson. I 4
to 3.
>> Passes 4 to 3. Okay. So now
67 we go down to mixed use
district. That is a different
thing we're talking about
correct.
>> Yeah that's correct. I and
I'm not going to fight with
this one. I don't think I'm
going to win. I just don't
agree with some of the changes
that that are made. And so I
wanted a chance to vote no on
it.
>> Okay. That's great. Can we
get a motion to approve number
67 mixed use district.
>> As Commissioner Bergthold.
I'll make a motion to approve
item 67 as written by staff.
>> We have a motion. Can we get
a second, please.
>> Commissioner Barker? I'll
make a second. If I can
understand what Kyle's concern
is.
>> Okay, Kyle.
>> Discussion?
>> Discussion, please. We have
a second. Is that a second? We
have a second. Can we do
discussion?
>> So some of the changes were
removing housing options in the
mixed use. I did like that.
Some of the suggestions that
David provided, allowing some
detached dwellings with a limit
there. I know that it's
probably not the most. It may
not be the best use of mixed
development completely, but to
have to include the detached.
But I just don't want to get
rid of the options of, of
housing. And so I, I'm, I'm
just a fan of less restrictive
zoning. And so overall, that's,
that's why I just really don't
want to vote yes to, to
restrict warehousing can be
built.
>> So for, for clarity, is this
where they, they banned home
ownership of townhomes. They
made them all apartments for
the lower. Is that the is this
the chapter? Was it the other.
>> I believe that was included
in 40.2, 20.0 20. But staff may.
>> Correct me.
>> Office residential that you.
Yeah.
>> About 65.
>> That they want corporations
and not individuals owning the
houses.
>> Okay. So we have a motion
and a second. Is there any more
discussion.
>> Yes, chair, this is Ron
Barker. I, I do want to ask
staff in regard to that. There
was the aspect of townhomes
being removed in the mix,
design standards. And the other
part of it, I was trying to
have an understanding what's
our trigger point when.
Residential is built? Can we
build residential without any
commercial development in an RM
zone?
>> So mixed use currently
requires 20%? Well, one way or
the other, the minimum of 20%.
So you could do 80% commercial,
20% residential or vice versa.
The one of the proposals is to
change that to a 9010 split.
>> 9010, meaning 90%
residential.
>> Same either way could be 90%
commercial or 10% residential.
Mostly what we get is majority
residential.
>> So can you maximize your
residential without any of the
commercial being built?
>> I don't believe that's a
provision that's in the code
that's allowed currently or
proposed.
>> So just from my
understanding, then, do they
have to be built simultaneously
even though you have the stated
no.
>> We have a couple of the site
specific requests that you
approved were mixed use
designations where the
residential had been built, and
the commercial hadn't come
online. And so the proposal was
to change that from commercial
to residential. Those are some
of the site specific requests
that you approved earlier today.
They were mixed use. They were
going to residential because
the commercial component wasn't
built.
>> Okay. All right. So for me
to understand about how this
fills out, if we end up with
land that's designated M X,
somebody comes forward with a
proposal to build out the
residential side with no
proposal to do the commercial
aspect. Do we go forward?
>> We have we were we approve
the development with the
anticipation that the
commercial would come
subsequent. So the residential
would be built and then the
commercial. There's a. It's
plotted out and sometimes it
doesn't get built or it takes a
long time. And so yes, the
residential can happen. Yeah.
>> Okay. So it takes a long
time is okay, not desirable,
but it's okay. Okay. All right.
And then the discussion about
taking townhomes out. What,
what was the rationale behind
that.
>> To be consistent with what
we've done with the R and O R
zones, to make a more of a
focus on the multifamily.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. With that said, is
there any more discussion on
item number 67? I'll take a
motion. Do we have a motion? I
thought do we have a motion
already?
>> There was.
>> There was a motion. I just
said I went, did you have a
motion?
>> There was a motion to
approve. And then we proceeded
to discussion.
>> So we have a okay. So we
have a motion. We have a second.
We we just discussed let's vote
on it. I'm sorry. I'm getting
tired.
>> Right. Brian Halbert.
>> Hi, Mark.
>> I Kyle no. Ron baka. I Jack.
Karen. No. Alicia Montgomery I
Carl Johnson. I 5 to 2.
>> Passes 5 to 2. Okay. So we
now go to Commissioner Barca
number 74 manufactured home
parks and standards. Ron what
do you got.
>> Okay Commission. There was a
couple of items in the wording
I wanted to be clarified. So
I'm going to bring this to
staff. And a two it says
recreation recreational
vehicles are allowed.
Specifically. I believe that
means coaches. And then it has
no park models. There's no
reference of tiny homes. And
I'm wondering why we're making
that particular distinction. So
I would like I would like some
clarification on that from the
existing manufacturing home
park.
>> That they got wheels, right.
Or they got axles.
>> Well, so does a park model,
but park models not included
any longer.
>> We have Elizabeth Decker who
has Erlanda.
>> Elizabeth. Go ahead.
>> Yes. Good evening. Thank you
for the question, Commissioner
Barca. And the answer I'm sorry.
This hour I cannot quote RCWS,
but there is a state law that
requires RVs to be permitted in
certain configurations within
manufactured home parks, and
that's why that particular use
is permitted. I have not looked
into whether that definition of
RVs includes park models or not.
That's something that I could
continue to look at. But tiny
homes don't fit under the R, C,
w definition of RVs in most
cases, so that's why they're
not included.
>> Okay, so I think in the
context that tiny homes are
approved by L and I, it feels
like they get a sticker just
like any other item on wheels.
And I would see our ability on
existing mobile home parks to
be able to include the aspect
of park models and tiny homes
meeting the criteria. I have no
opposition to the idea that RVs
are included. So. That's one
item that I'll be putting
forward in a motion and. The
other item that I'm wondering
about for new manufacturing
home parks is why aren't we
just adopting the cottage
development requirements in a
mobile home park overlay rather
than have a whole different set
of criteria? It feels like
cottage development goes up to
1800ft². And it feels like,
since it's a new development,
we could be handling it with
the same criteria and not have
to have a whole set of
development regulations that's
exclusive to a mobile home park
that hasn't been built yet. Is
there anything from staff that
you would like to talk about in
that supposition? On my part.
>> Yeah.
>> Just say that.
>> Elizabeth. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. Thanks. Elizabeth
Decker, jet planning. What?
Obviously, we want the code to
cover as many eventualities as
possible, but for consideration,
the county has not seen an
application for a new
manufactured home park since
the 90s. So it hasn't. You know,
standards for new parks are not
necessarily ones that get
exercised frequently. So if
that influences your decisions,
that's sort of why we propose
to just maintain the existing
standards for new parks, rather
than spending a lot of time
revising those and throwing
them out or, or aligning with
cottage housing or any other
standards.
>> All right. Thank you for the
clarification. So this is
Commissioner Barker. I'd like
to make a motion to amend. The
mobile home Park regulations
for item A two to include park
models and tiny homes that have
been approved by L and I state
of Washington. And then an item
C and D, I would just look at
the aspect of including cottage
development requirements and
not have a separate set of
development standards.
>> Can I just get a
clarification? You started out
by saying an amendment. Are you
putting forward that acceptance
of number 74 with an amendment.
>> With, yes, an acceptance
with the amendment.
>> So we are voting on
acceptance of number 74
manufactured home park
standards with amendment. The
two amendments with the two
items that Commissioner Barker
added. Do I have a second to
that?
>> Commissioner Halbert? I'll
second that motion.
>> Great. So we have a motion
and a second. Is there any
discussion on this? Seeing none.
Jeff, can we get a vote?
>> Ryan Howard,
>> Ryan.
>> Mark Provolt.
>> I.
>> Kyle Vanise no. Ryan Barca.
I Jack. Karen.
>> Abstain.
>> Alicia Montgomery I and Carl
Johnson I. Four sorry 5 to 1
with one abstention.
>> Five 1 to 1. Okay. So that
passes. Okay so that completes
that section. We now go to
proposed impact fees of which
we have done all the schools.
The fire. We have 1101 which is
transportation impact fees. See
page 46 in appendix A. What am
I looking at here, Jose 46. Can
you give me some clarification
on that one? 46 in appendix A,
verse 4642. 46 in appendix A
transportation Capital
facilities.
>> One.
>> Two, three.
>> They're already approved.
>> We don't have to do that.
>> Right? This one right there.
>> Okay, so these are
officially approved.
>> Yeah. So every check, if I'm
wrong on this 92 through 101
hundred are already approved,
right? So all we have left, the
last one is 101. It says
transportation impact fees 46
in appendix A. So I go to 46
and look at appendix A. What is
this. I don't what are we
approving traffic impact fees
again or. Oh, there you are.
Sorry. Maybe I should look.
>> I need to impact fees.
>> Okay. So for clarification,
we are talking about the
proposed base rates, as you see
in the table in front of us for
the TIF districts. Oh yeah. I
remember this now. Hazel Dell,
Mount Vista Orchards Rural and
179th with the surcharge on
there too. I remember this now.
Thank you. All right. So is
there any questions on this? I
think staff brought this to us
in a. Work session. They did
have it before. It was before
and after two somewhere I
remember.
>> Yeah. Do we have the before
and after?
>> Yes you do. Do we have it.
Do we have it now.
>> Oh pull it up. Yeah.
>> Come on. 101.
>> Presentation.
>> What is it.
>> We're almost there. See the
end. See the end of the tunnel?
Oh. Thanks, Ron. I pass it down.
There. The candy. There we go.
>> It's not.
>> A great.
>> It's taking a.
>> Red one. Coming back.
>> I wanted to bring.
>> Some action. Thank you.
>> In the code.
>> Sections.
>> The new zones. But on the
map, they didn't. When we did,
the map changes. So there's an
inconsistency. There. There's
code. Sections that approved
the R 2430 650.
>> Which is this one. That's
okay. We'll find that out. Yes.
So. This is it right. We're
done. I just want to make sure
unless Komes. Yeah. Let's talk
for hours. This is the one.
This is the one we had to
strike out. There we go.
>> Okay. It looks like we have
something there, ladies and
gentlemen, here. So these are
the ones before and the
proposed now, correct? Yes. Red
being what it was. Okay. With
that said, is there any
discussion on 101? Sorry, 101
which is. I keep messing it up.
So this is the appendix A for
traffic impact fees. Any
discussion?
>> So I just wanted to ask, I
noticed that in the the updated
fees that they are adjusted for
inflation. Has that always been
the case.
>> Don't answer it.
>> Do you want me to answer it?
I for the record, my name is
Harrison Husting. I'm a
transportation planner. So kind
of right now within the code
and in the code, proposed code
changes that you approved
earlier, there's a process
that's spelled out about annual
adjustments to inflation. So
these are really the base fees
that we would set any inflation
adjustments in the future off
of. So in that formula it asks
for a base year. And this is
kind of the base year, which
would really be I think we set
it at 2025. So I think if I if
I'm sharing, if I go up a
little bit more. There is a
methodology that's kind of laid
out right here. So 17 through
24. And really what we do is we
measure that base year, we
measure kind of the base year
and the construction cost index.
And then any changes that index,
we basically adjust the base
rate of that index.
>> Yeah. My question was, and
it looks like since it's all in
yellow, the formula didn't
exist before. So before the
rates were just set what, ten
years ago or so and then
haven't been updated since. I'm
just asking because the rates
are like doubling now. Right.
And then we're adjusting for
inflation. So that's why if
they haven't been adjusted and
now you're catching up for for
not that's that's my question.
>> I think that's what we
talked about before.
>> That's correct.
>> Right.
>> So rates yeah. Rates have
been frozen since I think 2022.
They haven't been adjusted.
>> Since then. This day was
coming. Okay.
>> What was your name one more
time.
>> Sorry. Harrison. Houston.
>> Okay. Is there any more
discussion on number 101
transportation Impact fees?
Appendix A? Hearing none. I
would sure entertain a motion
and a second.
>> As Commissioner Bergthold, I
will make a motion to approve
number 101 transportation
impact fees as presented.
>> Can I get a second
Commissioner?
>> Vanise second.
>> We have a motion. And second,
any discussion? Green lights on.
Okay. No. No discussion. Jeff.
Last time.
>> Ryan Halbert,
>> I.
>> I.
>> Kyle Fadness I Ron barca.
>> I.
>> Chad Carroon.
>> Hi.
>> Alicia Montgomery I Carl
Johnson. I seven zero.
>> Motion passes ladies and
gentlemen. We just went through
since 2013. Is there anything
else Oliver.
>> Yes, this is Oliver. I want
to thank the Planning
Commission. This is a very
tedious work. And I also want
to extend sincere thanks to my
staff and all the local
jurisdictions we've been
working with. I will also add
all the consultants that have
been working with us. Elizabeth
is here tonight. Others. This
is not their issue, like
environmental and those that
worked on the study, they're
done. So I want to sincerely
thank everyone. We will take
your recommendation to council
on September 16th. And you're
welcome to attend that work
session, or you are welcome to
attend their hearing. They are
hearing the council hearing
will start October 1st, which
is a Thursday at 4 p.m. and
then they may continue that to
the second, which is a Friday
at 10 a.m. and then to the
fifth if needed. Our goal is to
complete the process at least
by October 13th so that we can
respond to the Growth board and
find a way to come into
compliance. If the plan is
appealed. We'll start dealing
with that. But I want to really
commend all of you. I may have
busted, you know, ten, you know,
temperament or whatever earlier,
but I it's my responsibility to
defend my staff because I have
worked with them for over 36
years. I know what they can do,
and I trust them. And if I
leave this post, they're very
resilient. They can handle any
future work. I. Jack, I accept
your apology, but publicly I do
not want anyone to disparage my
staff and I stand by that.
Thank you all.
>> Thank you Jose. Special
thank you. Every time I look
over there to where I'm at, to
our new counsel. Thank you.
Your I love looking okay. It is
what it is. This is their messy.
We've been you know thank you
guys. I know you're working
hard. I know it's late. You got
kids and family and it's tough.
And again thank you to
everybody here. Is there
anything else from the Planning
Commission that is of relevance.
So coming up I'm sure you'll
have a schedule for us, Jeff,
but don't worry about it now.
But I'm just saying we'll have
something. But it won't be this
this grueling. So thank you for
staying late. And if there's
any more questions or comments,
this meeting is adjourned.
>> Okay.