Recorded and summarized.
>> Good morning. Calling to
order. Clark County Council
Friday, October 2nd, 2026. We
have reconvened from our
meeting last night, and we will
be going directly into an
executive session. Our CW42
.30.110 for. For 20 minutes, I
think or.
>> We noted ten yesterday. So
if council would like to do
longer than that, I would. You
can do that now or we can
extend.
>> Counselor young says ten.
But we'll keep him to it. Okay.
All right. Okay. And so we'll
come back at ten. 15 to 15.
>> Time to get on.
>> Thank you. Okay, great.
We'll see you soon.
>> This webinar is being
recorded and summarized.
>> Okay. Council has returned
from our executive session, and
I would like to make an
announcement. It came to light
in part of the public hearing
that some of the materials were
not posted in a timely fashion.
And so we will be leaving the
record open for public comment
on those new materials or on
everything. Everything. Okay.
So if you have additional
written comments, you can
submit those up until an hour
before our meeting on October
13th. Chair. Yes.
>> I would suggest just keeping
it open for everything until
Monday. And then on those
specific items until the hour
before then. Then folks have
the opportunity to submit
comments based on today's
deliberations. But the only
concern was with the items, the
specific items. That's the one
that we're responding to. And
so I don't think we need to
keep the record open for
everything, but it would be
good for the public to be able
to comment through Monday, I
think. Does that make sense?
Amber.
>> So you're wanting two
processes, one that's open for
everything until next Monday,
the fifth or Monday the 12th.
>> Monday the fifth.
>> And then just the limited
items until the 13th.
>> Yes.
>> I don't know, will that be
clear to the public what's what?
>> Amber could clear it up.
>> Go ahead. Amber.
>> Thank you chair. Good
morning Council Amber Smith,
chief civil deputy, prosecuting
attorney. I think that you
could do that. I would
recommend directing that staff.
Just republish all of that to
make it very clear on the
website. And also if there's
any additional publishing
anywhere else, the council
would prefer for that to show
the extension of the public
comment, but it is permissible
to limit certain portions of
the public comments to Monday,
as well as keeping those items
that were updated up through
the 29th open until the morning
of the 13th.
>> Okay, Council, which way
would you like to go? Counselor
Fuentes?
>> Yeah. Thank you chair.
That's fine. I think my my only
concern is that, you know,
there may be some confusion in
people will continue to submit,
you know, general comments past
the ten five period. So. I
think we should just keep it
open for for all general
comments or all comments.
>> Others.
>> I agree with Counselor
Fuentes, just keeping it open
for for all.
>> Great. I agree with them as
well. Councilor young, would
you like to weigh in in any way.
All right. So so it'll be open
for all comments up until one
hour before our meeting on the
13th. Okay. Thank you. So I did
want to make a couple of
comments. Let me try and
remember what they were. So
we're going to there's several
amendments that have been
proposed. And I would suggest
that those be brought up when
we're doing that section of the
comprehensive plan. And Oliver,
if you could help us out
identifying what what needs to
go where, because I'm not 100%
clear and and that I know there
are disagreements amongst the
councilors. And I would just
encourage people to not
interrupt each other when
they're making their case for
whatever point they'd like to
make. We'll all get a chance to
say whatever it is that we'd
like to say. And I just would
note that I brought my larger
gavel today, which my husband
made for me out of pair wood
from our farm. So I'm prepared
to use that if I need to. Okay,
so I did have and maybe others
have any questions that just
came up from the comment before
we get into our decision by
decision. I had a few. I'll
start. So with the
transportation. Will some of.
There's a lot of comments that
people have made about the, the
codes and the parking and the
driveways and widths of roads.
Will that be taken up with the
update of the road standards,
and if so, when would that
happen?
>> Good morning councilors. For
the record, Oliver Orjiako,
community planning director.
Councilor, councilors and chair.
Those comments were just, I
will say, of concern, and I
know that the county manager
and the deputy county manager
are here, but we have been.
Focusing on update to the
county road standards. We
believe that that update will
review and address those issues,
in addition to other issues
that have been we have been
wrestling with like road mud
and others. So my response on
this. April or. Kathleen wants
to add my. My take is yes,
those issues is proper to be
reviewed and, and addressed
through through the road
standards update.
>> Okay. Thank you. And then
the equine code came up and has
come up periodically throughout
the years. And so I don't know
if anyone has an amendment
related to that or, or if it's
not addressed in the
comprehensive plan, we would
still have opportunities if we
really evaluate that to make
any changes we might want to
make.
>> Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> April Firth, Deputy County
Manager and you can correct me
if I'm wrong, but title 40
updates can happen at any time,
right?
>> Okay, great. We've got a lot
on our plate, so. I think, oh
well, Pleasant Valley, I've
received a lot of emails about
the Pleasant Valley area and
zone changes, and it wasn't
entirely clear to me what those
zone changes are and whether or
not it's a development
application that has really
triggered some of the concerns.
So I don't know what's
allowable. Now, if you're
familiar with that area, it's
139th and I think around 29th
and 50th.
>> Oliver, again, councilors,
we can take a look at that area
to see whether there are any
application in the pipeline and
whether that is part of their
concern or whether there is any
other changes that we are
proposing as part of this
process. We can take a look at
that. But you are correct that
often what triggers are
concerned from the neighbors is
a proposal to develop a
property that they thought is
wooded and vacant, and when
that is cleared and this
application to develop those
raises some issues of traffic
concerns and and so forth. But
those are applications that may
be in the pipeline are all
coming in based on the current
zoning and are being reviewed
based on our title 40. So we'll
take a look at at that area to
see whether there are issues
related to. Applications that
are in the pipeline or proposed
zone changes. I'm familiar with
that area, but I'm not sure if
we are proposing any
significant change in that area.
>> Yes, we are proposing up
zoning in that area from our
175 to the R 36. Okay. Thank
you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay.
>> Other chair.
>> Clarifications or questions?
>> Yeah. Where are we going to
add Washougal? I still don't
see it in the Planning
Commission Council decision
table. So what where should we
add it and what is it? Where
where can we see it? I don't
want to miss them.
>> The the proposed changes in
Washougal would be in the comp
plan, the appendices where we
have all of the proposed maps
that would be reflected with
any changes. They're not
proposing any expansions. They
are proposing some changes
within their UGA that stem from
decisions they made around the
2016 time, and so those are
reflected in the appendices and
those maps in the appendices
that show the updated zoning
that they've requested.
>> Okay. I guess my main
question is, do we have to vote
on that? Right.
>> Yes, you will be voting.
>> On it. So I guess my request
is to the chair to add that as
one of our items, I just want
to make sure we don't miss it.
>> I will agree, councilor
Leedle yeah, we should add
Washougal, but Fouzia is
correct as they are not
proposing any boundary
expansion. They did make
internal changes within their
existing urban growth
boundaries. So when you make a
motion, if that is in any of
the appendices or maps, your
motion will reflect that we
adopt what the city of
Washougal proposed.
>> Okay. And I've added it on
my list as 24.5 so it doesn't
get lost. 24.5 okay. Any other
just initial questions? Now I
want to see if there's. Any
amendments. Which would be
related to the land use plan. I
have some related to AG 40
designation and cluster
development. Would it be good
here or somewhere else?
>> Chair it can be made now if
there are all related to title
40, you can also make that now,
but then it will be deferred to
opening up the title 40 as
April indicated, and looking at
amendments that relates to
whatever motion the Council
passes, you can. That motion
can also include, because now
you have the Art Commission,
you can also include, if you
want to also pass that
directive to include the Art
Commission, reviewing whatever
amendment that relates to title
40, that they be part of that
discussion. So you can make the
motion now, you can make it
later, but your call.
>> Okay. I think I'll let us
roll down this road a little
bit.
>> Okay. I was just going to
say I still had a couple
questions that were just
generic.
>> Yeah. I'm sorry. So I'll
take that up. I guess when we
get to title 40 and code
changes. Okay.
>> I had a couple questions
based on some of the feedback
that we got yesterday. One is.
The comments from our bike and
pedestrian committee. I'm not
aware that we got those at the
council level. We may have, I
don't know, there's just so
much documentation on it, but I
would like to know that if
you're aware of their
recommendations, were there any
of those recommendations that
would need to be included in
the comp plan update and
couldn't be handled later?
>> I believe that, and I know
my staff in the transportation
advanced transportation
planning are here. I believe
that they are comment focuses
on supporting the multi-modal.
Changes we made to the
transportation element, which
have been incorporated. If you
adopt that, that would be
consistent with their
recommendation. They also are
asking the county, which you
can also put on our work
program. They are asking that
the bike and paste plan be
updated.
>> Okay. Go ahead.
>> My staff.
>> Will get reminded about what
we've already heard and and
what's being recommended. Thank
you.
>> Good morning. For the record,
my name is Harrison Husting.
I'm one of the transportation
planners with community
planning, and then also one of
the staff coordinators for for
Bpac. So. Bpac. They in a
meeting last week, they did
vote on sending a letter to
council with all their
recommendations. We submitted
it at the beginning of this
week, so it should be in the
public comments submitted
within that time frame. And
we've been working really
closely with that group. So and
kind of bringing them along in
the process. So every kind of
recommendation that they've
made, we've just rolled up
really into the transportation
element.
>> Okay. So essentially all
their recommendations are in
here unless we chose to amend
something differently. That's
correct. Okay. Right. Great.
Thank you for that. Then my
next question was, and I know
April, I, I spoke with you,
April and Kathleen, last night.
I don't know if you were able
to get an answer, but I did
have a question about the
comment from the individual
that was being up zoned, I
think from I think she said,
from our 24 to our 50 or
something like that. And it
sounded like she was in the
Vancouver UGA, but she said
that they had no access to the
sewer. And I'm just wanting to
know, when we looked at all of
our upzoning, did we ensure
that all of the properties that
we were up zoning were able to
connect within the
Reasonability and within the
code that we we have in April,
you might chime in.
>> I'll let her speak first,
and then I will make any
comment if I see it necessary.
>> I did ask the question this
morning and was assured that
Clark Regional Wastewater was.
Notified and approved of any
upzoning that we did, whether
the sewer was there, but close
enough to be able for the
developer to pull. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So it
may not be there and there may
be some additional expense that
they have to pay to go a little
bit further to connect, but
they are able to connect to it.
>> And yes, and April is
correct. Clark Regional
Wastewater did assure us when
they reviewed they preferred
this area is in the urban
growth boundary and it is in
their service area. So there
will be the responsible agency
to provide sewer. And in this
case, Clark PUD. So they
assured us that they will have
capacity when they make the
improvement that they're slated
to do, that they will have the
capacity to serve the area.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> I would just say that was a
very good point, because there
still are areas in the urban
areas that are not connected to
sewer. So we would not want to
upzone those areas or assure
that those services can be
provided. So thanks for that.
Anything else before we dive in?
Okay. Let's go. So number one,
battleground UGA expansion
towards dollar corner for
additional employment capacity.
Any discussion or further
comments from anyone?
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> I would like to actually
make a motion. And it's not in
particular to number one, but I
think it will it will impact
all of the following decisions.
So I would like to make that
motion at this time. And then I
ask you to bear with me. I have
a lengthy description and
explanation, but it's because
it's a fairly complicated issue,
and I want to make sure
everybody is clear on it.
>> Do we have copies of that?
>> No, that one I did not have
ready at 230 or whatever it was
in the morning last night.
>> Can we get copies?
>> I thought Jake made copies
for everybody.
>> Oh.
>> And I should have like, put
labels on it, but it's the one
that looks like this. The short
one.
>> Can you just read it?
>> Sure. So I moved to amend
the residential land capacity
assumptions used in the
Comprehensive Plan update to
increase the never to convert
market factor for vacant
residential land from 10% to
20%, and for underutilized
residential land from 30% to
40%, and to direct staff to
update the vacant Buildable
Lands model and all associated
housing capacity calculations
accordingly. And I will explain
that here. So and just bear
with me.
>> Okay? Let's just take a.
>> Moment for a second.
>> To see if there is a second.
Is there a second to Counselor
Young's motion?
>> Second for discussion?
>> Thank you.
>> So as. I'm looking at the
wrong one here.
>> What's what's that? Who
seconded that?
>> Counselor Fuentes.
>> Thank you, Cindy, for
reminding us that you record
this as we go. And again, we'll
take breaks as needed.
>> Wow. I got things mixed up
here. Give me just a moment
here. We're all suffering from
too much stuff.
>> Councilor young, will you be
kind of explaining the reason
for this motion? Thank you.
>> But I got to find a missing
page here. Actually, Jake, I
don't think I ever received
that one back. It was the one
that was folded. The page that
was folded.
>> One of those.
>> No, no, no. There we go.
Thank you. All right. So I
spent a significant amount of
time and effort going back
through the buildable lands
process and looking closely at
how we arrived at the current
ten and 30% factors. There was
an extensive process that
involved stakeholder and public
comment. And the county looked
at 13 years of actual
development data from the past.
Between 2007 and 2020, to see
how the vacant and
underutilized land was actually
converting over time. Staff
then made a reasoned assumption
about how much of the remaining
land could convert during the
remaining years of the 20 year
planning period, which was an
additional seven years. I think
there was sound and and good
reasoning behind that analysis,
and it was good work that was
done. The problem is that we
are now in 2026. So the oldest
data underlying those
assumptions is now 19 years old.
And even the newest data that
was considered is six years old.
More importantly, the
development environment we
studied is no longer the
development environment we are
planning for. If the rules and
conditions had remained largely
the same, I would be
comfortable continuing to rely
on those historical conversion
rates. But since that analysis,
the state has required
significant changes to our
housing and we've made
substantial additional changes
of our own through state law.
Our housing Options plan and
this comprehensive plan update,
we are allowing new housing
types, additional ADUs and
middle housing, substantially
upzoning some properties, and
changing minimum and maximum
densities considerably. At the
same time we went through Covid,
we have really high interest
rates, construction costs are
high, housing prices are high,
and other economic conditions
have changed. The economics of
the development in our
community. The perfect process
would have been to actually go
back and bring, you know, go
through this similar builder or
buildable lands process like we
did in the past, or reconvene
the committee that that
convened for that work and to
true it up to today's market
conditions. But here we are,
and we don't have that option
of going back and doing that
work before we make this
decision. So the original
analysis had 13 years of actual
Clark County data behind it.
For many of the assumptions we
are making now, we literally
have zero years of experience
because these zones, these
density levels and these
housing options have never
existed for us before. The
historical data does a good job
of telling us what happened
under the old rules. It cannot
tell us with the same level of
confidence what will happen
under the new ones. Maybe the
simplest comparison is a
business plan. Imagine spending
significant time and money
developing a very good business
plan based on the current
market costs, customers and
economic conditions that exist
at the time. Then it takes
seven years before you actually
have the funding to open a
business. Would you simply pull
out that old business plan and
invest your money based on
those numbers, especially if
some of the underlying data was
already more than a decade old?
Of course not. So you would
look at what had changed and
you would adjust your
assumptions before moving
forward. That is essentially
where I think we are. The fact
that the original analysis was
very good does not mean that
its assumptions should
automatically remain unchanged
when the environment they were
based on has so dramatically
changed. And this uncertainty
is exactly why we have a market
factor in the first place.
Theoretical development
capacity is not the same thing
as housing that will actually
be built and produced. State
rules recognize that not all
developable land will be put to
its maximum use because of
things such as owner preference,
cost, stability, quality,
location, and changing market
forces. And they do allow local
governments to consider their
own circumstances when
establishing this market factor.
Commerce is buildable. Lands
guidance also tells
jurisdictions to consider real
world factors such as
infrastructure and development
costs, the time required to
permit and develop property,
the actual market availability
of land market demand, and the
relationship between assumed
densities and the economic
conditions necessary to achieve
them. These considerations
become especially important
when we are relying on forms
and densities of development
that we have never previously
tested, let alone at this scale.
I'm not suggesting that ten and
30% were wrong in the past. In
fact, actually I think they
were. I really believe in the
process that they went through
and that it was accurate based
on that information at the time,
I think those numbers were well
supported. And I'm not
suggesting that 20 and 40% can
predict the future with perfect
certainty. Neither of these can.
These are just these are
planning assumptions. So what
I'm saying is that we have
significantly more uncertainty
today about much. How much of
our theoretical capacity will
actually convert? We even have
comments from Dbw with real,
really big concerns about some
of the options that we're
choosing, whether they will
convert to housing or not.
Without the benefit of another
13 years of data. Under these
new rules that are established
and that we're looking at
establishing today. I think it
is reasonable and prudent to
build somewhat more uncertainty
into the model by increasing
the market factors to 20 and
40%. Changing these factors
does not down zone anyone's
property, prevent anyone from
developing or eliminate a
single development, right? If
more of this land develops than
we assume, nothing in this
amendment prevents that from
happening. It simply means we
are not relying on heavily
today. We're not relying
heavily today on theoretical
capacity that may or may not
actually materialize over the
planning period. And
importantly, we have
substantial housing capacity in
the current proposal. I am not
proposing that we fall or that
we fall below our state housing
requirements. I do want staff
to confirm the effect of this
change would have on our total
capacity and our required
capacity across income levels.
If we can continue to
comfortably meet those
requirements while using a more
conservative assumption about
what will actually develop, I
think that is more a more
responsible approach. For those
reasons, I support changing the
residential market factors from
10% to 20% for vacant land and
from 30% to 40% for
underutilized land. And those
figures are well within the
norm and the average that other
counties have built into their
model.
>> Chair.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Thank you. I, I
support the premise, but I, you
know, I have a lot of questions
here. And above all, I would
not want to delay the comp plan
process that we have right now.
So one of the questions is,
what precedent is there that
you have found for doing this?
Second, if you just look at the
first half of your motion
before the comma with the just
sets the new numbers, the
question to staff is, would
that alone make you go back to
the drawing board and delay the
plan? Or can it just be
incorporated with all the
existing analysis that's been
done? There would not be any
future needs. And then the
second half of the motion
actually directs staff to
update the vacant Buildable
lands model and all associated
housing capacity calculations
accordingly. So I'm wondering
if the first half of the motion
requires you to do anything new
and delays, or that plus the
second half would do that. But
I guess my first question is on
precedent to Councilor Yang. So
I.
>> Would let staff and maybe
legal comment on precedent, but
any anything that has been
cited up at this point, we can
do an amendment to. I don't
know if I mean precedent in
terms of the numbers that I'm
using for market factor.
>> Yes. And how you chose the
number 20 and 40.
>> Well, essentially, basically
what I did was more or less ten
and 30. I agree with was
accurate from the studies that
they had done, but I just built
in an additional being more
conservative, given that I'm
essentially what we did was we,
we had this long process that
went and looked at all of the
data that was pulling in, and
there was public comment there.
You know, there's entire
process on this. But then
literally all of the elements
that they studied have been
changed. They don't even exist
anymore because those zoning
codes, those density levels
don't exist anymore. They've
changed. You know, there's new
housing options that weren't
available in the past. They're
just and, you know, state law,
there's, there's all these
changes. So a lot of what they
looked at other than the actual
parcel study, that doesn't
change, right? What happened in
the past, what's changed is the
environment under which
development will take place.
>> Thank you, Councilor and
Councilor, for your question. I
will answer it this way. And my
staff can join in and legal as
well. The and I'll focus this
in terms of process because you
ask, what's the precedent? Yes,
it is true that the Council
makes decisions on the planning
assumptions we use for the VLM.
However, the Council makes that
decision or provide that
direction with input from the
community and from our local
jurisdictions. So I don't see
that here. Secondly. The
current Vbm model, when it was
passed in and we did that work
with a committee and sent that
to the state, the council at
the time laid out the planning
assumptions to use. When we did
the base year numbers to
establish what's vacant and all
of that. That was how the
substitute subsequent work was
done. In other words, that was
how we did the allocation to
all the various cities. So to
introduce this now, in my
opinion, will require us to
start all over, to establish
what is the capacity using
these new numbers. And with all
due respect, Councilor Young, I
see no basis for this except
just hypothetical now, except
just hypothetical. Having said
that, if we were to do this,
this would be changing the
current planning assumptions
and the way that I understand
and teach modeling. This will
make us go back to establish
what is our base and then
reallocate based on that new
approach. And Jose and my staff
who is sitting in the back,
they can correct me all legal.
That's how I will answer your
question.
>> Is there is there more Jose
or Amber? Thank you for that.
>> Can I just just ask a
question real quick? So and I
appreciate and respect your
your comment there. But take
our 50 for example. Our 50
didn't exist when the study was
done. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. We have a number that
we have plugged into our model
that was not based on anything
that was discussed in that
committee. So my question is,
if we have to leave things the
way that they were done before,
that number just comes from
nowhere. It didn't come from
them because the assumption of
what will develop out of an R
50 zone. It didn't exist.
>> I don't I think you're
confusing the the zoning to a
certain extent is. What the
never to convert factor is, is
the the probability that land
will develop. For whatever
reason, a homeowner doesn't
want to sell their property,
that it doesn't pencil at this
density. All of the things you
cited, all of the changes that
we've made, make it more likely
that land would develop. You're
getting higher densities. You
can have more that you can do
with your land. All these
things point in one direction,
and that's helping the
potential for redevelopment,
not hindering it.
>> So the minimum density
definitely can for sure.
>> And that's changing in the
urban medium zones, which again
is the smallest acreage we have.
We've increased the density and
the what was single family
zones. And we're already
getting development. The only
thing that's being impacted by
the increase in the minimum
density is the type of housing
that could meet those lower
density targets, which are
single family detached
townhomes, which we can now
have a much larger pool where
they can be developed because
they couldn't be developed in
the single family zone before.
So they're in a much larger
area where those developments
can occur.
>> Right. But we have changed
also. We've adjusted for that.
>> Okay. I would like some of
the other councilors to have an
opportunity to.
>> Say just one last comment.
>> Okay. And you can ask more
questions, but I don't want
this just to be a debate with.
>> Yeah, just the fact that the
housing options and the
densities are just one thing. I
mean, interest rates alone, the
entire time period of the study,
interest rates were extremely
low. They're high. Now, those
those kinds of things make a
material difference in what
will what will produce.
>> Yes. Please go ahead.
>> I'm all for new ideas. But
this is something just my
opinion should have been
brought to staff more than a
year ago, a year ago, not 12
days before. We have to make a
major decision. That's all for
me.
>> Thank you. Councilor Fuentes,
did you have anything at this
time? Because I have a few
comments. So I look back to
really when we set the
population numbers and the job
numbers and advice that we got
from Scott Bailey at the time,
that and we took a higher
anticipated a higher number of
people than the middle, which
the middle, as Scott Bailey
explained over time, is pretty
right on. And so there's that
piece of information. But I
think this introduces a huge
level of uncertainty. Whether
or not this triggers a
reopening the EIS as you said,
Oliver, does this make us start
all over with these changing
allocations? Does it make us
more vulnerable to a legal
challenge in it is I appreciate
all the work that you've done
on this, but you are one
individual and this took a lot
of, I think, at least 18 months
to develop with all of the
stakeholders. So I'm concerned
that we're just like throwing
out all of those years of work
and. And then it does appear
that this is a means just to
try to expand growth boundaries
or to justify the numbers, the
exceedances that have been
identified. So I would not be
supportive of this amendment.
Go ahead. Oliver.
>> Councilor, if I may just
quickly, it's more of an
information to support what
I've heard from other
councilors. Rebecca, is there
any way you can go to what was
posted online? 2025 documents.
You can go to the grid council
grid.
>> And I would just add that
this was not challenged at the
time. There was a window to
challenge the assumptions of
the vacant Buildable lands
model. That was that was not
done through.
>> Let me just quickly see what
I can share with Council.
>> Yeah.
>> Go to the planning
assumption. Okay. This is. In a
in a planning assumption issue
paper presented to the Council.
And we communicate to the
council through the issue
papers. And we had a work
session with Council on
planning assumptions here. We
shared in this particular memo.
If you go up to okay, stop the
go to the table. Here are is
table one planning assumptions
that the Council and the
commissioners at the time have
used. In 1994. In 2024, in 2007
update, and in the 2016 update,
we shared this with council.
Okay. And then we get down to
the last table, go to the last
table. This says proposed 2025
planning assumption for council
direction. And you can see the
decisions that the previous
council made when the final
buildable lands work was
completed. You can see the way
footnotes. Market factor. It's
very clear. It includes 10%
never to convert market factor
on vacant land and 30 for the
underutilized. And then when
you look at the model that came
out of commerce when HB 1220
was passed, they also included
in that model a 6% vacant
vacancy rate for residential
housing units. The direction
that the previous council made
was a market factor. Discussion
was had with the group. They
made this recommendation and
the council at the time agrees
to it. The time to direct US
Councilor Young to make changes
would have been when this was
presented before we established
the base. That is why I was
saying that this will. What you
proposing will make us to start
all over. So the other thing
that the councilors. The only.
The other thing that the
councilors. Let me finish the
other thing that the councilors
go up a little bit. The
councilors at the time directed,
and I know some of the members
that worked on that group were
here, come down a little bit,
come down so that stop, no go
up, say, as part of the
Buildable lands review process,
set aside parks and school land
was also discussed. Council
approved use of district data,
which we have reached out to
the school districts. Please
let us know if you have land
within the existing urban
growth boundaries so we can
take that off and not include
assign any capacity to that. We
have also reached out to each
of the parks districts,
including our parks. Let us
know where you have acquired
property within the existing
urban growth boundaries, so
that we cannot include that in
the capacity estimate. They've
done that. You heard from the
schools, you heard from
Washougal school district.
There was a school site that
they wanted to come in, but
they later got a pushback and
they took it out. The only
school district that is
proposing to add a school site
is Hawkinson, but Hawkinson is
outside the urban growth
boundaries. The rural district,
the other school district, even
though they're not asking for
update to their capital
facilities plan, is Richfield.
They've identified a school in
the 179 area, which will not
including in the capacity
estimate. So this is the
direction of the previous
council. We have followed that.
When we presented this to
council at that work session
and issue this issue. Paper
number four, if there was a
discussion, this is the time
that that discussion would have
occurred with our cities and
everybody, everyone
participating. For us to make
that change. I will also add
Councilor Young, that this is
not personal. I know that there
are some folks who are
listening and I, I welcome very
constructive criticism. I know
that some members of BIA and at
some point Kathleen, our county
manager, participated in that.
They were changing their name
from BIA to other name and so
forth. But I'm not going to go
there. They made this same
recommendation to change the
market factor. It was not
approved by the council then.
So let me stop there.
>> Thank you. Go ahead,
Councilor Young.
>> Yes. I was attempting to
rescind my motion for the
purpose of moving forward. I
just want you to know that we
didn't have to go through that,
because I had mentioned that I
agreed and felt like the work
was very well done in the past.
It's just it has been
considerable amount of time and
market factors have changed
considerably. But I will
rescind my motion for lack of
support.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there
any other councilor amendments
that would anyone would like to
bring up at this point before
we move on to one? Okay, let's
move on to one. So this is the
battleground. Expansion towards
dollars corner. Did you want to
say anything, Oliver.
>> If maps will also be helpful
to you, we can pull up the maps
as well.
>> I think maps would be
helpful.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Would anyone like to make a
motion? On battlegrounds
expansion to the west to
dollars corner.
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> I moved to expand
Battleground Ooga towards
Dollar Corner for additional
employment capacity.
>> I second.
>> Moved and seconded any
discussion.
>> Who made the motion?
>> Councilor Fuentes.
>> Thank you. Cyndie. Okay,
it's been moved and seconded.
Do we do a roll call vote at
this point?
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little I chair
Marshall I.
>> Motion carries okay battle
number two battleground UGA
expansion to the north for
additional residential capacity.
Let's take a look at that one.
And I have a question about
this one. Was this a site
specific request or was this a
request of the city? Because I
know there was some site
specific requests that went
directly to battleground and
not through the county.
>> I believe it was a site
specific request that went to
the city, and the city, I
believe, supported that.
>> Okay. And exactly where is
this area?
>> Councilor? Yeah, that would
be take the crossroad up for
the up. Right? Right. No go
right there. Those are the two
parcels.
>> Okay. And this one didn't
wasn't related to a road.
>> No.
>> That's another one.
>> Okay.
>> That'll come up later.
>> All right.
>> Sure.
>> Yes.
>> Go ahead.
>> Question. I know we're doing
these one at a time, but and I
think we we probably have gone
through this and you probably
answered this in the past, but
there's just so much to
remember. I don't recall with
them bringing the Meadow Glade
area back out of the UGA. What
is the net difference on their
jobs, land or the number of
jobs and their number of
housing units? Do we know the
net difference on that?
>> I don't know, I know that as
part of the Meadow Glade, some
of the area zoned mixed use. So.
So there was some employment,
but I don't know what the net
employment difference is
between the two. I can take a
look and see if I can find
something. But if.
>> We could find it and then I
definitely would be
particularly interested, like
interested, how many jobs and
how many housing units were I
failed. I actually reached out
to the cities late last night
and they got response to me,
but I forgot to send one to
battleground, so I did not get
one from them. But if we could
get like the number of jobs
plus or minus the number of
housing units, plus or minus in
this short amount of time.
>> And I would also be
interested in any exceedances
for battleground. I have a memo
here somewhere. Yes.
>> Go ahead. Might be helpful
is as we go through these to
use the map that we use before
with the with the circles and
the numbers so the public can
follow along too. It also says
the amount of acres and stuff
like that. Right on it.
>> Which one?
>> Oh that one.
>> Yeah.
>> We'll look in a second.
>> Just find it.
>> I know there's so much.
>> Where did that you're
talking about the slide deck
from yesterday. Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> What does it say on it.
>> It's exhibit one Planning
Commission Council decision
table.
>> Oh that one the one that
this one replaced. Kind of.
>> One of those over there. I
have it here somewhere. Yeah.
Okay.
>> Battleground maps towards
the end.
>> Yeah. There we go.
>> No, not that one.
>> Okay.
>> Here's here's the map.
Councilors.
>> It's titled 2025
Comprehensive Plan update. It's
from September 16th.
>> We had it just last night.
>> We have it up. Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
>> Yeah, that's the one I was
just, I just went.
>> This is crazy.
>> Oh, okay. I don't know that
we've had I mean, we could
discuss it and then have a
motion, but if we could have a
motion and then discuss it.
>> Yeah. So councilors, the the,
the corner area is and the
piece to the north where you
have that circled red, the
total acreage just acreage is
not the net. The total acreage
is 400 and I believe 88 acres.
And the Meadow Glade area that
they've taken out is
approximately 327. Just in
terms of acreage, it's not net.
>> So and how many acres just
in that northern part.
>> Hozack do you have a number?
It should be.
>> Less than.
>> Ten acres. 350 yeah.
>> It should be less than ten.
Less confirm.
>> It's added into the 488.
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> Let's confirm the total
acreage.
>> Okay. And I don't have on
hand the exceedances chart that
you put together. I don't know
if anyone else has that.
>> Likely be in a memo, which
is also online memo capacity.
>> Okay.
>> If I could get a copy of
that, I'd appreciate it because
I'll be asking that about every
expansion.
>> Yes.
>> You can have. My staff can
print.
>> It out.
>> Maybe Jake can make a copy.
>> I gotta grab some water real
quick.
>> A copy of this. But let me
ask you if she's making a copy.
>> Okay. Oh.
>> I think it's being copied.
>> Okay, great.
>> Thank you, thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Councilor young is
getting some water.
>> So that property is
approximately 25 acres.
>> 25 acres.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And it's look, they're
looking at it for residential,
correct? Yes. Low density.
What's the.
>> Yes.
>> Low density. And surrounded
by low density.
>> Yes.
>> To the south, which is
already in the area. And
further to the west is also
rural. Five.
>> Okay.
>> Chair, I'm happy to make a
motion to expedite. Expedite
this motion to approve item
number two.
>> Okay. There's been a motion
to approve item two, which is
the 25 acres to the north,
correct?
>> Yes.
>> I second.
>> It's been moved and seconded.
Okay. Is there further chair
discussion? Yes.
>> I was out for just a second
getting water. Did we get any
numbers at all?
>> We have not, but I the
copies are going to be coming.
>> I prefer to to wait on it
until we get those numbers.
>> I think they'll be here
momentarily.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. My concern.
>> Councilor Young, we did
confirm in terms of size that
this property to the north is
25 acres gross.
>> But we don't know the. I'm
still really interested in.
Similar to chair Marchel on her
exceedance. I'm also interested
in just net change because they
are pulling some of the land
out. I think that's important.
>> Okay.
>> Net change in terms of
capacity.
>> Yeah.
>> And just residential.
>> No, both jobs and
residential. I think this is
all residential.
>> Residential. Yeah. Low
density residential. Thank you.
>> Did did Councilor Little
make the motion.
>> Yes. Sorry.
>> Yes he did. And Councilor
Belkot seconded it. And just a
reminder to the council, if you
could just state your name,
especially when you're making
motions. So if I'm looking at
this correctly, it looks like
battleground has a surplus of
ten.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. It's been
moved and seconded. Are there
other comments?
>> Ready for the roll?
>> I think we're ready for the
roll call.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little. I chair
Marchel.
>> I motion carries. Okay here
we go. Item three.
>> Chair I'd like to make a
motion.
>> Okay. State your motion.
>> I moved to approve
battlegrounds EAG a by removing
southwestern portion of the UGA.
>> Okay. And that was Councilor
Fuentes.
>> Councilor Fuentes.
>> Cindy councilor Belkot
second.
>> Moved and seconded. Are
there any other questions or
comments related to this one?
>> Just one quick question for
staff. We know that the the,
the portion of the UGA that won
the battleground was once
removed is fairly rural.
Correct? Or what's the what's
the density?
>> It's a rural center.
>> It is. Okay.
>> Right. The rural or the
rural center. Okay, perfect.
>> Thank you.
>> So characterized by larger
lots, but some commercial
development.
>> Yeah. That's true.
>> That's part of the rural
center, right.
>> How long has it been in
battleground growth boundary?
>> I will say since. 20. Since
since maybe 1994 and have
remained there for the
subsequent updates. It's been a
long time, right?
>> There is no desire, I
believe, on the part of those
residents to be annexed. Yes.
Okay. Any other comments? Ready
for the roll call?
>> Councilor young? I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little I chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries okay item
four Kamea expand the UGA to
include Grove field airport.
>> Motion to approve number
four.
>> Okay.
>> Second councilor Belkot.
>> Chair sorry this is Matt
Little.
>> Been moved and seconded. And
now discussion. Yes go ahead
counselor.
>> Question on process here
because this would also require
designation. So do we want to
handle those together. The
Grove airport is zoned AG is it
not.
>> It is not. It is not. It's
zoned airport.
>> Okay. Never mind.
>> Okay. Are there any concerns
or suggestions here? I would
just just looking at the map,
it it makes sense that it come
into the growth boundary. I am
curious about the zoning of the
property immediately to the
south, because you're creating,
you're almost creating an
island there. And is that zoned
rural, rural five or what is
that? Zoned rural.
>> 505 councilors.
>> Okay.
>> And we can show that, but it
is rural.
>> Five so all of that property,
yes.
>> To the south, there may be
some AG, but I'm not sure it
could be to the east. But those
properties below are the Grove
Field Airport rural five,
including the Grove Field
Airport itself. Even though
it's even though it's own
airport.
>> So there's AG to the east.
>> I'm not sure I have to
confirm that.
>> There is AG to the east, but
it's rural to the south.
>> Yeah, I have friends that
live right to the south there.
It's on five acre lots. Just
the east is the pumpkin patch.
>> Okay. Okay. So I just note
that this makes that area
vulnerable. When we come around
to the next comp plan update
for being expansion happening
there, but it's been moved and
seconded. Are there any other
comments? If not, I will have
the roll call.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. I councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little. I chair
Marchel.
>> I motion carries. Okay, here
we go. Item five d designation
of agricultural resource land
and UGA expansion to the East
for housing. And this is city
of Camas chair. Yes.
>> Okay. This one, this one
will take a little bit more
time, but it's we need to do
this because we have to create
findings. This just big picture.
We have two options in front of
us. Neither of them involve a
future with farmland.
Unfortunately. One option is
that we do nothing. We do not
designate it. We allow it to be
as it is. What will happen as
it's been testified multiple
times, because 16 of the lots
have been broken into five acre
parcels, there will be 17 or 18
McMansions there, so that's
option one. Mansions, expensive
living, 17 or 18 of them.
That's doing nothing. Option
two is if we follow what the
city of Camas wants to do in
this area, which has no
affordable housing, also has no
services, by the way, we will
end up with 1200 homes, as
testified by Camas yesterday.
So we have two options, neither
of which involve open space or
farmland. One of them involves
affordable homes, and I'm going
to add some new information to
the record that shows that the
land, the parcel that we're
most concerned about, the
bigger parcel, the 79.2 acre
parcel, has been designated
incorrectly on the maps in our
own maps. So anyway, to make
the findings, I have to go
through the wax, so bear with
me. So amendments to resource
land designations are made
through Wanke 365.190.040,
subsection one C, and it says
amendments to land designations
are made. If you do a county
wide analysis, which we've done,
and it meets certain criteria,
number two or double I, is
change in circumstance of
property related to designate
designation criteria. Since the
94 designation that applies.
And I'll be going through why
the Nevin property here also
applies to the subsection three,
which is error in designation.
So going into the D designation
criteria which is under Wanke
365.190.050, subsection one.
This is designating and D
designating, which requires the
county wide analysis. Number
three says lands should be
considered for designation as
agriculture land and
designation based on three
factors. First factor this is
whack 365.190.050, subsection
three. The land is
characterized or not
characterized as Kirsher by
urban growth. Urban growth is
the main factor here. To
evaluate this factor. Under
this section, it says counties
and cities should use criteria
contained in 365-196-3 ten.
Under that section in one see,
it says, quote, an urban growth
area may include territory that
is located outside a city. If
such territory already is
characterized by urban growth
or is adjacent to territory
already characterized by urban
growth, or I mean, and CW36
.708.030. Subsection 49 says or
to land located in relationship
to an area with urban growth on
it, so as to be appropriate for
urban growth. So I believe this
criteria, the first criteria
applies to this property. It is
surrounded on two sides by the
city of Camas and their current
urban growth boundary. It has
development all around it. You
can look at the satellite
images or drive by it, which I
do almost every day. It also
documented in the Johnson Kamea
report and multiple letters.
There will be approximately 800.
There are approximately 800
homes completed or developed in
the vicinity, vicinity, and
there's also the high school,
one of the best high schools in
the state, by the way, is just
down the street a couple blocks
away. It has Woodburn
Elementary right next to it. It
has sufficient utilities. There
are BP, BPA, power lines
actually going over part of the
parcels. The main water line is
on the western boundary. It's
in the water service area. It
has a main gas line on the east
side. So it's in that service
area and it's directly adjacent
to the city's future sewer
service area, directly adjacent.
So I believe I'm making a
finding that it qualifies
criteria number one. Sorry,
there's a lot of criteria, but
we have to do this. And I ask
through this as I do this, that
the staff will bolster these
comments based on what I've
verbalized and also what the
cities have submitted, because
they have put in much more
information than this criteria.
Two Lannen that is capable of
being used for agricultural
production, that is under Wanke
365.190.050. Section three B.
This says the land is used or
capable of being used for
agricultural production. This
factor evaluates whether lands
are well suited to agriculture
use, based primarily on their
physical and geographic
characteristics. There's a.
There's another section under
the same Wanke 3BI that says
the intent of the landowner to
use land for agriculture or to
cease such use is not a
controlling factor, but it is a
factor. So I'm going to go into
the mapping area right now
because that's very important
here. So if we could pull up
the map, the county map that
was used in the egg study, that
basically marked by color,
which which lands are, are
statewide significance and have
the soils necessary to be
designated as a gland. The
analysis from that map, when
you zoom into the map, you'd
have to zoom down to the south
side, south end of it where
there's a bunch of yellow. The
yellow is does not meet. And if
you zoom into Camas, that that
highlighted area right there.
So the when we when we get into
that and I have zoomed in print
out version that's parcel by
parcel. When you get into that,
if you can zoom in as much as
you can and I, if you zoom in
enough, you can see the parcel
lines. Basically in this. Most
people who care about farmland
are concerned about the, the 80
acres, the contiguous portion.
That one here is in yellow. The
title of that in the key is
yellow is not prime farmland or
of statewide importance. This
is the map that was used in the
egg study. That 80 acres is not
prime farmland or of statewide
importance. There are three
parcels or six parcels that are
in green. In the top northwest
corner. Those are the ones that
qualify. Those are in green.
They are prime farmland or
farmland of statewide
significance. So essentially,
there are 30 acres of the 162
that qualify. There are 103
acres that do not. This is an
important factor, of course,
when you decide whether
something should be designated
or not. And again, just
reminding everyone that these
acres are going to be
McMansions, I want to put in to
the record the intent of the
landowner as well, who has
testified that this will be
houses, not farms. It's already
parceled on 16 different
parcels at five acre lots.
Again, it will not be
agricultural land under any
scenario. It will be homes. And
the landowner testified to that.
That is a physical and
geographic characteristic. So
that's item two three. Three is
the land has long term
commercial significance or not
for agriculture. This is whack.
365.190.050 subsection three C.
In determining this factor,
counties and cities should
consider the following
non-exclusive criteria as
applicable, and it follows with
a number of criteria that I
must go through. And you can
add others which I'm going to
add water, water rights. Number
one, and I'm not going to give
all the details on on these.
They are outlined in the letter
from Camas in the Jordan Ramos
letters. And I'm hoping that
when staff help create this
record of finding that they
will add that data as well as
what I'm verbalizing. One, the
classification of prime and
unique farmlands and farmlands
of statewide importance as
mapped by NRCs. It is clear
through the maps that I just
said that a major portion of
this property does not qualify
on that to the availability of
public resources, including
roads used in transporting
agricultural products. This
one's mixed. There are
facilities for farm agriculture,
but there's also restrictions
when you drive down that road
right next to it, adjacent, as
I do almost every day, it's a
40 mile an hour road. It has no
it has no shoulders. So if
you're a big piece of farm
equipment that you're trying to
drive down the road, a car is
trying to go the other way,
getting their kids to the high
school, which is just down the
street. That car could not even
get past some of the farm
equipment. Anyway, that is a
factor in number two. It's not
a controlling factor, but it is
a factor number three tax
status, including whether lands
are enrolled under the current
tax use. 16 of the 18 parcels
have been enrolled since 22,006,
but not primarily devoted to AG,
the landowner said. Just to
make ends meet, you know, there
are also that they've been
haying and had limited success
even haying it. There is a
rocky surface there. It's kind
of on a plateau. So there's a
lot of basalt rock that is
exposed, and you can't actually
even pay it in a lot of areas.
Number four, the availability
of public services. So this the
availability of public services,
which I detailed about the gas,
the water, the electric,
everything that is pointing to
showing that the parcels are
capable and transitioning
toward urban use rather than
long term agricultural use,
which I've already said, it's
not going to be agriculture
regardless. Number five,
relationship or proximity to
urban growth areas. This has
been outlined already, and I've
already made point number six,
predominant parcel size, which
may include smaller parcels of
contiguous with other
agricultural lands, have to
make the point here that 16 of
the part of the 18 parcels here
are five acre lots for homes.
One of them is a two acre lot
for a home. And then there's
the one that's the larger one
that doesn't even qualify under
soils to be agricultural land.
Number seven, land use
settlement patterns and their
compatibility with agricultural
practices. So never Uhl. The
Nevin property has single
family residences surrounding
it, compatibility with
agriculture practices. If you
just drive the neighborhood, it
is a residential neighborhood
with developments all around.
Intensity of nearby land uses
is number eight. You could just
look at the satellite images
provided in the Jordan Ramos
letter that shows the
development over time, and all
the subdivisions that are in
that area. Same thing with
number nine history of land
development permits issued
nearby. You can just see the
urban character all around it.
Number ten land values under
alternative uses. So these ones
that are under use program,
they have the tax value of 1400
to 2500. But if they were in
the fair market value, they
would be 250,000 to 378,000,
bringing in lots of revenue
into the community number. Then
then there it's not an
exclusive criteria. So I'm
adding water. As we've heard
testified, water is a
restricting factor there. The
Washougal River basin is closed
to any new water rights. And so
that is a consideration. So
anyway, those are my findings.
I just want to remind folks I
hope this is a unanimous vote
because it seems it's even an
environmental vote. You have
two options. Again we do
nothing. And this will be 17 or
18 mansions, unaffordable homes.
It will be or we vote. We vote
for this based on the findings,
which I think are very strong.
And it will be what the
community needs there, which is
it said they applied for 1200
homes. This will be more
affordable homes. It will be a
hub of affordable housing
amidst unaffordable housing.
And hopefully in the future,
maybe they can change the
zoning and actually get a
grocery store there or some
services because it is in a
desert. It is between Camas and
Washougal. If you need to go
buy groceries or get any
services, you have to drive way
out of your way west and south
to get to Camas downtown
>> Or east and south to go to
Washougal or go all the way to
1/92 to get any services. But
at least this will provide some
affordable homes. So I am in
full support, and I'd like to
do a motion to support number
five and include it into the
UGA and on that on the market
factor, the. The city has made
their own case that based on
the the existing market cap
factor that they are capable of
adding these new homes into the
UGA. And I'd just like to
further point out that we're
going to be potentially making
a decision in the Vancouver UGA,
which will be increasing the
amount of high density units.
And we have heard from many
experts that the reality of
fulfilling a lot of those units
is impractical, and so that
there will be sitting there
capacity for homes in this
Vancouver UGA that we will be
approving that could be used
for this. Some great ideas like
Camus has right here. And even
if we don't approve it, those
those extra housing units that
are in the analysis will just
be sitting there and could be
used for something like this.
So with all that, my motion is
to approve number five and
sorry for being so long winded.
Had to do it for the record.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there a
second?
>> I just have a few comments.
Sure.
>> Well, let me get a second
and then we can discuss.
>> Councilor Belkot, I second.
>> Thank you.
>> Just a just a few comments.
I got everything that you that
you put down, councilor little.
But I just wanted to mention
the McMansions versus the
housing, the intent of the
multiple houses, not the the
the McMansions is that it will
be mixed use. That's like
equivalent in my district to
Erikson's farm, which is a hub
of activity with shops. And
it's somewhere where our
community gathers in my
district. And I just love that
spot. And that would be the
future intent of that area if
it were open to multiple homes,
not the intent of McMansions,
which I think is wonderful. So
that was my only comment.
>> Okay. Thank you. Other I
have some comments, but you can
no, you go ahead. Go ahead.
Okay. Anticipating that there
will be other decisions as far
as the designating agricultural
land, I would just say that we
we have a competing
agricultural studies, one that
was conducted by the county
that we contracted for, and one
that has been submitted by some
of the property owners and
cities that are requesting
these expansions. So the
findings, you're correct on
some of the findings, but I
know in terms of water as a
finding, the Agricultural
Commission indicated that
there's a lot of dry land
farming. So that alone is not a
criteria to designate
agricultural land. And just
from my own experience, we have
been dryland farming for over
65 years. So that is one of
those criterias that was not
leaned into for the
agricultural study that the
county conducted. And then I
would just point to, apart from
the agricultural designation,
what what I'm seeing here as
far as a surplus for Camas is
2210 acres. So I don't think
that this can be justified just
based on that exceedance. And
then as I look at the map, it's
it's really a peninsula that
juts out from Camas growth
boundary. And I'm curious about
those five acre parcels. When,
when were those five acre
parcels created? Do we know
anything more about them? And
are they are legally buildable
lots?
>> I'm checking right now. Oh,
April 1st, deputy County
manager. I'm checking on that
right now. Yeah. I can't find
any history of them being
divided through land use, which
would make them legal buildable
lots. Otherwise they would do
it through a tax.
>> I'm there's some uncertainty
there.
>> There's just a little.
>> Okay. And I, I, I recall
that Kamea. They brought this
in and it went under the eyes
review as residential. But then
because of this exceedance,
they were requesting that it be
what were they requesting that
it be for jobs?
>> I believe mixed use. And
yeah, it was for mixed use
which will include jobs. Yes,
you're correct.
>> And I would just say once it
comes into a growth boundary,
we really have no idea what,
what, what's going to develop
there. And then if you're
basing your decisions based on
five acre parcels, I would say,
and there is a map as part of
the ag study of how many five
acre parcels have been created
across the entire county. And
that was argued at that time
some years ago that, oh, that
would be good for agriculture,
because who can who can really
farm more than five acres. So
it was an argument that was
posed that really hasn't panned
out in terms of supporting
agriculture, because the more
parcelization that occurs, the
less likely you're able to have
long term economic viability of
agriculture. So I have several
concerns about this property,
and I guess fundamentally is
that as I see the numbers and
just to be consistent with how
we make our decisions on these
things, there's no
justification to bring this in.
>> Well, can I tell you, with
what I'm wrestling with right
now, I've said many times from
the dais that I do not like
this process. And once again,
it has become very evident here
from day one on this my desire
has been to do what is the
right thing for Clark County,
and I believe the right thing
to do for Clark County is to
include this area of expansion.
I do believe it meets the
criteria for designation.
However, this is a horrible
process and, you know, contrary
to what people say, we have a
land shortage for housing in
this county. The land is very
expensive because of that. And
that is a major contributor
towards our affordable housing
crisis. That being said, the
part I hate is this numbers
game. Quite frankly, I hate it.
It is not looking to do what's
best for the community. It's
looking to make sure everything
checks the box. And the thing
I'm wrestling with right now is.
Anything we adopt is going to
need to survive scrutiny. We
know that no matter which way
it goes, I believe that the
real problem stems from the
market factor. I think we are
starving ourselves to a degree
that there's not enough, not
enough available land that will
be able to convert. I think
that is the core problem, but I
fail to fix that. With that
being said, it shows that we
are planning for 10,500 too
many people. I don't know how
it went from 8200 or 8300. At
the end of our last hearing to
now being 10,500. I don't know
how that changed.
>> You added this property and
we included. We omitted the
rural. It's about 700 units,
which really can't do anything
about. So those are the changes
that change it from 8700 to
10,000.
>> So there are two things here.
There are two competing
interests that have to do
really with state law. One is
we don't really know to what
degree of I'll call it overage
on paper of units that will be
tolerated. I don't know if it's
if we're one house housing unit
over, if it's 100, if it's 1000,
if it's 10,000, I really don't
know the answer to that. But we
have an excess according to our
papers and according to our
numbers of 10,500. And the
problem is that I am not 100%
certain from the city of Camas,
but I know from my
communication with the city of
Richfield that their expansion
areas were dependent on them
fulfilling their income,
targeted housing requirements.
So now I'm in a situation here
where we're apparently planning
for for too many people. Again,
according to the numbers, which
in my opinion, it's hard to
justify this expansion. The
right thing to do for the
community is, is to, is to
expand into that area, allow
that land for development. And
the whole issue of stopping the
McMansions is, is a real
community issue that we should
be allowed to solve, but we're
not because it's a numbers game.
I can't justify the expansion
based on the numbers, but I
also can't not justify it
because of the risk of us
creating problems with Camus's
plan for. Because the 80. The
161 acres was going to be zoned
multifamily 18. And I would
imagine that a lot of a lot of
those units are probably what
they are calculating towards
reaching their minimum
requirements for the lower
income housing units. So I
don't know how we grapple with
this, to be honest.
>> Sure.
>> Are you done with your
comments, counselor young.
>> For the moment, yes.
>> Okay. Yes. Go ahead.
>> Counselor young Camus in
multiple letters has made their
case for why it fits with the
market factor. And they
especially pointed out that
this helps them meet the 80%
Ami targets. It's been
documented here.
>> That's so thank you. So it
is. So now we're we're stuck
between two issues here. If we
do not expand, then technically
the city is not reaching its
affordability numbers.
>> Have there been any
multifamily housing permits in
Camas in the last couple of
years?
>> Oh yeah.
>> I wouldn't have that
information.
>> See, I think it all depends
on how they are developing. You
can make an argument for more
land or less land based on how
they are developing. And I know
with Camas in particular,
because it struggled when we
were divvying up the the in the
income bands for housing that
Camas wouldn't take the fair
share that every other
jurisdiction took. And the bulk
of that, I think, is in our own
urban unincorporated area. So
there's more of a burden on on
the county to meet those income
bands than Camas. So I think
I'm concerned about how they've
performed even to date in
providing housing for people
who meet those lower income
bands.
>> Councilors, not to interject
in your deliberation, but I
know that. Caamal staff is also
online in case if you have
questions for them. I told them
to be online.
>> If if we could have them
address the issue of how the
units in this particular
expansion area, what removing
them would do to their plan and
their their income band
targeting, that would be
appreciated.
>> Okay. I'd also like to know
the status of those five acres
if there's no record that
they're legal, legal, five acre
lots, that would be of concern.
>> I have confirmed that there
is not a legal lot
determination for at least one.
I just chose one randomly so I
didn't check them all. And
there was not a legal lot
determination that we have on
record for that. So I can't
give a definitive answer, but
it has not been looked at in
that way.
>> So it may mean that they if
they wanted to divide them into
five acre parcels, that would
be something they'd have to do
if that hasn't happened.
>> Yet, and they wouldn't be
able to do that with the AG 20
designation on it.
>> Right? Right.
>> Sure. They're already tax
parcels on the map in five acre
increments.
>> Yes.
>> You can make 16 of them.
>> You can make tax parcels
through the assessor's office,
but they don't make them legal
buildable lots. So they they
are for tax purposes, but they
actually defy the zoning which
is AG 20. There are always land
uses like snowflakes. So there
can be things they can if they
divided them in 1977 before
platting laws. So there are a
lot of reasons why that. Also
they might be legal buildable
lots. But from what we can tell
right now, they haven't been
through that process through us.
So if anything happened before
1977, when someone does a legal
buildable lot or when someone
does a legal lot determination,
they provide us with all that
stuff.
>> Thank you. Maybe Camas can
address that as well.
>> I have a comment. To me, it
seems with this particular
property it's going to be it's
going to be developed
regardless of what we decide.
And so it's either unaffordable
housing or affordable housing.
Take your pick.
>> So I 100% agree with that
statement. But how do we deal
with the overage that we are
showing?
>> Alan Peters I see your hand
is up. Thanks for joining us.
>> Yes. Thank you, Chair
Marshall and Council. So I try
to address both of those issues.
The property, you know
obviously it's outside of city
limits. So any planning records
in any case would be with the
county. So we don't have any
additional information
regarding that. But it does
look at least from what I can
tell, that, you know, those
five acre parcels have existed
for for quite some time. And I
think it would you know, I
wouldn't presume that just
because there is not a sort of
modern subdivision record, that
they were not legally created
prior to the the county
subdivision laws. But I don't
have any additional information
on that. As far as the need for
affordable housing below the
80%. AM I in particular below
50%? We've definitely taken a
lot of done a lot of work with
this plan, and also in prior
years to try to increase some
of the multifamily capacity. As
we look at how we're filling
that need, we have sort of
aggregated all the various
sites and parcels and have
adequate capacity for what
we're required to plan for, for
those lower income bands. This
definitely does contribute to
that. And so it would disrupt
our assumptions. However, you
know, I, I, you know, I can't
say whether or not we could
make it up without it, but
there are other multifamily
sites and new multifamily sites
elsewhere in Camas. So it's
definitely not the case that we
are throwing all the density
into this expansion. We're
doing a lot of up zoning
elsewhere, and we've also done
a downtown plan, which will
allow additional residential as
far as multifamily projects in
a few years. In the last few
years, we've had a lot of
middle housing, and we have a
apartment building downtown
here that's about 50 units that
was recently completed, but we
have probably about, I'd say,
300 units in the review process.
Currently, apartment units.
>> Okay. Thank you very much,
Alan. That was very helpful.
Chair. And so just so I
understand, it sounds as though
you're able to meet the housing
income ban requirements. And
this would be some additional
cushion, I guess.
>> If that was a question. What
I stated was, I don't know for
certain I but what I do know is
that we are not throwing all of
our lower income band housing
into this property. So it does
definitely contribute to the
need. But this isn't the only
place that we're using to fill
that need.
>> Great. Thank you Alan. Good
to know, Counselor Fuentes.
>> Well, yeah, really quick
question for staff. The
excerpts from FEIS and DES. Do
these figures include the Nevin
property or do not include the
Nevin property for the housing
targets within UGA's versus
projected capacity preferred
alternatives one, two and three.
>> So I believe it does for the
preferred. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
That's what was.
>> Yes. Yes yes. Okay. Got it.
Thank you. Yeah.
>> Okay. Any other comments?
>> Yes.
>> Just one.
>> Question further for Alan.
So let me ask you this. What is
the process going to be for the
city of Camas in order to what
what is what is going to be the
impact on what you have to do?
And then I'll ask our staff as
well what we would have to do
if we do not approve this
expansion request.
>> So I think we would need to
take a a look at essentially
what is alternative to in the
eyes and in raw numbers in
aggregate, there would be
enough housing units. But I
don't know again, is the answer
to that prior question on
affordable units specifically.
And so we would have to our our
consultant team would have to
rerun those numbers and ensure
that there is adequate density.
And if not, then, you know,
we'd be looking at some of
those density assumptions and,
and some additional potential
upzoning if that were to be the
case. It would be. Yeah. I mean,
it's not an insurmountable task.
It's, you know, unfortunate
timing. We just had a Planning
commission recommendation
earlier this week on our plan.
And our council's is not
planning on acting until after
your council makes a decision
here. But yeah, it would
interrupt the process, but we
would we'd obviously have to
figure it out.
>> Okay. Thank you. And this
seems like it would be a an
especially good candidate for a
legal challenge. If we expand
without really the
justification for housing and
jobs capacity both being over.
So in that instance, I know in
the past it seems like the
county itself has carried the
burden of defense to the city's
engage in support of defense
for some of their proposals,
assuming this council, there's
a majority to support that.
>> I think this is Solevad
again, councilor and chair, I
think that's more of a question
for legal. I know sometimes
when the Growth Board and the
court. Reule. So let me have
the legal answer that question,
but I know that it is the
action of the council or county
that is being challenged. And
then they can point out whether
that challenge relates to a
particular city. Yoga, for
example, I recall when. In the
case where the council made a
decision to expand the urban
growth boundary of battleground,
that property or expansion was
Reule five, but it was
challenged on the need question
because there was no need for
them to expand the boundaries.
So when that was challenged, it
was the county that was
defending that. But we as the
city of battleground, that the
only way we can come into
compliance is to have them
removed at five acres or areas
that was expanded to help us
come into compliance. But I
will let our legal counsel
chime in. That was my
experience that, no, it is the
council action that is being
challenged, but they can point
where they see an error in a
particular. We have to then ask
the cities to help us come into
compliance.
>> Amber, do you want me to
repeat my question? I was
wondering because I in my
estimation, this would be an
area that could be challenged
because it exceeds capacity for
both housing and jobs. And I
wonder in terms of defense, do
the cities join in in that
defense? Or is it really the
sole responsibility of the
county to defend?
>> If there. I'm not sure if
you can hear me. Oh, there we
go. Amber Smith, chief civil
deputy prosecuting attorney. If
there is challenge to the comp
plan, it is the county's comp
plan. It is not the city's comp
plan necessarily. It's your
choice to choose to adopt the
recommended requests by the
cities. But ultimately, if we
were to face litigation as a
result of the ultimate decision
that will be made on the 13th,
that is entirely bore by the
county.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. And then,
Alan, I have a follow up
question. You may or may not
know, but I know the county has
faced liability. Amber, you
wanted to say more things.
>> I apologize again, Amber
Smith. I did want to have a
point of clarification about
the representations that have
been made about the 18 parcels.
And just to clarify, with those
legal lots of record on what
Miss Firth has stated already
when looking at those parcels,
they are currently segregated
as tax parcels. They are not
legal. Lots of record that land
is AG 20 land. So at this
particular juncture, if the
county were to take no action,
which was one of the proposed
alternatives that Councilor
Little was looking at, does not
necessarily mean that 18
McMansions would be the result
of that, because those are tax
parcels, not legal, lots of
record, and they are currently
in AG 20. So those parcels
would have significantly fewer
options potentially unless
there were other things that
they could get creative with
with the plan. But generally
speaking, those five acre
parcels are only tax parcels,
not land parcels that we are
aware of at this juncture.
>> Thank you, chair, and I'm
still speaking. Thanks. Alan. I
wanted to follow up with you
because I think and this may
apply to all of the cities if
the county is deemed to be out
of compliance. And I know we've
had liability and lost
significant funding in grants
in the past, would the cities
be. Do they is there a
potential that they would lose
funding as well for some of the
state grants that they might be
applying for? And I don't know,
Alan, if in your case, you have
any pending grants that you're
worried about.
>> Good question. I, I mean, I
can only speculate that I think
the, the noncompliance issue
would would be if we did not
adopt a plan or did not respond
to any order from the Growth
management hearing board, I
think. I don't know if we would
be affected by it. I believe we
are going to be in compliance
when we adopt our plan.
>> Okay. And then then if there
was a challenge, it would be
coming into compliance as
quickly as possible. Go ahead
Amber.
>> Thank you. Chair Amber Smith.
If the county has a legal
determination that we're not in
compliance for the comp plan,
that that's for the entire
county, it overlays. So while
the county is not in compliance
with its comp plan, it affects
every part of Clark County
until we get into compliance
with respect to it. Ours
overlays everything, including
the city's plans.
>> And then Councilor Little, I
think you indicated there were
30 acres that did meet that
criteria for prime farmland,
farmland of statewide
importance is that in the. I
can't quite tell from this map
if it's in the in the five acre
tax lots or if it's in the
larger parcel. Oh, great.
Thanks. So again, you'll have
to. So it's. So is it a
combination of the five acre
tax lots and the larger parcel.
>> The larger parcel 100% does
not qualify.
>> Okay.
>> So for either the five acre
lots is a mix, some qualify and
some definitely do not.
>> Okay.
>> And then I had just a couple
follow ups.
>> Go ahead.
>> Should be short on. The
landowner did testify that he
could sell build homes on these
properties. The attorney also
has that in writing that they
can do that. There's no
restrictions on that. They also
testified that they have been
able to do that for years, and
that they've been holding out
because the city has a vision
for this area that's beyond
McMansions. It is affordable
homes. Now. They do want to do
mixed use. The chair did say
that they're over on this
proposal on homes and jobs, but
they're not over on jobs. The
reason is, when they first put
in the proposal that was
reviewed, it was for housing
units, the 1200. And so jobs is
not part of this proposal. They
do want to do this. It would
make more sense to have a hub
there. As I said, it's a
dessert for services, groceries,
affordable homes. So it would
be wonderful to have a mixed
use. But that's not what was
reviewed so that they are
limited to what they asked for,
which is 1200 homes. And but in
the future, they could. And
we've been through this like
twice now with staff in the
future, they could ask for a
zoning change. But this
proposal is about housing units,
right?
>> Well, apart from that
specific parcel, the overall
total for Camas, they're over
in their jobs by 806 acres.
>> Yeah, I'm just saying this
proposal isn't about jobs. The
one that's in front of us for a
vote.
>> Right. But the expanding the
area. Will there's still over
in jobs for the total as well
as housing.
>> And I just wanted to refer
back to my comments on market
factor and the actions that we
may be taking in the Vancouver
Yuga. I just want to point back
to that, but we'd love to get a
vote on this.
>> Okay. Any other comments
from anyone? We exhausted this
yet?
>> Yeah. Just wanted to say I
offer my apologies to the city
of Camas for being essentially
required to say no to their
vision for their for the future
of their city. This is a
situation the way that I feel
right now.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right.
I think we're ready for a roll
call. And then and then we're
going to take a break.
>> Councilor young.
>> No.
>> Councilor Belkot.
>> I and affordable housing.
>> Councilor Fuentes. No.
Councilor Little.
>> I.
>> Chair Marshall.
>> No motion fails. Three two.
Okay. Cyndie. Well, let me
check with the council. I mean,
we could have lunch if we want
to take. How much time? Much of
a break do you want to take? I
think it'd be good for people
to have an opportunity to eat
something. Yeah.
>> We're going to be here for a
while.
>> Yes. We're on. We just
completed five. We're on six.
>> Out of I would suggest 45.
>> 45 minutes. Okay. So see you
back here at what would that be?
115 okay. Thank you.
>> This webinar is being
recorded and summarized.
>> Okay, Council is back from
our break and we'll move on
with our decision making. We're
on item six, page one. So this
is the center UGA D designation.
Agricultural resource lands and
UGA expansion to the north for
additional employment capacity.
>> Chair.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. This one I don't think
I don't want to take this one
up. I'd like to go to number
seven, but I'll give you the
reasons why. Two of the three
parcels in question here have
already been acquired by tribe.
The tribe Cowlitz Tribe, but
has haven't been in trust yet.
And. I. I think we all received
a letter from David McDonald
that involved some of the
agreements with the city and
the Cowlitz Tribe in 2016 and
2024, which involved
stipulations on bringing the
land just directly adjacent in
trust, as well as these
properties, which involved some
kind of compensation. I didn't
read all the details, but there
is mitigation. It was, quote,
mitigation payments in lieu of
taxes for putting something
into trust or not. So
essentially, most of this land
is already being acquired by
another nation. And I just
don't think this this is this
would complicate a whole bunch
of things, including this
agreement with the tribe on, on
multiple levels. So I'd rather
move to number seven.
>> I are you want I think we
need to do an up or down on
each of the requests. Is that
correct? A vote?
>> Again councilors, this is
Oliver. Yes. Based on the
recommendation of the PC. We
will be asking that you
consider their recommendation
and then make a motion either
to accept or to reject or to
modify.
>> Okay. And then just for
clarification, there is that
little piece there that is the
puds property, which is not was
not part of the I. Is that
something that's on the table
or.
>> That's number 28 on the
table?
>> Oh, it's 28. Okay. So we'll
get back to that.
>> Right.
>> Okay. So thank you for your
comments, councilor little are
there would anyone like to make
a motion to either accept or
deny this request? Chair yes.
>> I'd like to make a motion to
deny listeners UJ request to
designate agricultural lands,
resource lands and expand UGA
to the north for additional
employment capacity.
>> Second.
>> Thank you. It's been moved
and seconded. Any further
conversation, councilor Little.
Oh I'm sorry. Young.
>> Just clarifying that that's
item number six.
>> Item correct.
>> Yes it is.
>> I just I have a question.
Going back to what Councilor
Little said about the tribe, so
does it, I guess. Does it even
matter if we. Yes. May or a I
because of the tribal element
of it. I guess I'm trying to
understand, councilor. Your
comments.
>> Oh I'm sorry. Yeah. So if we
zoom in on that map, there are
three parcels. The one on the
west and the north doesn't seem
very demarcated on there, but
there's one on the west there.
There we go. The one on the
west and the one on the north.
Those have already been
acquired by the tribe. We
haven't heard much from the
landowner that hasn't been
acquired so far. But yeah,
essentially this whole area,
including the white lines below
the PUD, which have already
been acquired and put into
trust by Cowlitz. Those ones
that are acquired are
essentially off the table for
us. They're they're basically
owned by another nation. And so
us going through the trouble of
designating and putting it in
the urban growth boundary when
there's already some kind of
side agreement or agreement
with Cowlitz Tribe in 2016 and
2024, that includes some
compensation in lieu of taxes.
I just think this one, I'm not
interested in moving.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other comments? Okay.
We'll have the roll call on
this one. And the vote on this
one is to deny the center's
request for this area to expand
to the north.
>> Councilor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot.
>> I.
>> Councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little. I and chair
Marshall I. Okay.
>> Motion carries that will not
come in to the centers UGA.
Okay. Item seven D designation
of agricultural resource land
and expand UGA to the southwest
for additional employment
capacity.
>> Chair.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Yes. I've done my homework
on this one too. So this one's
also complicated. If we could
zoom in on the map of this one
on the south there, there is
one parcel, the whole area to
the east of I-5 is not in EG
designation. So that decision I
would like to make separate
from the rest and just have a
vote on that one first. So I
guess I move to support the the
part of number seven that is
east of I-5.
>> So this.
>> Year.
>> Okay. Thank you for that
motion. Is there a second.
>> Second.
>> Moved by Councilor Little,
seconded by Councilor Young.
Amber, did you want to say
anything because you look like
you did.
>> Pardon? Thank you. Council
member Smith. Chief civil
deputy prosecuting attorney, I
think for clarification, based
on what Doctor Orjiako has
stated, is that this would it's
a motion to amend essentially
what the Planning Commission
recommendation is, is an only
admit for UGA. The partial. The
parcel to the east and not the
parcels to the west of I-5.
>> I think it's to have two
votes.
>> Okay.
>> So we we would be making at
this point, we'd be making a
decision on the parcel to the
east. Or do we need a motion
just to separate the votes?
>> Separate the vote.
>> It you would need a motion
to separate the votes. Because
ultimately what you're deciding
today is whether you're
adopting the Planning
Commission's recommendations or
you're moving forward with
those that are the left or that
center column, as opposed to
the far right column where
we're kind of making these
decisions today on the big
table. Great, great.
>> Thank you.
>> Do I have to verbalize votes?
Both votes personalize them
basically right now, or just
the first one is enough.
>> I think the first one just
separating that parcel as a
separate vote.
>> Okay.
>> Yes. As a motion to modify
from the the recommendation of
the Planning Commission and
only adopt the East parcel to
the UGA.
>> Well, we have a well, we may
adopt it, but. Well is that
part of your motion?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. And so
that's the.
>> So that is motion one of two
for number seven.
>> Okay.
>> And it's already been.
>> It's been moved and seconded
by Councilor Young. Okay. Any
comments questions chair.
>> Yes please. I would just
comment that this as well as
the entirety of the side on the
West according to the city of
LA center will be will be zoned
light industrial for jobs.
Lannen.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> What is the green slashing?
What is that indicate on this
overlay? Oh, it's that's urban
holding.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. And how many acres is
just that little parcel?
>> It's.
>> About six and a quarter
acres. Six. Six. Little over
six acres.
>> And just to confirm, it's
non ag.
>> Correct. It's our five.
>> It's our five. And how many
parcels are there.
>> Just one. Just one.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other
questions or comments. Okay.
Are we ready to vote. I think
we are. We'll take the roll.
>> Councilor young.
>> I. Councilor Belkot.
>> Nay.
>> Councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little. I and chair
Marchel.
>> I. Motion carries 4 to 1.
Okay, so we did that. Do you
want to make another motion?
Councilor little.
>> Okay, this will be a motion
that requires a finding, but
the motion will include
everything in number seven. For
me, this will be the motion to
remove. So it'll be everything
west of I-5. But removing the
parcel at the bottom that is
shaped like a Tetris piece. It
is a 20 acre Emerson equestrian
facility. So my motion would be
to move and designate only that
section north of that. It
contains three parcels and I'm
ready to make a finding.
>> Okay, so is that the entire
the entirety of the request
that's on the southern western
side, or just a part of that?
>> Do I make a finding after I
make the motion, or can I make
the finding before the motion?
>> You should discuss your
findings that you would like to
have incorporated. If the
motion were to pass prior to
the vote.
>> Okay, so I need to discuss
the findings. But just for
clarification, as you're
looking at the map, I'm talking
about the area that is west of
I-5, but not including the
section that's being pointed at
right now. That is the Emerson
Equestrian facility. So I'm
excluding that from this
decision.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> So the line, where would the
line be? Right there. Okay.
>> Yep.
>> All right.
>> Okay. So this finding.
>> Is real quick, just before
you go on to the findings, I'm
just can you give a little
background into some of the
reasoning why you are excluding
the Tetris?
>> I wonder if we could just
get a second and then discuss.
>> Oh, I thought we already had
one.
>> Oh, did we have a second? I
don't I don't.
>> Think I'll second.
>> Okay. It's seconded. Thanks.
Okay. Take it away, counselor.
>> Little. Some of these
answers will be provided in the
findings. Okay. Again. And I'll
try to go a little faster
because it will be the same wax
and stuff. But I know for
Cyndie I need to be complete.
So again, amendments to
resource land designations are
governed under Wanke
365.190.040, subsection ten C,
and for Cyndie these are going
to be the same wax under that
is subsection two, which is
change in circumstance of
property related to designation
criteria. Since it was
designated in 1994. So that
will be described here below.
So Wanke 365.190.050.
Subsection one is about
designating and designating,
which requires the county wide
analysis, which we did, and
that on number three, it says
land should be characterized
for designation as agricultural
land. Based on these factors.
Number 1365.1900503 A the land
is characterized by urban
growth. And then to evaluate
this factor, counties use
criteria under 365.196.3 ten
and subsection I1C says an
urban growth area may include
territory that is located
outside a city. If such city.
If. Sorry if such territory
already is characterized by
urban growth or in art, or is
adjacent to territory already
characterized by urban growth,
end quote. Or in CW3 6.708.030,
subsection 49 or quote two.
Land located in relationship to
an area with urban growth or on
it so as to be appropriate for
urban growth. So for Leichner,
it is adjacent directly to the
center, Ugb or UGA, it is half
a mile from the urban growth
boundary of Ridgefield. It is
directly south of some
incredible growth from the
Cowlitz Tribe, and it is
directly adjacent to the I-5
corridor, which is, as
testified by a couple people.
It's discovery corridor that
was established by this body
and others in 1999, the purpose
of which is to create the jobs
of the future. Actually,
there's a letter that we
received from Jordan Ramos that
showed satellite images of this
corridor since it was
designated. And you can see
just visually the incredible
urban growth that has been
created around that area. So in
that growth, it includes one
point 3,000,000ft² of
commercial and residential use
that has been recently approved,
500 plus homes, the casino and
all the infrastructure around
it. There is fire and police
there. There are schools nearby
and then there is urban growth
on the sites themselves. You
can't see it on this map, but
this goes into criteria two. So
criteria two. The second
criteria is under WACC
365.190.0503 B the land is used
or capable of being used for
agricultural production. This
factor evaluates whether lands
are well suited for agriculture
use, based primarily on their
physical and geographic
characteristics. On this one.
There is. The. Well, first of
all, I removed the parse or I.
In this motion, I removed the
only parcel that is currently
being used for agriculture,
which is that 20 acre Emerson
equestrian facility. So that
has been removed from this
proposal. The remainder. If you.
We went over satellite images
with staff to zoom in on it,
and it's been submitted in the
record by Jordan Ramos. But.
And I also drove it. You can
see that there are physical and
geographic characteristics here
that impact whether the land is
capable of being used for
agriculture. This is very
important. One of them is a
dirt parking lot, the majority.
It's a large dirt parking lot
currently being used to park
semi auto semi trucks. So it's
a parking lot. The other one is
almost the entire property.
Looks to me I'm not an expert
like a junkyard. So there is
derelict vehicles throughout
the backyard. There are parts,
there are hoods open. It is a
looks like a junkyard in the
front yard, which is very tiny.
There are a couple blueberry
bushes or Christmas trees or
something like that. Maybe to
meet the the the use
requirements. So the physical
characteristics of these
properties to me already
characterize urban growth and
not being capable of being, I
don't know how you would how
you would farm some of this
stuff. But then also the soils
are unsuited for commercial
Cain. It's best for hay grazing.
There's only ten acres of water
rights, but that goes into
character criteria number three,
which is under Wanke 365190503
C this is the land has long
term or does not have long term
commercial significance for
agriculture. In determining
this factor, counties and
cities should consider the
following non-exclusive
criteria. That's how I am
adding water rights as a
consideration. Because it's a
non-exclusive criteria. You can
add criteria. So then there's a
whole bunch of items here. A
lot of the justification of
this can be provided in the
Jordan Ramos letter and others
from LA center. LA center wrote
on a number of these. But I'll
just go through a few. The
first one is classification of
prime and unique farm soils. So
the soils here are a mix. But
what if in the junkyard they're
contaminated or. It's. These
lands, as you can see on the
map, are directly adjacent to
I-5 corridor. I used to work on
clean air stuff and particulate
pollution. I don't know if I
would want crops with
particulates of diesel
constantly on my soil. So this
is one factor, I would think,
in saying that it's not being
capable for commercial
production in agriculture.
Number two, it's about the
availability of public
facilities, including roads
there chronicled in the letter.
It's kind of mixed going both
ways. Tax status. Four of the
seven parcels are enrolled.
Since 2006. There's been no
commercial farming on it for a
long time. Availability of
public services is number four,
just like on the Nevin property.
What of all the services that
are around which are extensive?
I'm trying to see if I feel
like I forgot that. Okay, yeah,
I did cover it. Fire police.
And there is water, sewer and
facilities around that. They
are more characterized of urban
transitioning towards urban
growth. And then the
relationship or proximity to
urban growth areas. We've
covered that. Number six is
predominant parcel size in the
center. It's lots under 20
acres. It's two, 6.7 ten and
10.9. Land use settlement
patterns and their
compatibility with agriculture
practices. The center, again, I,
I can I covered some of the
things that make it
incompatible, including the
fact that I-5 is directly
adjacent and that is a
challenge. I just want to note
something about I-5 and
mentioning the Discovery
Corridor. I mean, the whole
purpose. I used to run two
conservation groups and the
whole point, one of the best
places to put development where
whether it's energy projects or
development projects, the best
place is along a highway
corridor. Interstate corridors
are ideal for it because it's
already impacted by the
infrastructure and the growth
around it. It is a perfect
place for jobs, which is what
the city is proposing. Number
seven eight intensity of nearby
land uses. It is very intense
there. As I said before, one
point 3,000,000ft² of
commercial and lodging space
has been created since 2019.
You have I-5 right there,
history of land development and
permits issued nearby, also in
the Jordan Ramos. But there's
been nine commercial building
permits since 2008. Totally the
1.3 million land values under
alternative uses. Some are in
the current use property, some
are marketed at market value,
but the market value exceeds
what could be supported by hey,
which is the only thing that's
been. Here except for maybe
those Christmas trees or or
blueberry bushes that I saw.
But the last one, which is a
non-exclusive criteria that I
wanted to add is water Leichner
has, I think, no new water
rights in the East Fork Lewis
River basin, which is closed.
So anyway, that's my finding.
To me, it adds up to make the
case for D designation.
>> Council chair.
>> Go ahead.
>> Council, you mentioned
removing that bottom parcel
that looks like a Tetris figure.
What is your intention with
that? If the top portion, top
north west portion is approved.
>> This is only my
recommendation. I would
recommend that we do not
support the designation of that
as an equestrian facility, and
it is less contiguous to the
others, and it's further south
away from the urban growth.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> I go.
>> Ahead.
>> That's this area is not too
far from me. You pick that I go
to I saw that area too. I
believe that that report also
talked about pollution
remediation as well by a lot of
the diesel vehicles that were
around that area as well. So
just to have it remediated
would take a very long time to
the types of exposures that
have resulted in that property.
So I agree with. That. That is
not suitable for agriculture at
all.
>> Okay. I have a couple of
comments. It's interesting how
you can look at the same thing
and see different things. And I
all of those, all of that new
building that you mentioned,
Councilor Little, is that
within this area or outside of
this area? Because I would just
wonder how that all of that
could have gotten permitted if
it's outside of a growth
boundary.
>> When you're characterizing
urban growth, it's you're
characterizing the area
adjacent and around that area,
like within the mile square
radius. So a lot of that is the
Cowlitz tribe. You'll see if
you just zoom out a little bit
more. And in the Jordan ramus,
you'll see the satellite images
of the Cowlitz Tribe
developments, and then as well
as some of the residential
developments, and then to the
east as well. But it's hard to
look at a map like this and see
really anything there, just
parcels.
>> And so I would wonder what
the parcel sizes and the zoning
around this area are. And, and
it looks like there's some
larger parcels just to the
north of it. But south of the
Cowlitz tribe.
>> Let's see if I can pull it
up.
>> Yeah. What what are they
zoned and how many acres
adjacent?
>> No.
>> So the area here. Is the
industrial area that's
currently ag adjacent to it.
The AG 20 to the north is the
tribal land and the casino. And
then AG until you get to the
Ridgefield proposal for
expansion. To the north. I
believe that's the county golf
course to the east. And this is
an AG 20.
>> So it looks like it's
surrounded. But for I-5 with
agricultural zoned land. AM I
seeing that correctly?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. Now a couple comments
about I-5 as a I see I-5 as a
buffer to agriculture. And if
you drive down I-5 down the
Willamette Valley, you will see
thousands of acres of
successful agriculture. And if
there are CO2 emissions, well,
plants like CO2. So I would not
rule this out as potentially
future viable agriculture
because of its designation and
its nearby proximity to I-5.
Now, if there are ten acres of
water rights, water rights are
really hard to come by. And I
know the AG Commission wanted
to put sort of extra emphasis
on any land that had water
rights for protection. And then
the other question I have is,
is there documentation about
any contamination on any of
this land?
>> Councilor? Not that I'm
aware of. We can check, but I
don't have any information to
say one way or the other. I I'm
not aware if there is one
typically. We will get
notification from either the
city or ecology. And through
that, identify remediation and
how long that will take to be
completed, for example. That's
the process they use for a
property along 178th Street and
then the port, and then also
the port of Ridgefield. So I'm
not aware of any determination
of contaminants at this point.
>> So that's that's alleged,
but there's no documentation of
that. So I would say this to me
does not seem like a good
candidate at this time for
designation. And then I'm going
to look over here on my page
about Exceedances, which will
be hard to figure out because
we've taken some land out.
>> Chair, will you pull up that
information, staff? How many
acres of land is that? One
portion that Councilor Little
is proposing is the designated
approximately.
>> I'll wait for Josie to
confirm. Or if my staff at the
back are looking at the same
information to confirm.
>> Thank you.
>> And I'm just looking at the.
Surplus based on all of that
land coming in and which it
would be a lot less since some
has taken out and it doesn't
seem like it's really
significant to me because for
the housing there over by 240
and for. Jobs, they're over by
92. So, so just assuming that
that's going to be less because
more was taken out. But I think
my concerns and why I won't be
supporting this is I think this
is would be prime for a legal
challenge because of the, the
ag report and, and that being
used for agriculture or capable
of being used. So it's that
capable of being used that I
think needs to be given some
weight and, and then also it
may or may not be used for
agriculture at the moment, but
it's capable of being used. So
if that, if the if the if the
AG rating didn't. As far as
prime farmland or statewide
importance didn't confirm the
designation that it had been
given, I might have another
thought about it, but I think I
think that it's it's not it
doesn't meet the criteria as
far as I can see.
>> Sure, yes.
>> Just want to add one more
pitch here. So if you look back
at the map that we've been
considering as we go through
this decision, it's helpful to
just look at the centers, city
boundaries. And their
restrictions on creating new
jobs. So if you just zoom out,
Jake, that would be great. So
the main town is in the gray
area in the northeast. They're
they're landlocked, essentially
from I-5 corridor. The downtown
area is already difficult to
create. Any new jobs. The area
that goes down, it's encumbered
by steep slopes, lots of
wetlands. They don't have a lot
of growth potential. That area
that goes to I-5 was their way
of connecting to the I-5
corridor. As you can see here,
this is they are hemmed in by
the Cowlitz Tribe, another
nation that is also trying to
get jobs through this corridor.
And then directly south is
Ridgefield, which is also the
I-5 corridor is obviously very
important to all three
jurisdictions. This is
providing Leichner some very
reasonable as I see
opportunities to grow jobs in a
connect adjacent area to their
already their area where they
are already restricted. They
can't really go anywhere else
to create the jobs that they
have to create. And as we
remember, we're, we're
accommodating, I don't know, up
to 270,000 people in this
growth plan. We have to create
houses and jobs. They have to
go somewhere. And as the chair
pointed out, I mean, they're
barely over, even with the ones
that we just removed. So
they're right at the number.
This is their opportunity. They
don't get many to expand job
opportunity. As I said, the
land itself is already impacted.
I saw it with my own eyes. It
would be very difficult to have
farms right there along the I-5
corridor. And we are this is a
decision between leaving it as
it is, which I can't imagine.
There's going to be commercial
farm there or help them create
some jobs for the community and
revenue. The Cowlitz Tribe
expansion, as we see that one
of them, one of the their
proposals, is already off the
table because of how quickly
they are growing. That is a
serious factor for a city
that's trying to maintain some
connection to the I-5 corridor
and jobs. This is a small thing
that we can do to support that
community. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Go ahead.
>> Yeah, just some comments
along that line. I mentioned
that I went to their to the
city of LA centers there
downtown, 2.0, ribbon cutting
or shovel ceremony, whatever
you want to call it. But one of
the things that they have they
specifically talked about at
that meeting was the difficulty
that they have had over the
decades with jobs. You know,
they had I think they were
lumber industry, if I remember
right, for a very long time.
And that that went dry. They
shifted to to gambling card
games. And that went dry. When
the casino went in. So they are
they are put up against a lot
of pressure to be able to have
him. And one thing important to
consider, as we all know, that
housing is expensive. It's jobs
that pay the taxes that cities
and the county needs to be able
to perform its necessary
functions.
>> Okay, just a couple more
thoughts. In the updated
agreement that the tribe has
with the city of LA center. And
I believe somebody can correct
me if I'm wrong, that the city,
if there are the tribe owns
land within a city. The city
has to agree. If the tribe
comes forward to bring that
into their trust lands. The
city of LA center agreed. I
think a couple of years ago for
that land that is in question
to the north, that the Cowlitz
own to allow
>> The tribe to bring it into
trust land. So and so kind of
gave up their opportunity to
develop on that land by doing
that. Now, the tribe has not
brought something forward. I
think they may be waiting for a
more federal government before
they ask, but but I think that
as far as jobs go, I, I believe
the center has forfeited a lot
of jobs in in that agreement.
And then I would say there's
going to be there's going to be
plenty of jobs with the Cowlitz
tribe, there'll be plenty of
jobs on that land. I. I wish
that Lysander had brought
forward some alternatives. We
were not given any other
alternatives to consider. So
that's that's unfortunate. And
then I would just like to know
how many acre. If we figured
out how many acres that is.
>> So the, the, the equestrian
facility is roughly 20 acres.
And then the remaining is about
34 acres.
>> Chair, are you do you have
more questions?
>> No I don't.
>> Okay.
>> Thanks for that information.
>> Go ahead. I was just going
to comment like, you know, yes,
there will be jobs that are
provided by the tribe. There's
no question. But they are not a
part of Clark County. And the
biggest thing is there will be
no revenue at all for the city.
>> Oh, there will be. That's
part of the agreement. There
will be revenue to the city.
They will pay in lieu of taxes.
>> Apparently, you know more
than I do on that.
>> It was I think it was David
McDonald that distributed some
information to all of us. And
that's how I understand. Unless
there's somebody has another
another opinion.
>> Chair, just to clarify, that
was one of my reasoning,
Councilor Young, for not
including number six, but
because we did not include that.
For that reason, I'm suggesting
that we include seven because
that's a very reasonable
proposal.
>> Any other comments from
anyone?
>> Just go ahead.
>> Well, just to clarify, the
entire ask is 46 acres, but we
are reducing it in your
proposal to buy 20 acres, which
is the size of the equestrian,
correct? Okay. So that leaves.
Okay. Or 26? Well, 20 acres.
Yeah. So that leaves about 40
acres. Okay. Because we did
approve that small partial six
and a half acres east of the
five. Okay.
>> Okay. Any other comments at
this time? Yes, please go ahead.
>> Amber Smith, Chief civil
Deputy prosecuting Attorney,
just as a point of
clarification, because I
believe the motion that's on
the floor is just about D
designation. And that was what
was initially discussed about.
But this also evolved into what
sounds like conversation
regarding the expansion of the
UGA. That would possibly have
to be a separate motion to this,
unless there's an amendment to
combine both D designation and
UGA expansion for these
proposed parcels. Just to
clarify.
>> I will combine it into the
motion for both D designation
and including it into the urban
growth area.
>> Can we get a nod from the
seconder? Who was that? Yes,
there's a nod from the seconder.
Okay. Moved and seconded for
what I understand is 34 acres.
To both come into the listeners
growth boundary and to be
designated. Okay. Roll call.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little. I and chair
Marshall.
>> No motion carries four one
okay. Where are we at? Here.
Okay, so that's seven. Oh,
let's move down to Ridgefield.
Number eight here. D
designation agricultural
resource land and expand G A to
the north for additional
employment and housing capacity.
Chair. Yes.
>> I would like to go ahead and
read the City of Ridgefield
comments into the record.
>> How how long is that? Has
that and.
>> Has that? Not as long as
councilor Little I can promise
that.
>> He was very.
>> In-depth and thorough, but
then there'll be some other
conversation. Thank you. I just
got to make sure I have these
in the correct order now. Just
one moment here. Okay. That's
the last page. Okay. So for the
county to appropriately and
defensively include Ridgefield
expansion areas and land use
alternative two, which are
currently zoned AG, the county
first needed to complete a
comprehensive county wide
agricultural land study,
otherwise known as ALS, and in
accordance with the
requirements and Wax 365190050
and 365190040 per Anne ten.
That study was undertaken and
completed by the county in
November 2025. A the study
applied state and local
criteria to help identify those
lands that are used or could be
capable of being used for
agricultural production. But
the study itself did not
include policy recommendations
nor recommend changes to to
land designations. Be. The
intent of the study was to
allow the county to review
whether certain properties
should be designated or
designated as part of the
dynamic process of considering
planning decisions. When
selecting a preferred
alternative from the three land
use alternatives identified in
the draft Environmental Impact
Statement, the ALS allowed the
county to consider site
specific information submitted
by cities, landowners and other
interested parties to legally
determine that certain
agricultural lands should be
designated as they no longer
meet the applicable criteria.
And Wanke 365190050 for the
County Council to reach this
conclusion. For Ridgefield
expansion areas, we submit the
following findings specific to
each individual D designation A
for both the mall property and
North Industrial Urban Reserve
Properties designation as
agricultural lands of long term
commercial significance is not
appropriate due to changed
circumstances, including one
Wanke (365) 190-0503 A. These
properties are, quote, already
characterized by urban growth,
end quote defined in RCW36
.78.03049 as quote land having
urban growth located on it, or
to land located in relationship
to an area with urban growth on
it as to be appropriate for
urban growth, end quote. Which
makes them inappropriate for
comp plan designation as
agricultural agriculture I the
mall property is completely
surrounded by Ridgefield UGA,
including parcels that have
been annexed into the city
limits and developed two. The
North Industrial Urban Reserve
properties are characterized by
urban growth by themselves,
having been classified by the
county with an Urban Reserve
Comprehensive plan overlay
since 1994 under Clark County
Code. This comprehensive plan
overlay is applied to lands
identified as being possible
future additions to urban
growth areas, end quote. The
overlay is intended to, quote,
protect areas from premature
land division and development
that would preclude efficient
transition to urban development
in code, end quote. That's
Clark County code chapter 40
.4.25.1 hundred. The industrial
Urban Reserve overlay has
remained without interruption
on this property area since the
overlay was first applied. In
addition to the property area
itself being characterized by
urban growth, the area is
bordered on the south west and
east by the Ridgefield UGA and
on the north by proximity to
the Cowlitz Tribal Nation.
Initial reservation. The UGA
properties to the west have
been annexed into the city
limits and developed two Wanke
(365) 190-0503 B. These
properties are not, quote, well
suited to agricultural use,
based primarily on their
geographic characteristics, end
quote. With change
circumstances requiring
reconsideration of appropriate
zoning, the mall property is
completely surrounded by the
Ridgefield, UGA, the North
Industrial Urban Reserve
properties are surrounded by
urbanization, consistent with
years long development of the
Discovery Corridor, a regional
economic development vision
first adopted in 1999. Spanning
a 12 mile corridor along I-5
from Washington State
University, Vancouver to the
Cowlitz Tribal Nation. Initial
reservation Wanke
(365) 190-0503 C. These
properties do not have, quote,
long term commercial
significance for agriculture,
end quote. One the mall
property is surrounded
completely by an urban growth
area experiencing rapid urban
growth, resulting in land use
settlement patterns and in
intensities that are not
compatible with urban with
agricultural practices. Wanke
(365) 190-0503 C seven and
eight. It is not farmed or
enrolled in the current use tax
assessment in CW84 .34 Wanke
3651900503CIII. It is too small
of an isolated area to itself.
Sustain productive agricultural
activities. Wanke
(365) 190-0503 C 11. The
property is adjacent to
available public services.
Wanke (365) 190-0503 C four
including water and sewer. The
North Industrial Urban Reserve
properties are in an urban
reserve overlay, indicating the
land will eventually transition
to urban use automatically,
giving the land a higher
valuation for alternative uses.
Wanke 3651900503CX. The overlay
necessitates adjacent
communities plan for the
eventual future extension of
public utilities to these areas.
Wanke (365) 190-0503 C four
five and seven. The overlay
artificially retains larger
parcel sizes where parcels
might otherwise be subdivided
at rural densities to maintain
their rural status. Wanke
36519005036. The properties are
surrounded by existing adjacent
urban development and combined
with future zoned development.
This forms an urban land use
settlement pattern and
intensity of land uses that
will be incompatible with
agricultural practices
including traffic, noise, etc.
Wanke (365) 190-0503. C 578 and
nine. The North Ridgefield area
is adjacent to available
existing urban services and
utilities. Wanke (365) 190-0503
C four. And so that's the
extent of their comments on
this. There is also a part of
the record. There is a large
study that was done by Johnson
Economics that goes.
>> Okay, please don't read that.
>> Oh I'm not I don't, but it
is a part of the record.
>> Okay. And Richfield's letter
is part of the record, and I
think we've all had a chance to
see that. So I would hope we
can refrain from repeating some
of the letters that have come
in, because this will take us
even longer. Okay, so let's see,
what do we have to say about
this? Is, is actually is there
a motion? Is somebody making a
motion here?
>> Yes. So I would move that we
adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation for. Let's just
do them one at a time. We'll
start number eight which is
which one is that. That's the
north. Okay.
>> D designation agricultural
resource land and expand UGA to
the north for additional
employment and housing capacity.
So is this both. Is your motion
both for D designation and for
expansion of the UGA?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there a
second. Second been moved and
seconded. So how many acres?
Seconded, counselor. Little
thank you. Cyndie. Okay, how
many acres are we talking about
and how many parcels?
>> I think it's about 225 acres.
And let me look at the parcels.
>> I actually have that. So the
North Industrial Urban Reserve
is 200 acres, 119 of which is
developable.
>> I don't I don't know what
you mean by that.
>> Well, of the 200 acres there
appears to be 81 acres. It's
probably either wetlands or
steep slopes or some other
issue that causes it to where
it can't be developed.
>> Okay. And how many parcels?
>> 16.
>> 16 parcels, and what are the
sizes of the agricultural land?
>> Let's see. They range from
1.4 acres to 27.2.
>> Okay. How many are actually
in that larger size for like 20
plus acres? Oh, Harrison, come
on up.
>> Oh, I've got it. Okay. Thank
you. So let's see. There are.
Eight parcels that are over
18.5 acres.
>> Okay. Let me just say, with
agricultural land, when it has
been parceled to the extent
that it has been in Clark
County, it is fairly rare to
find some parcels of that size.
Not that that's a big farm, but
it has the potential to to
really be economically viable
when you get bigger. And it's
the bigger parcels that are
providing the bulk of the
revenue that comes into the
county that people are earning.
So I it would be very difficult
for me to d designate this area.
I think the county will be at
risk for litigation. And what
else can I say? Oh, this could
have applied to the center as
well, because as I look at
Ridgefield's expansion to the
north, the center's expansion
to the south and back to our.
What was that? The foundational
dot? What is that called? The
foundational plan? The. Jose.
You know what I'm talking about.
I'll see if I have it in my
notes here. The framework plan.
There we go. The framework plan,
the goal, the vision that was
set out some time ago
envisioned that the cities
would not be bleeding into each
other, that there would be
green space between the cities.
And this, I think, is our most.
Well, it's too late for Kamea
and Washougal. And this. This
area is is on the verge of just
becoming one one larger city.
So I have concerns about this
one and the, the potential for
litigation on this one and all
the again, potential for loss
of grants and all the things
that have been mentioned. Sure.
Yes.
>> One thing I did want to add
again, I asked for and got the
information from City
Ridgefield. So the 200 acres
would be zoned and they would
be. Employment would be
employment zone with 5050
commercial and industrial job
split assumption. So it is
employment land. But there is
like a mixed use overlay on it,
which does allow a small amount
of housing to be incorporated
into it. But those units would
be 100% affordable at 80%, am I?
And the idea is that they have
a master. They will be
developing a master plan to the
mixed use overlay to ensure
that the mix is includes
affordable housing, jobs,
commercial parks, open space,
and trails, which is really the
type of development that we
need to see more of.
>> Go ahead.
>> Chair, thank you. I just
wanted to add really briefly. I
wanted to reinforce that this
has been called the North
Industrial Urban Reserve
property with in the comp plan
since 1994. It's an urban
reserve overlay for lands,
quote identified as being
possible future additions to
urban growth areas, end quote.
The landowner has been waiting
that long. It has not been
subdivided specifically because
of this, so that it can be an
area for this type of growth it
has been reserved for, that has
been designated that the
landowner has been waiting for,
that it has not been subdivided
because of that. This is the
opportunity. It is surrounded
by urban growth. It's makes a
lot of sense to me. I'll be
supporting it.
>> It has not been subdivided
because there's an AG 20
overlay. They I don't know how
they. Unless they did a cluster.
>> So it could be divided into
ten.
>> Just parcels. It sounded
like there were eight that are
over.
>> There's more than 1.5.
>> There's more than one parcel.
Yeah. So so nothing is over 20
acres.
>> Oh that's right. So like
18.5 or something. 16.
>> Okay. Right. So it it and
previous councils have been
wildly expansive in identifying
urban holding. And maybe I'm
sure Richfield could afford to
develop this area, but I know
some of the urban holdings, if
they're brought in too quickly,
like 179th area is, is really
detrimental when you don't have
the funds to support that
growth. But I think it's
largely because, oh, and let me
look at what those numbers are.
Exceedances. Let's see.
Ridgefield. Okay, Ridgefield is
over in the housing capacity
1379, and for jobs, 188. So I
think it's a stretch,
especially with the housing
target, to justify the
expansion. And then I'd also be
curious about the amount of
multifamily housing that has
been occurring in recent recent
years in Ridgefield.
>> Chair, this is Oliver. We do
from time to time. Ask for that
information from the city's day
to do, supply that data to
commerce. We ask for that
information so that we can
provide that to the school
Advisory committee. My staff is
here. I think, the last time. I
know that in the last. Five
years or so, some development
in the city has included
multifamily, and there may be
some in the pipeline. But the
last data that we have, we
presented that to the school
advisory group. So if we were
asked to look at that data, I
can share that with you. But I
know that's how we collect that
data to be able to share what
is happening within each of the
school district and by
extension, what is happening by
each city's share.
>> Go ahead.
>> A couple of things. And did
Ridgefield provide any
alternative areas to bring in?
>> The city is online. If you
want to ask Claire lest their
development director.
>> Hi, Claire. If you're there,
were there other alternative
alternatives to bringing in
agricultural land?
>> Thank you, chair, and thank
you, staff as well. So to first
answer the question you posed
about multi-family housing
being produced of late in the
last five years, Ridgefield has
issued permits and seen units
built for about 640 multifamily
units. We have about 300
currently in for building
permits and about 150 in the
review pipeline. So just to
provide some numbers there,
great. That's good.
>> To know.
>> As far as looking at other
options for. Growing housing,
affordable to households at
lower income levels, something
we actually have in the
preferred alternative
alternative to is an expansion
of our mixed use zones inside
the Ooga. A lot of these
housing units I just spoke to
have developed and been built
in in mixed use zones already.
So that's kind of where we're
seeing success at getting more
affordable housing actually on
the ground and open. So we made
the decision to expand upon
that success by expanding mixed
use areas within the UGA, both
downtown and closer to the
junction, including the area
around Clark College, to create
capacity for lower income
housing. That said, we still
with those pretty intensified
areas, we're not zeroing out
our deficit of housing
affordable to households
earning 80% or less area median
income. So the proposed
expansion areas are necessary
to close that gap for
affordable housing, to bring
that deficit to zero for
affordable housing units. In
addition to the work we did as
part of this alternative inside
the UGA.
>> Great. Thank you. And I
thought that you had brought
forward as an alternative that
did not include D designating
agricultural land. I was just
wondering the status of of that.
>> Very early in the process.
We did work through, we had a
couple of alternatives going
through our, our public process
with our community, with
planning Commission and with
city Council. And one of those
was a do expand alternative
similar to alternative one that
went through the county's EIS
process. Ultimately, in April
2025, our our council, the
outcome of that community
process was our Council
supporting this preferred
alternative that then continued
forth as alternative two.
>> Okay. Thank you. And while
I've got you, Claire, I noticed
there's some large areas that
are urban holding that have not
yet been brought in, not been
annexed. I'm wondering about
the status of that because it
looks like there's some very
large areas.
>> There are. That's correct.
And our assumptions through the
preferred alternative is that
those areas will annex over the
20 year planning horizon. Two
of those larger areas are sub
areas that our council has
adopted. Sub area plans for the
Gee Creek Plateau sub area,
which is sort of in the middle
of the map, and then the Cado
road sub area, which is in the
southern portion of the city
adjacent to the circled mall
expansion area. So the
assumption is that those will
annex at urban levels of
development over the 20 year
planning horizon.
>> Great. Thank you very much,
Claire. Any other questions or
comments from council?
>> Just a comment. I was able
to go and take a tour of
actually some of their newer
construction. And I will say I
was thoroughly impressed with
it. It was an environment that
I very well could see myself
living in that had housing and
commercial job land very well
integrated. It was pretty
really interesting to see.
>> Do we know what their impact
fees are?
>> That I don't know. I know
the school.
>> Impact.
>> But yes, for parks
especially that well, it's not
an impact fee, but yeah.
>> It could be. Go ahead,
councilor little.
>> Councilor young, I just want
to clarify that when you read
that letter, was that your
findings? And if so, I'd just
like to bolster it. There's
other materials.
>> Yes. Along with the other
materials I. I do find that it
is it is warranted for D
designation.
>> Okay. And just I'm not going
to read anything, but just
there are other letters from
Ridgefield and there are other
letters from Jordan Ramos that
would add to the findings. I
want to make sure that they're
included, as well as what we
just heard from Claire about
the that these are needed to
meet the under 8,080% a I. And
as we allowed Camus to make
their case, I just wanted to.
If the chair would be okay, let
the city say anything else they
wanted to say about the
proposal. Since Camus was able
to. If that would be okay.
Anything we missed.
>> I think everything they
submitted. Everything the land
use attorneys have submitted.
They're all. It's all on the
record. So I don't know. Claire,
did you want to add anything at
this moment?
>> Thank you. Chair, I believe
in answering your questions.
I've shared just about
everything I would add, but
just to have one final point on
the record, in a scenario where
these expansion areas were not
brought into the UGA because of
our numbers with both jobs and
housing, and because of how
that would change the map, we
would need to restart a new
public process, engaging with
our community, with our
planning commission, with our
council to figure out what we
do going forward, which would,
as we've talked about a lot of
times throughout this process,
add significant time to do that
right to ridgefield's process
and to get to adoption. Thank
you for the opportunity to
speak.
>> Thank you. Go ahead.
>> There's just one last thing.
As part of the record, I think
we received letters from
multiple folks, including
Dennis Zimmerli, about a
proposed overpass that may
potentially be built right
there on that line, dividing
the main square with the
littler one north of there. So
the that would just add to the
arguments of urban growth being
planned there.
>> Yeah. That route has not
been determined yet, but noted.
Any other comments? If not,
it's been moved and seconded to
designate agricultural resource
land and expand the UGA in
Ridgefield to the north for
additional employment and
housing capacity. Roll call.
>> Counselor Young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot I Councilor
Fuentes. Nay Counselor little I
and Chair Marshall.
>> No. Motion carries three two.
Okay, moving on to item nine,
and I would like to move
approval of bringing the mall
property into Ridgefield, UGA
and designate that agricultural
land.
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded.
Any comments? Seconded by
Councilor Fuentes. I think he
needs to talk more so you can
recognize his voice. Then he
can mention who he is as well.
Okay. Moved and seconded. Okay
I guess. Oh, did you want to
say something? I would just say,
you know, I, I, I don't how
many acres is this total? 14
acres.
>> 14.
>> 14 acres. It is completely
surrounded by urban development.
And I think it was planned to
come in, I think the previous
round. So I think I'm
supportive of this one. Anyone
else have any comments?
>> I don't know that it's
necessary, but just from their
email, they they specified that
the mall property is 11.5 acres,
11.5 developable. And then also
I did want to say that they're,
they're, they're a going to
their plans for it are 5050
split between R&D 16, which is
multifamily and public
facilities zones apply. Also,
the Ridgefield mixed use
overlay. There will be a master
plan for senior living and
public facilities.
>> And I would just say, while
it may be challenged because
we're designating agricultural
land, which I believe held up
under the scrutiny of the ag
study. But, you know, I think
it's it makes sense to bring
this one in. We'll we'll take a
chance. Okay. Moved and
seconded. Councilor young, your
lights still on. Do you want to
say anything? Okay, let's do
the roll call.
>> Councilor young councilor
Belkot, I councilor little I
and chair Marshall.
>> I. Motion carries. Moving on
to page two. Oh, and here, let
me just check with the council.
We're at 230 Uhl Cyndie. How
are you doing?
>> I'm okay for now.
>> Okay. How how much longer do
you all want to go?
>> Keep going.
>> Well, yeah. Let's keep going.
I'm for keep going. I'm. I'm
just not sure we'll get through
all of this by 5:00. For
example.
>> Chair, I kind of I kind of
think we might be able to go
faster now. I mean, I think it
will.
>> Okay.
>> Let's make it faster.
>> I can help with that.
>> Yes, I think you can. Thank
you for that self-awareness.
Item ten Yacolt UGA expand the
UGA to the southeast for
additional employment capacity
to compensate for employment.
Land converted to park lands.
This one passed the Planning
Commission 7 to 0. Any chair?
Yes.
>> Councilor Fuentes, I'd like
to make a motion to approve
item ten. Expand on the UGA for
the city of Yacolt to the
southeast for additional
employment capacity to
compensate for employment. Land
converted to parklands.
>> Councilor Belkot I second.
>> Moved and seconded. Any
further discussion? Okay, let's
have the roll call.
>> Councilor Young Councilor
Belkot, Councilor Fuentes,
Councilor Little aye and Chair
Marshall.
>> I okay. 11 okay, look at us.
We're moving right along
Vancouver. UGA amend the zoning
in the urban, medium and urban
high residential districts from
five residential and office
residential districts to three
residential and office
residential districts. Do I
need to read the rest of this
chair? Okay, yes.
>> I have a proposed motion to
move this with one minor change
under the third R 32, R 43 to R
50 and dead of a 40 minimum
density. I would propose to
change it to 35, and I can
explain in the discussion.
>> Okay, so for the R 30 and R
43 move it to say that again
move it.
>> The minimum density. Sorry.
>> Can I clarify the the
minimum densities would be
something you would address
when we're looking at the
zoning, the minimum density in
the code. This is just creating
the map of those zones. So
we're not talking about the
minimum or maximum densities.
The maximum density are the
numbers that are there. But in
the code there'll be another
section where you can make that
amendment that you won't lose
that ability if you approve
this.
>> Okay, good to know because I
just responding, there's a
letter from Vancouver that
specifically says that they're
supportive of this. But if we
do do something that they would
like to change it from. 40
units to 35 units, and then we
got the same last minute letter
from DBH that basically said
that this was their main
concern. So I wanted to make
sure that we were able to
address that. You're saying we
would do that after the comp
plan process and.
>> No, no no.
>> No, sorry.
>> Just later on.
>> It would be.
>> Letter on page.
>> On another page.
>> Yes. This is Olive again.
This is where the planning
Commission. Made a motion to
deny this. And then in the code
section they made a motion that
passed. So we would like the
Council to make a motion to
pass here. And when we get to
the code, I'm not sure where
that is.
>> Item 65.
>> Yeah. Then you can make that
motion, sir.
>> Love it. Well, then I'll
just do a clean motion to
support number 11.
>> Second, but this is Fuentes
chair little you've chair
little councilor. Sorry it's
been a long day, councilor.
Councilor little, you've
mentioned reducing from R 40. I
don't see an R 40 on here.
>> He was referencing the
density. Okay that's in the
zone.
>> Got it.
>> Okay. That's an item 65.
>> Okay.
>> Just oh go ahead.
>> I'm sorry. I just wanted to
clarify. So 11 A is is actually.
11 that passed. Is that right?
>> No, no.
>> So 11O11A was an additional
motion that was made from the
dais. Okay. Good. Okay. Go
ahead councilor Young.
>> What I was wanting to
understand is this motion
failed. So I'm trying to
understand the up and the down
on this. So staff's
recommendation was given and
they failed to recommend or go
along with staff's
recommendation on this.
>> They were having a
discussion in response to the
letter from DBH. And similar to
the motion the council little
was making, they had concerns
with the density that's in the
code, but they were confused
and thought this was relating
to that. So that's why the
motion failed. But when they
got to the code, they couldn't
pass that either. So there was
a conflict.
>> Letter past the code?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. On CSTE, when we get
6565 the letter passed the code
which created the conflict.
>> Okay, well, we'll take a
look at that. Right. Any other
questions? Is this clear enough
for folks?
>> Yeah. And just to clarify,
Councilor Young, I listened to
the Planning Commission
proceedings on this and they
were it did seem confused on
this item.
>> Okay.
>> And and not clear guidance
to us.
>> Sure. So just to clarify,
then 11 has to pass for us to
be able to pass number 65.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Got it.
>> Okay. Councilor young, are
you ready to vote or do you
have a comment? Okay, I think
we are ready to vote.
>> Councilor young.
>> Okay, sorry, we need to
clarify. So what is the actual
motion then?
>> This is the motion to pass
to support number 11 as is and
as presented by staff.
>> Okay. All right. I.
>> Councilor Belkot. I
Councilor Fuentes, Councilor
little. I and chair Marchel.
>> Aye. Motion carries five
zero. And here was a new motion
that the Planning Commission
approved 5 to 2 recommend to
the County Council to take a
serious look at DB's
recommendations as it pertains
to the land use planning and
their recommended changes. So
DB's recommended changes. I
don't know if we have that in
front of us at this moment, or
or if we need to take a serious
look at it right now. Is this
something that could carry over
after the comp plan is adopted?
Yes. Go ahead.
>> This was at the end of the
kind of the the dialog with the
Planning Commission on number
11. At the end, they were
recommending us to look at the
Dbw letter, which they have
sent us a newer, newer letter
which led to my amendment that
I just tried to make, which we
will be addressing in 65.
>> So if we ignore.
>> 11 yeah, we can ignore that
one.
>> We'll take a serious look at
it a little bit later. Okay.
Item 12 Vancouver UGG a amend
the zoning on certain
properties currently zoned
urban low density adjacent to
the urban medium and urban high
residential districts. And this,
I'll note was passed by the
Planning Commission. Seven zip
chair.
>> Yes, I'd like to make a
motion to approve Vancouver to
amend the zoning on certain
properties currently zoned
urban low density adjacent to
the urban medium and urban high
residential districts. And this
is Councilor Fuentes Cyndie.
>> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Councilor Belkot second.
>> Moved and seconded. Is there
any discussion?
>> Yeah. Chair Chris, just a
clarifying question on this.
What is it actually changing to?
It just says amend the zoning
on certain properties currently
zoned urban, low density
adjacent to the urban medium
and urban high residential
districts. But it doesn't say
what it's changing to.
>> It's changing to.
>> Urban medium and urban high
residential, the way that.
>> Yeah.
>> The way that I understand it,
that there are current
properties that are zoned urban
medium and urban, urban, high
residentials next to urban low
density. So this changes it is
those urban low densities
adjacent to those higher
densities to medium and high.
Correct? Correct. Okay.
>> So am I just tired or is
there still a little bit
missing from that sentence?
>> It could have been added.
>> Because I understand what he
said, but that's not what I'm
seeing here. But I guess the
motion is what's critical. So.
>> Close enough. Okay. I think
we're ready to vote on this one.
>> Councilor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot, Councilor
Fuentes, Councilor little I and
chair Marchel.
>> Aye.
>> Motion carries. Five zero
Vancouver UGG a amend the
zoning of certain properties
zoned R 110 and R 120 to R 17.5.
Any explanation needed? Yes.
Can we have a little
explanation on this one?
>> Okay.
>> See, let's see if we can
pull it up and.
>> Looks like they're creating
two designations from the R 110.
>> Yeah there's certain. And we
can pull it up on the map so we
can show you there are certain
properties that will go from
the current. R ten, which is
still single family with a
minimum of 10,000 square foot
lot or 20,000 square foot lot
to 7500 square foot lot. That
is what this one is, right?
>> So the idea was to allow for
this increase in density in
these areas that were currently
zoned R 120 and R one, R 110
and R 120. That gives them a
little more flexibility to
increase density and be open to
some of the middle housing code
that was recently passed. That
only applies to the R one five
R one and R 175 zones. Right.
>> Thank you for that. That's
helpful. Any comments? If not,
I think we're ready to vote.
>> Do we need a motion?
>> Oh did we have a motion.
I'll entertain a motion.
>> I move to approve number
121313. Number 13.
>> Yeah.
>> Second Keip up. Okay. Moved
and seconded. I think we're
ready to vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes,
councilor little. Aye and chair
Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries five
zero. Okay. Item 14 Vancouver's
ugg a amend the existing
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 and
reflected in reflect that in
the vacant buildable lands
model. Okay. And this passed
seven zero by the Planning
Commission. Is there a motion.
>> So moved.
>> Second Councilor Belkot.
>> Moved and seconded. Does
anyone need any further
explanation on this?
>> No explanation, but just a
quick comment. This one I think
does need to be done. But it is
somewhat disappointing though,
you know, to have to lower the
the ratio of jobs, land
surrounding housing. But I
think that it just the patterns
of development in the areas
where we've selected to use
this, it makes sense.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. I
think we're ready to vote then.
>> Councilor Young Councilor
Belkot, Councilor Fuentes,
Councilor little I and chair
Marchel.
>> Aye. Motion carries five
zero. Item 15 Vancouver UGG a
include the capacity of
residential development in the
highway 99 subarea plan with
underlying commercial zoning,
and treat as mixed use for
estimating capacity in the VLM.
>> I'll move approval.
>> It's been moved.
>> Second, Councilor Belkot.
>> Moved and.
>> Second.
>> Who made the motion.
>> Councilor young sorry Cyndie.
>> Okay, so Councilor Young
moved and Belkot seconded. Any
comments? If not, are we ready
to vote?
>> Councilor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot. Councilor
Fuentes, Councilor little I and
Chair Marshall I.
>> So we get to turn the page
now. Okay. Number 16 Vancouver
Udy a site specific request
amend comprehensive land use
plan and zoning on parcel
number 1178967271. The Salmon
Creek fire station from PFO2PF
from I l Keesee and PF2 remove
split zoning. Any explanation
or is there a motion?
>> So move.
>> It's been moved. Second
moved and seconded. All.
>> Matt little second.
>> Matt little. Okay, so moved
and seconded. We'll hear. Have
the roll call.
>> Councilor young councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes
councilor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Okay,
on to 17 Vancouver. You g a SSR
amend comprehensive land use
plan and zoning on parcel
1859570002UMR24 from ULR1 ten.
Is there a motion?
>> Councilor Belkot so moved.
>> Thank you, it's been moved.
Is there a second?
>> Councilor Fuentes second.
>> Moved and seconded. Roll
call.
>> Councilor Young Councilor
Belkot, councilor Fuentes,
councilor Little Eye and chair
Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Okay 18
Vancouver, U. G a SSR amend
comprehensive land use plan and
zoning on parcel number
199656000 and 199609000. From
ULR15 to UMR36.
>> Chair yes.
>> Just wanted to point out
that we received a letter from
Vancouver about this item
through 24. And in this item
they asked for a commercial
component quote on northeast
1/19 Street. I don't know
really anything beyond that,
but the letter also said that
they're asking for for all
these items 18 through 24. They
ask for supportive commercial
or employment zoning or direct
that that issue be examined in
2027. Work plans after comp
plan adoption, just relaying
some information.
>> And what is meant by
supportive employment.
>> Sure.
>> Yes.
>> Go ahead.
>> I've had some conversations
with with them on this, and I
do agree with their their
reasoning. Essentially what
they're saying is that we have
substantially up zoned some
properties that do not have any
access to amenities,
essentially, that they, you
know, they've, they just,
they're too far away from, from
anything that's beneficial to
use. And so they have
recommended that we consider
some properties to be
designated actually commercial
so that we can start that
process of integrating some,
some well needed services into
the community so that it can
support the higher density
development, right?
>> A place for people to walk
to. Okay. Thanks for that
explanation.
>> And I'm sorry.
>> Go ahead there.
>> They actually did propose
and give me some partial
numbers if we wanted to
consider adopting those changes
as part of the comp plan update,
or I'm not sure exactly what
our ability to do that later
would be.
>> But I, I think an option
that they gave us is to develop
it into the work plan that will
follow. So that's a directive
that we could give staff. Or
you could read whatever those
parcels are, but I would
suggest it might be good to put
it in the work plan. So there's
a chance to really review that.
>> Yeah. And I'm not opposed to
that, but I definitely want it
for the record that that is an
issue that we want to bring up
very soon.
>> And maybe after this vote. I
know Oliver, you might want to
say something. We could provide
that directive. Oliver. Go
ahead.
>> Yes, thank thank you chair.
I just wanted to let the
council, all the councilors,
know that these are site
specific requests. There are
different a little bit
different from what the city's
requesting. For example, item
number 20. This is the one that
the property owners testified
yesterday about not having
access through SR 503. So I
just want to point out that
this is all of these are site
specific requests, and it is
different from what the city is
recommending. And you can put a
motion to direct staff to look
at their recommendation through
sub planning counsel. Young,
you know, doing it now without
some process, notifying the
property owners, the
neighborhood and working
closely with them to identify
what area is proper to site a
commercial. I'm recommending
that when you get to the agency
or city recommendation, that
you can make that motion, that
it be put on our work program
to look at some areas,
including what the city so
specific that they suggested to
do a subarea plan and engage
the property owners out there,
as well as the residents and
determine where they make sense.
That would be my recommendation.
But from 18 to 24 are all site
specific requests.
>> So, chair, if I may add just
a little bit. Yeah. Some of the
there are two of the two of the
requests. So again, Glenwood,
I'm not again, as I'm assuming
the developer, Glenwood may be
the name of the project, I
don't know. Or the other part,
there's two parcels, but they
say approximately 45 acres on
the south side of 119th Street,
east of 87th Avenue, and then
they he said, consider
commercial component abutting
119th Street. And then this is
the important thing. And maybe
we can come back to this in two
items from now. But this is
number 18 on the council
decision list. The Planning
Commission voted to change to R
36, but was told the property
was not
>> Raised by Vancouver, so
requested by Vancouver, so it
was never considered. The
request to include some
commercial. And then another
one that will be item number 23.
I mean, I can bring this up
later and we can talk about
that when we get to those
specific items.
>> Let's take that up item by
item. Yeah, I think sure. Yes.
>> Go ahead. Easy. I think
based on the good input from
the staff, I think I would make
a motion that would apply to 18
to 24 right now. That would
direct that this issue be
examined. The issue being the
one that's brought up in the
Vancouver letter on September
29th, that it be examined in
the 2027 work plans after comp
plan adoption and addressing it
in a subarea plan. Would that
be adequate based on your
advice on how to say it?
>> I just did. We have a motion
on the floor on this one yet?
No.
>> I had and I just started
asking questions.
>> Okay, good. Go ahead.
Proceed.
>> So that would be my motion.
>> Go ahead.
>> I'm just not sure. So. What
would be the action on the
request now.
>> Just to make sure that it is
in the work plan for next year
to address these issues. As
opposed to us trying to put in
stuff that hasn't been reviewed,
as Oliver said.
>> Is what I'm getting at is
that these are site specific
requests. It is different from
the letter from the city of
Vancouver. The city of
Vancouver is saying we should
take a look at the
unincorporated area,
particularly, I believe, on the
west side of the Vancouver area,
like in the Felida Salmon Creek
area. And they did identify
some areas that we can take a
look at. That's why I wanted
the council to focus on this
site specific request and
approve them one by one, and
then make a motion later to do
what the city is asking us to
do through a subarea plan.
Because, as I mentioned, item
number 20, you had testimony
from about 3 or 4 property
owners that says that because
they are the one, they are 36.
But there isn't the one, that
is because they cannot get
commercial is commercial. Now.
They cannot get access to the
property because of the access
management control on 117 or SR
503. So remember that on item
20, it was one Planning
Commission member that made
that motion. Commissioner not
to call, but it was
Commissioner Robert Barker to
maintain commercial opportunity.
But the access issue will still
be the case. So I will ask you
to look at this one by one,
pass them, then make your
recommendation on focusing on
what the city has for.
>> Yeah. I wasn't planning on
doing I was planning on doing
that. I was just trying to make
that motion.
>> Now before we go through it.
So I think you have made a
motion to address.
>> To address the issues.
>> That the City of Vancouver
has brought up during.
>> Our work program.
>> Work program.
>> Yes.
>> We can. We can do that now.
And then we'll go through the
rest of these individually.
>> Like we.
>> Have a.
>> Joint resolution.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> And second Counselor Fuentes.
>> Seconded. Thank you. Is does
the motion need to be repeated?
I think it's just addressing
the City of Vancouver's concern
on some site specific issues in
the work plan to follow. Okay.
Do we need a roll call on this
one? I think so. Do we?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> I think so. Okay. Amber says
yes.
>> Just want to clarify real
quick. It is not approving any
of these or denying any of
these. It is just the
recommendation.
>> Okay.
>> Correct. All right.
>> We're just doing it sooner
than later. Okay. Roll call.
>> Counselor young. I,
councilor Belkot. Counselor
Fuentes, counselor little. I
and chair Marshall I.
>> Motion carries. Okay, then
back to 18. Did I read this one?
Yeah. Okay. Is there oh, so and
so counselor Young provided
some additional information
about providing some commercial
component. I don't know that
there was a motion. I'll
entertain a motion.
>> So moved for item 18.
>> Second moved in.
>> Second is Matt Little.
>> Thank you very much. Okay.
Roll call.
>> Just for Cyndie motion was
for Fuentes.
>> Counselor young. I councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes,
counselor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Okay.
Item 19, Vancouver GASSR amend
comprehensive land use plan and
zoning on parcel number.
200073000200119000200178000 and
portion of 200114000. From ULR1
ten to Community Commercial.
>> Motion to approve item 19.
>> Name.
>> Second.
>> Young and moved and seconded
chair just.
>> Real quick. The comment that
was made yesterday about. And
I'm trying to remember it among
all the many comments. But
there was one that he was
talking about. His lot was
split into two zones. Is are
any of these that one.
>> Is that.
>> That's the next one.
>> It's the next one.
>> Okay, so I'll wait until
then. I want that clarified
somewhat.
>> Okay. Any other comments?
Are we ready to vote? Okay.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. I Councilor Fuentes I
councilor little I and chair.
Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Item 20.
Banceu. Oh. Yep.
>> Go ahead. I will make a
motion to approve number 20. I
thought the they made a good
case name. My name is Matt
Little.
>> Let me just quickly read
what it is. Vancouver UGASSR.
Amend the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and zoning on parcel
number.
986042747200147000200200000
from Keesee to UMR36. It's been
moved.
>> I'll second and then ask
staff if they could address
that question.
>> Okay. Moved and seconded.
Any clarification?
>> First, can you remind me
what the constituent had
requested? What his preference
was?
>> So this is the group that
owns the commercial property
along 1I5O3. And that this
property, one of the properties
that's in the motion has a
split zone. So you can see the
commercial here. And then I
believe it's residential to the
east. And so making it
residential would make his
whole property the same zoning.
>> So he. So we are proposing
making the entirety of it
residential.
>> Right.
>> Okay. And then he said that
he was, if I remember right, he
was okay with that. But if it
if we didn't approve that he
wanted it to stay split or
something like that.
>> There, I believe there was
an issue with one of the
property owners. I'm not sure
if it was because of the action
of the Planning Commission.
They were hedging to make sure
that they were they could do a
development for at least
themselves. But I think they're
all in agreement with the
change that was initially in
the preferred alternative.
>> Right. There are three
property owners, as I
understand, and they're
collaborating to find this
solution to have access to
their property. And I think the
concern of the Planning
Commission was that there was a
loss of commercial correct land.
Yes. With, I don't think, fully
understanding what what was at
stake for those property owners.
Amber.
>> Thank you chair. Just
clarification on it. In my
notes, I had indicated from
last night's public comment
that, yes, there was one parcel
owner that originally was on
board with the rest of them for
the R 36 designation. But after
the denial from the Planning
Commission was interested in
the idea of having his singular
parcel potentially being
rezoned to commercial and or an
option where they were looking
at that. At least that's what
testimony indicated from Mr.
Bremer or Mr. Valenti with
respect to that. But it was Mr.
Kohlberg who, on item number 20,
was asking that if the council
were to go forward with
adopting the City of
Vancouver's request for R 36,
he would like that. But if you
were to consider a commercial
designation to the one parcel
is what was indicated in the.
The two gentleman that spoke
before him. He would like you
to just remain the status quo
of split on his parcel.
>> Right. And one of the
property owners is here. If
anybody wanted to get further
clarification. Any other
comments on this?
>> The only the only thing I
just want to make sure that the
comments the request is to do
what's in here. Okay. That's
that's good enough for me.
>> Okay. Then. Is there a
motion already? Oh, you made a
motion. Okay, thanks. Moved and
seconded. Roll call.
>> Councilor young I.
>> Councilor Belkot. Councilor
Fuentes, I, councilor Laolagi I
and Marchel.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Thanks
for sticking with us all this
time. Okay, moving on to 21
Vancouver, GASRSSR. Amend the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and
zoning on parcel number
986041825 from MX2UMR36. Is
there a motion?
>> Motion to approve item 21.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> That was Councilor Fuentes
and then seconded by Councilor
Young. Thank you. Any
discussion on this? Are you
ready to vote? Ready to vote.
>> Councilor young I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little I and chair
Marshall I.
>> Okay. Moving on to 22
Vancouver GASSR amend the
Comprehensive Land use plan and
zoning on parcel number
200125000200180000 from RM to
UMR36.
>> Wil Fuentes. I move to
approve item number 22.
>> Okay councilor little second.
>> Moved and seconded. Any
discussion? If not, let's vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes,
councilor little I and chair.
>> Marshall I. Now. Amber. If I
just refer to these things as
numbers rather than reading all
of them, what would you prefer
me to do?
>> I believe it would be
legally sufficient to identify
them as the numbers that are in
this, because this document is
in the record. So it's clear
what we're we're looking at.
>> That will save us a little
time. Okay. Item 23.
>> I'll move approval.
>> Thank you. That was young.
And then this is Fuentes second.
>> Moved and seconded. Okay.
>> Councilor young, I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes,
councilor little I chair
Marshall.
>> I item 24. Again this refers
to Vancouver's UGA.
>> Councilor Fuentes move to
approve item 24.
>> Councilor Belkot second.
>> Moved and seconded. Any
discussion. If not, we can vote.
>> Councilor Young councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes.
Councilor little I and Chair
Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Now, on
my sheet, I have 24.5 Washougal
approval. Yes. Thank you. Okay,
good. It's good to take notes.
So can you explain this one?
>> Councilors, if I may. And I
apologize why we didn't include
this in the table, but because
the city of Washougal is not
recommending expansion of the
urban growth boundary. However,
they did make some changes
within their existing urban
growth boundary. I would
recommend that the Council make
a motion to approve the request
from the City of Washougal,
granting the changes that
they've made within their
existing urban growth boundary.
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> So moved, Councilor Little.
>> Okay. Thank you for your.
>> Second, councilor Belkot.
>> Okay, just one thing I'd
like to note for Washougal.
They have a surplus. Even not
asking for any expansion of
2263 acres for housing. There's
no number for jobs. But it
would seem to me that they got
too much land last time.
>> Well, what happened is that.
At the end of the 2016 process,
they had identified some areas
that as industrial, they went
through a process to do a study
on that and it ended up
changing. And so it's they
haven't annexed it. It's in the
UGA. So it's in the county
jurisdiction as residential.
When we ran the vacant building
lands model, originally, it was
showing up as industrial. And
so when they were allocated
population, they were allocated
less because that was
industrial land, because the
the initial allocation was
based on the vbm capacity. So
that's why they got such such a
small allocation relative to
the capacity they had, because
it hadn't been reflected yet.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Sure.
>> Any other questions?
Thoughts? Ready to vote.
>> Councilor young councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes.
Councilor Little I and Chair
Marshall I.
>> And this reminds me, as I
thought about this a little bit
more, we may have missed
something on battleground. I
believe we voted for. Is that
coming up later?
>> No, I was going to come back
to that because the I want to
make sure that it's in your
radar to consider the request
from the City of Battleground.
I have a note here to come back
to that. Okay.
>> Yeah. Whenever you whenever
you just let us know. I just
thought of that.
>> There should be coming up.
>> Okay. Coming up chair. Yes.
>> You know, I'm usually the
one that says let's pound
through this, but I am
exhausted.
>> To get through this.
>> Okay. I, I can appreciate
that.
>> You keep on going.
>> Well.
>> We still have we've we've
finished page four and there's
still ten remaining.
>> Do you need a break or why
can't we crank through this?
>> Get some coffee.
>> Yeah. This is our job.
>> Last night was a really long
night.
>> We have scheduled for Monday
if we needed to. And I'll just
remind. Want to come in on
Monday. But.
>> Yeah. And I'll also just
remind you that would be the
last day you'll have all five
councilors. So it would have to
be done on Monday.
>> It would have to be done on
Monday. I, I, I want. If we
kept going, we, I, I agree with
you. I don't think it's we
reasonably can complete all of
this because I think there are
even some additional amendments
to discuss.
>> We might get to 7:00 and
still not be finished.
>> That's correct.
>> You can do approvals and
chunks.
>> Oh.
>> So if you want to do 10 or
20, if there's if you don't
think there's going to be any
questions or discussion. Well,
you can still have discussion,
but you can do a motion from 1
to 20 or whatever you'd like.
>> I'm, I'm also almost ready
for a break.
>> Yeah. Great. Okay.
>> Ten minutes.
>> Or five. Let's take a break.
I'll say like, we'll go another
hour. But if it's not really
showing that we're clearly
going to get done, then that
seems reasonable.
>> I would agree to that. So
Cyndie we're going to take ten
minutes. So that would be 320.
We'll come back and and now
that we've got the go ahead to
do several at once. Hooray. Yep.
Okay. Meet you back here.
>> This webinar is being
recorded and summarized.
>> Okay. Council has returned
from our brief break. We're on
number 25, and we've been
informed that we can pass
multiple items. And just as a
guidance, I would suggest, if
the Planning Commission has
made a unanimous vote, that
might be easier for us to lump
some of those things together.
So. Oh, but but number 25 is
freight rail dependent use
overlay. And this is to remove
the overlay.
>> That's correct. Chair based
on the bill that the
legislature passed this year,
SB 5820 and the Council
directed us to include it as
part of this process. So this
will remove the overlay that
applied to all the apostles
listed on number 25.
>> Okay. And I have a question.
I know there was rail
industrial, which was something
that was adopted. I'm not quite
sure when and when last I asked
about this. It sounded like
rail, industrial and industrial
were pretty much the same thing.
Or are they?
>> I think that. So we passed.
There was zoning that was
created that at the time that
hadn't been applied on any
particular land, and it was
being implemented by the light
industrial zone instead of the
heavy industrial. And I think
in the comp plan listing, we're
distinguishing those so that
anyone who is requesting that
railroad industrial be put on
the property, it has to be a
comp plan amendment as opposed
to a zone change. And that's
currently the way it's
structured.
>> Okay. And nothing here is
changing that. Okay. Even
though we could vote on things
as a clump, this one I think
deserves a little bit of its
own time. Any questions or
motion?
>> I'll move this young. I'll
move approval of item number 25.
>> I just have a quick question.
It says Clark County no longer
qualifies. Is that because of
the the bill, correct?
>> That's correct. Yeah that's
correct.
>> That's it. Okay. It's been
moved. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Wil Fuentes moved and
seconded. Any further
discussion? Ready to vote.
>> Councilor young councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes. Aye.
Councilor. Little eye and chair.
Marchel.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Okay,
here we are at battleground UGA
expansion to include 35 acre
property (229) 197-0000 owned
by the city battleground
containing water reservoirs.
This was previously included in
Alt three As and was included
in the D, E, I s. And so if
there is a map that shows that,
I think that's very few acres.
I recall 35.
>> Jake.
>> Yeah, we can show the map so
that, you know.
>> Chair.
>> Yes, this is the one that I
was referencing yesterday where
the arrows were kind of
switched, but this is the
property on the east, as I
understand.
>> It's no.
>> Go up, go up, go up. No. I'm
sorry. Go! Come down. This is
on the east side. Come down,
come down.
>> Yep.
>> This is the property, right?
>> Yep.
>> And that's what I was saying.
Yeah. And as you said, it
contains the city's water
reservoirs. I think it's
appropriate request. Has there
been a motion? I will, I will.
If not, I'll move. 26. My name
is Matt Little.
>> Okay. And so number 26 and
that is the 35 acres.
>> Councilor Fuentes second.
>> Moved and seconded. Any
additional comments? Ready to
vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little I and chair
Marchel.
>> I. Motion carries. Okay.
Battleground UGA expand the UGA
to include three properties
totaling 17 acres for urban low
density residential land. This
was previously included in Alt
three and was included in the D,
E, I s. And there's two
property numbers here.
Correction note parcel
02 2698 8000 was not included
in Alt three and was not
included in the DEIS. So this
you're going to have to point
out to us.
>> Go ahead.
>> Councilors were showing it
up, but I think Jose can try to
show you the piece that was not
included in the DEIS or all
three.
>> Yeah.
>> Just that little piece down
there. Now, does how many acres
is that?
>> I'm sure it's.
>> That little piece. Oh, is it
17 acres?
>> Oh, I'm sure it's less than
five. How many acres?
>> Three.
>> The three properties in
total are 17 acres. This.
>> Just want to be less than 3
or 4.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. Chair?
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Of the. I was supportive of
26, but I'm not supportive of
27. I don't think they made
their case. And and like what
was said, one of the parcels
has not been analyzed in the
DEIS. So that one would have
had to be removed anyway.
>> I think.
>> Let me check one more thing.
>> So 26 was the their wells,
which we've adopted. So. 27
you're saying you would not
support. Okay.
>> The motion.
>> Yeah. And the Planning
Commission didn't.
>> Well it was a split vote.
>> It was close.
>> It was a split vote. I would
be supportive of not including
it. Any other thoughts? There
hasn't been a motion to approve.
Would we need to make a motion
to deny?
>> Chair. Yeah. I'd like to
make a motion to deny item
number 27.
>> Counselor. Little second,
that was.
>> Counselor Fuentes made the
motion. Thank you. And did you
need to.
>> Clarify five acres?
>> Oh, it's 2.5 acres.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Just the one that's not part
of the DIS, but the total.
>> Just want to make sure that
I understand your motion is
your motion not to include the
piece that is not studied in
the D, e, I s or just entire 17
acres.
>> The entire 17 acres.
>> Okay. And this was, I
believe, a site specific
request that came to
battleground rather than the
county. I don't know that it's
a priority of battleground.
>> Was, was it supported by
this city?
>> Yes.
>> Yes it was.
>> Yes.
>> Well, there's a motion to
deny. And was that seconded.
Moved and seconded. Other
thoughts. Otherwise I think we
may be ready to vote.
>> Councilor Young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot.
>> Nay.
>> Councilor Fuentes, Councilor
little. Aye. And Chair Marshall.
>> I 4 to 1. Motion carries.
Okay, let's enter UGAD
designate agricultural land and
expand UGA to include the five
acre parcel owned by Clark
Public Utilities. This was that
little area to the north.
>> Yeah. Councilor, if I may,
you made a motion not to
include the piece to the north,
so I'm not sure whether you
need to act on this, but your
call chair.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. That previous motion
did not include this small unit
under 28. Okay. This this is a
separate action. As you can see
on the maps, it's surrounded
almost completely by now.
Cowlitz lands. But the Clark
Public Utilities supports this
request.
>> Yeah, I would just note that
it's not contiguous to the city
of LA center, given the tribal
lands, assuming that they would
be coming into their trust at
some point. So I, I don't think
I could support it.
>> Chair.
>> Yep.
>> Was this one a request by
the city of LA center, or was
it requested by Clark Public
Utilities?
>> It was the city of LA center,
and I think it came in after
the fact.
>> Did did we get any analysis
work on this from the city?
>> I think they.
>> I think they realized that
it was going to leave a donut
hole with the the remainder of
the request.
>> Understood.
>> Okay. And so they wanted to
address that and that it was a.
Yeah, yeah.
>> I fear it will be a donut
hole of LA center though,
because it's it's surrounded by
tribal land. Not, not at the
moment, but ultimately.
>> Yeah, yeah. So I would make
a motion to deny item number 28.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'll second
that. Marchel. Any other
discussion? If not, are we
ready to vote?
>> Yeah. I just want to
reemphasize this is the city's
request. It is the Clark Public
Utilities request. It's five
acres. I think we should be
supporting this.
>> The public utility is is
okay with it. But they did not
initially request this.
>> Yeah. I think they're public
facilities. So it doesn't
matter what the the zone is
underneath their facility. AM I
correct on that.
>> That's correct.
>> So I don't see that there's
a need to. I think I think what
Jose said earlier is if we had
adopted the North section there,
the reason they wanted that
included was because it would
have been this weird donut hole
that was not a part of the UGA.
So to me, it makes sense. I
don't I don't think they I
can't imagine they would have a
problem with it based on the
decision that we made on the
area surrounding it.
>> Okay. It's been moved and
seconded. I think we're ready
for a vote. And the motion is
to deny.
>> Councilor Young. I councilor
Belkot no. Councilor Fuentes,
councilor little no. And Chair
Marshall I.
>> Motion carries. Okay. Well,
I was looking for one a group
of them that we could vote on,
but I'm not seeing that. So
yeah. When we get down there
number 29, mobile home park
overlay. And I believe there is
a councilor young you had a
motion to add to this.
>> Yeah, I did. And I'll make
the motion and I'm really open
to discussion among council as
well as staff to see if this is
the right path forward or if we
need to make some changes to it.
Really, there are two motions.
I'll start off with the first,
I moved to amend the
manufactured home park
provisions to require that any
redevelopment permitted on the
basis that the replacement
development will provide
affordable housing, maintain
long term affordability at an
average of no more than 60% of
area median income. Residents
displaced by the redevelopment
shall be provided a right of
first opportunity to occupy
units in the replacement
development upon completion,
subject to applicable income,
household size and other lawful
program eligibility
requirements.
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> I again, this is for the
mapping to put the overlay on
the map, so it might be more
appropriate when we get to the
code section.
>> Okay.
>> To bring up your can you
please remind me?
>> Yeah, okay, I'd appreciate
that. Then the second part of
that would also be that related.
>> I think so.
>> Okay.
>> Well.
>> All right.
>> Okay.
>> Chair.
>> Yes. I don't know, councilor
young. Want to think for a
moment?
>> No, I think I think we're
okay. I think we're okay.
>> Move 29. Councilor little.
>> Second. Councilor Belkot.
>> Moved and seconded. Thank
you. Are we ready to vote? I
think we're ready to vote.
>> Chair, just.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> No, I just want to make sure
I don't lose my opportunity
here. So what we're doing is
approving the the existence of
an overlay, but not the details
around the overlay. Okay. Right.
Thank you. Councilor young I.
>> Councilor Belkot. Councilor
Fuentes, councilor little I and
chair Marshall I.
>> Motion carries. Okay. Our
item 29 a arterial atlas
implement a series of changes
to the Atlas clean up mistakes.
I'm wondering. Well we'll go
into another chapter. I'm
really trying to do multiple
things. Can I do that from Ed?
Because I just looked down
below. Well, I guess there were
two no votes. Let's do this one
separately. Okay. Clean up
things related to the arterial
atlas. I would wonder there
were two nay votes. I wonder
what was behind that. If you
can remember.
>> I know my staff is here.
What I.
>> And one of them is coming
for. A couple are coming
forward.
>> Okay. Rather have them speak
to this, but I know that there
were some letter that we
received from. I don't know
whether that was okay. Go ahead.
>> Thank you.
>> You can press that down.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you Council, for the
record, Susan Poizner, POISNER
transportation planner with
Clark County. There was a an
error that we had missed
placing the arterial atlas on
the decision table. That was
the only reason why they
thought it was new information.
But when they recognized that
it wasn't new information. Yeah.
So that that was why it was it
was two no's.
>> Okay. Thank you. So there's
been a motion by Councilor
Young. Is there a second.
>> Second.
>> Second Belkot. I think we're
ready to vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. I councilor Fuentes
councilor little I and chair
Marshall aye.
>> Motion carries. Okay, now we
have a opportunity. Let's see
what our opportunity is.
>> 30, 31, 32 you come.
>> I would move approval of
item number 30 and 31.
>> I think just 30 and 31. Okay.
So moved. Is there a second?
>> Fuentes.
>> Okay. Moved and seconded.
Any discussion? If not, let's
vote.
>> Council. Young councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes,
Councilor little I and Chair
Marshall I.
>> So item number 30 and 31
have been approved. Item 32
Community Framework Plan.
Councilor young, did you have
some comments?
>> Yes, I did, and that's why I
did not choose to lump that one
in. But I would like to. We've
had this discussion several
times about just longer term
planning, but I want to put it
on the 27 docket for us to
rework and revitalize and
completely redo the Community
Framework plan that is now 32
years old. 3333 so I think that
should be our priority in the
coming year.
>> Oliver, would you like to
speak to that?
>> I councilor, what I would
suggest is that you may start
that review, because you would
take at least a year or two.
Prior to the next plan update.
But if the council that is that
the community begin that
conversation. I know that there
are so many things you would
like to put on. Community
Planning Work program in 2027,
I will ask the county if it's
permissible, the council, if
it's permissible to start the
review of the Community
Framework plan, maybe in 20 or
maybe in 30, 20, 30 before you
start the next periodic update
in 2035.
>> I would like to start it
right away. I think it's I, I
envision this as probably a 5
to 10 year process in reality.
>> Well, that that would be the
next comp plan update.
>> Yeah. Because this will
require the county. For the
county, the cities and the
community all coming together
to facilitate and monitor that.
The last time we did this, it
took three years. So your call,
if you want to put this on the
work program, but it will
require the community. I know
that the council also wants to
put a community or ask for a
community discussion on TDR
next year. If you want to start
this next year, I think it
would be too much for the
planning department. I'm just
making that plea. But it's your
call, councilors, because we
need to engage the the cities
as well. The last time we did
this, if I may, it involved all
the councilors. And then each
of the series has their mayor
and the alternate. In case the
mayor can't come. Then the
alternate will be at the
meeting where our discussion
are being held and every
property owner in Clark County
was mailed. A request that we
are starting this process.
There were open houses, there
were, you know, documents
prepared. There were survey.
But yeah, if you want to put it
on the work program in 2027, I
just hope that our city
partners will be ready to
engage in that. That's, that's
my only concern. But you can
make the motion. If it passes,
it will be on the on the
community Planning Work program.
I'm just concerned that we have
I haven't met my well, I did
met my project budget request
to do study TDR program in 2027.
Also to start the public rating
system. If you approve. Also in
2027. I'm just making a plea if
you want to delay this,
studying this in 2030, you
might, you might or even 2029.
You might finish that in 20,
you might say three years. You
might finish it in 2032 and
then begin the process for the
next periodic in 2035. But it's
your call, sir.
>> But what if we say a work
session in the first quarter?
>> Okay. There's there's a
motion. Thank you for your
explanation. Is there a second?
>> Is there a motion?
>> I don't think.
>> I was about to make a motion.
>> I did.
>> Never you never made a
motion. Okay.
>> I'll make a motion.
>> What's your motion? Go ahead.
>> My motion is to pass number
32 with no complications.
Because there's a lot of other
stuff to do.
>> I'll second that. Moved and
seconded. Any further
conversation. And I think,
Oliver, for me, I think it's
those additional things that
will be coming up that we
haven't talked about. Public
benefit rating system and the
TDR and scope of work for all
of those things. And
fundamentally, I think people
are tired of the comp plan
update and it would be good to
take a break. I do very much
agree that we need to take a
look at that framework plan,
because I as I have brought up
several times, we may be very
much failing the vision that
was put forth so many years ago.
>> 33.
>> 33 years ago.
>> Right.
>> And it was a 50 year vision.
I.
>> I agree.
>> Councilor, right. Okay.
>> But your call.
>> So there's a it's been moved
and seconded. Any further
discussion? I think we're ready
to vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes
councilor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> I. Okay. Motion carries land
use. Element. There were two
nays on this one. What all is
in.
>> On the back page.
>> Oh as a long explanation
here. All right. Is there any.
Yes. Go ahead.
>> Just to streamline, I would
propose a motion to replace
this with my TDR motion and I
can read it. It's been
submitted for the record. If if
we can pull it up. But if not
I'll just read it. It's only
six sentences. It'd be 1.10.
>> Just if you could pause for
a moment, because as I'm
reading through this, the
motion failed because. So it
was a motion to approve this.
This t o to replace oh, sorry,
a motion to replace.
>> I can explain.
>> Thank you.
>> The the first motion on 33
was to add the TDR policy, as
was recommended by all the
cities that passed. Then. This
is a long motion for one of the
Council, one of the Planning
Commission member that failed.
Okay.
>> And I can add to that if
you'd like.
>> I know you have an amendment
and.
>> I mean, for explanation here.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah, yeah. This the
challenge with this one for
some people was that it was
tying TD to ug A expansions and
D designation and tying it to
interlocal agreements with the
cities, which was a very
original early proposal from
one of the cities to us. Since
then, I've stated 8 or 10 times
that I'd like to just take this
opportunity after about 20
years of discussion, to
actually put it in the comp
plan, that we will start a TDR
program and keep it super
general. So that's why I'm
proposing six sentences to.
Replace that language. Okay, so
it's 1.124. And look, it's
pulled up. Thanks, Jake. So
it's as written there. Should I
read it or can folks. Okay.
Clark County and participating
jurisdictions shall work
cooperatively to implement a
county wide transfer of
development rights called TDR
starting in 2027. This program
shall work with the community
to establish sending areas that
preserve farmlands, forests,
historical areas and open
spaces. The program shall also
work with the community to
establish receiving areas that
encourage appropriate
development projects and
affordable housing
opportunities. Preference is
given to a program where the
county serves as the TDR bank
and assesses land and
development values, using
current market valuation to
assign TDR credits based on a
predetermined price per credit.
For example, $25,000 per TDR
credit to be determined,
payments into the TDR bank may
be allowed outside of receiving
areas as a mitigation tool.
This program shall begin with a
community roundtable discussion
hosted by the county to hear
from various jurisdictions and
stakeholder groups their
visions for a successful TDR
program. That's my motion.
Councilor Little.
>> Is there a second? Second
moved, moved and seconded.
Discussion.
>> Was that councilor councilor
seconded?
>> Yes it was. I guess from my
perspective, it might be. It
might be better not to. Well, I
know it's an example, 25,000,
but I don't have any, you know,
grounding to know if that's a
reasonable amount or not.
>> Yeah, it could be removed. I
was trying to just give an
example of that. There would be
a price per credit. And then in
sending or sending areas and
receiving areas, landowners
would be presented a certain
number of TDR credits, which
would have a value as well as
developers for certain projects
that we want to encourage in
the community. There would also
the reason why there's a
preference given in here to
that versus just the general
market working it out like a
developer just going out to a a
farmer and making a deal. This
puts some planning in this.
This allows a planning horizon
for both the landowner of the
open space or farmland, as well
as the developer to know what
kind of pricing to put into
their proposals. And. Putting a
preference here is only that it
just saying that that's what
we're hoping to start with. But
through this community
roundtable and through
discussion with the community
and stakeholders, I'm hoping
that we can create a program
from scratch. But that was just
an idea for preference.
>> The the other thing I'm
uncertain about is whether
because I know there's private
entities that run these
programs. And again, I don't
have enough basis to determine
whether or not the preference
should be the county running it
or not. I think that could be
worked out in the process. I
would just like it to be as
broad and flexible as possible.
>> Yeah. Good point. And the
reason I put it in there is so
that our staff could start
thinking about it and start
their internal processes,
because it is if if it was
going to be implemented by the
county, there'd be things that
they have to start thinking
about now and putting in their
budget for FTEs, etc. to
satisfy that. So I didn't want
to keep it so open ended that
we don't have anything starting
to be planned in the budget. As
Oliver pointed out, for some
other things, that he's already
thinking ahead ahead of the
game.
>> I think this is one of those
things. Oliver, did you have
anything you'd like to share at
this point?
>> Not at this point,
councilors. I leave it up to
you.
>> Okay. Other comments from
anyone.
>> Now, I think I think this is
a pretty broad motion. I would
probably recommend removing the
example of 25,000 for TDR. You
already state that based on a
predetermined price per credit,
which is something that's going
to have to be worked out
eventually. Yeah. I mean, I
think this is a pretty good
motion for to get TDR program
started from scratch.
>> I would accept accept that
as a friendly amendment.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other comments? If
not, I think we're ready to
vote on this amendment. Young
was there a second. Yeah, there
was a second.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. I Councilor Fuentes,
Councilor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries. Thank you
for that councilors. Yes.
>> Sorry to interrupt. I will
ask with this amendment. If
there are no other amendments
to the land use element to also
approve the land use element.
>> Okay. And I believe my
amendments related to cluster
and AG 40 come later.
>> You can make that. You can
make the amendment that it be
included in the land use
chapter, but some may also be
title 40. When we get to that.
You can also include that
amendment as part of title 40.
If they are.
>> Not doing it twice, but okay.
>> All right.
>> Okay. Sure. Yes.
>> Mineral, is that in the land
use or is there a separate.
>> From chapter three?
>> Chapter three. I'll wait for
them.
>> Oh, we're almost there. Okay.
And so do we need to act on
this motion that failed related
to TDR? Can we ignore that?
Tell me Amber.
>> You can choose to move past
that one as well. But I think
what Oliver was stating there
and again, apologies, Amber
Smith. You and the motion that
you just passed, you only
amended a portion of chapter
one. You still need to continue
a motion to adopt the rest of
the recommendation for chapter
one. Just to clarify.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Is there a motion.
>> For so moved to pass the
land use element?
>> Second, Councilor Fuentes.
>> Moved and seconded. Any
discussion? All in all, I'll
turn it over to Jake for the
roll call.
>> Nice. Safe. Counselor young.
I councilor Belkot. I councilor
Fuentes. I councilor little I
and chair Marshall.
>> I motion carries. Okay. Are
we on 34 now? Yes. Chapter two
housing element. There was a
motion to approve. Well, let me
look at these. There may be an
amendment somebody wants to
bring forward related to the
housing element, but I'm
looking at number 34, 35, 36,
37, as all passed unanimously
by the Planning Commission,
would you pardon me? Yeah.
Would you like to combine those?
Would someone like to make that
motion? Unless somebody has
other thoughts?
>> Chair. At this moment though,
in that particular chapter, the
housing element, can we ask to
add an amendment at this point?
>> Yes. Well, let's let's take
34 then independently.
>> Okay.
>> Is there is there an
amendment? I think there were a
couple amendments floating
around.
>> Yeah, there.
>> Is two.
>> I do have an amendment for.
>> Affordable housing.
>> Yeah. Okay. It's a motion. I
move to amend chapter two,
which is the housing element,
by adding a policy requiring
Clark County to establish by
annual housing production
targets based on the housing
allocations identified in the
housing for All Planning tool,
and to conduct a biannual
public review of the county's
progress for those targets, the
review should use the housing
supply and affordability data
>> Provided under Senate Bill
5587.
>> Cyndie are you catching all
this?
>> Nope. He's going.
>> Going really fast.
>> You want me to start over?
Cyndie?
>> Yes, please.
>> Okay, so my motion is to
amend chapter two, The Housing
Element by adding a policy
requiring Clark County to
establish biannual housing
production targets based on the
housing allocations identified
in the housing for All Planning
tool, and to conduct a biannual
public review of the county's
progress towards those targets.
The review should use the
housing supply and
affordability data provided
under Senate Bill 5587, now
codified in CW36 .708.610.
Together with county permitting
and development data, and
should identify actions the
county may take, may take.
>> Okay. Thank you. I know
there were a couple of us that
had a mine. Mine was much
briefer than that, so I'll go
with yours. But Councilor Young,
I think you brought something
for it as well. Is it covered
in what, Councilor Fuentes?
>> There's a couple differences
in mine. I'll go ahead and read
it real quick.
>> Do we need a second?
>> Was there a motion?
>> There was a motion.
>> Oh, that was a motion.
>> Councilor little second.
>> Moved and seconded. Okay.
Now discussion. And I think if
there's things to augment or
add, let's start there.
>> It's a little I can't really
make a motion because there's
already a motion on the table.
>> You could amend. Well or you
could make a separate. We could
vote on this and you can make a
separate.
>> Well, I wouldn't want to
vote no on on his. I think
there's some good stuff in it.
I guess maybe the the only
changes that I may may suggest
are. Annual review and review
instead of a bi annual review.
And then I felt like my last
paragraph is a little bit more.
Has a little bit more teeth in
it, and maybe I'll just read
that and we can consider it if
the county is not. And this is
after following the annual
review, if the county is not
making adequate progress
towards its housing production
goals or identified housing
gaps are not improving. The
council shall review potential
barriers to housing production
and consider appropriate
changes to county policies,
regulations, incentives, fees,
permitting processes or other
actions within the county's
authority with particular
attention to barriers affecting
affordable housing production.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. I would like to hear
from the staff as far as how
this might impact you.
>> I do want.
>> To make a quick comment and
I'm going to agree with
Councilor Young on making it an
annual review. And there's a
reason why I'd like to do that.
And it's because I also want an
amendment to establish a
housing commission as part of
the comp plan, which would
allow them to review these
goals on a yearly basis versus
biannually. So I do agree with
the annual, but that is yes,
that is that will be a separate
amendment.
>> I'm glad you remembered that,
because that was something I
was wanting to do too. But with
all the stuff going on, I
completely spaced that one.
>> I noticed you didn't add it,
so.
>> Oh, okay. But that's a
separate motion. And we have a
motion on the table in a second.
And I was asking for staff's
input.
>> Councilors, I don't have any
suggestion. I know that the
provision in that SB, I believe
is 5580. Is it 85.
>> 55.
>> 87.
>> 55, 87.
>> SB 5587 yeah.
>> There's a provision for
biannual or every two years
already in that bill. But if
you want to make it annual,
that's going to be your call.
But I know that the the bill
itself provide for BI for every
two years. Just that's the only
comment that I have.
>> Yeah. And that's fine.
You're absolutely right that
the bill does have that
provision. It still shouldn't
keep us from being able to
review or the Housing
Commission review any of the
goals that we've set and any
barriers that might be
preventing us from from meeting
those goals on a yearly basis.
>> Sure.
>> We're only going to get the
data every two years, every.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> However there is. Well, yes.
>> Because yeah, there are
components that we can still
look at. We know what housing
production has been created
here locally by permitting and
completions and stuff. So I
agree it wouldn't be a full
like we wouldn't have all the
data to work with, but I still
think it's an important topic
that we should be touching on
at every single year.
>> Right?
>> Amber, you want to say
something?
>> Thank you, chair. Amber
Smith. Again, just for point of
order and clarification here.
Councilor Fuentes has up for a
motion the language that he
originally stated. Councilor
Young provided an additional
amendment to his proposed
amendment to Councilor Fuentes
amendment. Excuse me. I'll use
names.
>> Was that an amendment,
councilor young? Because I
think you were.
>> Kind of kind of two. But the
first one I think he accepted
as a friendly amendment,
basically that annual rather
than biannual. The other one, I
think it's a matter of overlap
with our two things. So I don't
know that there's one better
than the other at this point.
>> So I don't think it it was
just that one. The annual was
the friendly amendment.
>> Did did yours have
specifically housing commission
in there?
>> No, that is a different
amendment, a separate amendment
to establish a housing
commission.
>> And then maybe that they
would be tasked with working
through some of this. Okay. All
right.
>> So Councilor Young, I think
what we could do is keep the
language that I've shared with
all and include that very last
paragraph. If the county is not
making adequate progress
towards its housing production
goals or identified housing. ET
cetera. ET cetera. ET cetera.
>> Yeah. If you'll accept that
as. I accept it. All right.
Great.
>> Okay. Amber, have we fixed
things.
>> So long as the second also
agrees to the friendly
amendment. So we have an
amendment.
>> Councilor little second
agrees.
>> Okay.
>> So it's now the blended two
of Councilor Fuentes changing
it to annual. Plus the last
paragraph of what Councilor
Young had.
>> Now, Cyndie, I want to make
sure you understand what we've
just said.
>> Trying to put up his email.
>> Well, I think she must have
it then.
>> And Cyndie I if she can hear
me on my motion that I had
printed, I was missing half a
sentence. And so I'd like to
include that in that half a
sentence. It's just adding.
Let's see. Let me go back to oh
my goodness. Okay, so the very
last sentence states the review
should use the housing supply
and affordability data provided
under Senate Bill 5587 now, now
codified in RCW36 .70 A 0.610,
together with county permitting
and development data, and
should identify actions the
county may take when housing
production is not keeping pace
with identified needs. And I
was at last few words that I
didn't add in the original
motion.
>> Okay.
>> Second supports. The second
supports that I. I want to make
sure that we have captured the
actual motion because it's
blended. Some things that
Councilor Young has suggested
and some things that Councilor
Fuentes has added. Is it
possible to read the entire
thing? Yes, at a slow pace?
>> At a slow pace. Okay. All
right. So I moved to amend
chapter two, The Housing
Element, by adding a policy
requiring Clark County to
establish an annual housing
production targets based on the
housing allocations identified
in the housing for All Planning
tool, and to conduct a biannual
public review of the county's
progress towards those targets.
The review should use the
county, the housing supply and
affordability data provided
under Senate Bill 5587, now
codified in RCW36 .708.610,
together with county permitting
and development data, and
should identify actions the
county may take when housing
production is not keeping pace
with identified needs. In
addition, if the county is not
making adequate progress
towards its housing production
goals or identified, housing
gaps are not improving. The
council shall review potential
barriers to housing production
and consider appropriate
changes to county policies,
regulations, incentives, fees,
permitting processes or other
actions within the county's
authority.
>> Okay, and the second agrees
to all of that. Okay. Any other
comments at this time? If not,
let's vote.
>> Councilor Young Councilor
Belkot I Councilor Fuentes I,
Councilor little I and chair
Marshall I.
>> Okay, moving on to 350, do
we need to approve this chapter?
>> I would say so. And I don't
know whether this motion, which
we will check with the court
reporter, Councilor Fontes,
does it include establishment
of a housing commission?
>> No, that is a separate
amendment. So I do want to.
>> Do that before we adopt the
entire chapter. Okay. Thank you.
Oliver.
>> This would be section 2.2.6,
establishing a Housing
commission to analyze the
results and advise the Council.
My motion is I move to amend
chapter two, The Housing
Element, by adding a policy
directing Clark County to
establish a permanent housing
Commission composed of
residents and representatives
with diverse housing experience.
The Commission shall identify
housing challenges, evaluate
potential solutions, review the
county's progress towards its
housing production and
affordability targets, and
provide recommendations to the
County Council. I further move
that the policy direct county
staff to evaluate the
responsibilities of existing
housing related advisory bodies,
and recommend whether those
responsibilities should be
coordinated with or
consolidated into a new
commission.
>> So that's the motion. Let's
see if there's a second
immediately.
>> So I'm just looking at the
the email. And I think that
that's considerably different
than what I have in front of me.
That's the.
>> Yeah. So this is the motion.
I didn't send the motion. What
I sent was the actual language
that I am recommending for
section 2.2.6, establish a
housing commission to analyze
the results and advise the
council.
>> Okay, so your motion might
be your motion plus this.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. I'll second that for
sure.
>> Okay. I want to make sure
I'm clear what the motion is.
And this what is the and this,
what you just read.
>> So what I read was the
motion. What I sent you all was
the actual language for that
particular chapter in that
section.
>> Okay. So they're synonymous.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> I like the intent on it. I
just have a question about the
sentence where you describe the
makeup of the commission. I
just didn't want it to be
limiting, that it might exclude
some kind of stakeholder group
that we might not be
envisioning. So just wanted to
could you read that sentence
again and see if there's any
way to.
>> Yes. Let's see. Okay, so by
adding a directing Clark County
to establish a permanent
housing commission composed of
residents and representatives
with diverse housing
experiences and representatives
can be. Anybody can be a real
estate agent, can be somebody
from the building industry, can
be representative from any
housing authority like the
Vancouver Housing Authority,
habitat for humanity Nia, which
is now building affordable
housing here in Clark County.
ET cetera.
>> Okay. If that language of
description, language or report
language or whatever would be
additive to that to describe
what that phrase means, that
would be helpful to me and I
would accept I, I think that's
good.
>> In the language that I sent
you all in the emails, bullet
.12345, it said support
coordination among among Clark
County cities, housing
authorities, nonprofit
organizations, housing
providers, developers and
residents.
>> Yeah. Because your term was
like how diverse housing
experiences.
>> With diverse housing
experience representatives.
>> Wanted to make sure that was
defined in some way.
>> How would you change the
language on that?
>> Because it could be
interpreted as just.
>> Just individuals.
>> Like individuals with
diverse types of housing
experience.
>> So somebody that lives in an
apartment.
>> Somebody I just want to make
sure it includes those
stakeholder groups. So if we
included the word stakeholders,
maybe.
>> We can do so let's see.
Housing Commission composed of
residents and. A city's housing
authorities, nonprofit
organizations, housing
providers, developers, etc.
>> Or maybe relevant
stakeholders, relevant
stakeholders, instead of just
listing a subset that we might
be missing out someone. Okay.
>> I can do that. I think what
will be needed and doesn't need
to be developed at this moment.
I think the intent of what we
want to see should be
articulated, but we'll specific
bylaws, number of people from
this representing this area or
that area. I think in terms of
differing housing experience,
there is value in having people
with differing housing
experience. It doesn't need to
be all I mean, depends on how
you define stakeholder. For
example, I think renters are
often not represented. It would
be important to include renters,
people who are really. Not
struggle to make to make ends
meet. I think having a voice of
the reality of the difficulty
in finding housing would be
important to include there, so
I, I, I don't know how to chair.
>> Yeah, I.
>> Think stakeholders is not
necessarily it, I think diverse
housing experiences and
stakeholders, but often what
I've seen you get a bunch of
stakeholders together and
they're all they're
representing their individual
interests and you don't really
get anywhere.
>> Right. And the goal we've
had this we've had this
discussion before that, you
know, we want, you know, people
from all walks of life. And to
your point, people that live in
apartments, people they may
live in a manufactured home,
but not just individuals,
specific homeowners. We want
experts as well on this housing
commission.
>> Right. And I think I don't
know what you've if you've
articulated the mission or the
goal of this group, is that in
your motion? Because what their
what their purpose would be.
>> Yeah. So the commission
shall identify housing
challenges, evaluate potential
solutions, review the county's
progress towards its housing
production and affordability
targets, and provide
recommendations to the county
council.
>> Okay. Anything else?
Councilor young, did you want
to.
>> I was just saying we could
probably settle this by not
trying to determine the members
at this point and just put in
there just language membership
to be determined by the council
in the future.
>> Good. But I think this
discussion sets a record of
intent, which is important, of
who we are intending to. So
would.
>> It would it sound more
something to establish a
permanent housing commission
composed of residents with
diverse housing experiences and
stakeholders?
>> Sounds good.
>> Okay.
>> And and detail can be worked
out in the future.
>> Okay, okay.
>> Okay. Everybody clear on
that motion?
>> Yeah. I'm still a little
confused though, because the
motion includes that language,
but what gets put into the comp
plan does not.
>> I see. Yeah. And in this, I
mean, I think to the point that
somebody made earlier, this is
just my recommendation of what
could potentially be in those
sections. However, this doesn't
have to be what we include. I
think at this point, the spirit
of this all is just to ensure
that we incorporate into the
comprehensive plan the creation
of a housing commission, and
then we can figure out the
details later.
>> Okay. But what we're what
the motion is right now is not
including any language about
what we've been just discussing.
>> Well, we've only been
discussing the motion.
>> Council. Second.
>> It this is this is what.
>> This is. This is the motion
here is that.
>> This is.
>> This is the policy. It was
my understanding is. Two point
correct, 2.6 this is what would
be put in the comp plan, right.
This is what we will be looking
at. Notwithstanding the motion
language in the motion.
>> Right. Because this is just
a motion to establish a housing
commission and that is the
policy, correct?
>> Correct.
>> Great.
>> Yep.
>> We're all clear.
>> But I thought from from the
conversation, I thought it was
the desire to have some
language in there about who
would be on the commission
because it's not in here.
>> No, we did. And so that's, I
think we updated or I updated
housing commission composed of
residents with diverse housing
experiences and other
stakeholders.
>> I'll second that.
>> So that's changing that
right there then.
>> Yes, it's revising that.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So there was a motion
and agreeable. Second, are we
ready to vote?
>> Yep.
>> Okay.
>> Councilor young I councilor
Belkot. I councilor Fuentes,
Councilor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries.
>> Chair I. I'd like to move to
approve item number 2434434.
>> Real quick. Manufactured
home overlay here later.
>> The only, the only thing I
wanted to add is in approving
34. Are you also recommending
approving the motion made to
you and recommended to you by
the Planning Commission to make
those changes in. 2.1.9, 2.1.11
and 2.3.8? Just want to
understand and all the changes
when you approve the housing
element, you approving all the
changes. Just want to
understand that that's what
you're voting on. Okay. Thank
you. Thank you councilors.
>> Jose.
>> The 2.1.9 and 2.1.11 are
county wide planning policies.
So they should have some input.
We have a process so that all
jurisdictions agree on those
policies.
>> And what is the process for
that is I mean.
>> It's it's laid out in our
code.
>> So this these are things
that will follow what we decide
today.
>> We.
>> Let me let me chime in. It
is true that these are county
wide planning policies. And we
do have a process. It would
have been proper for us this to
be shared with the our city
partners, because they will be
eventually adopting this. And
we can. If the council approved
it, we can ask them to send it
to their own planning
Commission and Council if they
are. Planning Commission and
Council failed to approve it or
modify it, we can bring it back
out of cycle and see if our
council will be amenable to
whatever the cities approve.
>> Does that apply also to what
Councilor Fuentes motion just
was and. Okay. All right.
>> We will do the same thing on
the policy that. TR yeah, on
the TDR, we will send it to
them.
>> Right. That's part of the
implementation. Okay. Thank you
for that clarification. So we
can we can only act under our
jurisdiction. Good. Amber.
>> Thank you again. Amber Smith,
just to clarify on the one
amendment that's on there, the
2.3.8, the Planning Commission
elected to remove the word
encourage as part of the
language in that section. But
as it articulates there that it
says that they didn't have
anything to change that
language to, and that they
wanted the idea of coming up
with firm incentives just to
help clarify for, I think,
staff and the record, are you
asking staff to come up with
articulated incentives, or do
you want to come up with more
firm incentives or choose to
keep the word encourage in.
>> Chair? Let's keep the word
encourage.
>> I think at this time I would
go with encourage.
>> I agree.
>> I think Councilor Fuentes
motion helps provide some
addressing some accountability.
So and that Housing Commission
can come up with some firm
incentives. Okay. So we have a
motion and a second.
>> I don't have a second.
>> Oh, we don't have a second.
>> I don't think so.
>> I'll second it.
>> Okay.
>> Moved and seconded. And
that's to approve the chapter
with these changes recommended
by us and the Planning
Commission. Is that correct?
>> That's correct. And we will
come back and have you approve
the entire chapter with any
other changes that have been
voted on? I meant to chapter
two.
>> Right. And that vote will be
on the 13th.
>> Correct?
>> Got it. Okay. Thank you. Yes.
>> It's been over an hour and
we have gotten through three
pages.
>> I need to do the vote for
the last motion just because
there's a we need a vote.
>> There's an indication that
we might need a break. Let's
vote.
>> Councilor young I, councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries. Yes.
>> Before we do any break I
their I the question is to
Oliver and Jose about I wanted
to do a one sentence motion to
implement a PB r s public
benefit rating system program.
I see the next two chapters are
about the environment. Is that
the appropriate section to be
amending, or is it a previous
one that we already covered?
Would it be the land use? I
just want to do it at the right
time.
>> You can put it anywhere.
>> You can add that to chapter
three. That's fine.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, you can do so. And by
that I can let my staff know
that the councilors are
approving my budget. One of my
asks.
>> Okay, so just for one
sentence, I make a motion to,
to establish a public benefit
rating system.
>> Great.
>> Second.
>> Yes, and I would just for
clarification, when the
assessor was developing this
program before, it included an
agricultural open space
category for farms that are
having a difficult time meeting
their current usage so that
they could phase out over time.
So I would like to be assured
that that's included as well.
Is that agreeable? The farm
open space category.
>> I think so I didn't catch
all of that. Can you repeat?
>> Yes, I just when the
assessor was developing this
program before, it included a
component to develop an ag open
space category, and it would
apply to farms where, say, a
spouse has died, they're having
difficulty meeting the current
use criteria right now. If that
occurs. And there the average
fine is $30,000, that needs to
be paid within 30 days. And
this would allow for a period
of time. And that can be
determined in the process of
setting this up, how that how
that land could be put in an
open space category specific to
agricultural land for a period
of time. And then it would be
declining amounts of benefit
that they would receive until
they get some sort of a
succession plan in order.
>> Yes, this this motion will
not exclude that. There are
other ideas to. We had
submitted to the record just
recently in the last two days
to include tree cover canopy as
one of the potential items.
This will all be determined
through a process with us and
the staff to create tax
incentives to encourage good
things on folks property.
>> So right.
>> And looking forward to it.
>> Public benefit rating system
is for open space land. So what
what the ag open space is a
little bit different. But yeah,
all of those various benefits
need to be that's the process
that will be figured out. Okay,
so it's been moved and seconded.
All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Oh gosh.
>> You, you were. Perfect up to
this point.
>> I was on a good roll there.
All right, let's vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes,
councilor little. Aye. And
chair Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. Chair, I'd like
to. Well, before I make a
motion, a group motion, I'd
like to check in with
councilors to see if they have
any amendments for item 35, 36,
37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and
45.
>> Well, there was the
amendment that was just made
for 35 right.
>> But that was amendment to
add language. What I'm
proposing now is a motion to
approve all of these chapters.
So let me go back to a chapter,
item 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42,
43, 44, and 45.
>> Second Councilor Little.
>> Well, I haven't made the
motion yet. I'm asking if
anybody has any amendments for
those items.
>> I do.
>> For which.
>> 135.
>> 35 okay.
>> And then how far did you say
to.
>> I said 3637, 39, 40, 41, 42,
43, 44, and 45.
>> I would like to discuss. 38
and, you know, one of the
things that.
>> I didn't include. 380.
>> You didn't include.
>> No, because it was within I
failed, so I didn't include.
>> 38 okay, okay.
>> And I think that 44 warrants
some level of discussion.
>> On the okay.
>> I don't have an amendment,
but.
>> Okay, so I can okay, so I
won't include those in my
motion. So here's my motions.
My motion is to approve items.
36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and
45.
>> Second councilor Little.
>> Okay, moved and seconded.
But I understand, Councilor
Young, you still have something
on 35.
>> Yeah, I think.
>> I deleted 35.
>> Okay. Okay. So moved and
seconded. Any comments? Let's
vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes,
councilor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> I okay. And so chair that
just leaves chapter 35. Excuse
me item 35, 38, 44 and 46. And
well 47 that I haven't got that
far.
>> Okay. So was there a
remainder issue on.
>> 35 yes, I have an amendment
that I would like for Council
to consider. I move to direct
the county to establish a
Mineral Resource Task Force and
complete an updated county wide
mineral and aggregate resource
study. Following adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan, Clark
County has periodically
undertaken comprehensive
reviews of its mineral resource
lands. As conditions and
information have changed, a
Mineral Lands Focus group
completed its work in 1994, and
the county convened a Mineral
Lands Task force beginning in
2011 that completed its
recommendations in 2013 and led
to updates to the county's
Mineral Resource Policies code
and surface mining overlay.
More than a decade has now
passed since that work has
completed. As part of this
comprehensive plan update, the
county considered contemplating
an updated aggregate resource
study along with the
Agricultural Land Study Council
chose to defer the aggregate
study so that it would not
delay completion of the broader
Comprehensive Plan update. This
work should now move forward.
The County shall establish a
Mineral Resource Task Force
with appropriate representation
for mineral and aggregate
producers, property owners and
residents affected by mining
operations, technical experts,
environmental interests and
other appropriate stakeholders.
The county shall also complete
and updated countywide mineral
and aggregate resource study to
provide the Task force and
counsel with current
information. The study should
include, to the extent
reasonably available and
updated inventory and mapping
of mineral and aggregate
resources, existing, permitted
and operating mines depleted or
substantially depleted sites
remaining commercially
significant resources, current
and projected aggregate needs.
The amount of aggregate
currently available to meet
those needs and other factors
relevant to identifying and
conserving mineral resource
lands of long term commercial
significance. Using the updated
study and applicable state
requirements, the Task Force
shall review the county's
existing Mineral resource
designations, surface mining
overlay maps, policies and
development regulations, and
make recommendations to the
Council regarding any changes
necessary to ensure that the
county is appropriately
identifying and conserving
mineral and aggregate resources,
while also considering
surrounding communities,
environmental impacts,
infrastructure, transportation
and other relevant land use
considerations. The task force
and study process will shall
result in recommendations to
the Council for consideration
through an appropriate
comprehensive plan, Zoning or
Development Code amendment
process, and I'm welcome to
some feedback from from staff
on that as well.
>> Second Councilor Little for
discussion purposes.
>> It's a it's a very long
motion.
>> I developed it when I had a
little more energy.
>> Okay. Oliver, do you have a
little background to provide us
on mineral lands? It's been
something that's been kicked
around. You know how long this
has been kicked around. So give
us a little background.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Chair
and councilors, just briefly.
The council or the
commissioners are prior to the
adoption of the 1994.
Comprehensive Plan to comply
with the Growth Management Act,
establish a Mineral land Task
force that also made
recommendations that was
adopted. Following that 1994
plan. The DNR updated not only
for Clark County, but almost
the entire county's updated.
The aggregate resource for all
the counties, including Clark
County. That report was
published in 2011, I believe,
and using that new information,
the County Council at the time
directed that we use that
information to revisit the
mineral lands work, and that
was what Councilor Leedle was
referring to. That took almost
three years, from 2011 to 2014,
when that was updated. We have
been they've been discussions
about updating that mineral
lands overlay, if you will, and
I have made it clear several
times when the previous council
was here, Councilor Medvigy and
others, that we have reached
out to DNR to update that
aggregate resource map. The
information we got is that the
DNR was focusing on landslide
area, giving the also tragedy,
and that they have not yet
updated the aggregate resource
map. So that has been the
position of the county council
staff. And I know I believe
Councilor Medvigy don't want to
put information that may or may
not be accurate, but I know
that he may have personally
reached out to DNR and get the
same information that I did. So
there was no new information to
start the process. The only
thing I shared with the
councilors at the time is you
can direct staff to use the
same 2011 information, because
that's the only available
information. There may be other
studies done by the mining
industry. I don't know how
reliable that is. Not
criticizing it, but all I can
say is that we have not
received any new information
from DNR, which is the source
we rely on another counties
rely on. If you ask us to start
this new task force and the
only information available is
the same 2011, that's what we
will use. If there are no new
information, if there are
information that coming from
the mining industry, you gotta
have question as to the
reliability of that. But that
is the only background I can
provide you. When we went
through that process, it was
very controversial. Why was it
controversial? There's a lot of
property owners that didn't
want mining overlay on their
property. There is also a
provision that the councilors
at the time adopted not to
apply the overlay on rural five.
The. Their concern was that
they want to maintain the rural
character and also to minimize
impact by not applying the
overlay. In the rural five
areas where you build five
acres and so forth. So. I can
tell you that when we had the
hearing, it's not relevant. You
are complaining about 5:00. The
council then stayed until like
2 a.m. Yeah. And there were a
lot of property owners that
filled this room and was in
opposition to what was
recommended. And the council
has come to a compromise since
then. There have been inquiries
about we are not providing for
20 years supply of mineral
aggregate resource. And my
position has always been that
and I may be wrong. Legal can
correct me that there is no
requirement that you have to
provide 20 years supply of
aggregate. If you don't have it,
how can you provide 20 years
supply of aggregate? That's
been my position and I continue
to maintain that. But to date,
I don't have we don't have any
new information beside that
information that was provided
in 2011. If this council or
future council asks that, we
revisit that, that's what this
group will use. But it's going
to come into question. If DNR
has no information, that group,
the task force, will use that
to do the update. But I just
want to let you know that
mining has been very
controversial here in Clark
County, not just because of the
activities, but it is through
conditional use. So you
sometimes people conflict the
actual operation with the
designation. So I want to leave
that for you. In terms of all I
know about mining, I used to do
that, but I'm not going to go
to what some folks used to call
me. They call me Mr. Death
Sentence because I'm always
requiring DS. I'll stop there.
>> Chair.
>> Thank you. Yes.
>> Go ahead.
>> Thank you for that, Oliver.
Appreciate it. I think there's
a lot that the task force can
work on besides just the
mapping and they have brought
in. I mean, I've seen I've seen
information that they, you know,
have identified resources that
aren't on the map. And I think
there is value to that, even
though it doesn't come directly
from DNR. I mean, they could we
you know, our task force could
communicate directly with DNR.
But there's really the really
what I'm interested in is the
evaluation process of like,
where are we getting our
aggregate from? Are we
supplying enough? Is it coming
from other, from other counties,
other states? I do I respect
your comment, but I also I mean,
I've seen it in in the state
law that in the GMA that we are
supposed to be providing our
own. Obviously, if you don't
have any, you don't. But if we
do have it, we should be
providing it per GMA. It's a
messy issue. It's going to be
hard. It's hard work but
important.
>> Sure. Yes.
>> There's a question for
Councilor Young when you say a
task force is this similar to
what we have as the AG
Commission. I know that we're
trying to get these advisory
groups for different natural
resources. The three areas are
agriculture, which we have one
forest, which Jordan's helping
us create. And the third is
Mineral Resources. I'm
supportive of creating one for
mineral resources, which it
sounds like how you describe it.
That's what this is. I'd be
supportive of creating that or
authorizing it. As for all the
extra words that you had there.
>> I can shorten my motion.
>> If you could shorten it,
that would be really helpful.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> So is it task force? I don't
know if this is a question for
Amber or who, but like, is that
what would we call it if we
were trying to create a similar
group as the AG Commission.
Advisory Board, advisory board
or.
>> I would assume it would be
like a commission, just like
you have your other ones like
the AG Commission, the Forestry
Commission.
>> Okay.
>> You know, I, I don't know
the answer to that. And the
reason because quite frankly,
and that's why we need a task
force, because commission is
something that goes on in
perpetuity. I don't know that
we would need that. I think it
a task force, you know,
convening once every decade or
so probably would be sufficient.
But I don't know for sure. I
mean, a task force, maybe
that's what they do is figure
out what the body should look
like.
>> Right. Oliver, did you want
to say something?
>> Attacks force. Is different
from a commission. A task force
would be very similar when we
had the climate bill. You
establish a task force to focus
on the bill and make a
recommendation to you. In this
case, if you establish a task
force, you have to charge them
on what is it that you would
like them to do? I am very
concerned that and I'm agreeing
with you, Councilor Young, but
the information that DNR
provided us, there were three
categories. Hypothetical. Okay.
There are another section that
says there is certainty that
there is aggregate resource,
and then there is speculative.
These were the three choices.
So when did when you have a
task force, there will be the
one making a determination. Do
we focus on areas that just
have hypothetical? Do you focus
on areas where you have
certainty? Do we focus on areas
that are speculative? So those
are the information that we
currently have. If there is new
information coming from DNR or
even from the mining industry,
that they have done their own
inventory, and the task force
can use that to do the update,
that will be what you charge
this task force to do. They
won't be. They could work for a
year. As I mentioned earlier,
when we had the new.
Information from DNR, the
counselor set up a task force
to review that document and
review that information, and
then made a recommendation to
to council. That's how a task
force works. It's different
from the Commission on Aging or
the veterans. That's different.
It's not a task force. It's a
commission. Like you're asking
for a commission on housing
that will be ongoing, ongoing.
It's task force is not ongoing.
>> Sure.
>> Let if you don't mind, let
me let me make a stab at a new
motion. I move that the county
shall establish a mineral task
force with appropriate
representation for mineral and
aggregate producers, property
owners and residents affected
by mining operations, technical
experts, environmental
interests and other appropriate
stakeholders. The purpose of
this task force would be to
advise the Council on
Activities, advise the Council
on and. Help me out here
basically to to give us advice
on how we should proceed. And
that includes a structure,
whether there's a commission or
the task force continues. But
that would be their primary
task at the beginning, is to
figure out and advise us on how
we should move forward. Sure.
How do you put that in motion?
>> And then I have a comment
after you.
>> Yeah. I would prefer the
word commission and to provide
equity among the natural
resources groups that we create
the same entity. The way that
you described it right now
sounds like a commission. I
would think that the entities
that care about this issue
would want to have a standing
group that meets and gives us
advice on a regular basis. I
think we should have an AG
commission, a forest commission
and a mineral resources. So I
would prefer that than a task
force because, as Oliver said,
task force is a very specific
direction and we're not giving
a specific direction. We're
just forming a body that would
provide us advice like the
Agriculture Commission. So I
would prefer the word
commission.
>> Right. And I have something
I would like to say. I wonder
if this needs to be included in
the chapter. Both the AG
Commission and I think the
Forest Commission is underway
as far as in its formative
stages, that we could do this
really at any time.
>> I don't know that we've ever
given direction on a mineral.
>> No, but we could at any time.
>> The AG Committee was done on
a non comp plan basis.
>> That was done with the
previous council.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, we could have done an
affordable housing commission
outside of this too.
>> There's any number of
commissions that we could do at
any time. But just be aware it
requires it to be effective. It
requires staff support and
staff support requires funding.
So just be be aware of that.
>> Sure. I have a comment.
>> Yes, please.
>> I'm just going back to
Oliver's comment. We would just
be giving that committee, the
Mineral committee, the same
information from 2011. Right,
Oliver? What are they going to
do? I guess that's my question.
What would they do?
>> It is folks from the
community, the development
community that deal in
aggregate that are requesting
for something like this.
>> So the information though,
is the same as it was in 2000.
>> A small part of the
information will be the same.
There's a lot more a lot more
to it than just mapping. So I
would accept your friendly
amendment.
>> Which was what was that, a
friendly amendment and who made.
>> It changing this counselor
little changing the word task
force to commission.
>> Okay, it's been moved and
seconded. Let's go ahead and
vote.
>> Counselor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot.
>> Nay.
>> Counselor Fuentes. I
counselor little I and chair
Marchel no.
>> Three two. Motion carries
three two. Okay. I think I have
a couple of amendments that I
could bring up now in this
rural and natural resource
element, because it's about
agricultural resources. One is
on cluster development, which I
could bring up during the code.
But what I wanted to bring up
is creating an AG 40
designation and creating
incentives for farmland
aggregation. Now, currently we
have AG 20. Now, even though we
have an AG 20 overlay, there
are many smaller parcels with
that overlay. And as I've
mentioned before, there's been
a good deal of parcelization.
And, you know, the five acre
creating those five acres is a
conflict for all of the natural
resources, including mining. So,
and I did a little bit of
research, and there are a
number of counties that have
varying ag zoning amounts. The
American Farmland Trust has
identified. And there's other
sources as well that when you
get smaller than AG 40, you
really run the risk of
undermining the long term
economic viability of
agriculture. And I think that's
very much what we've seen
across the landscape that that
in a lot of ways, we've we've
damaged the long term economic
viability of agriculture. So I
would propose creating an AG 40
designation. So that would be
any ag land that qualifies and
is designated agricultural land
that is over 20 acres to go
into the AG 40 designation in
order to ensure better
protection for those larger
parcels that would otherwise
could be lost. And one, I think,
example of the damage that has
been done with the last comp
plan update is in. They they
agreed to an AG ten and during
the period of time from when
the comp plan was adopted and
the Growth Management Hearings
Board made a ruling that that
it was unlawful. This. AG. Ten
there were a number of property
owners who vested and were able
to create AG ten parcels. I
think the most dramatic one is
a 428 acre parcel, single
parcel that is now AG ten. So
it's really, you know, you've
lost all of that agriculture.
So that's my motion to create a
AG 40 designation in addition
to AG 20 zoning for those
parcels that are larger, that
still exist, that are larger
than 20 acres.
>> Sure.
>> Yes.
>> That's my question.
>> Yes.
>> So I'm I'm trying to
understand what you're
suggesting. So I didn't wasn't
aware that we did not have an
AG 40 zone. So we don't so.
>> We don't we have forest here
too. We have forest 40 and
forest 80. We don't have AG 40
or 80.
>> Okay. And so then my
question becomes, so you said
anything larger than 20. So if
there's a 21 acre parcel, are
you saying that all all parcels
over 20 acres would be rezoned
to AG 40?
>> That's what I'm suggesting.
And. Well, it could be anything,
you know, you could set
whatever number you want, but
the opportunity that this
presents in having anything
over 20 acres be AG 40,
there'll be properties that
will be just a little bit over
and, and they'll be Ogle
noncompliant as a lot of the AG
20 land is legal noncompliant
that exists today. It provides
in addition to protecting those
lands, provides an opportunity
to aggregate agricultural land.
For example, if you had that, a
25 acre parcel that was being
actively farmed and neighbor
has a ten acre parcel and they
they may not want to be in AG
anymore. There could be lot
line reconfiguration that could.
The farmer that wants to expand
could take that nine acres,
create a one acre for a farmer
who might want to stay on their
land, but doesn't have the
capacity to do all that farming.
This is not a quick fix to, I
think, all the damage that has
been done in the parcels that
has occurred, but it provides
some opportunity going forward.
And I would just say farmers
plan for much longer than 2020
year increments. Yes.
>> Go ahead. Get.
>> Speaking of planning, I just
want to make sure that what
you're saying is something that
would be voluntary decision by
the landowner. So say the
situation where a landowner has
40 acres, they've already it's
already in AG 20. So there's
two AG 20. Are you saying the
landowner would get to request
this? It would be their private
land decision, or are you
saying that the county will
force them to go into AG 40
automatically through this? If
it's the latter, I would not be
supportive, but I would be
supportive of sending this to
the AG Commission to get their
opinion on what we should do
next year on this. Regarding
code.
>> I think with the AG 20, I
don't know exactly it's
evolution, but with AG 20 I, I
believe that that was imposed
with the original comp plan as
a means of protecting
agriculture. And thank goodness
it was because we otherwise
would have lost a whole lot
more agriculture. You know,
there's various tools. TDRs are
one of those tools to protect
agricultural land zoning.
Fundamentally, zoning is a very
effective way to protect
agricultural land. Chair yes.
>> I, I'm very supportive of
some of this. I think I really
like your idea of, of
attempting to get them bigger,
you know, but what I am curious
about though, is I, I would
certainly favor creating like
an, like an AG 40. I'm not
quite sure about, you know,
like a blanket rezone of
everyone over 20 acres. Because
what I would like to know, I
mean, like, if you're 21 acres
and then we rezoned you AG 40,
what would that what would that
change for? Would that change
anything for your ability to
use your property or develop it
or build a house on it? Would
it change anything?
>> So if you were 21 acres, it
wouldn't make any difference.
If you're a multiple of 20, 40,
>> 80. You would only then be
able to divide into 40 instead
of. So, for example, you had an
80 acre lot. Now you can divide
into four lots. If you go to 40,
you can only divide into two
lots. That's the difference.
>> Okay.
>> Sure.
>> And to me, that's a big deal.
>> Sure. I have a comment. I
would be I have the same
concerns as councilor Little
being of people being forced
into this designation. Because
as we all know, with the
multiple families that have
come in, that there property is
no longer farmable just because
the minerals and the the
environment has changed on
those properties. And now they
are stuck with those properties
because they are designated as
agricultural land. I think it's
great if they would volunteer
to be a part of that program so
that they can get some
protection. But being forced
into that, I, I can't, I, yeah,
I couldn't approve of that.
>> Yes. Amber.
>> Thank you. Amber Smith on
this. And to help, I think,
clarify some of the things with
respect to zoning. So say you
have, for example, a parcel
that is parcels C, I think to
get one of Councilor Little's
questions. If you have a
landowner that has two adjacent
parcels that are AG 20 and AG
20, what chair marshals.
Bringing forward to you would
not obligate if you were to
pass an AG 40, that they now
have to consolidate those
parcels. Those parcels still
stay as two AG 20. What she's
entertaining for. One of the
options is that or as part of
this option is that there are
some parcels that are currently
in what would most likely be an
AG 20 situation right now,
because we don't have any AG
designations higher than that,
but have more acreage in those
parcels. What Chair Marshall is
requesting is part of the
proposal of an AG 40, is that
any parcels that are over 20
acre parcels would then be
rezoned to AG 40, which means
they would not be able to
reduce any smaller than 40
acres. But for example, right
now, an AG parcels that are AG
20 right now but are, say, 25
acres, they wouldn't be able to
subdivide into a 20 acre parcel
and a five acre parcel because
they're already zoned AG 20.
They would have to be 20 acre
parcels, no less than 20 acres.
So a 25 acre parcel going from
20 to 40, they can't subdivide
further. Anyways, what this
would do is change potential
future subdivisions of parcels
that are larger than, say, AG
20 right now. But our say AG 60
just use that or not 60. But
pardon me, you have a 60 acre
parcel currently. Right now
it's it's designated or zoned
as AG 20. It could in theory be
subdivided those 60 acres into
320 acre parcels. They would
not be able to do that if they
were then zoned to AG 40,
because they could do a 40 acre
parcel and a 20 acre parcel,
which would not be compatible.
But if you had 80 acres, for
example, in an AG 40, you could
have the opportunity to
subdivide into two as opposed
to right now, an AG 20 because
that's its current designation
into four. I don't know if any
of that made sense to you.
>> Yes.
>> It's a little conflicting
with what Jose said and what I
heard from the chair. If it was
just allowing an egg 40
designation, great. As an I, as
a concept, I would prefer it
going to the AG Commission. So
some experts give us the advice.
But the way that I heard the
chair describe it is that if
you're over 20, you would be
consolidated. So the example
that Jose said and that
Councilor Belkot was concerned
about is if you are. Have 80
acres right now and you are
zoned 20 through the language
that the chair has introduced,
you would not any longer have
420 acre lots. You would be
forced to have 240 acre lots
forced. That's the part I don't
I don't approve.
>> So there would be no forced
aggregating of anything that
could be an option with an AG
40 designation. If if if
someone wanted to do that, it
would be an option.
>> Chair.
>> Yes. Oh, Amber. Go ahead.
>> I was just going to say
stating specifically, if
somebody had an 80 acre parcel
today, it is 80 acres no matter
what it's designated AG 20, but
as an AG 20 designation as it
currently stands, if that
parcel owner at 80 acres said,
I want to subdivide my parcel
into four parcels, they would
be legally able to do that
because they are AG 20. Not
that they have to, but they
still have that full 80 acres.
But in the future, if they
chose to subdivide, they have
four. If we were to add a AG 40
designation and that parcel
would become AG 40 at a future
date if they chose to subdivide
their 80 acres, there's nothing
forcing them to do so. But if
they wanted to, they could
develop only into two parcels.
>> Right. And currently. Go
ahead.
>> My description was an 80
acre parcel where it's already
in 20 acre sub.
>> That.
>> So it's already you've
already subdivided it into 20.
You have 80. You own 80. I'm a
landowner with 80. I've
subdivided into 20.
>> If it's subdivided, that
stands.
>> So.
>> Okay. Yes. So that's the
idea. That would be an owner of
thousands of acres. And you
could have multiple parcels of
varying sizes.
>> And this.
>> Would. Not force you to
consolidate.
>> Them.
>> But you would lose the right.
So currently you own 80 acres.
You have the right today to
subdivide it into 20s from the
language, I think that is being
proposed here. You would not
have that right any longer. I'm
seeing nods. Yes. So you would
not, under this language, be
able to go into 20s. You would
be forced into just doing 40s
even though you bought that
land knowing it's a 20. You
made all your planning as a
farmer based on that and your
future for your kids and all
that stuff. But this decision
today could change that. So I
would definitely be a no. I
would definitely be put this to
the AG Commission to get some
advice. So we spend time on it
and not at 5:00 when we're
pretty tired.
>> It was a recommendation
coming from the AG Commission.
I would just say zoning is
intended to be protective.
There is currently a forest 40.
So if you had, you know, you
can't subdivide your property.
If it's if it's forest 40 and
you have 40 acres and and
likewise, there's also a forest
80. Those Zonings. When were
they put in place with the
original comp plan? And it was
a way to protect those resource
lands, right?
>> Yes. You're correct. It was
done in 1994. Prior to that, we
don't we didn't have forest 40
or forest 80.
>> And did we have AG, we
didn't have AG 20.
>> We had AG 20.
>> We had AG. 20 right. And,
and and then subsequent well,
prior to the first comp plan, I
believe there was a whole lot
of subdividing into five acre
parcels. So zoning is intended
to protect land. So I don't
know if there's a second. I'm
not sure there's two votes here
for this. Yes. Go ahead.
>> So I could get behind
something, some version of this
because I, I see a really large
value in trying to create
larger contiguous parcels for
farming, but I think right here
now is not the right time to
make that decision. One of the
questions I would have is if we
made that decision right now,
how long would it be until that
code went into play? Because
this is what I fear. If we made
that decision right now, there
would be a flurry of people
that might have larger parcels
that go and subdivide. They get
there, they get their
application and process, and
you may end up with the
unintended consequence of more
parcelization.
>> Right. And I don't know how
much of the larger parcels went
down to AG 20. Generally,
people don't want 20 acres.
That's a lot of land to manage.
So yeah, there's a point to
that.
>> But so I guess the bottom
line is I could definitely get
behind it, but I think it needs
more work other than just
making the decision right here,
right now.
>> Okay. Well then I would, I
will, I will withdraw my motion
and make another motion. And
that would be to direct staff
and the Agricultural Commission
to develop greater protection
for larger acreage farms,
including a possible
designation of AG 40, in
addition to the AG 20 zoning,
and create incentives to
aggregate smaller farm parcels
to meet criteria that meet the
criteria for agriculture
designation.
>> Sure.
>> Yes.
>> I will second that. But I'd
offer a friendly amendment to
it, and that would be. Could I
see that real quick? There is
one word I think that I would
change. Yeah. What I would
change is direct staff and the
Agricultural Commission to
develop recommendations for the
Council for greater protections
for larger acreage.
>> That's good. They'd need to
do that anyway.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'll second that.
>> Moved and seconded. Any
further discussion? Okay. Let's
vote.
>> Counselor young I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> I thank you chair.
>> Do you have any other
amendments for number 35?
>> Well, I have something that
could go into the code. I'll
wait for that.
>> Okay. So I'd like to make a
motion to approve item number
35 with amendments.
>> Okay. Thank you. It's been
moved.
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. Let's
vote.
>> Who seconded?
>> Young.
>> Counselor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot I councilor
Fuentes. I councilor little I
and chair Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Okay,
chair.
>> I'd like to also make a
motion to end this session no
later than 6 p.m. tonight.
>> Oh.
>> What was that?
>> He wants to go till 6 p.m.
>> Second can discussion. For
discussion. This is Counselor
Little.
>> Yes.
>> Say it's 6:00. We've got
three items left. Are we going
to come back, put on suits,
come back and do this all over
on Monday. Or we could do it in
five extra minutes.
>> Council. We don't have. We
will not get have three items
left by six.
>> Let's see how we can go.
>> Okay.
>> We spent.
>> Five years on this work and
it's not a good practice to
rush it.
>> Right? So I so that would be
going an additional hour at
this point on Friday night.
>> I was ready about two hours
ago.
>> Yeah. Who made that motion?
I you did.
>> I did, yeah.
>> Okay. And who you seconded
it. Oh. So it's been moved and
seconded any further. I mean I
would be good with 530 but.
Well, but but six is better
than all night. Any other
comments? Let's vote on that,
>> Counselor young. A counselor,
Belkot, councilor Fuentes, a
counselor, little.
>> Big no.
>> And Chair Marshall.
>> I motion carries.
>> It's funny that we could
have actually just voted at the
same time.
>> We could have we could have
on that one with don't don't
confuse me. Okay, so that
brings us to. Did we do 36, 37.
>> 3637 yeah.
>> So we approved.
>> 36.
>> 38 capital facilities. Who
wanted to talk about that.
>> Counselor?
>> Young. Go counselor young.
>> Yes. The only reason I
didn't have any amendments or
anything, but I did want to
discuss it a little bit, given
that we're at 38, right?
>> 38, correct.
>> Yes. So just given the fact
that the motion failed from the
Planning Commission.
>> Well, the motion to deny
failed the motion to approve
item as presented passed.
>> Oh, okay. There are two
motions. There were two.
Somebody made a motion to deny.
And just could you just briefly
describe what the the reasoning
behind the two dissenting votes.
>> I will likely ask my staff
to show up. I believe the
concern was focusing on the
fact that. Funding
infrastructure has been a
challenge. And we also are
showing a deficit of over 500
million. And that was part of
the reasoning for the no. And
even though we did identify
that, we have pointed out the
strategies that the council
could direct staff or should
direct staff to engage on post
the plan adoption, that you
don't have to fully fund all
the project. Now that you're
going to continue. What we have
been doing, which is taking
what we can afford in increment,
pulling those lists from the 20
year list and putting it on the
six and having those be
approved through tip process.
That was the concern. As I
remember it. I may be wrong,
but that that is what I'm
remembering. We shared with
Council that we have that
deficit and provided you some
strategies on how to fill that
gap. So if you approve this,
that will still be the case.
>> Okay. I think that was an
accurate portrayal. Yes.
>> Go ahead. I move item number
38.
>> Second Councilor Belkot.
>> This is councilor Little.
>> Counselor Little moved
approval of chapter six.
Councilor Belkot. Seconded.
>> Chapter six is number 38.
>> It is number 30. Both, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. I, I have some
comments on this one because I
share that concern about that
huge deficit. Now, my concern
I've been it has bothered me
all along in this process that
we talk about capital
facilities towards the very end
of this process, when those
numbers were provided to us.
And I can look back, I think
you had information on what the
deficit was in 2016 when the
comp plan was passed, and there
might have been the council
might have at that time might
have said, oh, well, we'll look
at this. They there was no
action taken to address that
deficit at that time. So this
has been I don't know what
happened, the comp plan before
that, but definitely a can that
has been kicked down the road
and I attended the bike pad
committee. That was that just
last week. Maybe it was. And I
think one of the challenges now
is, is the requirements now new
requirements on multimodal,
which are all good. But again,
the addressing those needs of
sidewalks and all of those
things in this large
unincorporated area that we
have to manage have been just
deferred and deferred and
deferred. And the council has
not provided any direction on
where to find that funding.
It's very tough to raise
additional funds. So. Oh, and I
think, Harrison, one thing I
learned last week was, I think
the largest portion of this
deficit is the multimodal
requirements. And I know the
bike PED committee has been
very good, very good. We owe
them a debt of gratitude for
the work that they've done. And,
and moving forward will help us
prioritize that. But right now
we are going to adopt a
comprehensive plan with, was it
585?
>> I believe it's five, five,
four. I may.
>> Be.
>> Five, five, four. And I
think 480 of that is the
multimodal requirements. So it
just gives me pause. And I hope
that this council, before the
end of the year, figures out
some direction, some concrete
direction to address this
deficit, because I think what's
happened is that the community
has suffered in not having
fully funded transportation. We
have not kept up with that.
We've expanded and we haven't
done our due diligence. So I
just wanted to make those
comments.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Moved and seconded.
And I guess we'll we'll talk
about this before the end of
the year, I hope. Let's vote on
this.
>> Councilor young councilor
Belkot, Councilor Fuentes,
councilor little aye. And Chair
Marshall.
>> No. Okay. What's next?
>> Yeah. Counselors, I know you
have voted on this. I know we
will get to that because your
comment relates to when we get
to approving the TIF traffic
impact fee. So yeah.
>> And we're going to get to
that. Yes by six.
>> I hope you can. If not,
it'll be relatively small. I
don't think that the council
have taken action on 46 and 47.
>> Correct.
>> I think we have 44 yet.
>> To 44.
>> 44 I'm sorry. Okay, okay.
>> 44 and 4647 will be included
in the batch.
>> Okay.
>> 47 words. Okay.
>> Procedural guidelines. Sorry.
Okay. 44 chapter 12 annexation
element. Who wanted to talk
about.
>> Councilor Young mentioned
wanting to talk about this.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Wake up down there.
>> I just I this is a hot topic
of conversation in the
community. And if you could
just take a couple minutes and
let the public know what is in
this chapter that we're
approving.
>> Thank you, Councilor Young
Oliver Orjiako again,
councilors, what is seen here
is really a process that has
been established in statute to
encourage the cities to follow
that statute in terms of
annexation process. And broadly
speaking, it calls for county
to support annexation when the
cities come calling. That is
the basic of what is in this
chapter. I know that this area,
this annexation, is one area
that will be I'm sure
legislation is going to be
introduced, perhaps in 2027, to
address annexation. Don't know
what that is going to be, but
the language in here. Focuses
on a process for annexation and
the county supporting
annexation.
>> Chair.
>> I have a comment.
>> Yes, please.
>> Oliver, I know that there
was legislation passed in 2018
related to annexation. Does
this just align with that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Chair. I move approval
number 44.
>> Second Councilor Little.
>> And seconded. Any further
comments? Okay. I'm sure we'll
hear more about annexation at
some point. Let's vote on this
one.
>> Councilor Young.
>> Where are we at now?
>> 44 annexation vote.
>> Oh, God.
>> Approving. Approving the
chapter.
>> Councilor Belkot.
>> I.
>> Councilor Fuentes, Councilor
little. I and chair Marshall.
>> I. Motion carries. Okay.
What's the next one? 4646 and
then we're right now we're okay.
46 climate Element. Chair Yes.
>> I do have an amendment to
offer.
>> Okay, great.
>> So I move that we amend the
climate element to strengthen
implementation and
accountability in the following
ways. First, in addition to the
five year reporting required by
the state, provide the Council
with an annual work session on
implementation of the climate
element. The update should
include progress toward our
greenhouse gas reduction
targets. Significant actions
completed during the previous
year. Measurable emissions
reductions were available,
costs and savings were
available, significant barriers
encountered, and opportunities
to improve progress in the
coming year. Second, strengthen
the or strengthen the county
fleet policy so that as county
funded vehicles reach their
normal replacement point, zero
emission vehicles are used
whenever they can meet the
operational requirements and
are economically practicable,
followed by hybrid vehicles
when they cannot, and
conventional vehicles only when
necessary. When a lower
emission option that meets
these criteria is available but
is not selected, the reason
shall be documented and
included in the annual update
to Council. Third, direct the
county to maintain a
prioritized approach to
expanding zero vehicle Whitcher
at appropriate county
facilities, with measurable
progress reported annually.
Identifying and pursuing
federal, state, utility and
other outside grant
opportunities for zero emission
vehicle infrastructure and zero
emission fleet vehicles shall
be a high priority for the
county and for our grants
coordinator in pursuing grant
opportunities, with particular
emphasis on securing as much
outside as much outside funding
as possible for zero emission
vehicle infrastructure
necessary to support continued
fleet conversion.
>> Chair, I have some comments.
I just wanted to mention that
Jenna and I together for over a
year. We covered a lot of the
amendment that you mentioned
the language. And also I saw
Councilor Fuentes with his his
language as well, that he was
wanting us to look at to
consider the advisory committee
actually included quite a few
people that showed up last
night, and we came up with that
criteria, set many, many
criteria, which Jenna, I see
you up here. I'm sure you're
going to have some things to
say about that. But our CAG,
our last meeting was the 17th
of April. We worked on this for
over a year. The elements of
the climate committee, we had
to submit this to staff, i.e.
Jenna. By the 31st of December
of 2025 to cover HB 1181. That
would be included in the comp
plan. And then I also wanted to
mention the fleet policy. A lot
of that information is mandated
already by the state of
Washington, which we've been
talking about during several
county council meetings, and
they are still not completely
sure that we're going to be
able to meet those mandates.
But we are planning
appropriately in the event that
we have to and will meet those
mandates as imposed by the
state of Washington. So.
>> Go ahead.
>> Jenna, did you want to add
something.
>> For Josie or Oliver? Yeah.
>> Okay. To respond to.
>> Chair real quick. Do we have
a second?
>> Is there a second? I'll
second it for discussion
purposes.
>> Hi. Good afternoon, Jenna
Kay. For the record, with
Community planning, as
Councilor Belkot mentioned, I
had the opportunity to work
with a lot of members of the
public on the development of
the climate element. So I think
it was about a year and a half
spent working on developing the
proposals in it. So lots of
work went into what is before
you today for consideration?
Councilor young, I did have an
opportunity to look at your
suggested amendments and had
just a couple of remarks on
them that were happy to share.
So I think the first part. On
requesting the annual work
session with council. I mean, I
don't think we have any concern
with that as as staff, it seems
like we would probably do that
anyway. But but if. Yeah, so
glad to do that. I think just
clarifying, you know, we're
happy to quantify progress as
we can, but wouldn't be doing
like detailed, you know,
inventories every, every year.
But yeah, but no staff concerns
on that item. The second item,
as Councilor Belkot also
mentioned, I believe the
council approved a public works
fleet green, I'm not going to
get the name right, a Green
fleet transition policy earlier
this year. So I think we'd
defer to public works staff if
they have any concerns with
that second item. But it seems
pretty much in alignment with,
I think, what the council, a
policy the council already
approved earlier this year.
>> Yeah, I think really
generally this just increases
the level of accountability and
visibility by bringing it to
the council council annually.
And then also when there is the
opportunity to purchase a zero
emission vehicle, there's a
documented reason why we
haven't moved forward with that
purchase.
>> Sure. Yeah. Yes.
>> I think we heard that from
staff and from Councilor Belkot
that there's been a lot of
progress on this already. So I
would not support this
amendment that we received at
2:18 a.m. this morning.
>> I just have a I think it's
great. Councilor Belkot or
Councilor Belkot. See, this is
this is why we should not be
working right now. Councilor
young, I think it's all great
ideas, but I guess my point is
we're. We're already doing this,
so I don't want to. It's not me
flipping you off. It's just
we're. We're already doing this
and you were in the CAG. So I
mean, yeah, I don't expect you
to.
>> The two things I pointed out,
or at least the one with the
accountability on each
individual fleet purchase is
not something we're doing right
now. Is that accurate?
>> Yeah. I would defer to
public works staff who may be
online, who are responsible for
the Green Fleet policy on
current practices and the the
currently approved policy. It
looks like Ken might want to
chime in.
>> Good afternoon, Council Ken
later. It's LADER. Public Works
director. Yeah, as Jenna
mentioned, we are we have
implemented our Green Fleet
transition policy. We don't
report the individual vehicles
out, but we have no opposition
to that. And we could certainly
institute that just as a
regular practice. We certainly
have records of all of those
decisions that we're making. So
no opposition to any of the
language as stated. But I, I
agree that these are practices
that we have implemented as
part of the G, M, A and the
climate conditions. So we'll
keep doing that work.
>> Okay. Thank you, Councilor
Young. I'm not sure where we're
at at this point. If there is a
piece of what you wanted to.
>> Well, I would say at this
point it doesn't appear that I
have overall support behind
this. But if staff is willing
to deliver that annual report
and include documentation on
each individual piece of our
fleet that we purchased, if it
hasn't been zero emission, that
there be the the justification
for why. And there's going to
be plenty of justification,
don't get me wrong. But just to
document it, make it be visible,
and it just holds us a little
bit more accountable than I
don't I at this point, if we
have that agreement from staff,
then I withdraw my motion.
>> Just a small comment.
>> Go ahead.
>> Jenna, I can't remember, but
I know the CAG we had a
dedicated county web page is do
we still have that? And is that
information that the conclusion
of the CAG, is it still up
there for people to see?
>> Yeah, it has been kept up.
>> I can't remember.
>> Since they finished their
work.
>> Yes. Okay. That's what I
thought, because there were a
lot of people mentioning City
of Vancouver climate action,
like what they were doing. But
I'm like, we've we've done a
lot of that. I guess people
just didn't know. And then for
the council, Councilor Fuentes
and little, you weren't part of
the council then. So if you
want to take a look, it's still
apparently up there. So good to
know. Thank you.
>> Good. Okay. If you're
satisfied, are you withdrawing
your amendment then?
>> Actually, it's been moved
and seconded. Let's let's have
a vote on it.
>> Well, what so you want to
have it as is or do you want to
reduce it in some way?
>> I just just as is. I mean
really the that's really all
it's doing is just asking for
those two accountability.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> So you're asking for a vote
even though you're satisfied
with the answers that you
received, and you're just going
to vote for the heck of it.
>> Well, I, I Councilor Young
can answer for himself, but I
would say we don't know who
will be sitting up here in the
future. And this is a chapter
in our comprehensive plan for
the next well, until the next
update. And if there's some
measure of accountability to
ensure with this amendment, it
will, I wouldn't see it as just
the heck of it. Any other
comments? Okay. Let's vote on
that.
>> Councilor Young Councilor
Belkot.
>> No, I don't know.
>> Councilor Fuentes, Councilor
Little. I and Chair Marchel.
>> Aye. Motion. Motion carries
for one. Okay, I have an
amendment that's very short.
And we heard from a lot of
people about this. And that
would just be to align with the
City of Vancouver's carbon
reduction targets, which I
believe are 80% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions by
2030 and 90% by 2040 and carbon
neutrality by 2040. If I
understand their goal, and as I
feel like there's a real sense
of urgency and this does not
come, you know, this, we can
work out whatever details we
want to work out. It's not
prescriptive except in having a
broad goal. A lot of what we
manage in Clark County is the
City of Vancouver's growth
boundary. Inasmuch as we can
align with their policies, I
think that would be worthwhile
to do. And I think there's just
a number of people who came
forward last night who feel
very passionate about this and
concerned for our future. So
that's my amendment.
>> Chair, I agree. So I'm going
to second the motion.
>> Chair. I have a comment.
>> Yes, please go ahead.
>> Jenna, did we have did we
have a recommendation for the
cat from the CAG? I can't
remember.
>> This was I can pull up the
draft policy. So this was not a
specific recommendation for the
CAG. We decided the the targets
seemed more like a council
policy direction item. We did
have a work session with you
all. I believe it was August
6th, 2025. So it's been a while
where we did discuss it with
you to at least get placeholder
numbers to put in, but totally
up to you all on what those
numbers you want those numbers
to be. The, the state guidance,
their direction is, you know,
at least getting to net zero by
2050. If you want to be faster,
you can. And I believe the city
of Vancouver is aiming for 2040,
you know, and how fast they
reduce their emissions. So yeah,
so hopefully that answers your
question.
>> Thank you. Jenna. Yes. Go
ahead.
>> Yeah, I'm going to support
this. But I remember that
conversation very well. And I
remember we, as a council took
a very strong position that was
just short of this. But we were
given various options. The
reason why we took the other
option was because staff told
us that we have limited
resources, which is no surprise
to any of us here that we have
a structural deficit. We have
very limited resources to
implement it. Of course, all of
us would want to meet these
goals as quickly as possible,
but we made a decision based on
staff recommendation to do the
step below. That being said,
why not have a higher goal and
see if we can meet it? So I
will support this.
>> Thank you. Other comments?
>> Just. I feel very similar,
but what I want to understand
is when we set this goal is
that changing our budget, I
mean, what is that doing to our
budget? Is there an identified
source of funding for this?
>> It's all going to.
>> Be driven by.
>> It's all going to be driven.
Excuse me, this is Oliver. It's
all going to be driven by
council actions where you have
authority and then perhaps from
funding for implementation from
the state. If they do grant for
those opportunity to I don't
know whether you'll be
competitive or just a decision
to fund for the implementation.
So that would be my answer. Do
you have anything to answer?
>> Yeah, I'd just add a few
items. I think, you know, staff
time to move faster, right?
Like we'd have to prioritize
staff work, perhaps additional
staff resources to do it as
opposed to spreading it out a
little bit more. So that
potentially has a budget or
work plan implication, you know,
for council to consider. And as
Oliver said, you know, we're
going to have to chase Grant
like so much of this is reliant
on us finding money to
implement items or it's
legislative action to bring
before you. So a lot to do. It
will impact, you know, staff,
but you know, it's around your
priorities.
>> So this amendment that the
chair's proposing would cancel
out what the council has
already agreed on. Correct.
Which is this.
>> So I believe so we have the
the table. It's a little hard
to see with all the yellow
highlights there. It's also
policy 14.2, 3.4 in the policy
list in the climate chapter.
But my understanding of the
motion would be to change these
numbers to align with the City
of Vancouver's. You know, it
doesn't change all the things
we need to do. It's basically
saying, hey, we're going to aim
to do this faster, to get there
sooner. And, you know, in terms
of it being a policy, it would
mean when we bring things
before you like what a comp
plan policy like this does, we
would need to evaluate, you
know, is this policy consistent?
Is it moving us in the right
direction? You know, that's
what that policy is really how
that will impact.
>> So we need to revise this in
order to if we were to
incorporate this amendment for
the comp plan, then we would
need to change this, right?
Like the like these need to
align. That's what I'm saying.
>> We would just be right.
Rearranging or putting in
different numbers, right. Based
on the motion as I understand
it.
>> Okay. Thank you, Councilor
Fuentes.
>> No, I'm ready to vote.
>> And chair. Yes. And just
what you described. Can you do
that without us going back to
the drawing board?
>> Oh, absolutely. That's like
a. Very quick edit.
>> Just did you have anything
to add, councilor young okay.
Are we ready to vote?
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot no. Councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little I and chair
Marshall aye.
>> Motion carries. Thank you.
Now there's still a part of the
climate element here, which was
that amendment that the
Planning Commission made. And
it was a split vote to that
solid waste systems become
owned by the county, and then
we can use that aspect of solid
waste collection system for for
the aspect of being able to
help facilitate our climate
element requirement by having
direct control over solid waste
system, as opposed to having to
contractually request changes
to that policy that the solid
waste operator uses now. So the
amendment would be for the
county to pursue ownership of
the solid waste system in Clark
County. And I recall. Oh, yes.
Go ahead.
>> Apologies for interrupting.
Chair Marshall, this is Amber
Smith. To give some context
with this, this was a later
added amendment, but to have
for the Council to consider. We
currently do not own the the
land and the waste connections
areas that are being discussed
in this particular amendment.
They're owned by Columbia
Resource Company, and we have a
master service agreement with
them, along with the City of
Vancouver with respect to
operations and ownership. And
there are specific provisions
in that contractual agreement
we have about the potential
opportunity to acquire those
lands from CRC, but they are
not obligated to entertain into
that. And I believe Miss
Loescher from Public Works as
the solid waste manager. She's
engaged with also other
additional stakeholders, other
municipalities. That's very
much in the infancy that this
language could end up being
contrary to what we have inside
of that master service
agreement, and also any
potential future mechanisms
that we have. So just giving
context with respect to that.
>> Thank you. And I know we've
had a couple of work sessions
on this. So this seems I don't
know that the Planning
Commission was fully aware of
all of that. Yes.
>> Councilor Lilyanna chair, I
wouldn't want to tie the hands
with this language, so I would
not be in support.
>> I would likewise.
>> So do we need a motion to
deny? Deny?
>> Yes, chair.
>> I'd like to move to deny the
motion to approve with
amendments to policies in.
14.20.
>> Second, Councilor Little.
>> It's been moved and seconded.
Any further discussion? Let's
vote.
>> Councilor Young Councilor
Belkot, Councilor Fuentes,
Councilor Little Eye and Chair
Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries.
Procedural guidelines.
>> Chair, we still have the
little the little one following
that.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. And then we
have to approve the whole thing.
Yeah. Motion to approve
amendment that we add to
chapter 14.15.5. That work with
the PUD and the fire
departments to develop
regulations that welcomes grid
scale batteries. This was a
motion that the Planning
Commission brought forward.
>> Fully supported.
>> Okay.
>> Move approval.
>> Move approval.
>> Second.
>> Okay. Moved and seconded.
>> Okay.
>> Councilor young moved.
>> Sorry. Who moved?
>> Second, councilor young
moved.
>> Councilor Belkot second.
>> But no. Can you combine it
with the rest of the chapter?
>> You guys are getting froggy.
>> We are. We're we're not
going to go very much longer.
Soho has suggested that we
combine this motion with
approval of chapter 14 in its
whole.
>> Yes.
>> I moved, so I'll accept that
as a friendly amendment.
>> Okay, okay. Councilor Belkot,
do you agree with that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, then let's vote on
this.
>> Councilor Young councilor
Belkot, councilor Fuentes,
Councilor little I and chair
Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries.
Procedural guidelines. Yes.
>> I I'd like to propose a
motion.
>> There could be a whole page.
>> Yes. Motion to approve item
numbers 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
and 61.
>> Seconded by Belkot.
>> Been moved and seconded. So
that takes us up to 61, correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Any discussion? If not,
let's vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. Councilor Fuentes,
Councilor little.
>> I.
>> I and chair Marshall I.
>> Okay 61 a.
>> I yeah, I'm a little
confused about the planning
Commission's recommendation.
And in response to ETC comments.
>> Racially disparate impact
analysis.
>> The appendix is okay.
>> These these are responses to
the the letter of commerce we
received that we got after the
PC recommendation. Okay, so
that's why there was no vote
from the Planning Commission.
>> Thank you. Chair, I move to
approve. Sections 61 A, 61 B
and 61.
>> C, seconded by Belkot.
>> Thank you. Is there actual
language that we might look at,
or can you summarize or.
>> Yeah, I'd be particularly
interested in 61 B.
>> So the vacant buildable
lands model and the methodology
is what makes up that appendix.
>> And is it 61. Was it just
not provided.
>> Right.
>> It was the first.
>> Time it wasn't included in
the the comp plan.
>> It's okay. So we're just
providing that yes. Information.
No, no changes or anything.
Okay.
>> Okay. So it was just
additional information that was
provided to commerce things
we've already seen.
>> Right. And then appendix M,
there's some work that we had
done, some background in
history on the racially
disparate impacts. Again,
that's another appendix,
appendix that we were added and
the housing barriers and
strategies matrix was, was
already existing in the housing
option study and action plan.
And it was just a table that
was added and a reference to
that was added to chapter two,
the housing chapter.
>> Okay. Do we have a motion?
>> Yeah.
>> It's been made and and
seconded. Okay. Let's let's
vote. What number is this?
>> 61A61B and 61 C.
>> Thank you. It turns the page
and I got confused. All right.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. I councilor Fuentes
councilor little I and chair
Marchel.
>> I motion carries okay
proposed code changes. So this
is where I would ask where my
cluster development might go.
>> Which number are we on?
>> We're on 62.
>> So this would be where. I
bring up the manufactured homes.
>> Yeah, that would.
>> Be 68.
>> That's 58, 68, 68. Right.
>> Okay.
>> And for the cluster
development, where would I
bring that up?
>> I think we would have to add
it. Yeah.
>> Because we.
>> Weren't proposing any
changes to the resource rural
and resource zones. And then
Councilor Little I think your
item is 6565.
>> Yes. Mister chair.
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> To approve item number 62.
>> Seconded by Belkot.
>> Moved and seconded. Any
comments? Okay. Let's vote.
>> Councilor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot. Councilor
Fuentes, Councilor little I and
Chair Marshall I.
>> Okay. Motion carries. 63 a
minimum maximum calculations.
And this one looks like it was
discussed a bit by the Planning
Commission. So the motion to
deny failed motion to approve
as presented passed. But it was
a split vote. This might take
some explaining.
>> Okay.
>> Who would.
>> So 63AI believe they were
they may have been confused
about the density. And I think
that's where it should have
been addressed in number 65
instead of 63.
>> Okay, I move 63 a this is
Matt Little.
>> Is it to approve.
>> It, to approve it, prove it
as presented.
>> Second, Councilor Fuentes.
>> And so the nay votes were
out of confusion.
>> It's my recollection.
>> That's your recollection.
>> So just if I may. It's is
what it what was the discussion
that happened in between the
failed motion? Because it
failed 2 to 5. But then the
opposite way was approved 4 to
3. So one of the initial people
that were supportive changed
their reversed their support.
>> Chair.
>> Oh yes. Our consultant
Elizabeth has is online. She
may be able to.
>> Clarify it. Let's hear from
Elizabeth. Hi, Elizabeth.
>> Is Elizabeth on line?
>> In the space? I could blab
about it. In 65. The discussion
was about minimum and maximum
densities, and there will. I
will be making an amendment to
follow what Deb recommended in
Vancouver. Recommended to
change the minimum from 40 to
35. That was a discussion. The
biggest concern was about the R
30 and R 43 going to R 50 and
changing that category from 40
to to something lower.
>> And so we have not voted on
63 and 64.
>> So is it accurate to say
that the reason there was
dissenting votes in this is
because they thought they were
discussing what would be coming
up in 65. What exactly is
minimum and maximum
calculations?
>> Do you have that. Can you
open it up?
>> Yeah. Let me open the.
>> Can. See that. Can you see
it?
>> So it's what what's included
in when you what you account
for in a lot size. So the there
was language being added in how
you you know including alleys,
public parks. Including
required landscapes within
setbacks. So there's, there's
some reductions when you're
calculating minimum and
maximums. And so that those
were parts of the, the
amendments to the code section
that our consultant worked on.
I frankly cannot remember what
the Planning Commission
discussion was on this. I can
check the minutes, but I'm not
sure what why they voted the
way they did on this.
>> Well, it's been moved and
seconded. Has it been moved and
seconded? Yep. Okay. Are people
comfortable voting on this now?
>> Yes, yes.
>> Okay.
>> Councilor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot, councilor
Fuentes, Councilor little I and
chair Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries. Okay.
63B63C and 64. Are people okay
with combining those into one?
Motion to approve.
>> Yes.
>> Motion by Councilor Little
to combine those three.
>> Second Councilor Fuentes
okay.
>> Comments.
>> Councilor young.
>> Real quickly. So exceptions
and height. I think I remember
that one. That was for the to
accommodate the solar the
ability for solar.
>> Yes.
>> And what was the exceptions
to the setbacks.
>> I think it was.
>> Well there was no vote on
this. It was added information
to respond to commerce.
>> Right. Let's find out what.
We said.
>> Oh, that there was. I think,
language that was passed by the
legislature about retrofitting
of existing buildings to allow
for the exterior wall. The
protrusion, I think, of eight
inches on the setbacks.
>> For like non-conforming
structures.
>> Or let me see. So the
portion of exterior wall
assemblies that include
insulation may project up to
eight inches into setbacks on
all sides to accommodate
additional insulation.
>> Okay. And that was just a
saying, something they sent to
us and need to be corrected.
Right. Okay. All right.
>> Okay. That's fine.
>> Elizabeth has her hand.
>> Okay. There's some
whispering. Any additional info
or. We're good.
>> No. We're good.
>> Oh. Dinner plans? Okay.
Let's vote on this one.
>> Councillor young, a
councillor. A councillor.
Fuentes, a councillor, little A
and Joe Marshall.
>> Aye. Motion carries. 65.
Chair. Yes.
>> I'll try to make this one
brief. The motion is really
simple, but the description
will take a second. So back to
number 11. If you look at it,
the proposal was to create
three categories where you'll
see R 12, R 24, R 18 and R 22
to 36, R 30 and R 43 to 50. The
discussion with Dbw and the
Planning Commission and
Vancouver and the letters that
we have received have said that
they've. They're generally in
support of this, and they're
generally in support of
increasing the maximum
densities. The major concern
was not to significantly
increase the minimum densities
so that more housing units
would fit, more projects would
fit within that category. So my
motion will be to only change
the minimum density that is in
the R32R43 category. That is
going to R 50 and changing the
minimum. Density which is
currently or proposed.
Currently 4840 units to 40
units per acre and change it to
35 units per acre. That was the
specific request in both the D
letter and the Vancouver letter
as a way to help. That's my
motion. Councillor Little.
>> Second, Councillor Fuentes.
>> And seconded. Yes, please.
>> I'd like to offer a friendly
amendment and that would be to
incorporate Vancouver's.
Density credit that they get
for larger units. So the way
that works, one of one of the
difficulties right now is
achieving enough, enough
density to meet our minimums.
And one of the ways that you
can relieve that a little. What
that does is it forces you to
cram as many units in, in small
spaces as possible, and you end
up with basically incentivizing
small units with City of
Vancouver's done with their
code is they have allowed like
density credits for larger
units so that there. So
basically. So two and three
unit apartments are not.
Disincentivized.
>> Chair.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> I would not accept that
amendment, but I would
encourage you to offer that as
a separate amendment once we
vote on this.
>> Fair enough. That makes
sense. Okay. Anything else on
this one? Let's vote on this
one.
>> Councilor Young. I councilor
Belko. I councilor. Fuentes.
Councilor little I and chair
Marshall I.
>> Motion carries. Okay.
>> Is an amendment.
>> Oh yes your amendment.
>> Oh yes.
>> So I would move that we
adopt the City of Vancouver's
language that they have in
their code that allows for. Is
this a proper term density
credit when providing larger
units with larger, more
bedrooms? Help me out with the
language on that.
>> I'm not sure the term that
they use.
>> I don't know if it would be
a density credit. If it's if
we're talking about bedrooms,
larger units in terms of
bedrooms.
>> I thought they April 1st. I
thought they did use density
credits, but it reminds me of
like cottage.
>> Right.
>> Where we allow double.
>> It's a little confusing
terminology. What's your what's
your intent, I guess, with that.
>> So the intent is, and I'm
just going to name an example.
And it's just in theory, it's
not going to be accurate. But
for example, if if there's a
minimum of 35 units per acre
and it is tough and challenging
to get that in there and still
have any units that have more
bedrooms than just either one
bedroom or a studio. So
essentially, you get a credit
to some, I don't know if it's a
full unit or less than unit. I
don't know how it works. That's
why I say the language of just
adopting Vancouver's policy
should be good. But the idea is
that if you create some larger
units, which, by the way, I did
have an email conversation with
Andy Silver from VCH A, and he
did say that we have a, we have
a shortage significantly of
larger units, especially for
affordable housing. So this
would encourage some of those
missing larger units that are
needed.
>> Chair go ahead.
>> Yeah. Councillor young. I
mean it sounds like a good
thing. We don't know a lot of
details about it right now for
me to make a decision. But
could we. Is this something
that we could do after the comp
plan separately?
>> Anytime.
>> I know, maybe a motion to
say that we will. I believe
this.
>> Was one of the
recommendations, was it not?
>> Yes.
>> But they're saying we don't
have to do this as part of the
comp plan itself. We can do it
as a separate thing when we
could learn more about it.
>> And we might be a little
fresher.
>> And because we are still
this is Oliver. We are still
working with our housing
consultant on different phases,
which is typically title 40. We
can consider that as quickly as
we can, but it's title 40 that
could be made at any time.
>> So question in reality, when
would be the realistic time
that we would be looking at
this?
>> We can come to the council
because now you have asked us
to open the Comp Plan amendment
annually and docket, we can
come to you in 2027 with a list
that will include this. If you
approve it, it will be done.
>> So will that be like at the
end of 2027?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I would prefer that we
adopt it now. I think waiting
years your your further
exacerbating a shortage.
>> Chair go ahead.
>> I get the intent behind it.
But you're introducing a
concept where there's no
details that you presented any
details whatsoever. There's no
way we could just stick this in.
>> Could we bring the memo up?
>> I think it we have about a
minute before six and we are
getting close. I wonder, Cindy,
how are you holding up? Because
we still have a couple of pages
to go. Would you like a break?
>> I yes, I no longer chair can
feel my arms or hands.
>> Oh, Cindy, you should have
said something sooner.
>> We've already agreed to
break at six, and we still got
a lot of work left.
>> There's 20. Let's let. I'll
tell you the Cindy, I think,
should be the one to really
call this. If she can't feel
her arms. I don't know if a ten
minute break will return the
feeling to her arms. What do
you. What do you think, Cindy?
>> How much? How many more do
we have?
>> Chair. There's 25 that can
be approved in one swoop. So.
And then that leaves us with
one other one, which would be,
well, 65, 74, which I imagine
people would want to have a
conversation about. And then
finally, the 101 transportation
impact fees. So.
>> So I still have another
amendment to discuss.
>> And I have another amendment
to discuss.
>> So if we're not getting.
>> It could be at least another
hour.
>> At least. So if we're not
going to follow what we have
agreed to do, then somebody
needs to make a motion to
change it. Right now, we've
agreed to chair.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> I make a motion for a 15
minute break to restore feeling
in the Cindy's hands and arms
and and finish in one more hour
and not have to come back.
>> Seconded by Bill, who can't
feel my legs.
>> Moved and seconded. I. Cindy
with a 15 minute break at this
moment. Help for you to go
another hour or would you like
to call it.
>> Well, don't put that on me.
>> Oh, okay. All right.
>> We just need we just need to
break.
>> I can.
>> Okay.
>> I can through.
>> Okay. I as been moved and
seconded. Was there a previous
motion on the table? There was
a previous motion and we were
in the middle of discussing
something.
>> But we had.
>> Passed a motion that we
would stop at six.
>> Yeah. But I think that we
were talking about the density
credit. Was there a motion on
the density credit?
>> I don't even remember. I
mean, I, you know, I three
hours now, three hours ago, I
said I was exhausted. This is
insane.
>> Then vote against it.
>> That I will do.
>> All right. So it's been
moved and seconded to take a 15
minute break and come back for
an additional hour. That would
be 715. Oh, I think we can do
just a voice. Voice vote. All
in favor, say I.
>> I.
>> No. Opposed? No.
>> No.
>> No. Three to the motion
carries. So, Cindy, we're going
to take a 15 minute break. Be
back at 615. Thank you. And
sorry about going for so long.
>> Three, two. Marshall said no.
>> Can we pull. Is. Do we have
the.
>> I'm looking for it. Okay.
>> No, I. I have always said I.
Was somebody.
>> Councillors. Yes. If they
have anything wrote out or
typed out on their amendments.
>> This webinar is being
recorded and summarized.
>> They could send them to me
please.
>> Yes. You bet. Council has
returned from our break.
There's an unexpected
development that has called
Councilor Young away, and I
would suggest that we pause our
discussion, carry it over to
Monday. What time on Monday are
we meeting? 10:10 a.m. 10 a.m.
on Monday. So I know people
were anxious to get through all
of this, but I think it would
be a disservice not to have
Councilor Young included. And I
know he had a specific
amendment, amendment, or maybe
more than one that that he
wanted to bring forward. So I'd
like to adjourn for tonight and
then come back. Oh, not adjourn,
just recess until Monday at 10
a.m. Thank you all for staying
so late and all your work on
this. So I'll see you. We'll
see you on Monday. Have a
delightful weekend