This webinar is being recorded
and summarized.
>> October 2nd, 2026 meeting.
And this is Monday, October 5th,
2026. So we'll continue with
our deliberations on the
Comprehensive Plan. And just
before we get started, I had a
couple things I wanted to say.
First off, I'd like to
apologize to Cyndie, our court
reporter. We were trying to
rush and get this all completed.
Lost track of time and failed
to give you appropriate breaks.
So I've asked the county
manager to remind me. And we
will take two breaks every two
hours for ten minutes so that
you can get a breather from
your task. And we very much
appreciate the work that you're
doing. So thank you. Cyndie.
And then I think things got a
little confused as we move
through the process. So today I
would like us to, if you're
making a motion on anything to
make that motion. I'll call for
a second and then go into
discussion and deliberation. I
think things got confused.
There was a motion and then
there was lengthy discussion.
Sometimes before there was a
second. So I think that will
make things a little bit more
clearer as we proceed. Kathleen,
did you have anything to add at
this point? Okay. All right. So
let me get back to my decision
sheet here because where we
left off, I believe, did we
complete. Number 65? Was it. I
think we did complete. I see
that we voted on that one. So
that brings us down to 60. 66.
Is there a motion?
>> Councilors, if I may.
>> Yes, please.
>> Sorry. Good morning, Chair
and councilors. I believe there
was a motion on the floor for
65. And the legal counsel can
correct me. I think that motion
was to adopt the City of
Vancouver Code as it relates to
density credits. When.
Developers offered 2 to 3
bedroom. I think that was the
motion that was on the floor. I
believe it was seconded. You
did not vote on that?
>> Okay then my notes are wrong,
so I'll take yours. So who who
made that motion?
>> I believe I did, chair.
>> You made that motion and
I'll second it for the purpose
of discussion.
>> Chair.
>> Yes, please go ahead.
>> I think where we left off
was that we didn't have enough
data or information. I think
Councilor Little brought that
up. And then a couple of us
also agreed with that sentiment
because we don't know we have
no details of how that
particular program works. So
incorporating it into the comp
plan would be kind of confusing
at this point.
>> Thank you, Councilor Young
chair.
>> Just wondering if staff
maybe had a chance to review
the City of Vancouver's code on
that or their recommendation
for their code?
>> We we have the language and
I think our housing consultant
is online. If you want to ask
Elizabeth Decker. The issue of
part of the rationale for the
city adopting this. When we
spoke with the city, I think
initially was to. With the
developments, partially the
developments on the waterfront
and some of the multifamily tax
exemption credits, they were
seeing more studio and one
bedroom apartments in order to
meet the requirements that were
required. And then they
transferred that into their
overall to try to encourage
more two and three bedroom
units. We don't have any
information in the county on
how that would work in the the
market, in the unincorporated
area. I'm not we just don't
have the data to see how many
studio and one bedroom
apartments are currently being
built. It seems like we're the
predominant. Type of bedroom
construction is two bedrooms,
but I think that would require
a little bit more work to see
where we are relative. But the
I think the idea is to try to
encourage more of the two and
three bedrooms to meet the
minimum threshold for the
density requirements.
>> So the primary purpose of
what they're doing is that.
>> Okay, that's that is there.
>> And I don't, I mean, I don't,
I, I think this is a common
problem anywhere where,
especially when we're creating
minimum densities, it's going
to be harder and harder to be
able to actually physically fit
those larger units. And I still
would be supportive of adopting
their version of that and
adding it to our code. It would
be one more step also of
likening our code to the City
of Vancouver's as well.
>> I have a question. And if if
we didn't adopt it at this time,
what would be a fallback
position in terms of when it
could be brought up again or
considered by the Council
anytime?
>> It could be done because
it's a title 40, it could be
done anytime. Go ahead. Do you
have something? Go ahead.
>> I would like to have a work
session on it before we decide
anything. I that's I just don't
feel like we have enough
information either way for comp
plan or to incorporate it
permanently into the county. So.
>> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
April.
>> April. Firth deputy county
manager Elizabeth Decker's.
Hands up.
>> Okay. Okay, let's hear from
Elizabeth.
>> Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you.
>> Yes. Good morning. Council.
Elizabeth Decker with Jazette
planning your housing
consultant on a lot of these
code updates. We did have an
opportunity to look into the
details of that credit and the
way it works in the city of
Vancouver is for purposes of
minimum density. Studio and one
bedrooms count as a single unit
of one dwelling unit. Two
bedroom units count as 1.5,
1.25 dwelling units and three
bedroom or larger count is 1.5
dwelling units. Again, just for
the minimum density is which
we've heard concern about
meeting those densities. And so
that's where the incentives
come. And then the maximum
density is measured just based
on total units regardless of
size. So we do have the details
of that that you know, to share
now or to for further
discussion. I think that Josie
spoke eloquently about the
potential background that we
don't have necessarily about
the type of sizes of units and
how this incentive would or
would not align with the Clark
County's goals and existing
development trends. And then
the other issue is also just to
come back to the capacity issue,
that this is another, you know,
maybe an unintended consequence
of this type of amendment is
that by counting larger units
as more than one dwelling unit
for purposes of minimum density,
the total number of dwelling
units that could get produced
would be less than the targets
we're aiming for under the
housing for all planning tool,
and we just don't have time. We
haven't had the opportunity to
evaluate that in more detail.
So that would just be another
consideration for you in your
deliberations. Thank you.
>> Thank you. That's helpful.
Any other comments or questions?
Okay. It's been moved and
seconded. We'll take a roll
call.
>> Councilor young I, councilor
Belkot.
>> I just have a comment. I
thought it was moved for
discussion.
>> Chair I, I seconded it so
that we could discuss. We've
discussed and now we're voting
no. Chair. Okay, okay. Are you
ready to vote? Are we not ready
to vote?
>> I'm not. I'm not ready. I
still have a question.
>> Okay, well, let's pause on
the voting then and have
further discussion.
>> Yeah. The chair had asked if
there is an opportunity,
Councilor Young, to do this at
a later time and get more
information. So we know what
we're actually voting on. I
would be as supportive of that
if you'd be able to take that
as a friendly amendment to
indicate that we'd like to do
something, but that we would
have a work session first to
learn more information.
>> I appreciate that. I don't
think that we're suffering from
not having the information.
It's probably from not having
absorbed it. This was a
recommendation that came out of
Dbw. There's quite a bit of
discussion that took place
during Dbw on this. And I think
we if we wait, and I understand
that, but we've also already
added a massive amount of
material for community planning
in the following years. So the
realistic. The reality is it'll
probably be at least a year
before we get to this. I think
it's important to adopt it now.
>> I just want to chair. Just
mention that staff just told us
that this could potentially
affect the comp plan and our
calculations. So that would be
why I'm voting against it, but
not for the intent. I would
like to address this later for
sure. And it sounded like from
Oliver, we can do this later.
>> Sure.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> I appreciate that that
comment, the one thing I would
note, the only results that
would have would be downward
number or pushing the number
downward of total units, which
would bring us closer to our
population forecast.
>> I would just ask staff is
can are you able to confirm
that?
>> So. There are two ways to
measure. Overall, we have an
excess capacity by each Yuga.
We don't. And particularly the
Vancouver Yuga is very tight.
There is excess capacity with
the city of Vancouver. So I
think we have a additional
capacity there. So but with
within the unincorporated area
it's very, very tight.
>> Okay. I would just say I
agree this is very important to
provide this incentive,
although I would like to take a
more thoughtful approach to it.
And, you know, if this motion
fails, I would be introducing a
motion to direct staff to look
into this. And we could apply a
time frame as well. So that's
just my opinion. Any other
comments? I'll pause for a
while to make sure.
>> I just my comment, going
back to what Miss Decker said,
she's mentioned that it doesn't.
She doesn't know how it would
affect the the county planning
tool.
>> I can't hear you, councilor.
>> Did I get that title
incorrect? Jose.
>> Councilor, if you.
>> Could pull the mic a little
closer to you. Yes.
>> Thank you. Miss Decker
mentioned that the housing tool
may be impacted. That's correct
me if I'm saying that
incorrectly.
>> It's the housing for all
planning tool, the Hapt. And
that's how we're measuring
whether we have sufficient
capacity in each of those
income bands by jurisdiction.
So that's correct. Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other comments?
Questions. We'll take a roll
call.
>> Councilor young. I Councilor
Belkot.
>> No.
>> Councilor Fuentes. I
councilor Little.
>> No.
>> Chair Marshall.
>> No motion fails three two.
So I would like to make a
motion to follow on that to
direct staff to. Examine the
impacts of this density credit
that the City of Vancouver has
implemented. And what if I
could just look to Councilor
Young? What would be a
reasonable or staff? What a
reasonable timeline to complete
that. The next six months,
councilor.
>> We still have housing
consultant working with us. If
you put the end of the year,
I'm sure that she could include
that in the phase. The next
phase, if you give it six
months, we can also get that
done. It is the timing that you
put on it that will determine
the priority we put to it.
>> Okay. Then I would put by
the end of the year.
>> At the end of 2026.
>> Yeah, end of 2026 will be
December.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> That oh no, no, not the end
of this.
>> Well, you thanks.
>> That's why I asked.
>> Okay. So. A time frame for
what exactly? To come back to
council or take an action since
you're only meeting.
>> That's a good question. I
would say bring it back to
council in a policy update or
work session.
>> Okay. So. We have Elizabeth
through the end of the year. So
I think the six months would be
fine because you're not meeting
in December after the budget.
So I don't.
>> Know that council decided
they wanted to do that.
>> Right.
>> Chair. Oh, has it has the
motion been.
>> Well, I was asking a
question to help define the
motion in terms of a time frame.
So. So I'm I'm thinking.
>> Six to bring it back to
council within the next six
months.
>> Within the next six months.
Okay. I think under the advice
of staff, that sounds like a
reasonable time frame and
wouldn't require us to have a
special meeting because I think
all of our meetings are pretty
well packed at this point.
>> All our meetings are special.
Is that a motion chair?
>> That is a motion.
>> I'll second.
>> Okay. Moved and seconded.
Should I? Chair? Yes.
>> Go ahead. May I offer
consideration of a friendly
amendment?
>> Absolutely.
>> That would be that not only
this issue, but all of the
issues that are brought forward
to the work session.
>> I would say let's take them
one at a time.
>> The list is probably 8 to 10
items.
>> Yeah, I, I, I feel like
we're honed in on this one and
we are on the cusp of making a
decision. We would have to go
into a lot more lengthy
discussion, and maybe we'll be
doing that before the end of
this meeting. But I would like
to just have a clean vote on
this one, if you don't mind. So
I don't know if I was totally
clear on what that amendment is,
and that would be to direct
staff in the next six months to
evaluate. The county, adopting
Vancouver's density credit.
>> I would add, just for larger
units.
>> For larger units. Thanks. So
that was the motion. It was
seconded by Councilor Fuentes,
I think I think we're ready to
vote. I think we're ready to
vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. I Councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little. I chair
Marshall.
>> I okay now I had an
amendment that I, I think I
should have brought up a little
bit earlier because it
addresses 40.210 and we're
about to move on to 40.230. So
if you don't mind, I'll just go
ahead and do this. And I've
distributed this to the council
via email, and I'll distribute
it. On the dais here just so
you have that fresh. So I would
like to move to. Prohibit
cluster development on forest
agriculture and agriculture,
wildlife districts, which are
FR80FR40 a G20AGWL, which is
40.210 .010. To remove this
section that allows for cluster
development on these resource
lands. That's my motion. Is
there a second?
>> Second is.
>> Moved and seconded. So we
discussed this. I think maybe
it was a week and a half ago
related to cluster development.
And I have raised some
questions about this. This was
allowed with the adoption of
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
update. Prior to that, a
cluster development was
prohibited. And just as a
reminder, cluster development
really targets the larger acres
of resource lands and allows
for the development of one acre
parcels. As long as there's an
85% remainder. And the
directive is that it stay in
agriculture, forest or open
space. And just as I've
observed this application in my
in my community. We haven't had.
And I have asked for more
comprehensive analysis of how
this has impacted the county.
County wide is that the. The
remainder parcel. Well, one of
the requirements is that it.
These developments be on poor
soils. So that has not been.
The case development has
occurred on prime AG soils that
the remainder parcels in. In
all of the cases that I've seen
are fields of weeds. There's a
requirement that it continue as
the ag forest or go into open
space and consulting with our
lands Department. They only
were aware of one case where
there was an application,
because you have to go through
an application process to
become open space. Only one
example where that had happened,
and it was denied because the
parcel size was too small. So I
think this is something, again,
that really is detrimental to
the long term economic
viability of agriculture by
further parcel izing resource
lands. And I think that was
what was determined previously
when it was not allowed. And I
think there's there's just been
too much parcelization. And we
have had we don't have a good
record of, of holding those
property owners accountable to
the, the current requirements.
So that's my explanation.
Councilor little, you have your
hand up.
>> Yes. Could you pull up on
the screen the amendment I
don't know if it's the original
one you emailed that was two
pages long with charts and
stuff. Or if it's a newer
version, just like to see that.
And also.
>> It is the same.
>> Okay. And, and because
there's a lot of words on there,
I just want to, can you
describe in detail or have
staff describe how it is
currently and how those words
will change it? I just want to
be really clear with what we're
voting on.
>> It removes the the standards
for cluster development on
resource land. So by removing
that, it removes the ability to
cluster on resource lands. And
Oliver or Bart, I see you've
come forward as well. Do you
want to provide any further
explanation?
>> Councilors? What I will say
is that your presentation is
accurate. It will. If this
passes, it will prohibit
clustering in the ARG or ARG. I
don't know if you want to
extend that to the forest
district. If you do, this
motion will be consistent as to
what it was prior to 2016. We
currently allow clustering in
the rural zones, so that will
remain. This will only apply to
the resource district and the
other sections in chapter three
that talks about clustering. So
we'll take a look at that. If
this passes we will amend that
section to also address removal
of allowing clustering in the
resource zone. But the way you
describe it is actually what is
in play. There's also a county
language that says that if a
property is at the edge of the
ugb and that property comes
into the urban growth boundary
and accepted, the city can
change the zoning to whatever
they would like to develop on
that property. So you don't
really keep that remainder. In
perpetuity or remain in
agricultural use. If it comes
into the ugb, all bets are off.
>> That's correct, that's
correct. I'm not suggesting to
change that. Okay. Chair
councilor Lily, you can
continue and then Councilor
Belkot.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Just so I'm
trying to wrap my head around
this. So if you owned 20 acre
agriculture or forest property
under cluster development, you
could currently create three
one acre lots in the corner of
the of the property. And then
the rest would be a remain. Can
someone just describe an
example of what would what is
currently allowed and what
would not be allowed?
>> Sure. So right now, let's
say you had a 60 acre property
in an AG 20 zone. You could do
three one acre lots. 57 acres
would be in the remainder. If
you remove this provision, you
can only do 320 acre lots.
>> And for AG 20, it's it's
compliance. So would there be
clustering allowed on if an. If
a lot was 20 acres zoned AG,
you wouldn't be able to to do.
You'd have to. So it only
targets the larger.
>> It happens to be a. Multiple
of 20 in order to divide it
right.
>> So it need be 40 before
you'd be able to do any
clustering. So this really you
know, and I don't know how many
parcels there are that this
would apply to this size, but
it's a way to further protect
those from. From subdividing.
And it does create these little.
One acre developments across
the rural landscape. So I think
it's undermines the rural
character. Yes, councilor.
>> Little last question. How
many times has this been
applied in Clark County, or how
many properties has this
happened to just generally.
>> Councilor, this is Oliver.
It would require us to check in
with. Come, dev. All I can say
is that when this was lifted in
2016 and the council at the
time allowed for act ten, there
was a lot of folks that rushed
to get vested before the Growth
Board could rule, and that
impacted the AG 20 provision
until we were asked to return
back to act 20. So there was a
lot of activities in terms of
application to get vested. And
I believe even though that was
done in 2016, because those
properties vested, they are
still being reviewed as we
speak because it hasn't been
completed.
>> That is to say, there's
already been a lot of
parcelization. Yeah, go ahead,
Councilor Belkot.
>> I guess I, I kind of feel
about this one the same as I do
about the previous. 65,
learning more about it, because
I'm just wondering how this
would impact, say, families
that have a lot of, or a family
that has, say, like 20 acres of
agricultural land, but they
want to create like a homestead
type of situation with their
family and have the same, you
know, have the family stay on
the property, but for
development purposes to have
their family members live on
the acreage. I mean, they still
would, but they would have to
develop their own houses. Would
that prohibit them from
building houses on that land?
Because technically it would be
cluster. I, I don't know enough
about that. That's why I'm
asking.
>> So the the cluster
subdivision is a subset of a
land division. So you would
have to be able to divide the
land. So like I said, the if
you're in the AG 20 zone, you'd
need at least 40 acres to
divide it. And so. That example,
you need at least 40 acres to
create two dwellings. So you
could do it as two one acre
lots, I think between 1 and 2
and a half acres you can do.
And then the rest of it would
be in a remainder lot that
couldn't be further divided,
typically until it's brought
into an urban growth boundary.
Is, is our standard protocol.
So you could do that. Or if
without that provision, you
would have to divide it into
220 acre lots. Okay. And that
would give you the two
dwellings, right.
>> Currently though, if the
scenario that you describe
there is the ability on a
resource land to have an Adu,
but it needs to be attached to
an existing building or I think
converting a garage might be an
applicable as well. Correct. On
resource land. So there is some
ability.
>> But and a hardship.
>> Or a hardship as well. And I
think there's work, farm work,
housing, there's various
options as far as if to create
additional some additional
housing, but each of them have
sideboards.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. Yeah. Councilors. I
think the broader policy
objective here, if I the way
that I understand it, is more
on protection of resource lands.
That's the overarching policy
objective. Other than that, I
have nothing more to add.
>> Chair.
>> Councilor young.
>> I got three questions. So
the first one is I want to be
100% clear because I feel like
I've been getting or we have
been getting different answers.
And maybe that's just my mind
making things up. Or maybe it's
happened. I'm not sure. But if
you have 120 acre parcel with
this code, is there any
situation under which you could
build more than one unit on
that 20 acres? And likewise for
40 acres, two units, 60 acres,
three units?
>> No, no. With except for the
you could not divide it to
create new dwelling units to
create new lots. That's. If you
have 20 acres, you can't do
anything. You have one.
>> At 20 acres without using
the cluster development. Yeah,
you can build one house.
Correct. 20 acres. With the
cluster development, you can
still only build one house.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay, I guess I don't.
>> It's really targets larger
parcels. If you have 40 acres
or 80 acres, there are some
properties that are still out
there that are actively being
farmed. Those that wanted to
take advantage of clustering
have had 11 years to do that.
And and this, and it was
recommended by the AG
Commission, as well as a way to
protect the larger parcels. And
again, the larger parcels are
incredibly valuable for
agriculture because they're
able to bring in really the
bulk of the revenue that comes
in for the agricultural economy.
>> Chair, my second question
was going to be for you
actually, now it's kind of
morphed into two. The first one
is I'm I'm I'm not I want to
work with you on this here. I'm
trying to understand what
because I know we had a
discussion on Friday that was
about creating larger parcels.
And it seems to me that the
impact of this is. Is somewhat
I mean, as I think Jose or was
it Oliver said that that's kind
of what the accomplishment and
the purpose of this particular
code is. So. And then the next
question is, I'm wondering if
maybe we could actually tailor
this, not delete it, but tailor
it to actually find ways of
incentivizing bringing those
parcels back together. So, for
example, like if you, somebody
owns 20 or 40 acres and it's
two parcels, 20 acres each, and
they can build two houses on
that. Right now the code is
that they could cluster them
into one acre parcels for those
two, and then the other 38
acres remains as AG. But do
they are they required to
combine that or does it become
like 219.
>> It would not become a. 19
because 19 would be less than
20 acres and it wouldn't
wouldn't be compliant.
>> Right. It would still be a
20 acre parcel. But what I'm
asking is, does the code
currently, let's say if you if
you do 40 acres and you cluster
those two houses together,
there's 38 acres remaining. Is
that is that in one parcel now
or is it still in two?
>> If you do the cluster
subdivision, then the remainder
would be in one parcel, and
it's the two individual lots
where the development occurs.
>> It does essentially have the
effect of creating larger ag
parcels. Correct.
>> Well, you're starting out
with 40 acres, so you have a
large parcel to start out with.
You know, the the having a
higher number than 20 acres
would be a way to get at making
larger parcels. But we're
starting out with a large
parcel and, and with those, if
they could cluster two houses,
would there be would there be
an original house that on that
remainder parcel.
>> Right. So if there's a home
on the the say the 40 acres,
you're only adding one in this
example.
>> Okay.
>> So I would just say that I'm
very supportive of looking at
something like this, but I
think there's some, some
tailoring that we should do an
additional look because I think
we can right now, it just
barely. I think it just kind of
barely incentivizes creating
larger parcels. But I think you
could tailor this to actually
incentivize much more of the
ones that are already parcel
ized coming back together,
essentially.
>> Right. Well, there's two
strategies that you're talking
about there. This one is to
protect the larger acreage. It
really isn't about aggregating
agricultural land. It's just to
protect the larger acres from
being further subdivided.
>> I it feels to me like the
maybe I'm just fundamentally
not understanding this, but it
feels to me like the code as it
is today, attempts to do that
in.
>> In practice, it does not. In
practice, they're building on
prime soils, not the poor soils,
as is part of this code. And
they are not the remainder
parcel, not in not in AG. I'm
not as familiar with forestry.
And they're they're not they're
not applying to be an open
space and actually become a
nuisance in that it becomes
fields of weeds. So that's what
I'm trying to prevent.
>> Okay. Fair enough. Could I
ask staff maybe to try to I
mean, you've kind of heard my
questions. Can you maybe do
your best to attempt to. You
know, illustrate what exactly
we're getting out of the code,
what what is changed is and is
that a positive change? Is that
a negative change?
>> Councilors again, this is
Oliver. If the goal is to
protect resource land, one
would say this is a positive.
If you allow the code to remain
the way it is, it wouldn't
significantly change a lot. I
think what will happen is that,
as I indicated earlier, some
will say was what the previous
council wanted to accomplish by
going to act ten so that some
folks will take advantage of
that and get vested. And, and.
Of course, that was shot down.
The primary goal, as I stated
earlier, is a policy called
that you want to protect ag
resource land for agricultural
use. Often what happens when
you have a large parcel and you
you create maybe four or 5 or 6
lots. And if the dwellers, they
are not family members. We have
heard where there is opposition
to farming. The remainder
because of dust and other
issues. So that's the primary
goal is just the protection of
resource land for what it's
intended for. So it's a policy
called when the previous
council put a moratorium on
clustering. That was their
primary goal was to protect
resource land, because they
don't believe that further
clustering and all of that does
that. That was why it was the
previous council had a
moratorium in 1994, and that
moratorium was in effect until
2016.
>> Okay. So can I ask you this
then? So essentially, in
principle. It protects ag land
because it it creates larger
chunks of it. But in actuality,
we're not actually seeing that
ag land become productive. Is
that accurate?
>> Councilor? I wouldn't say
because I don't know that that
Haglund is not productive. It
is just what happens after is
the case. Are they in open
space? And if they are, what
are they doing with that? Are
they according to use? If so,
what are they doing? And this
is like I said, it's a policy
call. Those that wants to
protect. Again, the the
previous council did also pass
a moratorium on large lot
development. So there were two
things that happened because we
had what is known as rural. Ten
that rural. Ten you can go. You
can divide it into two. If you
can get a perk, in this case, a
soil test that you can put two
homes on that. Then you can
divide your ten to to five. The
previous council, not this
council saw that as a way of
not maintaining rural character
and allowing allowing more
housing, if you will, in the
rural area, and then put a
large lot development and put a
moratorium on that, as well as
what I stated earlier, that
moratorium was in effect until
2016, when the county went to
act ten, believing that that
would be opportunity for it was
spelled as opportunity for
young farmers who wants to get
in to buy ten acres and farm
that. But that's not what
happened. So again, it's more
of a broad policy called if
that's what the council would
like to do.
>> Yeah. What what has happened
across the landscape? If you
drive around in the rural area,
is there are these subdivisions
in the rural area of one acre,
maybe one and a half acre, very
large homes, manicured lawns, a
lot of lawn. If there is
remaining agriculture adjacent
to that. It has just, in fact,
created a lot of conflict
between these million dollar
plus homes and and industrial
agriculture, which can be
smelly and dusty and lead to
litigation. So it makes it very
difficult for the remainder
parcel to stay as that as that
use. And I have seen it, and
it's unfortunate that this had
not been really monitored over
the last 11 years to see what
the impact is. But. In just
driving around my community
there, I think there's a half a
dozen of these clusters. And I
think only recently one of them,
I think, put in grass seed, but
otherwise it had been 40 acres
of weeds. Any other thoughts?
We could just go ahead for a
vote. Oh, go ahead, Councilor
Belkot.
>> Have a question. How many? I
don't even know if maybe April
could answer this. How many
property owners would be
impacted? Like how many how
many people own 20 to 40 acres
of land around Clark County?
>> April 1st, deputy county
manager I don't know, but it
would be over 20, so it'd have
to be in an act 20. It would
have to be people that own 40
or more if they were to be
impacted by this.
>> Okay. And you don't have I
mean, I don't expect you to
know this. Like you like top of
your head.
>> The one thing I did check
while you, while you were
having conversation is that we
have not had an application in
the last seven years for a
cluster in the resource lands.
The. We do have ongoing ones
like Oliver said, for parcels
that were AG ten and got and
were vested at that AG ten. So
we still have some of those
remaining going through even
right now, but with an with a
true AG 20 or forest. Well,
really you'd have to be
multiple AG 20. We don't have.
We haven't had an application
in.
>> I think there's one at the
hearings examiner.
>> That's an AG ten vested.
>> Oh oh that was not the 400
acre parcel, but there was a
smaller parcel.
>> I think the ones that we
have are the only two left out
of the AG, ten vested ones.
>> Oh well I'm okay. I'd have
to go back and look at my email.
So. So I think if there are any
more comments we could do an up
or down on this. Yes.
>> I just would like to say I
really would like to support
this one, but I still just with
all of this discussion, I am
still not certain that just
deleting the code will end up
with a better situation. Just
given all of the discussion
that we've had here. So I feel
like you guys did on the last
one, like I would like it to be
worked through by staff. And so
I would be supportive of
something similar we did in the
last one, which would be having
it come back to us in a work
session as soon as possible.
>> Okay. I would just conclude
with the benefit would be to
stop dividing larger acreage of
resource lands, but let's do a
vote, and then maybe there'll
be something else that comes
forward.
>> Was that a friendly
amendment, councilor young.
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, let's just go up or
down.
>> Councilor young no.
Councilor Belkot.
>> No.
>> Councilor Fuentes. A
councilor little.
>> A.
>> Chair Marshall.
>> I how did you I, I.
>> Yes.
>> Motion carries. All right.
Thank you very much. Okay. Well,
let me.
>> If I may. I know don't want
to take you back, but on 65
there are two motions that
actually three. One was to
amend this section of title 40
to allow for minimum density of
35 rather than 40 that passed
five zero. The amendment to
adopt the city code failed.
Didn't pass. I think it was
three two. And then the motion
to come back six months later
to review this passed five zero.
I would like the council with
all these motions that passed
to fully, then make a motion to
pass the 65, including all the
changes made in response to
agency comments and the three
motions that passed.
>> Chair.
>> Great. Thank you. Yes.
>> I actually have another
motion to. Discuss under 60, I
believe so, yeah. And that
would be the and maybe correct
me if I'm wrong, but the the up
zoning in 179th Street area
where the urban holding used to
be. Would that be here or at a
different point?
>> So this is code that would
apply to all zones is what
we're looking at in, in, in
we're in the we're in the code.
So it would apply to all the
different zones. So I'm not
exactly sure what it is that
you want.
>> Well, it would be
considering changing our plan
that we have for all of the Up
zoning that's taking place in
the 179th Street area.
>> Would it be the 2200 acres?
Yes. That were. Yes. The urban
holding that was lifted. That's
correct. That's the full area
you're talking about?
>> Yes.
>> So then the urban medium
density changes to urban medium
there. There is no up zoning in
that area.
>> Yes. But going to urban
medium is up zoning, correct.
>> Okay. So I'm not sure unless
you identify parcel specific.
This is not going to do that
because it's going to affect
everything in all the other
areas within the unincorporated
area.
>> So how would we single out
that specific area?
>> You'd have to identify the
properties that you don't want
to have the Up zoning happen on.
>> But I could just say the 22
acres of the previous urban
holding.
>> The 22 acres.
>> 2200.
>> There's not. That was in the
urban holding. The acreage that
we removed the urban holding on.
>> Correct.
>> Most of which was not urban
medium density. Would you like
to see a map?
>> Sure, if I can help us. Yes.
>> I, as I recall, there was
some up zoning and then it was
removed as numbers got balanced
between, I believe, the city of
Vancouver. So I'm not sure
where things landed.
>> Well, I think that there was.
And correct me if I'm wrong, I
mean, if I'm wrong on this, we
don't even need to go into this.
But my understanding was that
there was broad up zoning and
170 that this area that we're
talking about was subject to
that. Yes. And then you did
make some changes, some
reductions, but not completely
that there are still some
parcels in that area that will
increase in density.
>> Only those that are
currently urban medium. So what
if it was R 12 is going to go
to R 24 with the broader.
>> Increase in density.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And we this is Solevad.
Again we showed that even with
that there are some areas I
think a map would be more
appropriate if we have it. Jose.
There's some areas that even
though on paper it applies to
them, those areas have already
developed. So you gotta put
that into consideration because
they're already developing the
the change in zoning wouldn't
affect them. It will only
impact any remaining parcels
that haven't developed based on
the current zoning. So we have
to be mindful on how we saying
remove those, even though in
some cases the change is going
to be negligible because some
of those areas are already
developed.
>> Okay. So is there any are
there any parcels in that area
that have not currently been
developed that are being
upzoned still.
>> There may be many that have
vested.
>> Yeah. So.
>> All right. The area that's
shown in the middle OR36, there
are some areas in there that
have already developed. And
there's, I believe, some vacant
land in that area. The area to
adjacent to the left OER 24 was
a request that came to council
in 2022 to be up zoned to OR22.
So we provided the closest new
zoning, which would be OR24.
The areas just to the south of
the OR36 on the south side of
179, I believe most of those
areas are currently either in
the process of being
redeveloped. And as you can see,
the platted in R 36 and R 24 to
the south. I think that's the
only remaining area. It would
be the OR36 in the middle,
where some of those have
already been developed as
apartments.
>> Okay, I think I understand
that what you're what you're
saying is it is being zoned,
but if we didn't upzone it, it
would now be in this oddball
old zone that doesn't exist
anymore. Correct. Okay. That
that helps me understand that a
lot better.
>> Sure. Right.
>> Do you have a motion?
>> I, I would just be curious.
I mean, it would create some
complications here, but I do
have a lot of hesitation to
increase any, any zoning in
this area, just given the
infrastructure challenges and
the frustrations that the
current residents are
experiencing.
>> Right. I appreciate that
very much. I feel like in this
instance, the cat is very much
out of the bag. And I don't
know, I have seen previous maps
that shows all the proposed
developments. So it's I don't
know how we to make this better,
but to just don't don't do this
again to bring in such a huge
area, really, without fully
doing the planning and having
in place realistic numbers for
what it will take to pay for
the infrastructure. It it was
it was not our best effort.
>> So and I just came with this
with a motion, but I was
expecting a conversation like
this. I, I at this point, I,
I'm, I'm a little frustrated
that there's not a way really
for us to dissect this in a way
that there is not any level of
density increase there, but
just given the comments from
staff, I don't think there's a
real way to unwind that. So I
will not be making that motion.
>> Okay. Thank you for that
conversation, chair. Yes.
>> I motion to approve number
65 with the amendments as
proposed by the Council.
>> Second.
>> Thank you. Moved by Fuentes,
seconded by little. Any further
conversation? Let's vote.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little. I chair.
>> Marchel I motion carries
okay on to 66 commercial
districts.
>> Chair.
>> I'd like to propose another
motion.
>> Yes, please go ahead.
>> I'd like to propose to
approve items number 66, 67, 69,
70, 71, 72 and 73.
>> Okay, let's go through that
a little slower. 66, 67.
>> 69.
>> 69.
>> 71, 72 and 73.
>> Chair, I have a comment.
>> Yes, please go ahead.
>> I thought we already
approved 66.
>> No, I know I had my cluster
amendment that's that got
squeezed in there.
>> Oh, gotcha. Well that's what
I thought we that was approved.
>> Yeah. We haven't gotten to
66 yet.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> We just finished 65
completely. It was confusing.
>> So I excluded 68 because I
know that's manufactured. Home
park overlays is a conversation
that generally the council
likes to have. Unless of course,
you know, there's nothing to
discuss. I would also like to
include 68 chair.
>> I do have an amendment for
68. So I would I'll second your
initial motion.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. And and no one else
wants to pull any of those
other ones that will just move
in a group. Okay. It's been
moved. Who seconded.
>> Councilor Yang.
>> Councilor young seconded.
Any discussion from staff? Jose,
you look like you're ready to
vote.
>> No. No comment from staff. I
was just checking on your last
action, so go ahead.
>> Okay, let's go ahead and
vote on 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72
and 73.
>> Councilor young.
>> I.
>> Councilor Belkot.
>> I, with the exception of 66
councilor Belkot.
>> Oh, you wanted to talk about
66 okay.
>> No, just that I was a no on
66 every all the rest. Yes.
>> Then you'd just be a no on
the entire motion.
>> I. I want to be in yes on
the rest of them. How do I.
>> Okay.
>> So then I think we need to
go back and I need to update
the motion.
>> Did we vote on 66?
>> We have not voted on 66.
>> We've not voted on 66. So
you couldn't have been a no on
66. What you're confusing it
with, I think, is that I
interjected emotion related to
clusters. And you voted no on
that.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, so Councilor Belkot a
we can include in this batch 66
or not included if you want to
discuss it.
>> I, I don't I don't need to
discuss it any further.
>> But it will be a separate
motion from the other ones. Yes.
Okay. All right. So let me
update the motion then. Just a
motion to approve number 6769
70 717273. And then we can do
another motion on 66. Because I
believe Councilor Belkot has a
different way of. Okay. That's
how does that work?
>> And and did Young's second
it?
>> Yes, I did second and I
would be okay with that
friendly amendment.
>> Yes. Okay. Now we're ready.
>> Okay. Councilor young I
councilor Belkot. I councilor
Fuentes I councilor little. I
chair Marchel.
>> I motion carries okay, let's
go back to 66 okay. Any
discussion?
>> Just a comment. Just for me
personally, I wanted I wasn't
completely opposed to this. I
just wanted more information,
which the rest of the council
didn't seem to agree with. So
it to me, I just felt the same
that I did with 65. But I was
outvoted. So I'm just a no on
66 because of that.
>> What does what does 66
actually do?
>> Can you go to the code
section?
>> Elizabeth Decker has her
hand up. Go ahead Elizabeth.
>> Yes. Good morning. Elizabeth
Decker. Jet planning number 66
is about amendments to the
commercial zones. And that is
to adjust some of the
residential uses that are
permitted in those zones,
including adding some of the
step housing uses, which is
emergency shelters,
transitional housing, emergency
housing and permanent
supportive housing that's
required by Washington state
law. It also adjusts some of
the densities for the minimums
and maximums and provisions for
affordable housing in the
commercial zones for parity
with the changes made to the
multifamily residential zones.
>> If I may add to it, provides
to allow for co-housing. Also
in the commercial district.
>> Yeah. Thanks, Oliver.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you for that
explanation.
>> All right, I'll change. I'm
changing my mind then. I just
need a little bit more
information.
>> I'm happy on that. Well,
we'll need a motion to adopt 66.
>> So motion to approve item
number 66.
>> Second moved and seconded.
Let's go ahead and vote.
>> Councilor Young Councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little. I chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries. Okay, now
we are moving on to 68
manufactured home park overlay.
Includes changes made in
response to agency comments.
Okay, councilor young, you have
something for us.
>> Yes I do chair in this one
is I'd be I'd be interested in
feedback from staff because
some of this may possibly be
incorporated. But we really we
had the town hall just like
about two weeks ago. We had
some feedback there. And my
understanding is that the code
around the overlay is still the
same as what was presented at
that meeting. Is that accurate?
The recommended that we have
before us?
>> Yes. There's no change.
>> Okay. Was there any changes
that staff considered from the
results of the public or the
the forum that we had?
>> I don't believe so. And I
defer to Elizabeth, but I don't
think we had a discussion about
making any changes.
>> Okay. Elizabeth, did she
raise her hand? Yeah.
>> Go ahead. Elizabeth.
>> Yes, councilor young, thanks
for that question. That was a
really powerful information
session that we had. We had
folks from ages 1 to 93 come
out to the info session and
tell us about how important
manufactured home parks were
for them. And I think the
biggest code issue that came up
that, that we considered, but
ultimately didn't recommend any
changes in the draft language,
is under the use exception
that's proposed. The way that
overlay is set up, it restricts
uses to primarily manufactured
home parks and residential
accessory uses, but offers a
use exception process for
property owners to maintain
property rights to apply. Yes.
Thanks for this use exception
to change the to remove the
overlay. If they can
demonstrate that the district
does not provide for reasonable
use or that the use is
permitted, there aren't not
economically viable. And so the
number one comment that we got
at that works at that
information session was like,
please add more details to what
economically viable means. And
we heard those comments and
we've done further research.
And I think this, this language
is really the best option that
we have at the time based on
the research we've done and
consultation with county legal
staff. This is although it is
intentionally discretionary,
because this decision will come
to county Council for a final
decision. This would be a
legislative action if an
applicant were to apply for
this use exception, because
it's changing something on the
maps. And so it will be for the
county council to determine,
through a discretionary public
hearing process, what
economically viable means. And
because of that, there are no
precedents across the state, in
other communities for how
economically viable is
determined. And really trying
to get into like, well, is this
percentage of this or it's this
many dollars that really just
isn't the state of practice at
this time. And so we didn't,
despite looking, we didn't
recommend any further changes
to that. As we mentioned at the
information session, this
language is, you know, again,
used in all the cities that are
using this across the state,
which is about 5 or 6, maybe up
to eight now. There have been
no applications to, to use this
use exception. And so no one
has brought a successful case
yet to show that the property
is not economically viable. And
so, you know, one way to read
that is that this language is
and this this code is working
in the communities that have
adopted it. And another way is
to say, we really need to keep
watching. And if there are
details that come forward as
parks, parks come in, we can
keep watching those cases and
see if there are details that
make sense to bring into the
code, but we really did not
find any evidence that would
support modifying the language
in this draft. Thank you.
>> Thank you for that,
Elizabeth. And I will just say,
having attended that meeting, I
went in with some real concerns
in the language and I left
feeling confident in it. But I
do want to add a couple things
that I think were they were a
part of the Hozack process.
They were identified. But I,
you know, for they may not have
made it in here. And then an
additional thing, I actually
have two motions. I'll read 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. So really, this
changes two things. One is that
we specify that if a if an
affordable and a quote unquote
affordable housing project is
approved, that it has to be has
to provide at least a minimum
or a max minimum of an average
of 60% Ami, which I think is
much more of a community
benefit. And I think a large
community benefit would be
required in order to displace
those folks. And then the
second thing would be that it
provides a right of first
opportunity to occupy the new
units. So those that live there
and are displaced would have
their first opportunity to be
assuming that they are eligible
for the new affordable housing
that replaces it.
>> Okay. Could you just restate
the amendment without the
explanation?
>> Sure. Yep.
>> And then we'll get a second
on that and you can explain
further.
>> I move 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.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
Second moved and seconded. Any
further discussion? Go ahead.
Oliver. And then Elizabeth.
>> Councilors not to draw you
back. 68 is just applying the
overlay. I think the changes
that you're making will apply
to 74.
>> All right. Thank you for
that reminder. We will pause.
We'll be.
>> Ready for 74.
>> Yes. Okay.
>> Which I'll ask Elizabeth to
weigh in.
>> Okay. Elizabeth. Yes, yes.
>> Thank you. Chair councilor
young, I think there are some
options. Either way, if we
could pull up 68, please. I'm
curious, councilor Young, if
you could clarify where you're
intending this amendment to go
right now under 68, the use
exception for the overlay, if
you would please. 4251 20 the
use exception offers those
three opportunities for if it's
no longer economically viable.
And then E sub three talks
about for replacement that the
manufactured home park overlay
could be removed in order to
allow redevelopment as
affordable housing. And to
better understand your motion,
Councilor Young, are you
proposing that. Yes. Here that
options one and two would be
deleted. And you would like to
update number three with the
language you've provided as the
only way to have a use
exception from the manufactured
home park overlay? No, we would.
>> We would maintain one and
two. It would just be altering
three to add two requirements.
One is first right of occupancy
or first opportunity to occupy.
And then the other would be
specifying that the affordable
affordability requirements of
the replacement project be at
least 60% Ami on average. And
that gives flexibility for some
market rate units. But then it
would create even deeper
affordability than 60% on
others.
>> Sure. So one clarification
to consider is that sub three
was specifically written here
to to apply to a affordable
housing that meets the
definition in title 40. We have
a new definition of affordable
housing proposed in 4170, which
specifies that a 60% Ami for
rentals, or 80% Ami for home
ownership opportunities, which
is the new state definition
across the board for affordable
housing. And so that's why it's
specified this way, you know,
in here just to tie to that
definition. So hopefully that
would you could consider
whether that meets your goals
or whether it needs to be
restated here. And we did, you
know, welcome amendments, but
we did attempt to address your
the your other provision with a
right to return policy in the
last line, if you'd like to,
you know, that could certainly
be rewarded. But we were also
considering that same priority.
>> Oh, I did not see that one
on there. Was that presented at
the meeting?
>> I'm not sure that we spoke
through every aspect of it, but
yes, this has been in the draft.
>> So. Let me read this then.
Well, I guess I feel like this
is a little bit more generic. I,
I really would like it in there
specified that they receive the
first or the right of first
opportunity. And then I don't
think the.
>> State law I.
>> Allows for. Or maybe I could
be wrong. Does the state law
now that says affordable. The
definition is 60%. Does it
allow for an average.
>> The definition that is
proposed for title 40, which
draws from that state
definition, does not allow for
an average. Because the intent.
Here again, most cities and
communities that have adopted
this only use options one and
two. And we're innovating here
in Clark County with sub three
for. This is sort of a fast
track, if you will. That's if
you're specifically if you're a
property owner specifically
proposing a recognized
affordable housing project that
meets those income thresholds
that it would allow
redevelopment. And I think a
potential concern around
allowing an average is that it
would really open the door a
lot wider to a much greater
number of residential
redevelopment projects, which
is what we're trying to limit
with this overlay to create
greater certainty for those
residents.
>> Right.
>> Okay, I get that. I still
think that there is value,
though, to the average, because
if we do determine that it
needs to be or should be
redeveloped in an affordable
project put in its place, I
think that flexibility, I think
it is especially like when you
look at some of the VHA, you
know, projects, they have some
units that are market rent and
that allows them to further
subsidize some of the other
ones. So it allows for even
deeper affordability in some of
those units. So I think I would
still, I think this I don't
believe anything in this.
Amendment is in conflict to
that. It just adds specificity.
So when we talk about
affordability, 60% on average,
and then shall provide right of
first opportunity, I think is
better language.
>> Okay. Amber.
>> Thank you chair. Good
morning councilors. Amber Smith,
chief civil deputy, prosecuting
attorney, understanding what
you're stating, Councilor Young,
my team would have to look at
the language that's been
proposed by the state because
if an average is less
restrictive than the 60%, as
what's indicated, we may not be
able to draft language to that
effect because we cannot be
less restrictive.
>> Than the state. So maybe I
would modify the motion if it's
legally permissible, and our
legal could look at that.
>> And the seconder is okay
with that.
>> Yes, yes.
>> Okay. I and maybe this is
just for the legislative record,
but I know with some of the a
mobile home parks, they may not
be well maintained. And so the
no longer economically viable
could be things had not been
maintained and or, or I, I
would not want just the
argument to be we could make
more money if we developed this
into something else as an
argument for not being
economically viable. So I just
would like to state those
couple of things. And currently
with the manufactured home
parks there, would they meet
this income, this proposed
income levels? I don't know, I
don't know what what if it's if
it's 100% affordable? One of
the fears was that someone buys
the property and increases the
the rents. Would this prevent
that from happening?
>> No, no, that's a whole other
animal. Yeah. That's what we
had a discussion about about a
week ago that we will be
working through it at some
point. I can't remember what we
determined on that, whether it
was I had brought it forward to
add that to our legislative
session or our legislative
agenda to work through the
state to close that.
>> Okay, okay, problem. That
sounds good. And then we don't
know for sure what income bands
are these rents are providing.
I'm just wondering if currently
they meet what you're proposing.
>> I don't know, I don't know.
>> Okay. Yeah. That's okay. All
right. Any other discussion?
>> I just want to know. You're
actually talking about that on
Wednesday during council time
as an agenda item.
>> Great.
>> Sounds great.
>> Okay. Are we ready to vote
on this one?
>> Yes, yes.
>> Councilor young I councilor
Belkot. I Councilor Fuentes, I
councilor little. I chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries. All right
we're turning the page.
>> Chair my my second motion
for purposes of time I will let
this move forward. But maybe we
can just get a quick head nod
to further not to stop here,
but to continue to look into
this issue, especially with the
one that I brought up looking
at displacement, right?
>> So in terms of policy
directive, could you just state
what that policy.
>> Yeah. That would be just.
>> To to look at.
>> To have staff continuing to
work through. And if we have
Elizabeth working for us still
through the end of the year,
perhaps that can be done. Just
some more study, work on what
we can do to prevent
displacement. Any other
legislative ways that we can
help the folks that live in the
new overlay that we've created.
>> Okay, so and this is not an
amendment to the. No comp plan,
correct? Yes. Go ahead. Amber.
And then Councilor Little.
>> Good morning. Just to
clarify, we still need to
approve item 68 with the
amendment that council young is.
>> Good point. Thank you.
>> Do we do we have that head
nod though. Just in.
>> General Councilor Little had
his hand up. Did you want to
make a comment on that policy
directive.
>> Could it be repeated? And my
hand was raised for after we
get done with these votes.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Yeah. So the directive would
be to have staff continue to
work through the issue of folks,
either their displacement or
just in general, how the county
can better support the mobile
home parks that we have today.
As part of the continued phase
three as it phase three now of
the Hozack.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So essentially,
councilor little that we don't
now that we're past the overlay,
we don't stop working on it.
>> Okay, thanks. Are we nodding
our heads on this and or
putting our thumbs up? Yeah,
we're all good on that. Okay.
And so back to 68. We need to
adopt the full amended.
>> Make a motion to approve
number 68 with amendments.
>> I second that Belkot.
>> Moved and seconded.
>> Moved by Fuentes. Cyndie.
>> All right.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot I Councilor Fuentes I
councilor little. I chair
Marshall I.
>> And councilor little Haasl.
>> Okay. Councilor little we've
moved on to 74. Do you have
something additional. Yeah.
Additional.
>> Yeah. Just because we're
moving in the code past land
use issues. I wanted to bring
up an issue on equestrian
facilities. Would this be a
good time?
>> Did we talk about equestrian
earlier? A little bit. And I
think we were. The discussion
we had a little earlier is that
this is something that could be
addressed any time.
>> I wanted to make a motion
that about addressing it.
>> Yeah, I have, I have I have
it here noted to bring it up
because you had testimony about
equestrian code. It's not on
your list here, but you can add
it on.
>> Right. I think that
directive was given. But
Councilor Little, if you want
to add to that.
>> Yeah. Yeah I'll do that.
Yeah. Because I did hear from
another constituent who is
affected by our decision in Le
Center, an equestrian facility
that's having trouble with code,
just like we heard a lot of the
community testifying. This one
was specifically about egg use,
required agricultural use
requirements. I think it's
under the tax code on what's
allowed as or what's counted as
agricultural use. And their
equestrian use and equestrian
facilities are not counted,
which is causing them financial
harm. So I just wanted to make
sure that this review included
that, as well as what we've
been hearing for years on the
building codes that their
facilities are being lumped
into a commercial code for
buildings the same like a
McDonald's would get. And so
that's why I if it's not very
specific, I'd like to make a
motion that just covers this
and says, like we did before
that in the next six months
that we would review the county
code and tax requirements as it
applies to equestrian
facilities, including
agricultural land use
requirements and building codes,
and propose new code that is
customized for equestrian
facilities and their uses. So
that's my motion.
>> Second, that Councilor
Belkot.
>> Moved and seconded. April,
did you want to add anything at
this time? I think it would be
good to review. And then I
think at once reviewed. Then if
there's a need for code changes,
make those changes. It seems
premature to say you're going
to change the code until
there's been the review. So
that's my only thought on that
chair. Yes.
>> And the motion does say
review the code and propose new
code. So that would be a
process that we're part of.
>> Well, I would say and as
needed review new code.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Yes councilor
young.
>> Just a question of process.
I what exactly was our
successful motion on Friday on
this. Was it just to go to
bring review to us in six
months?
>> I don't know that we made a
formal motion on that. And I
believe that's why Councilor
Little is bringing it forward.
>> I remember the discussion.
It can be Oliver, you mentioned
it could be discussed at any
time. That code could be
changed at any time, not just
because we are discussing the
comp plan.
>> Yes, that's title 40.
>> I made notes on that one.
>> Okay.
>> So we didn't make any motion
that we would need to
reconsider anything at this
point. It is a new motion,
correct? Okay. And has it been
seconded yet? Okay, great.
>> Any further discussion? Was
there a time on this six months?
How does staff feel about six
months. I know this has been an
issue that's been kicking
around for a very, very long
time.
>> It's been an issue for ten
years, if not longer.
>> There was a work group that
came together. I don't know
what the outcome of that work
group was, but it'd be good to.
To zero in on this at long last.
Okay. Any other comments? Well,
let's go ahead and vote on
Councilor Little's motion.
>> Councilor young I, councilor
Belkot, Councilor Fuentes,
councilor little. I chair.
>> Marshall I motion carries.
Let's see. Are we on 74 then?
>> Yes.
>> I have one more.
>> Okay. Go ahead. You had the
weekend to think about this.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah,
definitely. So. We we had some
new information on the Nevin
property in Camas in April was
going to clarify the record for
that. And I just want to make a
comment after.
>> And this is to clarify the
record, not to do any revoting
on Nevin.
>> It's for clarifying. And
then I'm going to make a
statement after.
>> Okay. Go ahead.
>> April. April 4th deputy
County manager. I just went in
the discussion. I had said that
I couldn't find any planning
that had happened through
community development or legal
lot determination. When I did
get more time to look into it
and with the help of staff, we
did find that they may have
made those five acre lots,
which would be legal
non-conforming lots in 1991.
They still haven't been through
legal lot determination, but it
does get it. But it does seem
without doing one, that those
may be legal, non-conforming,
legal, lots of record.
>> They may have standing. Go
ahead, Councilor Little yeah.
>> And so that's really
important distinction for this
conversation because it was put
into question whether what I
was staying at the beginning is
our two options. A vote for
that Camas City proposal would
have been a vote for anywhere
between 16 to 18 McMansions on
that property versus what the
city requested, which would
have been 1200 units. So vote
for that would have been the
actual vote for affordable
housing, as well as something
that is better for the
environment. So councilors who
are in the majority can always
do a vote to reconsider and fix
this one right now.
>> Well, I think it's still
uncertain how that would be
developed. Five acre parcels
are considered buffers to
agriculture, and the planning
director for Camas also
indicated that they they could
do fine meeting their targets
without this additional
property, but I, I, I am not in
favor of relitigating this one.
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> I would just say that I
share your frustration with
this. I, I do agree, I think
the outcome with this property
would be better if we were to
move forward with that. I think
we will end up with 165 acre
McMansions and that does not
really do the county good long
term. That being said, I, I
still this is 1200 units and I
think that, you know, I still
think that we're within the
realm of reasonability and, and
uncertainty. But this
particular project is 100%
residential. You know, I had a
question from a constituent why
I voted no on this one and yes
on the others. And this one is
purely residential units and
the others are jobs land almost
entirely.
>> Okay. I would just like to
move this along. Unless
somebody wants to change a vote,
who is in the majority that
let's move on.
>> I just want to clarify one,
one thing that this proposal
was submitted and reviewed as
residential, but the Camas
vision for the area is mixed
use with services and and jobs.
That right. There's a a desert
for that area right there. Okay.
Anyway, because it's been
reviewed for that. That means
this decision is on residential.
But it doesn't mean that they
can't ask for a.
>> Zoning because it was it was
what they submitted.
>> Decision is permanent for
the landowner and will
immediately, very quickly
convert into these McMansions.
>> Okay.
>> Let's living in this
opportunity that is only right
now.
>> Okay, let let's move on.
Unless anyone has a motion on
this one to change their vote,
let's move on to 74. So
manufactured home park
standards and requirements
include changes made in
response to agency comments.
Are there any amendments to
this?
>> No. Sure. I move to approve
item number 74 as presented.
>> I second Belkot.
>> Moved and seconded. Do we
need to talk about this motion
that the Planning Commission
made, or is that already
incorporated into 74?
>> It is not.
>> It is not. So that needs. We
need to discuss that first.
Correct.
>> That would be useful.
>> But only if we choose to
consider the amendments.
Correct.
>> You're considering the
Planning Commission's
recommendation.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Is there a motion to.
Approve the Planning
Commission's amendment? Would
you like to hear. Yes.
>> Would you like to hear from
Elizabeth first on the.
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay. Elizabeth.
>> Yes. Thank you. Chair, I
just wanted to clarify what is
in the draft before you for
item 74, the first bullet about
amending the regulations to
include park models and tiny
homes approved by the Bureau of
Labor and Industries is
included in the draft before
you in 42, 61, 40, a sub two.
That language has been amended
to include recreational
vehicles, the definition of
which does include tiny homes
with labor and industries, tag
and park models. To more
specifically address what the
what the Planning Commission
recommended. So that is
incorporated. But the second
bullet point in item 74 about
replacing these standards for
manufactured home parks and
directing to the cottage
housing standards is not
included in this draft because
we wanted the full standards
for your review so that you
could consider that motion if
you wished. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any further
comments or questions? Is there
a motion? Oh, there is a motion.
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. Are we
ready.
>> To vote? That motion was to
approve 74 with the amendments
from the Planning Commission.
>> As presented.
>> Can we. Second approve it
all together? The amendment and
the.
>> Yes.
>> 74 as a whole.
>> So. 74 with the
recommendations that. That's
what I am. That's my motion.
Okay. Okay. Motion to approve
number 74 with Planning
Commission recommendations.
>> Second counselor Belkot.
>> Okay. Moved and seconded.
Let's go ahead and vote.
>> Counselor young I councilor
Belkot I councilor Fuentes I
councilor little. I chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Chair, I'd like to make
another motion.
>> Yes, please go ahead.
>> Unless council chooses to
pull any of the following. I'd
like to move to approve number
75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
and 91.
>> Seconded by Councilor Belkot.
>> Okay. Moved and seconded all
of those proposed changes were
adopted by the Planning
Commission's recommendation 7
to 0, unanimously. Oliver, did
you want to comment?
>> Yes. On item 87. I would
like Council to include the
recommendation that came from
Public Works.
>> We'll pull 87 from that from
that list and discuss it
separately.
>> Okay?
>> Okay.
>> So just updating my motion
to approve 75 through 91,
excluding 87 for further
discussion.
>> Seconded by Councilor Belkot.
>> Okay. A revised motion and
second.
>> Councilor Young I councilor
Belkot I Councilor Fuentes I
councilor little I chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries okay 87 and
is there some further
information.
>> Councilor, this is Oliver.
This memo came to me from.
Jeremy and Ken ladder and it
was to include amending the
traffic impact fee formula to
ensure that passersby factor is
applied accurately and
consistently. So if the council
agrees with that, I will
recommend that as part of your
vote on 87, that includes
amending the traffic impact fee
formula to as presented, as
directed and encouraged by
public works.
>> And can you explain the
passerby language, what that is
specifically?
>> I think what they are asking
for is to. Because now we are
deleting the reference to the
fee technical document that we
apply a factor of one to
address passerby. Passerby is.
I don't know if Ken is on on.
Yeah, Ken is online and Jeremy
as well, so they can offer more.
>> Can you enlarge this?
Rebecca sorry, I can't see it.
>> Okay. Ken and Jeremy, thanks
for being here.
>> Yeah. Good morning Council.
For the record, Jeremy Zola,
PROVENZOLA county engineer. And
thank you for considering this.
I apologize that it was a bit
of a late proposal, but it was
to prepare against one of the
unintended consequences of
removing the technical document.
We refer to a passerby factor
in a Tiff impact fee formula.
But with the way that the the
traffic impact fee technical
document was generated, most of
the past by factors on there
were actually calculated as a
one minus a passerby factor.
When we refer to pass by factor,
we're referring to trips that
are in fact generated by a land
use. But. But it's not the
primary or diverted destination.
So a very recent example that
came up is a coffee kiosk, for
example. So a coffee kiosk
generates a lot of trips, but a
high percentage of those trips
is passed by factor, which
means they will stop at that
location on their way to a
primary destination. So if we
were to apply just the literal
pass by factor in that formula,
we would be reducing a Tiff
calculation essentially by the
amount of trips where they're
serving as the primary
destination. So this just flips
it around, I think, to align
with the intent of the trip
generation manual. And what I
assume is council's intention
to reduce the the amount of
Tiff assessment by those trips
that were essentially already
on the road.
>> Thank you. Some on the
council have been a little late
on our amendments as well, so
no problem. Go ahead.
>> Just I'm just trying to
clarify. I think I understood
what you were saying, but give
me what the end actual impact
will be to the fee for like a
coffee shop that does have that
does take the pass by traffic
and then the, you know, the
business that is not like that,
you know, the WinCo food or
something like that.
>> Yeah, it's a good question.
Thank you. Councilor Young. The
intent of the amendment is to
have basically no impact from
prior practice. So folks that
already were proposing the land
use that was on the adopted
Tiff technical document, they
won't see a change because it
was already a one minus. But if
we use the key, the coffee
kiosk again, as an example, I
don't recall the number
specifically, but I think it
was like a .83 as they're
passed by factor meaning .83 of
every trip, or 83 out of 100
trips are passed by visits,
meaning it's between their home
and their primary destination,
and they're going to pull in
and get a coffee. So if we were
to if we were to use the Tiff
formula as it stands now, we
would have to apply it
literally. So we would we would
multiply their Tiff assessment
by 0.883. And so that would
essentially turn into a 17%
reduction. But that 17% would
be those trips for which they
were the primary destination.
So it's just kind of flipped
around. You know, another good
example, maybe in contrast, is
a single family home, by
definition, a single family
residence is always going to be
a primary source or destination
for a trip. And so our Tiff
technical document already
applied a one to those so that
there's not a discount for
passby trips because there are
none. So again, that's where
that's where the Tiff technical
document served as a good
intermediary. But with the
rescission of that document and
our need as staff to apply the
Tiff formula, literally, I
think adding the one minus to
the pass by factor allows us to
draw those pass by factors
directly from the the trip
generation manual and
accurately apply those in the
formula.
>> Okay, so if I'm
understanding correctly, this
brings us as close as possible
to our current practice.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And then and then is
this bringing the. The fees as
close to actual real impact as
possible?
>> That is the intent of
applying the passed by factor.
Essentially, if it's applied
correctly, you're not double
charging for.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Trips.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. Anything else?
>> Gerald, move. Approval of
item number 87.
>> Second Belkot.
>> Moved and seconded.
>> Chair, just to clarify,
Councilor Young approval of
item number 87 with the
amendment.
>> That is that is that is
correct. Thank you for that.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. No further discussion.
Let's vote.
>> Councilor Young councilor
Belkot, councilor Fuentes,
councilor little. I chair
Marshall I.
>> Motion carries. Thank you.
Is there one more?
>> Yes. Number.
>> 101001.
>> Almost there. 101 which is
in the very last page. We've
already approved.
>> Oh oh proposal could have
easily been slipped by, but for
your diligent attention to
detail, Councilor Fuentes.
Transportation impact fee.
>> Just a little just a little
information on this one, please.
>> If you would like a little
information on this.
>> Yes, please.
>> Yes.
>> Let's pull it up.
>> So the impact fees are is
something we've already looked
at. Did the council agree we
agree to those impact fees
already but not formally.
>> That's true. We have had
work session with council and
there was other projects that
was added to the list and that
affected the overall Tiff rate.
And we presented that also to
the council. And we can pull
that up so that you can see the
the current fee and the
proposed fee.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Oliver. I
know we've we've we've approved
impact fees over the last
couple of months. This was the
only one out of all the other
ones on the list that we didn't.
And so I guess I was just a bit
confused why we didn't get a
chance to approve this one.
When we approved the rest.
>> It was coming late.
>> It was just late. Okay.
>> That's fine, just late. We
were working with our
consultant and they didn't
include it when we came before.
>> You okay?
>> That's okay.
>> Could you explain the 179th
Street? And I believe that's
developers agreement or that
surcharge? How many developers
is does this apply only to the
developers that have an
agreement? Because I think
there was maybe four.
>> Yes.
>> How does how does that work?
>> I will I will look to April
to assist me here on the
developer's agreement and how
we assess the surcharge. I
think it's in addition to the
fee. That's my understanding.
But I, I don't know.
>> I think Harrison is. Tilt my
head. Do you have a.
>> For the record, my name is
Harrison Houston. I'm a
transportation planner with
community planning. So I know
we list kind of five districts.
And we did that because when we
pulled the maps, five districts
came up. But as part of this
proposal, nothing related to
the 1/79 Street developer
agreements are changing because
those were part of those
agreements. So I my belief was
that the 605. That was what the
developers paid up front. And I
think you're correct. I think
maybe the 350 is maybe an
additional charge that comes in
once they come in for
development.
>> We have to verify it.
>> And does it just apply to
those four developers that have
the agreements?
>> Yeah. Yes.
>> Yes. Because it's in the D A
that's correct.
>> Right. Can you go.
>> Okay. And it's 179th Street.
Is that a district unto itself
or was it created as part of
the urban holding lifting?
>> Let's see. We're gonna go up
really quick to the map that
shows the different TIF
districts.
>> I don't I don't think 179
was created differently. I
think it's part of the part of
one of the district. This is
just additional that they pay
or they agreed to pay. But
let's look at the map.
>> So just adding on to that.
So the parcels that are not
tied to the agreements out at
1/79 fall to one of the other
districts.
>> Correct. They fall to the
Mount Vista district.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So what district is 179.
>> Right. So the the 1/79
developer agreements only apply
to those areas that are in that
reddish color.
>> Those are the four that had
the D a, the developers
agreement. But the entire 179
area is in Mount Vista. Yes.
>> Did Mount Vista's rate go up
as a result of that?
>> As the result of our update,
or.
>> Lifting the urban holding?
>> I don't think the rate went
up as a result of lifting the
urban holding. I think the time
we lifted the urban holding, we
did not make any adjustment to
the current TIF. The only thing
that happened was that the
developers, those that have the
D A agreed to pay additional
fee.
>> I know that was a fear that
was expressed at the time. And
of those. Four pink. Of those
four, I. How many? I think some
of them have not developed yet.
>> I believe that's correct.
But we may have to check with
com dev to confirm. I don't
believe that all of them have
developed I don't know. Yeah.
>> Okay. I, I think there's a
lot of development yet to occur.
And so that surcharge was a was
identified back when it was
lifting. And it's the same
surcharge. Now even though
things are a lot more expensive.
>> Yeah, we were just including
it for transparency.
>> I appreciate that.
>> Sure.
>> Yes.
>> Go ahead.
>> Could we go back to the
slide with that showed the fees.
And my question is. I'm
assuming that there is some
level of change built into this.
And could you identify what
that that change is. Yeah.
>> An old presentation. Should
I bring that up or.
>> Sure.
>> Change it to this project
that was added.
>> Okay. Yeah. Are you looking
at the percentage change or the
dollar change.
>> Percentage would.
>> Be good. So I'm just going
to pull up a presentation that
I believe we gave in a work
session back in July. Sorry.
Yes, July. So let me just. So
in, in the black kind of
lettering and the proposed
rates, those are what's in
appendix A for your
consideration for approval. And
then the percentage and kind of
dollar amount change are in the
columns next to it. The, the
red. We did share out some
preliminary numbers in our, you
know, efforts to get this
information in front of
Planning Commission as soon as
possible. And then we did
realize we had left out a
couple of capital projects. So
we went back and we had to
revise the rates with our
consultant. So the, the one on
the left. So the red is what we
shared with Planning Commission
and Dbw. And then the black is
what Planning Commission
ultimately looked at and
considered for the
recommendation. Yeah.
>> Okay. I mean these are
pretty substantial. I'm running
really. Did we have a hearing
on this?
>> Not not yet. Only a work
session. The Planning
Commission had a hearing and
made a recommendation that you
approve.
>> These numbers were presented
to us at that time. It's
amazing the amount of
information that comes to us.
It's easy to forget where we're
at. But I am wondering if, I
mean, these are pretty
substantial, but I don't know
how often somebody pays this
fee. So the 500 and I think 54
million or so that the
shortfall in our capital plan
is this built into that already.
So is that assuming these up
dated fees.
>> Yes.
>> That's correct. Okay. So it
would be worse if we did not
adopt these increases. Yes.
Okay. And then just last
question, if you could, in just
30s or so the these fees are
fairly nebulous, like to
understand because different
entities, they don't I mean,
you know, the WinCo doesn't pay
the same fee as just like we
were discussing before. So can
you just really, really, really
briefly just explain how this
number correlates to a project?
>> Sure. And I'm going to let's
see here. So I know you just as
part of the previous item that
you discussed, you amended this
formula, but this formula is in
kind of how it is right now in
our code. But what we do is we
take the unit of measure kind
of associated with a different
land use type. So for housing,
it's usually tied to the number
of units. So for single family
homes it's usually just one
unit. And then for multifamily,
I think it's it's also per one
unit, but the, the trip
generation kind of it goes down
as your housing type changes.
So single family homes
typically have the highest
generation rates. And then as
you start getting to a building
with more housing units, it, it
decreases. And for like a
commercial space, it's usually
per square foot. And I think
what we do is we tie all kind
of the unit of measure and the
kind of generation rate. We
kind of tie it back to the ITE
trip generation manual, which
is an industry standard. And a
lot of jurisdictions just use
that to kind of determine what
the generation rate is. And
that is actually updated quite
frequently. And we've seen for
for residential, we've seen the
generation rates actually
decline over time. So stuff
like whenever they update it.
So I think the last update to
that manual was back last fall.
And that decreased basically
impact fees without really any,
you know, action just simply by
changing industry standards.
But we kind of tie that back to
that. And. The, we also kind of
incorporate a 15% reduction.
It's that that 0.85. And I
think kind of the thought
process is, you know, we're,
we're kind of capturing some of
the, the growth in the road
levy from, from development. So
we offer that that 15%
reduction. And then for other
like retail, there's also the
business enhancement factor
that it's applied specifically
for retail or commercial.
>> Sure. That helps, but just
maybe, and I know you're,
you're going to be off by a
wide margin probably, but just
keeping the same example that
I've been referring to, like a
WinCo foods, a, just a off the
top of your head about how many
impact fees would they pay?
>> I, I really wouldn't know
where to start. Yeah, because I
would.
>> It is in the multiples,
right? I would assume.
>> Multiples of.
>> Impact fees. I don't know
how that works. I mean they
they pay more than what a
single family home would pay.
>> Yes.
>> Yes it would. Yeah. It would
depend on using the IT manual
to look at it. Is it 100 square
foot building. And if so, what
is the typical traffic
generated on it? And then the
type of business. That's how
that will be calculated.
>> Yes.
>> It would be nice if we had a
number just for the public, but
if you don't, that's okay, I
understand.
>> Thank you.
>> Did you want to say
something?
>> Go ahead.
>> I have asked that. David.
Sorry. April 1st, deputy county
manager. I've asked that David
Jardine, he will be able to
answer your question about the
D a as it applies to 1/79 Tiff.
If you would like to ask that
question of.
>> David, I would like to ask
that question because I'm
wondering if it's fixed or if
it is fixed.
>> But if it's online, he can.
>> But before he goes just so
we. I don't get away from what
Councilor Young asked is I mean,
traffic impact fees is to
calculate calculate the impact
that that business has on the
road. So the more they, the
more trips they generate, the
more their fees are going to be.
Okay.
>> So I will also have a
question about the the big jump
in rural fees, because that's
significant. And I don't I
don't know how that's justified,
but.
>> That's based.
>> On road area.
>> Right? Yeah. So the rates
that the way that we kind of
look at them is we.
>> Could we look at the, the,
the actual rates again.
>> Right here.
>> There we go. Thanks.
>> So to calculate these rates
and again, I'll try to kind of
summarize the process. I know
we had a consultant that came
on and calculated all these for
us, but we first start by
developing the cost estimates
for each project. So once we've
done the analysis on the
preferred we, we, we cost out
all the capital improvements.
And then what we do is we look
at kind of, we do some modeling
and kind of look to see where
trips are heading and where
they're ending. And so. And
then we also look at the growth
of those PM trips within each
of those four main districts.
And kind of we, what we really
>> Do is then we kind of spread
out the cost of the projects.
We we add them up per district,
and then we kind of divide them
by the total growth in trips
that we see in each district.
So I think maybe one reason why
the rural has such a. Kind of
increase is we have a lot of
capital improvements that.
Where. Trips are either ending
or beginning in the rural
district. And they're kind of
traveling along those those
improvements. But then their
growth in trips are also less.
So there's less to kind of
there's less trips to kind of
spread the cost out among them
as well.
>> So they pay more because
there's less trips.
>> It's kind of their, their
share of the impacts on the
facility.
>> And then, right. It's kind
of there's, there's less growth.
And so there's the, that
district kind of impact on the
facilities has to be spread out
among less trips, if that makes
sense.
>> So it may make sense in some
sense. But it does not make
sense. I think, in terms of
fairness. Okay. Any other
information? Yeah.
>> Other than David Jardine
online to talk about.
>> Let's hear from David.
>> Chair, can you. Repeat your
question for him? Because he
was not here at the time.
>> Oh, it had to do with the
179th Street Developers
Agreement. I know one of my
questions was if those are
fixed in time. I also was
asking. How many of those
developments have actually
moved forward? I think there's
a great there's some big chunks
that have not moved forward yet.
So whatever you'd like to add
to the conversation would be
great.
>> Good morning. David Jardine,
traffic engineering section
manager. Yeah, so the 1/79
Street D A had four
developments on it. C four.
Well it had more than that
because it had the three creeks
on a development agreement as
well. But the the. Rate is
fixed. Yes. Both the for the
the average daily trips rate
was fixed and then there was a
surcharge that was fixed. All
of those developments that had
development agreements, all the
residential ones, with the
exception of the three creeks.
And the 1/79 commercial, have
moved forward and many of them
are approaching their build out,
if I'm not mistaken. But to to
know exactly how many. Yeah,
how many lots were developed. I
believe that development
engineering has been keeping
tabs on on the collection of
Tiff under those development
agreements.
>> Okay. I just wanted to get a
general sense. Thank you very
much.
>> Sure.
>> Yeah. I'm still stuck on
that rural. And it does seem
like the rural is ending up
subsidizing the development
that they that they may or may
not even like to get where
they're going.
>> Sure.
>> I don't know if anyone. It
could be. That's an editorial
comment. If anyone wants to
comment, that's fine too.
>> Sure I would, I would think
somewhat the the opposite to
some degree, because when you
are rural, when you drive the
roads, you're, I mean, most of
these other districts like the,
you know, the close end
districts, most of their trips
are going to be inside of their
district, whereas rural. And I
could totally be wrong because
I don't live in the rural area.
But it seems to me like they
would often be making trips
through those other districts.
So I don't know if there's a
perfect answer to that.
>> Jeremy, again, County
engineer, I appreciate those
comments and I don't personally
have a good feel for the knobs
and dials for the model that
was used on how those trips
were allocated. But I
appreciated Harrison's
description of the methodology.
And maybe just to frame it a
little bit differently. And
again, at risk of maybe
oversimplifying it, it works as
a fraction. There's a numerator
and denominator, and it's
really our capital facilities
plan that serves as the
numerator. And it's the, the
growth capacity in those
districts that serves as the
denominator. And so with this
capital facilities plan, as
council's aware, that numerator
has gone up significantly. And
the projects that were carry
over projects from the prior
CFP, a lot of those costs have
been trued up for the first
time in a while. And so back to
Harrison's comment with the
rural, the rural will just have
lower future growth capacity to
spread that out among the
denominator. So in some of
those other districts, you have
the the numerator going up, but
also the denominator is still
large. And that's just not
quite the same case, or at
least to the same scale with
the rural area.
>> Great. That's helpful. And
when were these last updated?
Has it been a while? Because
that makes sense to me that
we've delayed keeping up to
date with these things.
>> I believe there was a, a
cost update done in 2022. And
Harrison, correct me if I'm
mistaken, right. Otherwise, I
don't think it's been since
2016.
>> No. Okay. So going back even
further. All right.
>> That's correct. And we put
in now, which you have already
approved the opportunity to
look at this on an annual basis
and tie it to their costs.
Construction index. And then we
have to come back to council, I
believe, in three years for you
to take a look at and then make
a up or down vote.
>> Great. Thanks for that
reminder. Yep. Okay. No more
questions from me. Anyone else?
Is there a motion or. There is
already been a motion.
>> There was an emotion. Okay,
but I'll move to approve item
number 101.
>> Seconded by councilor Belkot.
>> Moved and seconded. Let's go
ahead.
>> Councilor Young Councilor
Belkot I Councilor Fuentes, I
councilor little. I chair
Marshall I.
>> Okay, I believe that's our
very last vote on the
comprehensive plan. So that's
momentous. And then I would
just add for the public that we.
The comment period is open
until noon on October 13th. The
Council will be meeting at 1:00
on the 13th to make our
official approval. Adoption of
the comp plan. Well, the public
comment is open. The
expectation is that things are
not really going to change
between now, what we've adopted
over these many hours to the
13th. Is that correct?
>> I would say yes. Other than
if you get public comment that
supports further discussion
from council. That's the
purpose of open public comment
on this.
>> Okay. So there could be a
window. All right. Anything
else? Oliver?
>> No, I think we've we're
going to make a request either
through Cyndie or through the
counselor's office. I know my
staff was sitting at the back
taking note as they come, but
all the amendments that you
read, I would like to get a
copy of that, because my staff
will now be working to
incorporate all those
amendments so that they reflect
through the the action of the
Council in the adopting
ordinance that we will come
before you.
>> So. And those should be sent
to you, Oliver or Cyndie. Send
them to Oliver.
>> Yeah, send it to me. All the
amendments.
>> And I know some people have
written them up and then they
were modified. So as best you
can reflect exactly what the
motions were, that would be
great. Okay. And then I just
want to thank everyone. The
council, the public, all of the
staff. And I know we've kept
you for some very long meetings.
This has been a difficult,
difficult process. And and we
have the 13th for our final
vote. But we're we're almost
there. So with that and without
objection, this meeting is
adjourned.