Good evening everyone, and
welcome. Happy to see all of
you here. If you would join me.
Well, calling to order the
Clark County Council October
1st, 2026. And if you will join
me for the Pledge of Allegiance
and continue standing for the
invocation. I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United
States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands.
One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. And tonight,
we don't have someone to
provide an official invocation,
but I would just ask everyone
to take a moment of silence,
calm yourself, and reflect on
our beautiful fall. Okay. Thank
you very much. Let's start with
the roll call. Councilor here.
>> Councilor Belkot present
Councilor Fuentes here.
Councilor Little here and Chair
Marshall here.
>> Thank you. Okay. I would
just ask if any councilors have
disclosures to make.
>> Yes, chair, I do. Thank you.
As lovely as it is when we hear
from our constituents once in a
while, something goes a little
goofy. And. And just for the
future, consider sending emails
to councilors individually as
opposed to all of us
collectively. Because once in a
while we accidentally hit that
Reply All button. And that did
happen yesterday. And there is
an email and I forwarded it to
Rebecca to be posted to the
record. It was an email
discussing affordability and a
potential amendment to the
County Comprehensive Plan, and
I just wanted to make that
disclosure aware. There was one
other councilor that also
inadvertently replied all. And
so just wanted to make sure
that everybody was aware of
that and that they can see it
in the record.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Now, I will go ahead and open a
public hearing. And there are a
few things I'd like to say to
begin with, just so everyone
knows how it's all going to
roll out. We will. We have a
court reporter tonight, so we
will be taking a break every
couple of hours so that Cyndie
can get a little rest or
whenever she needs a rest,
we'll give her a rest. And that
will mean that everyone will
need to state their names
clearly, speak. At a reasonable
pace and spell. Spell your name.
The staff will start us out
with a presentation. Each of
the cities who are here will
have an opportunity to provide
five minutes worth of testimony,
and then we'll open it up to
the general public. And for the
comments on the 2025
Comprehensive Plan, update the
rest of the schedule. I
anticipate we will complete
public comment this evening.
We'll close the public comment,
and then the council will
reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m.
to make our deliberations and
vote on the various issues. If
we don't complete, we on Friday,
it will carry over on Monday.
Okay, I think that's it.
>> So and can I ask Council to
amend the agenda and add an
executive session after public
comment?
>> Okay. Executive session.
>> I'm going to ask legal
counsel to cite the RCW for the
record.
>> Apologies, chair. One moment.
Amber Smith Chief civil deputy
prosecuting attorney it is.
Pardon me. I'll say that a
little louder again. Amber
Smith, chief civil deputy
prosecuting attorney. And that
is RCW4231 ten. Perrin's one,
Perrin's little I for pending
or potential litigation.
>> Do we have an amount of time?
>> We'll do ten minutes.
>> We can be optimistic there.
Okay. Okay. So now I'll turn it
over to the county manager.
>> Thank you. I just want to
open up with a few remarks.
Just as a reminder, the
Washington Growth Management
Act requires a full review of
the Comprehensive Plan and
Development Regulations every
ten years. As council knows,
this review is comprehensive,
complex, and takes a great deal
of time and expertise of county
staff, key stakeholders and
local partners. I will note,
while the official update is
ten years, it literally takes
years to conduct all the
necessary work to get us here
tonight. Presenting the final
information for Council for
your thoughtful consideration.
Community Planning Director
Doctor Oliver Orjiako and
Program Manager Jose Alvarez
and all of the community
planning staff have led this
complex process with integrity,
inclusivity and expertise, and
I will note expertise that is
recognized throughout the state.
I personally want to thank them
for their leadership, patience
and tremendous work. As Oliver
has kindly reminded me, the
charter states that the County
manager is responsible for
presenting the Planning
Commission comprehensive plans
and recommendations to the
County Council, and at this
time, it's my pleasure to hand
this over to my colleagues to
lead us through this public
hearing. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Oliver.
>> Good evening, Chair and
councilors. Thank you very much,
County Manager, for that
remarks. Greatly appreciate it.
And I know my staff are sitting
in the back taking notes. And
hopefully when council begin
deliberation, they will all be
available to assist us to
answer your questions. So thank
you. County Manager, Deputy
County Manager, and Amber and
all the legal counsel that have
been helping us throughout this
process. And counselors, this
will be a joint presentation
between myself and Mr. Jose
Alvarez, who is our program
manager in community planning,
and I will start off indicating
that what is before you for
consideration is the
recommendation of the Planning
Commission. When we went to the
Planning Commission, we did not
make a recommendation to them.
We provided them a decision
table to guide them in their
review and in their present, in
their recommendation to you. So
while we are going through our
brief remarks, if I can call it
that brief, what is before you
is the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to you and
as the County Manager, opening
remarks, she is also presenting
the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to you. So
if we can go to the agenda for
this evening, what will go
through? Next slide please. And
while I'm thanking my staff, I
also want to thank. Councilor
Staff, Rebecca and Crew for
their assistance throughout
this process. Every comment
that they have received, they
have forwarded it down to my
shop and we have indexed them.
I cannot thank our city
partners and the public at
large for this more than three
year process. This is the
agenda. I will quickly go over
the provide you an overview and
adoption process, speak briefly
about the Community Framework
Plan and county wide planning
policies, then focus on
highlights of the proposed
changes, starting with the
comprehensive plan text and
Policies title 40, which is the
Unified Development Code of the
county. The changes we've
proposed making in those in
making in title 40. Then we
talk briefly about our capital
facilities plan. As you all
know, when we do the land use
or the county Council approved
the preferred. That is what we
use in preparing the Capital
Facilities plan and working
with outside agencies, whether
it's PUD or Clark Regional
wastewater or schools and
county sheriff and others to
help us. Update the capital
Facilities plan and show how
the county can pay for the
services and the resources
needed to. To support the land
use plan. We have also a County
capital facilities financial
plan, and then we have the
Arterial Atlas. I often joke
that my advanced transportation
planning staff. We put a line
on the map. That is true, but
that is how those roads are
built. We then go into impact
fees. The council have already
reviewed the school and fire.
So tonight you're going to be
hearing the proposed traffic
impact fee only. Then we'll
talk briefly about the
environmental impact statement.
We are required to with
integration of State
Environmental Policy Act. With
GMA, we are required to do
environmental review of the
land use and which the Council
approved. And we hired a
consultant to help us review
the potential environmental
impact, and we will touch upon
that because it is part of the
supporting document. And then
we'll get into the actual
recommendation of the Planning
Commission. Next slide.
Councilors. I often start and
show this. Each time I come
before you. These are the four
major phases that we have
engaged in throughout this
process. As I indicated, this
is not about checking the box.
This is about identifying what
needs to happen in each phase
and how we are, how long that
will take us to complete. The
first thing that the county did
was to approve the public
participation plan and scope of
work for this project. That was
the first thing and is required
by statute that we have to
provide a public participation
plan and a scope of work.
Following that, the county, you
will recall, took quite, quite
considerable time, if I may,
inviting folks from the state
Office of Financial Management
to appear before you in a
series of work session after
that which the Council then
make a recommendation on the
population to plan for. Again,
following that, we engaged
Scott Bailey when he was still
with the State Employment
Department to provide us the
employment projection,
correlating with the population
number that the Council chose,
which he did. And then we had a
series of work session with you,
and you approved the employment
numbers to work. It has always
been the county policy to get
the county close to 1 to 1
ratio in terms of population
and job numbers. You then
reviewed the county wide
planning policies and the
county wide policies and
population allocation to each
of our local cities. You
adopted those population and
employment allocation, which
was the basis of the series
preparing their own plan and
going through their own process.
Then you get into the shaping
of the plan, review and
refinement, and then the
adoption process, which is
where we are now. I'm not going
to go into all the check marks,
but check areas, but this is
not checking the box. You all
have participated in this
process and know that the
material in our 2025. Meeting
and information event, you have
a very voluminous information.
I commend you for reading them,
and I will get into highlight
of the major changes to our
plan chapters, but we are now
in the final adoption phase. So
let's go to the next slide.
Councilors. This is more of a
reference, but it is important
that I share this slide with
you. This is the what I may
call a schematic map. Is not
that too detailed, but you can
pick from it how the community
33 years ago came together and
prepared a vision of how they
would like the county to
develop over a 50 year. This is
what is known as the Community
Framework Plan. It's a 50 year
vision that was adopted in 1993.
It reflects how the community
would like to grow as the
county continued to grow. It's
a beautiful area to be in, and
since then, what we have been
doing is using the framework
plan to then develop the 20
year growth plan consistent
with the vision. I often joke
that the next plan update will
require revisiting the
community Framework plan to
engage the community to find
out whether the 50 year vision
developed almost 33 years ago,
is still valid. As a check in,
and two. If you look at this
map, even though it's very
schematic, the. Red area is
where both high density and
medium density areas will
develop, followed by low
density areas. And then you can
see the light blue rural
landscape, followed by forested
area, and then our ag areas and
open space in between. I can
say that pretty much on the
resource side, we have been
following this vision and it is
often readopted every time we
go through the periodic update.
So the council will be adopting
this until the next plan update,
where I'm suggesting that the
community revisit that vision.
Because when it was prepared in
1993, the county population was
less than 300. I was about 250.
Now we have exceeded almost 500
and double that population, if
I may. So it's time to check in
to see whether that vision is
still valid, to continue
developing and using it to
develop our 20 year growth plan.
Let me go to the next, and you
can stop me at any time and ask
me questions as I go through
this. I said, as I said, this
will be a joint presentation
between myself and Jose. Let's
go to the next slide is what is
often referred to as county
wide planning policies. The
county wide planning policies
is required when the Growth
Management Act was passed in
1990 and codified in the
Revised Code of Washington as
36.78, the section 210 of that
law requires that counties and
cities collaborate to develop
countywide planning policies to
govern the development of
comprehensive plans and
Washington Administrative code.
365-196-305, also ensures
consistency between
comprehensive plan of counties
and the cities sharing a common
border or related regional
issues. We have come to you
when we shared with you in a
work session. The current
county wide planning policies
and there have been some
amendments to the county wide
planning policies, but they
require the county and all the
local jurisdictions working
closely together to agree on
that policy, because we, the
county, have to adopt that
county wide planning policy as
well as our local jurisdictions.
And since we started this
process in early July of 2023,
internal planning staff have
been meeting with each of our
local jurisdictions on a
monthly basis, with other
outside planning partners, our
Clark Regional Wastewater
C-TRAN. I don't think there was
anyone represented from the
school district, but of course
we do have the school advisory
group, so we do coordinate with
representative of the school
districts and the purpose of
the county wide planning policy.
I'm not going to go into each
one of these. The county
council can and the public can
look that up. But it's really
to facilitate transformation of
local governance in the urban
growth area, typically through
annexation or incorporation of
a city, so that urban
governmental services are
primarily provided by cities,
and rural and regional services
are provided by counties. You
can see the other two bullets
there. As I said earlier, since
the countywide planning policy
was first adopted in 94, it had
been amended in all 4 in 2007
and in 2016. And through this
process, we have recommended
additional changes to the
countywide planning policy.
Next slide please. I will just
provide you with highlight of
new policies in our
comprehensive plan text. When
you begin your deliberation,
each of the chapters are
separate land use, economic
development, climate, you name
it. They're about 15 or 16
chapters or elements. I want to
highlight the housing element,
because you all are aware that
the legislature have passed
numerous housing bills. I won't
name them all, but we knew that
that is coming. And I commend
the county manager and you,
councilors, for giving us the
opportunity or the foresight to
develop the Housing Action Plan
known as Hozack. We prepared
that prior to the legislature
passing all the housing bills,
but that was very helpful to us,
and I thank you again for the
opportunity to fund the
implementation of that plan,
not completing it and putting
it on a shelf. But thank you
for giving us the opportunity
to begin implementation of that.
So the the passage of so many
housing bills led us to that
work. And we are continuing to
do that work. You will recall
that when you after the passage
of that plan, you had a
committee that put that plan
together. You also. We also
have a committee and a
consultant, and I believe our
consultant is online listening.
Miss Elizabeth Decker, very
intelligent, and we appreciate
the work that she's been doing.
That work led us to the first
middle housing code work. I
don't want to editorialize, but
we know there was some
opposition to that. But the
council finally approved that.
And I give I give the community
that works on the committee
that worked on that, and my
staff that led the governor. To
come down here and present our
word. When we completed the
middle housing portion of that
code. Not only that, we also
received an award. Due to your
own support on updating the
aging readiness plan. And I
must say that I have been
receiving calls from other
counties, even outside the
state, wanting to know how we
put the aging readiness plan
together and the universal
design guideline that the group
put together. So I've been
referring other counties and
other state planning agencies
that call me that. They can go
to our website and look it up.
And we had a commission on
aging established after that,
again, to continue to implement
that work for the housing.
There's also another amendment
relating to, I think it's House
Bill 1181 or 81 is the climate
element. But 1110, which was
the Adu. Housing bill that
require us to amend our
accessory dwelling unit, not
only Clark County. I believe
other cities did the same thing.
Now you can have up to two
accessory dwelling unit on your
lot, or you can convert your
garage or basement into into
accessory dwelling unit. We we
we, we amended our code
removing ownership provision
and parking and other issues.
So it is more flexible than the
previous accessory dwelling
unit code. As I mentioned, we
updated our code with the help
of our consultant and the
implementation of the Hozack
work to now allow a variety of
housing type which wasn't
allowed before in the single
family zone. When that bill
1220 was passed, some folks
thought that that was the end
of building single family, a
unit in the single family zone.
I said, no, it's just now
giving the local jurisdiction
opportunity to allow a
different housing type that
wouldn't allow before. So
that's what that bill provides.
It's not unique to Clark County.
Other cities are required to do
the same. The major other
change that we have to comply
with, and this is not saying
the state is asking us to do
this, but it is unfortunately,
it took quite a while for the
legislature to finally pass a
bill requiring adoption of a
new climate element, which
Clark County is required to do
with, with emphasis on
resilience and greenhouse gas
reduction, environmental
justice and best available
science requirement. I also
will commend the County Council
for appointing a committee of
different backgrounds that work
on that and came to a consensus.
That's what I talk often about
process. There were no minority
report, if I may say so, but
you did receive letter from the
group letting you know that
they came together to approve
the new climate element that is
before you. We have gone to the
Planning Commission. When I get
to that and to you to share the
work of that group, as you
begin your deliberation, all
this is open for you to make,
amend or make some suggestion.
And if you do, and if it passes,
we will incorporate any changes
that pass in any of this
element to reflect your action.
When you when we prepare the
adopting ordinance, the other
new area, if we can go to. The
next slide is transportation.
The amendment to the climate
bill requires counties as well
to create a new Ada transition
plan for transportation, which
we have done, and share that
with you. It is part of the
recommendation that come out of
the Planning Commission, and
also to adopt active
transportation level of service
standards and to strive to
equitably implement the
multi-modal transportation
network in a way that is
consistent with the same
environmental justice. Next
slide please. Councilors, as I
mentioned earlier, other
chapters that we updated, those
were updated to be consistent
with any new bill that the
legislature passed that require
us to update as part of our
comprehensive periodic update.
So we have done so. As I
mentioned earlier, all the
chapters we had a work session
with the Planning commission.
We didn't want to take all the
documents to them at once. We,
we, we took like 3 or 4 of the
chapters at once to them so
that they could manage
absorbing what the changes are.
And we did the same thing with
the Council. So. And we posted
all the chapters on all the new
changes to, to our website so
that the public will also have
the opportunity to review that
even though they don't have a
comment during work session,
but we provided it for them,
for the public to review so
that it is part of the public
participation provision. The
other changes we made were all
just related to making sure
that the policies were written
in a manner that provides
clarity, and every time you
look at the chapters multiple
times, you find errors. So we
use this opportunity to
continue to correct errors. And
then we provided the chapters
for additional public
participation and opportunity
to various advisory group,
whether it's the BI compared,
whether it's the Commission on
Aging or the school, and then
internal departments, we made
that clear so that they can
provide us any thoughts or
comments. Let's go to the next
slide, please. Counselors are
as we are updating the the
policies and strategies. They
are also legislative changes
that came out of some of the
new bills that the legislature
passed. So that led us to look
at our title 40. For example,
we amended the definition
section in title 4100 .070. In
the definition section, we
added what is the definition of
step housing? What is the
definition of co-living? As an
example, in our minimum and
maximum calculation, we
prioritize multifamily,
allowing density measurements
in that section of title 40. In
our low density residential
district, we did additional
refinement and also further
clarify what is allowed, what
qualified as step housing and
the same in our residential and
office residential district,
prioritizing multifamily and
step housing and co-living the
same in our commercial district.
I think there's a provision
that where we are allow hotels,
for example, we have to allow
step housing and co-living. The
same is true in our mixed use
district. We did the same thing.
We adjust the allowances there
to also provide for opportunity
for co-living and step housing.
We worked as a result of your
moratorium on redevelopment of
manufactured home parks. We
listened or the county listened,
and with the help of our
consultant, we also propose
manufactured home park overlay
and the issue to address there
was to is really focusing on
protecting manufactured home
parks because it is an area
that, in terms of housing stock,
need to be really looked at and
to protect to the way that we
can, that we believe can be
defensible, if you will. We
also further did some
refinement in our compact lot
development as a result of what
the development community or
those that are using the code
are finding out, which is
typically how code works. It's
not written in stone. When
issues come up, we address them
or find a way to amend the code.
The same is true in the
multifamily amenity areas,
improving the topic address.
They're just improving the
quality of multifamily amenity
areas, landscaping and open
space and, and so forth. The
the legislature also recently
passed a new bill requiring us
to address parking and lodging
standards. So 40.3, 40.1 .010
relates to those changes. And
then we made some minor changes
to the appendix F of highway 99
overlay district standards. The
idea there was to also look at
the feasibility of allowing
middle housing and multifamily
updates. There are other
additional code amendments that
was made in this, in this case,
to the traffic impact fee
section of our code. If you can
go to the next slide. Yeah, I
believe we share this with
council. Again, we looked at
the the traffic impact fee
section of our code title. 4610
0020 focusing on definition,
removing reference to the
traffic impact fee technical
document. And with that removal,
we looked at other section of
the code and provide some
clarification what that would
do with that removal, and then
also provide clarify annual
automatic adjustment to the
impact fee rate following the
construction index, at least
for three years before we come
to the council to review any if
any adjustment can be made with
input from the county and the
community at large, we
clarified and I think on, on,
on the schedule, we clarify
automatic adjustment to the
impact fee rate and also
clarify duration of impact, fee
collection and when a project
qualified for impact fee credit,
all those changes have been
made to that section. When we
received a comment from various
outside agencies, our internal
staff did public work, did
provide us comment, which I
think we shared with council.
When you get into your
deliberation, we'll remind the
council to make sure we include
that change that public works
provide to address possibly
traffic accurately. Now that we
are removing the the technical
document related to the traffic
impact fee, the next area I
want to get into next slide is
our capital facilities plan.
This is where we can be able to
show us how we are going to pay,
at least in the first six years,
to support the plan that we are
moving forward. So in the case
of the capital facilities
overlay, the idea is to is is
to review how our proposed plan
is supported by our capital
Facilities plan. And the key
factors to be must be balanced.
Our land use priorities, our
public facilities to support
them, and then our financial
capacity under our CW3670A0703.
And then we are required to
review with our service
providers, their their own
capital facilities plan, be it
coordination with C-TRAN, parks,
water, sewer, stormwater,
school, law enforcement and I
indicated fire and also in
review of the land use plan,
particularly the preferred
alternative. They all indicated
that there is. They have
adequate capacity for the 20
year planning horizon. In the
case of growth related to
transportation costs, I think
we have shared with Council
what GMA requires, particularly
in transportation improvement,
necessary to implement the
growth. The 20 year growth plan.
We. In reviewing the preferred
alternative, I believe we came
to the Council and said we are.
We showed you our six year
plans 2026 through 2031. Some
of those plans have already
been adopted, but they are
short term transportation needs,
which we use the 20 year from
the 20 year list to develop our
six year. And have the council
approved that. In the case of
Tip, you have to approve that
before the budget. You adopt
the budget, which you're going
to see later this year. In
terms of the long term
transportation needs, the work
that our consultants help us
review. The preferred plan
shows that there is a shortfall
in the neighborhood of 555
million, shortfall to fund the
necessary transportation
improvements. We came to the
council sharing that
information with you, and, I
believe, outlined strategies to
mitigate how the county is
going to close that gap. It is
not something that you required
now, after the adoption of the
plan, as I shared with you, and
I think our public works
director and crew agrees with
that, the council can direct
that public works and planning
begin to look at those options
on how to close the gap. And
next slide please. This is the
Capital Facilities Financial
Plan. This plan is prepared
primarily by the county. As I
indicated before, it covers
transportation, parks and open
space, stormwater drainage and
water quality, and then county
building and other facilities
in the case of county building
and other facilities, this is
where the jail and any
remodeling and work with the
court will fall under this
county building and other
facilities. But in
transportation, open space,
stormwater, you can see the
expenditures and the earmarked
sources of appropriate revenue
sources, and then the revenue
coming from new development. I
believe you were talking about
stormwater last time. There is
no fee. So, you know, access
for stormwater review. That is
why the development community
will develop that. And over
time, dedicate or ask the
county to take over the
stormwater facilities and make
it a public maintenance issue
going forward. That is what is
represented on this slide. The
next slide deals with the
Arterial Atlas amendment. This
is the roadway that supports
the land use. In terms of
transportation. We have updated
it to also look at any
circulation plan that the
council have adopted for
example, the high not the 179
circulation plan. We have
amended the arterial at last to
include any adopted circulation
plan. We've also overhauled the
document and with the help of
GIS, we've identified so many
Scrivener errors that we need
to fix. What does that mean?
Reule that have already been
completed that is still showing
on the arterial atlas, or where
the arterial or the line on the
map doesn't really follow where
it's supposed to be. So there
are so many others that we are
going to be identifying post
plan adoption, and hopefully by
next month or so, begin that
work when we start the annual
review and docket process. The
next section I want to quickly
run through is the traffic
traffic impact fees. Counselors,
you have seen this with the
work of our consultant. We
looked at the projects. In the
second column is the current
traffic impact fee. And this is
per average daily trips. And
this is the proposed rate. So
this is this proposed rate is
what you're going to be voting
on and hearing from the public
when they testify. We have
shared that with the Planning
Commission. And it's part of
their recommendation to you to
approve the traffic impact fee,
as are the work of our
consultant. And my staff shows
the the next slide focuses on
the environmental review. As I
indicated, we did hire a
consultant. It is something
that my staff and I can do, but
if we write it, we'll. Will it
be acceptable? You will say
staff driven or staff written.
But we did hire a consultant to
help us that do this type of
work. They worked on the draft
EIS, which was published, and
we provided not 30 days, but 60
days for the public to review
that comment or review that
document. Excuse me, and, you
know, provide comment. And then
all those comment were we
provide provided a response
both the county and the
consultant when the final EIS
was done. And I would submit to
the council that we have met
the requirement as a as it
relates to this comp plan
update, I've taken too much
time because they just as I
said earlier, there is too much
documents that we have put on
your lap, but now I will turn
it over to Jose Alvarez. If you
have questions for me, I will
wait. Before we go into the
actual Planning Commission
recommendations to you.
>> Are there questions from the
council? Okay. Did you have
something to add, Jose?
>> Oh yes.
>> Oh yes, oh yes.
>> A few slides that you may be
familiar with. Okay. Again,
good afternoon Council. Jose
Alvarez with program manager
for Community Planning. I'm
just going to give you a
highlight of review of the
Planning Commission
recommendations that we
discussed September 16th at our
work session, the Planning
Commission held their hearing
August 20th and they
deliberated September 3rd. And
these are the recommendations
that they provided. Go to the
next slide. The first set of
we're going to be the maps that.
These next 4 or 5 slides are
the UGA expansion areas that
were being considered with the.
With two exceptions, the
recommendation from the
Planning Commission were
consistent with what was in the
preferred alternative that you
recommended going forward to be
studied in the EIS in the
battleground UGA, there were
two areas that the Planning
Commission recommended be added,
and those are highlighted in
the green text box. And those
numbers are can be found in the
line item numbers for the the
decision table. And so number
26 is a 35 acre increase or
expansion. And that's I believe,
utilities for the city of city
of battleground owns that
property. And it's the arrow to
the south there. And then to
the west is three properties
totaling 17 acres that were
added for residential. And
that's on the north side of the
battleground. UGA. Next slide.
The chemist urban growth area.
Again, they're proposing to
expand for the airport. And
then at 161 acre property, the
Nevin property, for.
>> The distinction between.
>> And so they included the 162
acre expansion for the Nevin
property.
>> Quick, quick question.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
>> These maps are these. Just
to clarify, are these the
recommendation from the
Planning Commission, or is this
what the cities have requested.
>> These are recommendations
from the Planning Commission.
>> Okay. Thank you. Councilor
councilor Young Shari Cyndie.
>> Yedda Cyndie, if I may,
councilor young, it's safe to
say, yeah. These are
recommendations of the Planning
Commission. It's also what the
city's proposed. I know that
you made recommendation on the
final when the Planning
Commission on the preferred
when the Planning Commission
made that recommendation to you,
you made some changes. For
example, in the case of
battleground in the preferred.
The only parcels that were in
the preferred. If we can go
back to battleground. Are the
piece to the West, which is
marching towards the Dulles
Kaliner and the piece to the
north, totaling 488 acres, the
Planning Commission recommended
that the Meadow Glade piece to
the south, where we marked SE.
Be included in your
recommendation. When you
adopted the preferred, you
excluded it. In the case of
commerce, you can go back to
commerce. This is just more of
a clarification. Go back to go
back to commerce. In the case
of commerce, the previous
recommendation to the planning
from the Planning Commission
did not include the neighboring
property. Council recommended
that it be included in the
final alternative. That was
studied. And we shared with
council that when this was
looked at in all three, it was
looked at. As for housing, the
city came back and asked
whether this could be looked at
in for employment and we said
it was too late to do so. So
that's the clarification. The
initial recommendation from the
Planning Commission did not
include the neighboring
property. Just a clarification,
but it is in the final as a as
a recommendation to include it
in the final alternative that
was studied by council. So I've
stopped and Jose continue.
>> We have a question.
>> I'll try to make this quick.
And on 27 back at battleground
Matt Little, Councilor Matt
Little, battleground number 27.
There's three parcels there. I
saw it in battlegrounds letter
in their request but it wasn't
identified which parcel was the
one that was not in the DEIS,
which I believe is 226988000.
And I'm just wondering which
one of the three that is
because it's.
>> Yeah. Let's go back to.
>> And maybe we'll learn that
when the city's present.
>> We can show you that quickly
councilor.
>> Gotta go back.
>> If we can go back to
battleground.
>> Right.
>> And bring it down.
>> So it's the parcel just
south of the arrow on the north
side.
>> The well, there's three
contiguous parcels.
>> Yeah, it's the smaller one.
>> Smaller one to the.
>> South abutting the UGA.
There are. Okay, so this is
parcel square the sideways T
and then the one underneath is
the one that was not studied in
the UGA.
>> You're pointing to number 26.
I'm talking about 27.
>> 2017 acres.
>> No. 26. Well, the 27 is
those three that comprise the
17 acres. Number 26 is the one
to the south. That's the 35
acres that the City of
Battleground owns.
>> I understand 26 is where the
city owned parcel is with the
water resources. I'm just
asking about 27 there on the
east there that you're pointing
to right now.
>> This one? No. Yes.
>> Down up up, up where the
arrow is.
>> Where the arrow is.
>> Up where the red arrow is
right there. 27 right. It's
it's three different parcels.
I'm just trying to figure out
which is the one that was not
analyzed in the D.
>> There was just one parcel.
The one parcel is 35 acres.
>> All right. The way it's
described in the city letter,
it looks like three. So maybe
that's a question for the city.
But thank you.
>> They'll clarify it.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Next slide. Okay. And so the
center again, they had an
additional recommendation. And
that is a roughly five acre
parcel that is between the
expansion areas to the north
and the UGA. And it's the white
parcel that's highlighted in
red. And that's the one that's
owned by the Clark Public
Utilities. We did contact CPU,
and they didn't have any
concerns with being included. I
think that was a question that
came up at the work session.
And then the those two areas
were expansion areas that were
included in the preferred. And
the Planning Commission
recommended approval of those.
And the additional parcel that
was not studied in the phase.
Next slide. The Ridgefield
expansion area. Again, there
are two properties. The mall
property to the south and then
the expansion area to the north.
And these were again in the
preferred alternative. And the
Planning Commission recommended
including both of those areas.
And these are. Zoned AG 20 as
well. Just so just for the
record. Next slide. The Yacolt
urban growth area was an
expansion of 12 acres due to
the parcel to the west to the
east. That was current. That is
currently in the UGA as
industrial and is looking to be
converted to parklands. And the
Planning Commission recommended
including that as well. Next
slide. So this is a summary of
the proposed amendments within
the Vancouver UGA. We're
looking at changing some of the
densities within the
multi-family zones to try to
address some of the housing
requirements that the state.
Through their housing analysis
and planning tool and the need
to plan for and provide housing
at all income levels. We needed
to upzone some of our urban,
medium and urban high density
residential districts, and to
increase the supply of that
land. And then we looked at
certain properties to rezone
from our 110 and our 122 R 175.
And then there were some site
specific requests that were
included in the land use table.
I think the Planning commission
recommended all but one, but
I'll have the next slide. We'll
have the summary of that. So
the Planning Commission denied
the motion to amend zoning in
Urban medium and her urban high
residential districts, where we
were looking at consolidating
from five districts to three in
the mapping. They make that
recommendation. Ultimately,
they decided to approve these
those same changes in our
zoning. Zoning districts. So
there was a conflict between
those two. This was related to
the second bullet, which was
the the Planning Commission
wanted the council to consider
the recommendations as it
pertains to some of the
proposed changes. Related to
the code changes that were
being proposed for the
multifamily zones. Third bullet
there was the denial of a
recommendation on one of the
site specific requests to go
from commercial to medium
density residential. We can
discuss that more in detail
when we get to deliberations,
but there's some access issues
along 503. That is why the
proposal is being made and was
originally supported by the
Planning Commission and Council
and the preferred. But the
Planning Commission. Made a
recommendation to deny that
motion. They also included
three policy amendments in the
Housing element. The first two
are county wide planning
policies 2.19 and 2.1.11, and
those are included in the in
the table. And then the fourth
bullet again is minor change to
include language archeological.
In one of the the policy
sections. And then the next
bullet in the climate element
was new information that a new
policy to develop regulations
in conjunction with PUD for
grid scale batteries. And then
finally the manufactured home
park in our code was proposed
to be updated to clarify that
the park that include park
models and tiny homes approved
by labor and industries, and
then also to in include
consideration of the college
cottage development
requirements instead of a
separate set of development
standards. And I think we
discussed those at the work
session on the 16th. Next slide.
Just One more thing. The. As
Oliver mentioned earlier, we
did get some feedback from the
Department of Commerce.
Washington State Department of
Transit, the Regional
Transportation Council, and our
own Public works staff.
Subsequent to the Planning
Commission hearing. And so we
have provided the Council with
our responses to those and what
amendments were made. To the
chapters and the code. And
we've shared that with you and
made that public. That's all we
have. If you have any questions.
>> Okay. And the next two pages
are school and fire impact fees,
which we've already approved.
So just for the public's
information. Okay. Thank you
very much. You've it took a
little while, but it's taken
very many years to get to this
point. So thank you very much
for that summary. Are there any
immediate questions? I just
remind the Council that we'll
have plenty of opportunity
tomorrow to ask lots of
questions of our planning staff.
So any questions before we hear
from the city's chair? Yes.
>> Go ahead.
>> I don't have any questions,
but I just wanted to make the
council, as well as the public
know that for the past few days
have been having troubles with
my back, so I may just leave.
And there's no disrespect to
anybody that might be making a
comment at that time. I'm just
in the back doing acrobatics,
trying to stretch it.
>> So okay.
>> I'm doing okay so far, but I
may need to.
>> Well, and if you need to
stand up at any point or.
>> Do some jumping, jumping.
>> Jacks, a few jumping jacks
would would be fine. Okay,
thanks for that comment. Okay.
Oh, yes. Oliver, counselor.
>> Nothing from me anymore.
We're just going to step out in
case cities want to sit here.
So we're going to go to the
back. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And how many
cities are here. Are all the
cities here we have like, are
you one or are you two
different cities, two cities.
Okay. Oh, and Richfield back
there. So for Vancouver, okay.
All right.
>> Councilor Caroline online.
>> Okay. Well, I think we'll go
alphabetical. And each of the
cities have five minutes. And
to the council you you may have
questions, but I'm hoping that
we can try to move this as
quickly as possible so the
public can have a chance to
speak as well. So go ahead and
state your name for the record.
And so your battleground.
>> Yes. Thank you, County
Council, can you hear me? Okay.
My name is Sam Crumlich. Last
name is spelled CRUMMETT. I'm
the planning supervisor.
Speaking on behalf of the City
of Battleground. First of all,
thank you for all the work that
you've put into this, as well
as the Planning Commission. And
the staff has been a great
partner and collaborator
through all the work involved.
In my comments, I want to
summarize, first of all, our
our big ask. I want to also
just paint a brief story on how
we got here, and then summarize
some of the amendments we've
requested. Our ask is that you
would support the Clark County
Planning Commission September
3rd recommendation. That
includes approving decision
making items number one, two,
and three regarding our urban
growth boundary, as well as the
amendments 26 and 27 that I'll
talk on briefly in terms of how
we got to our recommendation
for our preferred growth
alternative, which is primarily
a 450 acre expansion out to
dollars corner for employment
use. This would be zoned
Westside employment. And then
along State Route 503 would be
zoned commercial. This actually
started 25 years ago.
Battleground had a 50 year
vision, and one of the guiding
principles in that vision was
future growth should occur
primarily to the west and south,
and will occur in all
directions consistent with the
city vision. So that laid a
framework similar to the
county's 50 year vision in 2015.
During our last periodic review,
the city proposed a modest 82
acre expansion out towards
Dollars corner that was
appealed and the Growth
Management Hearings Board had
some concerns with our density
calculations and found that we
had a excessive amount of
residential while we were
expanding for employment. But
rather than pursuing that, we
would withdrew that request and
focused on the next periodic
review update, which is where
we're at today. In 2018, we did
a city wide strategic action
plan and community vision. And
out of that came several
planning studies. The major one
was the Land Use Master Plan
update in 2021. That is where
we did our capacity analysis as
well as our, quote, reasonable
measures exercise under the
Growth Management Act, which is
specifically our CW3678215.
What that means, what that
means is before you can do an
urban growth boundary expansion,
the state says you essentially
need to see if you can grow
within your existing limits or
do some zoning changes before
you go out. We've done that.
It's all documented.
Specifically, what battleground
did was we changed some of our
mixed use districts because
those weren't performing for
what we needed. We reverted
back to industrial or medium to
high residential. And after
that exercise, we still found
that we were lacking to
accommodate jobs. A key data
point was we had only 80 acres
of vacant industrial land to
develop, falling way short of
where we need to accommodate
our mandate from the state for
jobs. So that's kind of the
backstory to where we're at
today. And I believe all of
that is in the record in terms
of the specific questions about
our amendments, the, the the
question that came up from
council member little, the
specific parcel that was left
out of the DEIS in in the study
was on the corner of Dublin
Road and two 49th Street,
parcel number 226988. That was
added primarily if we were able
to complete that half street
road improvement with
development, it made sense for
that parcel to come in. What I
would recommend and what we've
already done is we're doing an
independent CPA for our
comprehensive plan, and we're
including that parcel. So I
think that would function as an
amendment to your own Stapper
process. Thank you for your
thank you for this opportunity.
I'm available for any questions
or during deliberations. I will
try to answer any. You may have
that come up.
>> Great. Thank you. So you'll
be here tomorrow?
>> I will be online likely.
>> Okay, great. Thanks for that
background. Are there any
immediate questions?
>> Chair? Sorry, sorry for this
question, but I think there
must be a mislabel in what the
staff just presented and what's
in your letter. So I just want
to make sure that the 26 is the
26 that you're talking about.
And we're talking about the 26
on the map that was presented
by staff is the. Is the
addition on the north side, the
27 is on the east side. But on
page 11 of your letter, it
shows that number 27 is the one
on the north side. So it's
opposite of what is being
presented. And I wouldn't want
us to vote on the wrong thing,
in the right order, in the
wrong order. So which one is
correct?
>> Okay.
>> And which one has the water
resources.
>> The water.
>> On the east or north.
>> The city water towers
reservoirs are on the east side.
That's the 35 acre parcel. And
I show that attached. Yeah, I
show that as item number 26 in
your decision making packet.
And in our letter I also show
that as 26.
>> So okay, I think the arrows
are just deceiving in what was
presented because it looks like
26 is the north one. But just
for clarification, here at the
2027, is the one on the north?
Yes. And then the parcel that
is not in the D e is the
(222) 698-8000. Is that the
smallest of the three parcels
in the south east corner?
>> Yes, that is the smallest.
>> Okay. And the reason I was
asking about that is you can't
actually make a decision on
something if it wasn't in the
DEISI believe. And I'm not a
lawyer. But that's the problem
with that small addition. But
you said you added it to try to
make the the purpose of it was
a road connection. And you
can't do it without that parcel.
>> The. And there's some
photographs in the record. In
that letter. The primary
purpose was there. We have a
half street city road that has
been developed under city
standards, and if those
properties to the north were
brought in, there's a
development that would be ready
to go under our city standards.
That third parcel is right on
the intersection, and I don't
I've reached out to them, but I
don't know their status of
whether they want to develop or
not. But it would make sense to
bring that in in order to
potentially fix that
intersection, since it would be
close to that development
opportunity.
>> Can you complete that
project without that parcel?
>> It could it very well could.
Yeah. The other two parcels
could develop if they were
brought into the city.
>> All right. Thank you for
your time.
>> You're welcome. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Moving on to Camus here online,
I believe.
>> Good evening, Chair and
council members. My name is
Alan Peters. PETERS. I'm
community development director
with the City of Camus. Firstly,
on behalf of Mayor Hogan and
Kansas City Council, I want to
take a moment to thank you all
the Planning Commission and
your staff for the tremendous
amount of work they've put into
this periodic update. Waldo
County and its cities have gone
through periodic updates before.
There really has never been a
periodic update quite like this
one. And and I personally want
to thank Jose and Oliver for
all the work they put into this
project and all the guidance
they provided to me and the
other cities as we've navigated
this process with all the new
many state planning
requirements that have been
thrown at us even in the past
three years.
>> Can. Excuse me, can he? I'm
having a hard time hearing him.
He's kind of staticky on my end.
>> Okay. Thanks, Cindy. I don't
know what we can do to improve
that. He's participating online.
>> Maybe here or on your end.
Council or.
>> The council can hear you.
>> Okay.
>> Maybe just speaking slowly
might help.
>> I will, I will do my best.
>> Thanks.
>> So the City of Kamea
supports the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
And as you consider final
adoption, we respectfully ask
that you retain its
recommendation to include both
Grow field and the Evinn
property within the Kamea Yedda
campus. We've been allocated a
2045 population of over 37000
people, and we need to provide
capacity for over 4200 housing
units and over 1000 jobs. We
want to be clear, we're not
relying primarily on outward
expansion to accommodate that
growth. We're making
substantial changes within the
city and our UGA by increasing
residential densities, allowing
more middle housing and
accessory dwelling units,
expanding multifamily capacity,
and then creating new mixed use
and mixed employment zones, as
well. As we've developed a
downtown sub area plan that's
going to allow some
redevelopment there. But even
with those changes, the
remaining developable land
within campus is increasingly
constrained. And the proposed
expansions of Grow Field and
the Nevin property are targeted
responses to those specific
circumstances. Grow field off
Pluckhahn first, this is
approximately 84 acres. It's a
publicly owned operating
airport owned by the Port of
Camas, Washougal. It already
contains runways, hangars,
fueling facilities, flight
school and other employment
related activity that we think
exhibits, we think, exhibits
characteristics much more
consistent with an urban public
facility and employment use
than with rural lands.
Importantly, campus has
intentionally limited that
proposal to the port owned
airport property, and we
reviewed Grow Field as a
distinct circumstance based on
its public ownership and
existing use, not as the
beginning of a broader
expansion. Nevin presents a
different opportunity. Its 161
acres contiguous with our UGA
near existing and planned urban
development. It's near downtown
campus, and if it's included,
it could provide capacity for
more than 1200 multifamily
housing units. We understand
the recommendation to include
that as multifamily, and we
would accept that. We find that
the property should no longer
be designated agricultural
resource lands, and that it's
already characterized by urban
growth. The area consists of 17
parcels, five acres or less in
size that could currently be
developed into low density,
sprawling rural residences. And
we don't believe that that
would promote productive
agriculture. The county's AG
land study indicates that due
to soil type, the majority of
this property is not prime
farmland or farmland of
statewide significance. And
again, the property is adjacent
to our UGA and an area that's
been rapidly growing and has
resulted in an extension of
utilities and other public
facilities, such as campus high
school. While the property in
the past has been used for
minimally productive ag
activities, such activities
such as limited paying are not
really commercially feasible,
sustainable and the property is
not well suited for long term,
long term commercial
significance. So I do want to
take a moment to state our
support. Also for the
development of a TDR program.
We believe the property in
particular would be a good
candidate for such a program,
and would commit not to annex
that property if included in
the county's UGA in the city's
UGA until the county
establishes the TDR program. So
with these two expansions,
together with the other changes
we're making in the campus, UGA,
I think, provide a balanced
approach to meeting our long
term housing and employment
obligations. And again, thank
you for your partnership, and
we support the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Then let's move on to the
center.
>> Good evening. I'm Angie
Merrill. I'm with the city of
LA center. Last name is spelled
MERRILL. I am the city planner.
I want to thank the county
council and the staff for all
their hard work with the
comprehensive plan. I'd also
like to thank you for the
opportunity to speak on behalf
of the city of LA center. As
you consider the adoption of
the comprehensive Plan, I'd
like to focus on the center's
economic future and how we can
grow while protecting the
things that are important to
Clark County. The center has
some unique challenges when it
comes to growth. Much of the
land surrounding our community
is constrained by steep slopes,
wetlands, habitats, and
environmentally sensitive areas.
It limits where we can
realistically grow. That's why
the areas that we have
requested along the I-5, near
the interchange and the casino
are so important. This is where
transportation and
infrastructure can support
future commercial and
industrial development, while
allowing us to protect the
small town character of our
downtown and community. There
is a history behind the areas
being considered for future
growth. Since 2007, these
properties have been identified
as urban reserve areas for
future expansion of the center
for employment. The city,
county and others have made
significant investments in
roads, utilities and
development around the I-5
interchange. These areas are
next to tribal trust lands that
are expected to be developed as
and as development occurs, the
areas will become increasingly
urban in character and more
traffic, noise and other
activities that are not
compatible with long term
agricultural use. For the
center. This is more about.
This is more than adding land.
It's about creating family wage
jobs, building a strong local
economy so our residents have
the opportunity to work in
their own community. At the
same time, the center strongly
supports protecting productive
agricultural land. We believe
in a transfer developments,
right? We believe a transfer
developments right program can
help accomplish both goals. A
TDR program can give farmers
the opportunity to receive
value for their development
rights, while keeping
productive farmland and
agricultural use. It can also
help cities accommodate growth
in places where infrastructure
already exists and growth makes
sense. The center is committed
to working with the county and
the other cities on a county
wide TDR program. The center
agrees that we will not annex
any of the properties into our
city until a TDR program is in
place. I'm. I have also
submitted an exhibit with my
testimony that provides
additional information about
the D designation. Areas in the
center and the LA center. Udy
expansion findings in response
to county wide planning policy.
1.1.24, which calls out for
implementation. Implementation
of a county wide transfer of
Development rights program
being beginning in 2027. David
Toyer will be sharing the
findings on the behalf of the
city of LA center. The center
respectfully asks the Council
to support the growth areas
identified in our community and
to continue and to continue
working with the city of LA
center and the other cities to
establish a strong countywide
TDR program that benefits all
communities. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay. I don't see
any immediate questions. Let's
move on to Ridgefield.
>> Good evening, Madam Chair.
Members of the county Council.
For the record, my name is
Steve Stewart, STUART, and I am
the Ridgefield City Manager.
First, as many have already
stated. Thank you for this
opportunity to speak. Thank you
for all of your work during
this process and that of your
staff. And we know how much
goes into that and we
appreciate it. We are asking
this evening to support the
Planning Commission's
recommendation and the
preferred alternative that was
studied in the final EIS before
we got into the final EIS and
any need for expansion. The
first question that we asked is,
what is the vision as a city in
Ridgefield? That vision starts
with maintaining the integrity
of our existing neighborhoods,
while focusing density in areas
that can support it, areas that
have the infrastructure, the
services and the amenities.
That work has already occurred.
In 2021, the city started
adopting ordinances and
guidelines to be able to
increase densities. To do that
in a way that was still
respectful of the unique
character of our small town
that work in and of itself now
and in the future is not enough
to meet the capacity
requirements that we have been
given by the county and by the
state for both affordable
housing and for jobs. To do
that, we need to look at
targeted expansions, targeted
meaning strategic. The city has
been strategic in identifying
areas that already meet the
characteristics of urban growth
and offer potential for good
paying jobs and for affordable
housing. Those areas are
consistent with the Discovery
Corridor concept that began in
1999, a concept that has 12
miles contiguous and adjacent
to I-5, going from WSU
Vancouver to LA center,
providing good paying jobs for
all of North Clark County. That
strategy is actually very much
aligned with the legal
requirements that are necessary.
When we are looking at an
expansionary that is
characterized by agricultural
zoning, there are three
questions we have to ask is if
an area, even though it is
characterized by urban growth,
is zoned AG, then you answer
three questions. First one is
it characterized by urban
growth? The North Industrial
urban reserve area. That is an
expansion area. We are
recommending. That area has
been characterized by urban
growth in and of itself, with
an urban reserve designation
since 1997. That designation is
identified as the next area to
become urban for job expansion.
Beyond that, it is surrounded
on the south, west and east by
the Ridgefield UGA and to the
north by the Cowlitz Tribal
Reservation. Beyond that, it
actually. Beyond that, going to
the South. Forgive me. The mall
property, which is the other
expansion request that we are
bringing forward, is completely
surrounded by the cities UGA,
and as such is characterized by
urban growth. The second
question that we have to answer
is, does that land by its own
geographic makeup, satisfy the
requirements as AG? Again, the
North Industrial Urban Reserve
properties are surrounded on
three sides by the city's UGA
and to the north by the Cowlitz
Tribal Reservation and the mall
properties are 100% surrounded
by urban development. And then
the third question is, are
those properties of long term
commercial significance for
agriculture, for the mall
property, again, completely
surrounded by urban growth, it
is not farmed or enrolled in
the current use tax assessment
program. It's too small of an
isolated area to itself,
sustain productive ag
activities, and the property is
adjacent to available public
services, including water and
sewer. The North Industrial
Urban Reserve properties are in
an urban reserve. Overlay. The
overlay necessitates adjacent
communities planning for
eventual extension of public
utilities. The properties are
surrounded by existing urban
development, and they are
adjacent to urban services.
Based on all of those factors,
we would ask that you support
the Planning Commission's
recommendation and the
preferred alternative, and
beyond that, we see an
opportunity and the opportunity
to actually preserve
commercially significant
agricultural land elsewhere in
our county as it is important
for our future. A TDR program
that has already been spoken to
is an opportunity to do just
that. The City of Ridgefield
has been committed to that,
remains committed to that, and
submitted a letter of intent
such that the city would not
annex any properties brought
into the city's urban growth
boundary until or unless a
county wide TDR program has
been developed to preserve
farming activities now and into
the future. Again, thank you
very much for the opportunity
to speak to you and all of your
work, and I'm happy to answer
any questions.
>> Thank you very much, chair.
I see a question.
>> I do have a question. And
since TDR was brought up and
that's my motion, and I heard
the same thing from three
different cities here about
this offer to not annex until a
TDR program is in place. Does
that mean that you would not
annex any lands that were
potentially de-designated until
a TDR program is in place, or a
TDR transaction on those acres
has been transacted?
>> The intent of the City of
Ridgefield has been. And is
that a transaction shall have
occurred before annexation is
appropriate.
>> Wow. I mean that I don't
know how that seems kind of
unprecedented. What is your
reasoning behind.
>> So the basis of it is the
opportunity that we haven't had
in Clark County before. We've
tried to establish TDR programs
in the past, and for lack of
sending sites and receiving
sites, it has never occurred.
So the opportunity to actually
find sending and receiving
sites that are appropriate and
that are willing because these
are private transactions that
have to occur to make this
happen, is something that's
unique. And our city council
has seen the benefits of that.
They know the benefits because
of the heritage that we have as
a community and the path we
want to see moving forward.
>> Okay. I think if there's
follow up questions, we we in
our deliberations, we can
follow up. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Okay. That leads us
to Yacolt. Is there anyone from
Yacolt? Yacolt online? O
Washougal is online. I'm just
going alphabetically here that
if there's no Yacolt, let's go
to Vancouver.
>> Good afternoon, Chair
Marshall. Councilors. My name
is Eric Paulsen, councilor for
the City of Vancouver. It's
spelled ERIKPAULSEN. I'm here
to comment on a few remaining
issues for consideration. As
you approach the final adoption
of the county Comprehensive
Plan. First, thank you to you
and your staff for all of the
extensive and excellent work
you have done for the last
three years regarding housing
density. The county's materials
for this hearing indicate that
there is more than enough
buildable land to accommodate
the chosen growth forecasts.
There are countywide surpluses
of land for all types of
housing, and the biggest
surpluses are for housing at
the 80% Ami and above, not
below the county. Numbers also
show that most buildable land
is zoned residential.
Residential land is zoned for
lower and not higher densities.
The City of Vancouver has two
requests specific to the
Vancouver UGA. First, please
add small amounts of commercial
or employment zoning to parts
of the Vouga that need it,
where in many cases, residents
today are forced to drive over
a mile to the nearest shopping
or work opportunities. This is
inconsistent with the County
Comprehensive Plan policy as
well as a. Requirements. We've
provided a list of potential
sites to begin to address this
problem. Items 18 and 23 in
your decision table are large
scale residential upzone
proposals in the Vouga, which
could accommodate modest
commercial components. We've
also identified many other
potential sites in earlier
testimony. As far back as 2024.
We would appreciate a council
response in the upcoming
deliberations if zoning can't
be added to any of these now,
we urge you to direct that
issue to be addressed in 2027.
Work plans second, we request
that you not significantly roll
back proposed housing minimum
densities before the new plan
has had a chance to work,
particularly when doing so
would be based on incomplete
information. A recent DEA
letter raises important
considerations about market
feasibility, but it appears to
be based on skewed and
incomplete data and proposes to
scale back minimum density in
all vouga, multifamily and
mixed use zones by a full 30 to
40% from what's proposed, among
other detailed changes. We are
not against examining the issue,
but please do so after the
comprehensive plan has been
adopted. This would allow time
to get complete data, properly
study the proposal and its
impacts, and importantly, let
the market react to the new
plan in the meantime, allowing
you to make potential future
adjustments based on actual
market conditions rather than
mere speculation. This is
particularly important in cases
where pending infrastructure
may improve development
viability, such as the highway
99 Bus rapid Transit. The
Purple Line, scheduled to open
next year. If the council feels
it must make changes now, we
recommend limiting the
reduction to a move from 40
units per acre to 35 units per
acre, allowing density to be
calculated in a way that favors
more bedrooms as requested, and
leaving it at that. Regarding
TDRs, we appreciate Councilor
Little's leadership on this
issue and look forward to
upcoming discussions, but
oppose using legally binding
countywide planning policies
for what should essentially be
work plan instructions to
county staff. Lastly, we ask
that you indicate how you wish
to address the major issues
raised by the Department of
Commerce so that all parties
can respond accordingly. Do you
envision changing growth
assumptions or allocations to
address the land surpluses you
are currently reporting? If so,
how do you envision using new
interpretations of the
Agricultural Land designation
criteria to allow proposed
expansions? If so, what are the
implications for other
designation requests now and in
the future? What are the
impacts on infrastructure
provisions in the Vouga and
elsewhere? If the county is
again found to be non-compliant
and becomes ineligible for
grants as had as it has in the
past, we appreciate that these
issues are complex, but they
have regional implications and
deserve an open discussion
prior to comp plan adoption.
Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you very much. Go
ahead.
>> So I have an email yesterday
that was sending your the City
of Vancouver comments, but I
don't have any attachment on
that email. So can you make
sure that at least I and
probably the remainder of the
council get that attachment?
>> We'll make sure you get it.
Councilor young, thank you for
the comment. Yeah thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay. That brings
us to Washougal.
>> Good afternoon, chair
Council members. My name is
Mitch Keip. It's spelled KNEIPP.
And I have the pleasure of
serving as the Community
Development Director for the
City of Washougal. First, like
my earlier city representatives,
I must thank you and your staff
for all the hard work to get us
here. So close to the end. I
will be brief in my comments,
and I'll start with an update
on Washougal work as part of
the 2025 2045 Comprehensive
Plan Periodic update, which we
refer to as onward Washougal.
Washougal is planning for a
2045 population of 24,874, an
increase of approximately 6700
residents. To accommodate that
growth, our plan provides
capacity for 3735 additional
housing units and just over
2000 additional jobs, and
Washougal is accommodating it's
allocated growth within its
existing urban growth area and
is not requesting an expansion
of its boundaries. Washougal s
update also incorporates the
significant changes in state
law that have occurred since
the last periodic update. This
includes planning for housing
affordable to all economic
segments, allowing middle
housing within residential
areas, accommodating up to two
accessory dwelling units per
lot, and incorporating the new
climate planning requirements.
The city has worked closely
with county staff throughout
this process to ensure our land
capacity, assumptions and
planning framework are
coordinated with the countywide
planning policies and regional
growth allocations. I'd also
like to speak to the proposed
new countywide planning policy
policy regarding a transfer of
Development rights program,
beginning in 2027 that was
submitted by Councilor Little,
which we received last Monday.
Washougal is not opposed to a
TDR. Our concern is just about
adopting a new, very specific
countywide planning policy at
this late stage of the periodic
update, with little public
input, however, we are more
than happy to and welcome the
opportunity to further discuss
a TDR program. Lastly, I wanted
to specifically request that
you approve the City of
Washougal preferred alternative
plan that was reviewed under
the eyes which studied our
proposed changes within our UGA.
I cannot find a specific
Planning Commission
recommendation in today's
packet to the Council noting
their approval of our plan, and
if I've missed that, I
apologize. It may be in there
somewhere, but because we
aren't expanding our urban
growth boundaries or making any
changes in that regard, I
wanted to make sure that we
were covered in the
recommendation that you approve.
With that, I thank you again
for the opportunity to comment
and for the county's continued
coordination with Washougal
throughout this periodic update.
I'm available for any questions
you may have.
>> Great. Thank you very much,
Mitch. I don't see Washougal on
my list of actions as well, so
thanks for including that. I
think Washougal is in the non
controversial category here,
but Oliver is stepping up to
address that.
>> Councilor sir this is Oliver
again. Mitch, if we omit that
we will make sure that we
update the decision table,
because I know that the
Planning Commission recommended
what the city of Washougal
submitted. So we want to
reflect that. I know you're not
expanding the urban growth
boundary. So they did agree
with that. But we will update
the table to reflect that.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. There are no other
cities. So that will get us to.
Yes. Please go ahead.
>> If I may. Just for formality,
call woodland. If there is no
one recommended. Yes. There for
woodland. Yeah that's fine. At
least they were called.
>> Is there anyone from
woodland? We have a little bit
of woodland. And. And are they
included in any of the planning
recommendations.
>> Because actually no. But
they have been participating
with us. But they are not
expanding into Clark County. So
there was no change to that
Horseshoe Lake area.
>> Great. Thank you. Well,
thanks to woodland for
participating with us. Okay.
All right. So just to give
everybody an update, we're
going to move into general
public comment. Right now we
have 80 people who have signed
up in the room, although we may
have lost a few. And there are
approximately 45 people online.
So I would just ask the council
if there are any parameters
that you'd like to place on
public comment in terms of
limiting time, less than three
minutes, or just going to a
particular hour this evening,
are there any suggestions?
>> For two minutes?
>> Someone should make a
suggestion.
>> Two minutes?
>> Yeah, I think we I could
support limiting public comment
to two minutes.
>> Yeah. And I would prefer
that rather than just cutting
off a time of day when some
people just can't present at
all.
>> Councilor young.
>> I don't like shortening
people's time, but I also think
that we might lose a lot of
folks if we go too late and not
hear from them at all. So I
think two minutes is a
reasonable compromise.
>> Okay. It looks like that's
the majority of the council to
go two minutes and we have 20
minutes before it'll be time
for our court reporter to take
a break. So let's just jump in
and. And I would just if people
are if someone has already said
something that you agree with,
you can just agree with that.
And that that would help us out
quite a bit. Thank you.
>> Thank you. So I will be
calling the first person. I
will also be calling the next
person. So you have yourself
prepared so that we can just
keep the flow going as soon as
possible. Please don't forget
to state your first and last
name with spelling your last
name for our court reporter who
is online, and speak clearly as
possible. Peter Fells is up
first, followed by Tyler Castle.
>> There you go. Good afternoon.
My name is Peter Fells, spelled
F, like Frank ELS. I live in
Clark County. I have two
children and two grandchildren,
and I'm very concerned for how
our changing climate will
affect their lives in Clark
County. We've seen a lot of
effects of climate change. If
these. You could look out these
windows today, you would see
two large trees on the Clark
County Courthouse grounds that
are dying because of. At least
in part because of extended
heat. The United Nations
Environmental Program just
issued a report called Limiting
Overshoot, and international
scientists warned that the
world is going to overshoot the
goal of stopping global warming
at 1.5°C. They said we'll have
to work extremely hard for
years to bring the temperatures
down. In the meantime, we'll
see increasingly disastrous
events. This new report raises
the urgency for us to reduce
emissions. By the way, probably
everybody else is in the same
situation. I prepared a three
minute talk, so it's going to
be difficult for everybody. So
I'm going to urge you to do
everything you can to bring the
county's emissions down. First,
I think the county should try
to match Vancouver's greenhouse
gas emission reduction goals.
Together, we can work on ways
to achieve those reductions.
Energy conservation is the most
cost effective place to start.
I also urge you to refrain from
designating agricultural lands,
and if you do d designate
subject to development of a TDR
program, I think you need to
allow the public time to
participate in that, in the
development of that, and don't
do it as part of this plan.
Right now, limiting expansion
will reduce the danger of fires
in the wildland urban interface,
such as what happened in
Spokane. Thank you. Thank you
for your attention.
>> Again, Tyler Cassel,
followed by Wendy Cleveland.
>> Tyler Castle, CASTLE, Clark
County Executive Horse Council.
I out of respect, I did not
invite hundreds of friends, but
I speak for thousands of horse
business and horse owners in
Clark County. This regard to
title 440260040. 20 years ago
the county decided to put horse
sporting facilities in the same
genre as dog boarding
facilities, which basically
takes them out of the
agricultural side of business
permitting. In Clark County,
not another single business
agricultural business in Clark
County is required to get a
separate Clark County business
permit only horse facilities,
and that line is drawn at six
horses and one person in the
public showing up. In the 20
years that this has been around,
there have been hundreds of
thousands of dollars worth of
code violations and code done.
But according to a public
information request just a
couple of months ago, not one
single horse business has been
able to navigate or complete
any kind of permit for the
county, which this is great.
What that tells us is that if
the county then this has been
kicked down the curb by other
council and staff for a long
time, you remove that code and
that permit. That is only that.
It shouldn't be to any other ag
ag businesses. And you're not
going to upset anybody because
no one's no one's gone through
the process. Despite their best
efforts. This the horse horse
horses in Clark County are one
of the oldest, most prolific AG,
one of the biggest community
supporters. There are more
nonprofit horse nonprofits in
the county. Our surveys show
$100 million plus of impact to
the county. It is your number
one agricultural tourism
activity in the entire county.
I would bet that. So there's
just a lot of really great
things. And so this checks the
agricultural box, checks the
economic box. It checks the
community box checks all these
things. And this again, this is
something that's been on the
list for a very long time.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Wendy Cleveland. Okay, we're
going to move on to Dustin,
followed by Theresa Hardy.
Dusty I apologize.
>> It's dusty Arab a RAB. I
live in district one. I'm an
urban farmer, a parent, and a
small business owner. And I'm
actually here because I would
like to talk to you about
fiscal responsibility on
September 3rd. Planning
Commissioner LaDuke, excuse me.
LaDuke Montgomery, an attorney
who specializes in civil rights
and government cases, laid out
the legal precedent outlining
exactly how and why the county
will get sued for failing to
comply with state law if
preferred. Alternative two is
approved, as is. Planning and
legal staff have been raising
the same compliance concerns.
And now the Department of
Commerce has chimed in with
concerns as well. And we've
been here before, haven't we?
So ten years ago, the county
tried to do this, was
challenged and lost, costing us
nearly $10 million in grant
funding. That's why I'm
confused by council members
here who are currently
campaigning on fiscal
responsibility. Given that the
county is running at a
structural deficit, isn't
setting yourself up for a
lawsuit, that your lawyers in
the room are telling you that
you're going to lose the
opposite of that. How can you
say that? You're focused on
cutting waste when you're
walking head first into it?
When so many families in Clark
County are food insecure and
struggling to afford housing,
I'm struggling to understand
the decision making process
behind this kind of pointless
waste. I ask the council to
seriously review and consider
Commissioner Montgomery's
comments and policy amendments.
I also ask that you consider
your responsibility to be good
stewards of our financial
resources. Any vote for an
expansion of the urban growth
boundary is a vote to set
taxpayer money on fire in a
county that can't afford it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Teresa Hardy. John Vander
Beer following Teresa Hardy.
>> Teresa Hardy in a recent
email discussion with a
constituent Councilor Young,
you continued to ignore the
fact that your intent to expand
U, G, A, S, and D designate
land is illegal. Your staff,
legal counsel. The findings of
the Agricultural land study
that you all ordered and now
the Washington Department of
Commerce have made it very
clear that your actions.
Councilor young Belkot and
little. If you continue in the
direction you're headed, will
be in clear violation of the
Growth Management Act. The
ultimate result of your action
will be a deep and unforgivable
betrayal of our constituents
and our children's future. You
have every opportunity to learn
that this is the outcome that
will happen if you vote to
expand UGAS tomorrow to the
benefit of developers over the
people who have spoken loudly
and clearly that they want you
to protect ag land and develop
responsibly, and that you do
not want and they do not want
you to break the law, which
will lead us back into
noncompliance, jeopardize us,
and delay urgently needed
policy implementation across
the board. Leaving the UGAS
where they are is the moderate
position. Given the historical
vast UGA expansions that have
occurred in our county and the
theft of agricultural land in
Ridgefield due to a legal
loophole, the urbanization,
which is now being propped up,
is an excuse to destroy even
more ag land next to it. We now
have so much land within our
ugb that we do not need to
expand to accommodate
population growth. That is
clear. And you know, that's how
the growth management boards
will see it. You need to listen
to your constituents. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> John Vanderberg, again, as a
reminder, please state your
first name. Spell your last
name for the record, followed
by Robert Nevin.
>> Hello, my name is John
Vanderberg, that's VANDERBURGH.
Good afternoon, members, and
thank you for having us. I'm
here to represent the Clark
Community Bicycle Pedestrian
Advisory Committee, also known
as Bpac. We appreciate this
opportunity to comment on the
transportation element and the
Transportation Capital Facility
Plan of the county's 20 year
update to the Comprehensive
Growth Management Plan, a
subcommittee of Bpac has been
working all year with your
transportation planners to
provide guidance regarding the
newly mandated active
transportation element of the
Comp plan. Our recommendations
are included in the proposed
Comp Plan update. Bpac has
submitted for the record a
letter of support for these
policy proposals. In the Comp
Plan. Most significantly, we
support the proposed strategy
of multimodal levels of service
as a means to create a safer,
active transportation network.
A safer network will equate to
more use of multimodal level of
service strategies. Goes hand
in hand with our proposal for
an updated Bicycle facility
typology menu to provide better
guidance on bike and pedestrian
facility design. We urge this
council to prioritize
investment in active
transportation infrastructure
by modifying the selection
criteria for capital projects
to bring more funding to active
transportation infrastructure.
Bpac will help you see the
wisdom of making these changes.
Finally, we believe the most
cost effective means of
evaluating where we are today
would be to invest in the
future, and this can be done by
updating our 2010 bicycle plan.
Thanks for your time.
>> Thank you.
>> Robert Nevin. Followed by
Nelson Holmberg.
>> Yes, I'm Robert Nevin NEVIN
and I live in Camas. And good
evening and thank you for all
your hard work. Anyway, this is
in regards to the city of Camas
Urban Growth preferred
alternative property area five
the Nevin extension. The
question is is this property
likely to remain in agriculture?
If it isn't in in becomes a ugb.
We need to be realistic. These
parcels are already divided
predominantly in five acre
parcels. This land has never
been a viable agricultural
operation. There's no water
rights. The soil type
evaluation by your own study
states that the majority
property is deemed as a as not
primary cultural land, not land
of statewide significance. We
have had the property had in
the past for revenue going to
the taxes. Agricultural zoning
has been. Zoning has been
maintained to keep the property
taxes low. Otherwise we would
have to sell the property.
Keeping the property outside
the Ugb does not guarantee
farmland preservation. It could
simply lead to less coordinated
development and fewer
opportunities for Camas to plan
for the future. The question
should not be whether we prefer
farmland to housing should be
whether we want this particular
land to be developed through
coordinated urban planning or
through piecemeal rural
residential construction. Those
are two very different outcomes
with thoughtful planning,
allowing the city campus to
develop a vision for the area
that will bring about smart
growth, growth, increasing the
tax base to the county and the
city of Camas and the schools.
I ask you to consider what is
realistically likely to happen
to this land, and to stand with
the city of Camas and adopt the
preferred alternative. Which
outcome best serves the county
and the city of Camas for the
generations to come? Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Nelson Holmberg, followed by
Jim Byrne.
>> Good evening, Council
members. I am Nelson Holmberg,
HOLMBERG. Speaking on behalf or
speaking on behalf of the
Building Industry Association
of Clark County, BIA supports a
comprehensive plan built on
accurate, defensible land
capacity analysis. Our concern
is whether the factors in the
final capacity analysis are
adequately supported by Clark
County's actual development
experience and local market
conditions. Right now, those
assumptions are 10% for vacant
residential land, 30% for
underutilized residential land,
and 0% for commercial, business
park and industrial land. If
underutilized land is
overcounted the UGA expansions
that you are deciding may be
based on inflated capacity.
Commerce's own guidance
recommends a recognizes that
developable land can sit
undeveloped because of market
forces. Owner preference, cost,
stability, quality, location
and that local circumstances
may be considered. So our
question is simple what
evidence shows these
percentages accurately predict
what will actually develop over
the next 20 years? We ask
council to direct staff to
complete a documented market
factor, sensitivity and
validation analysis before
relying on these assumptions in
the final capacity.
Determination. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Jim Byrne, followed by Patty
Reynolds.
>> Good evening. I am Jim Byrne.
BYRNE. Thank you for this
opportunity to comment. On
Monday, September 14th, your
council had a priorities
workshop. I was happy to hear
councilors, Little and Young
both expressed the desire that
their long range goals were
that their grandchildren could
experience Clark County as it
is today. I also share that
hope and now remind them of
those words. I believe if the
current preferred alternative
is accepted, that vision will
not be possible. I have five
requests for you. One do not
expand the current UGA's. There
is more than enough existing
land to accommodate projected
county and city's growth. An
alternative with no growth area
expansion is the only
responsible choice. Two do not
designate existing ag lands.
State law says you cannot
legally do so. So has the new
Lee created Agricultural
Advisory Committee three on
priorities. De Councilor
Fuentes made a compelling
argument to accept Vancouver's
climate goals as your own. I
think this makes great sense.
Please do so. Four resolve the
concurrency issue. The GMA
states development should not
proceed until infrastructure is
in place. Currently, there is a
$540 million road deficit with
current transportation plan.
Five the deficit in parklands
need to be addressed. Finally,
your ex, legal counsel Chris
Cook and the Department of
Commerce both advise you that
accepting the current preferred
alternative is likely to be
litigated. Litigating the
preferred alternative in its
current form will financially
encumber the county as current
legal staff of minimum
experience, and the county will
have to rely on expensive
outside counsel. Taxpayers will
hold accountable those who
voted to put them in frivolous.
>> Thanks. Thanks very much.
>> Patty Reynolds. And then I
believe we'll be ready for a
break. Chair.
>> My name is Patty Reynolds.
PATTI Reynolds the regular way.
You have to decide on the
comprehensive growth plan. And
you must balance the rural
lands with timber, wildlife,
rivers and streams, and
valuable agriculture for the
tables of our community. With
existing urban developments and
their presumed need for more
housing opportunities,
employment opportunities,
schools and parks, you must
hear those who have clearly
explained the need for
affordable and accessible
housing the unhoused, those who
are financially incapable of
meeting the exhaustive
requirements to rent an
apartment while paying for
childcare, utilities,
transportation, food and
clothing, and those with
physical limitations that
require structural designs that
are potentially not financially
beneficial to the builders. You
also need to grow the
opportunities for our county's
farmers and ranchers to
maintain a substantive amount
of food for local citizens,
restaurants and food banks.
Agricultural land with its rich
soil, must not be discarded as
easily as you are doing to our
wetlands. D designating
agriculturally zoned lands to
cover them with roofing tiles
and asphalt will do nothing to
help us stabilize and improve
our climate. More cars on the
roads that are or soon will be
undrivable due to damage and
ever worsening traffic, will do
nothing to protect the ever
shrinking
>> Aquifer. Your chosen plan
must protect our access to
water for consumption of human.
For. For food and for fire
protection. You stand as
representatives for those here
who strive to be better
stewards for our forests, ag
lands, wildlife, our children
and our grandchildren. Be on
how best to move forward toward
a safer and cleaner environment.
A well balanced and livable
county, and an example for a
better future.
>> Thank you. Oh, it's 6:00.
Cyndie. How long a break would
you like?
>> No more than ten minutes.
Ten minutes. I just need to get
up and stretch.
>> Okay. We'll take a ten
minute recess. So we'll be back
at 610.
>> This webinar is being
recorded and summarized.
>> Okay. Okay, everyone. We're
live. If you could take your
seats. We're continue the
public hearing. Okay. Hello?
Hey. Okay. Thank you. Let's
continue.
>> Thank you. Up next is Brandy
Kol, followed by Deanna Caton.
Again, please remember to state
your first and last name.
Spelling your last name. Thank
you.
>> Hi. My name is Brandy.
>> Please push the button.
>> Push button. Okay.
>> Hi. Can you hear me? My name
is Brandy Cole. Last name
spelled COLE. I am speaking to
you today as part of a
coalition of 61 individuals and
17 organizations, including I,
Urban Teen, WSU, Vancouver
Environmental Science Club,
Southwest Washington Equity
Coalition, fourth Plane Forward,
Southwest Washington, LULAC,
Vancouver, Metro, LULAC,
Vietnamese Community of Clark
County, Hispanic disability
support, southwest Washington.
Pacific Islander Community
Association of Washington.
Southwest Washington. Victory
Food Project, Western Institute
for Agricultural and Food
Security Foundation, Columbia
Riverkeeper, Vancouver Audubon
Society, Sierra Club, Lewis
Group, Sihel, Vancouver
Alliance for Community
Engagement, and Green Party,
Southwest Washington. Our
coalition strongly urges you to
adopt greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets aligned with
the City of Vancouver's targets,
and to do a draft supplemental
EIS that creates a viable
alternative through appropriate
upzoning that limits urban
growth, boundary expansion and
protects agricultural resource
lands. Again, I am asking you
to thoughtfully consider not
only these requests, but who is
being represented in this
coalition. I will again echo
the note I sent you from
Timotei Futurewise. Because the
county has adequate capacity in
the gas and the supplemental
ask is for more affordable
housing. I do not think the
county needs to delay the
adoption of the comp plan. They
can adopt the plan, do the
supplemental and then do up
zoning afterward. So Futurewise
is certainly not asking for any
delays and neither are we. I
kindly request that if the
Council plans to complete an
EIS, that they are very clear
about that during this hearing.
Having reassurance in plain
language will be appreciated by
all. Your decision in this
moment will impact generations
to come. Let's act together as
responsible stewards of our
community and this land to
protect them for future
generations. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Deanna Geyten. Okay.
Followed by Matthew Barnett.
>> Hello, my name is Diana
Geyten. A last name is KATAN.
I'm a district two resident.
Some of you know me from the
Charter Review Commission
process, where I've spent a lot
of time talking about fiscal
responsibility and sometimes
fiscal irresponsibility. That
has kept me from following the
comp plan as closely, as
closely as I'd like. But I have
watched the council meeting for
years and binged the work
sessions. This decision matters
to me because, along with my
husband's insistence on you
pick fruit. We're an inspiring
horse family. My kids are in
lessons and shows and wanted
equine therapy as part of her
occupational therapy programs
like IEA, Saddle Clubs and
Four-h teach kids animal care,
empathy and work ethic. All of
that depends on ag land staying
available. I'd also ask the
council to update title 40 so
equestrian facilities are
classified as agriculture.
Boarding and caring for horses
is farming. I'm concerned that
the direction of the council is
leaning, will feed urban sprawl
and hurt this county
financially. I was frustrated
when the comp plan was delayed
last year, but okay, it was
delayed to complete an ag study.
That study found nearly all of
our ag land is viable, and the
county appears to be leaning
towards desegregation D
designation anyway, a decision
that would further endanger
grant funding, a plan that
doesn't hold up under state law,
invites legal challenges and
taxpayers pay to defend every
one. We can designate ag land
in the future, but we can't get
it back. I urge you to choose
the option that preserves our
agricultural land and complies
with state law. It protects our
farms, our families, our budget,
and our credibility. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Matthew Barnett, followed by
Anna Rivera.
>> Hello, Clark County Council.
My name is Matthew Barnett.
That's BARNETT. I'm here today
to well, I've been a resident
of Vancouver since 2020. Before
that I. My hometown was Los
Angeles. And I come to you
today to kind of share a little
bit of a cautionary tale. As
you may know, if you've ever
been to Los Angeles, the LA
metro area is a complete
failure of urban planning smog
everywhere. And it's impossible
to get around because the
traffic is immense and public
transit doesn't work very well
because of the urban sprawl.
And I bring that up because I
see the current comprehensive
plan from the county kind of
moving in that direction. And
that worries me a lot. As
someone who used to live in an
environment that was created by
all the errors of city planning
that came out of that. So I'm
here today to ask the county to
amend the plan with really
three asks that I suggest
number one would be to adopt
the environmental standards of
City of Vancouver and apply
them to the entire county.
Number two would be to limit
the expansion of the urban
growth boundary so that we
continue to build denser rather
than wider, and three would be
to upzone the existing areas so
that we can build out our urban
infrastructure within, rather
than expanding outward. Lastly,
I'll just say that I'm in
complete agreement with the.
Legal concerns raised by
previous commenters about the
requirements from State of
Washington. I think those are
valid and need to be respected
as well. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Anna Rivera. Karen Everson,
followed by Darlene Balhorn.
Okay. We will continue. Eric
Galatolo followed by Mike Etsy.
I'm sure that's wrong and I
apologize.
>> Good evening councilors. My
name is Eric. I'm here speaking
today on behalf of the
Development Engineering
Advisory Board. DBH DBH has
provided comments throughout
this process. We do not want to
reiterate what was previously
submitted. It is in the record,
but our overall message has
been consistent. We need a
balanced, comprehensive plan
that accommodates growth while
protecting the character and
quality of life that makes
Clark County a desirable place
to live. And most importantly,
we need a plan that actually
works. DBH supports increasing
housing capacity and density
were appropriate, but density
cannot be the only tool the
plan relies heavily on.
Redevelopment and increased
density within the urban
existing urban growth boundary.
Very little additional build
out build out building land is
being added. Our first ask is
to take a more balanced
approach to accommodating
growth. Use realistic density
assumptions, provide targeted
ugb expansions where
appropriate, and maintain the
supply of all housing types,
including owner occupied
housing. Our second ask is to
take a similar, similarly
balanced approach to
agricultural land. Protect
agricultural land that has real
long term commercial viability.
But recognize that not not all
part, not every parcel
currently designated AG remains
viable for commercial
agriculture. Some adjacent and
surrounded by urban development
interfere with logical
development patterns. We should
protect viable agriculture
while allowing appropriate
transition where conditions
have fundamentally changed. The
third, and probably most
important, ask is to
incorporate DB's
recommendations into the
multifamily code, as
recommended by Planning
Commission. D previously
submitted detailed comments,
justification, and specific
code language. DB supports the
proposed higher maximum density,
but we remain concerned about
the significant higher minimum
densities. We reviewed actual
projects that may have been
that have been financed,
permitted, and built in this
market, and many would not meet
the proposed minimums. A higher
maximum creates opportunity. A
minimum creates constraint and
a mandate. If the mandate
doesn't work economically,
physically or within
surrounding development, we
don't necessarily get more
housing. We make more projects
feasible.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks, Mike.
>> ETC. Yes.
>> Could it be Esther?
>> I'm sure it probably is
followed by Nancy Alexander.
>> My name is Mike Eisner. I
live in the Heights at Pleasant
Valley and serve on the board.
I think that's in district four,
but I'm not positive.
>> Could you spell your last
name?
>> EYSTER.
>> Thank you.
>> I have two major concerns
with the comprehensive plan,
the process the county has used,
and the substantive impacts of
the preferred alternative on
Pleasant Valley and surrounding
neighborhoods. I only have time
to address the first one. That
is the process question.
Critical information was posted
only hours before this hearing.
Key materials, maps, exhibits,
etc. were released the morning
before this final adoption
hearing, and those were only
released to the public after I
made a specific request for
them. That gave residents only
hours to review hundreds of
pages of complex technical
planning documents, a plan that
will change our neighborhood
forever cannot be meaningfully
reviewed in a matter of hours.
Posting essential materials the
day before a final vote is not
meaningful. Notice it is not
reasonable to reasonable public
process, and it effectively
prevents genuine public
participation. I don't know the
rules in Washington regarding
requirements to provide public
with advance notice. When an
elected body is preparing to
make a major decision, such as
a 20 year plan, but I can't
imagine that the county's
process was in compliance with
those rules. For these reasons,
I ask that the county delay
final decisions until at least
two at least two weeks. After
all relevant material has been
posted and the public has had a
genuine opportunity to review
and comment on that material.
For a plan that will change our
neighborhood forever. Every
elected member on the county
council should insist on
complying with this request.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Nancy Alexander, followed by
James Dean Lucas. Hi, my.
>> Name is.
>> Nancy Alexander, NANCEE.
Alexander. Like the great Uhl.
I'm talking about the mobile
home overlay. Clark County has
approximately 2033 mobile home
sites with approximately 55,060
people living in these sites.
Of these, approximately 2200 or
45.5% of them are senior
citizens and 600 are children.
The average income for Clark
County and I'm only working on
unincorporated Clark County.
This came from the 2020 census.
The average income for Clark
County is 1200, not $125,385.
The average income for a family
mobile home park is 38,000 to
44,000. The average income for
senior mobile home parks is
24,000 to 30 to 31,000. This is
very low income. The average
mobile home site for an
established resident in a park
is 750 to $850. New move ins
and corporate owned parks is
1050 to $1250. I live in Hazel
Dell Estates, a 128 site park.
If it was to close today,
between 165 and 200 residents
with be with would be without a
home. The problem as a place to
live in Clark County for very
low income to extremely low
income 21,000 to 44,000 is
extremely limited today. As of
12:30 a.m. October 1st, I did a
scrape. Oops. Oh. Well. Sorry.
>> Thank you.
>> But there's nothing for
available low income.
>> Thank you very much.
>> James.
>> Dean. Lucas. Don. Eggers.
Followed by Laura Martin.
>> Don Eggers, EGGERS. And I'm
also speaking about the mobile
home overlay. And I'm
specifically speaking about the
community that my husband and I
just moved into, Hazel Dell
Estates. I'm literally the
youngest resident in the park.
I'm an exception. My husband's
55 and I'm 51. I recently
learned that 100 of my
neighbors could become homeless
if this overlay doesn't pass.
There's not 100 places for my
neighbors, my friends, my new
family to live. I just beg you
to pass this. I don't want to
see my neighbors. I'm fortunate.
I'm blessed in that I would be
okay. But these ladies won't.
There's nowhere for them to go.
So I'm just imploring you. I'm
going to give my time to the
next person. But please, please
pass this. I'm just begging.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Laura Martin, followed by
Sharon Busha.
>> Councilors. Thank you so
much. My name is Laura Martin,
MARTIN. The intent of
Washington State's recent
legislation is to improve
housing stability for tenants.
The explicitly stated that
failure to act urgently would
result in continued harm to
residents, justifying the need
for rent stabilization to
preserve public peace, health
and safety. However, the park
can declare itself economically
unviable without guidelines or
mandate. It makes me wonder why
a provision for the definition
and calculation of this
loophole was not put into the
bill in the first place. How is
it that community stabilization,
how is that caring for your
seniors in what was supposed to
be our golden years? My dispute
is not with the park. They are
only using the loophole for all
it's worth and have created
housing stability and made it
almost impossible for seniors
to find their forever homes
directly due to the avarice of
the park owners. As to whether
Hazel Dell mobile home
community is economically
unviable, I capitulate. I
calculated the capitalization
rate, estimating $750 average
rent times 128 spaces times 12
months equals $1,152,000 of
gross revenue. The purchase
price was $12 million. The cap
rate comes out to 9.6%, which
exceeds the average rate for
Clark of for Clark County of
7.2% by approximately $300,000
annually. This works out to
almost $200 per month. Excess
profit profit from each and
every one of us each and every
month. And now they want to
sell us because that's not
enough. Our homes are too old
to be licensed and moved. We
are. What are we to do without
a permanent overlay? Where will
we go and with what funding?
Please, please codify this
overlay and fulfill your stated
intent. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Sharon Busha, followed by
Don stinky.
>> Good evening. My name is
Sharon Busha, spelled BUCHER.
I've lived in battleground
Hawkinson area for more than 40
years. I remember it as a farm
community back in the day. They
ended school early so the kids
could go out and pick
strawberries. Now the kids
would not stoop so low. Anyway,
there are still large berry
farms nearby featuring
blueberries, raspberries,
marionberries, raspberries,
marionberries and strawberries.
These berries are much tastier
than the ones imported from
California or Eastern
Washington. Also, having local
farms saves on air pollution
and fossil fuels in the
transportation costs to bring
the fruits in the you pick
options we have here allow
lower income people to afford
these healthier foods. Ample
rain here in the spring saves
the waning water supplies to
the farms farther south.
Climate change is drying and
warming. Many of the
traditional farms further south
in California. We also have
goats, hogs, horses and cattle
providing goat cheese and the
sought after, grass fed beef.
I'm sure you've seen the bumper
stickers. No farms, no food.
Yes, it's kind of simplistic,
but in fact, it's true.
Replacing farms with big
housing developments in our
area will increase commutes,
worsen traffic, air pollution,
worsen global warming. Please
do not de designate more
agricultural lands. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Don Steinke, followed by
Janet Hedgepath.
>> Hello everyone. My name is
Don Steinke. STEINKE. This is
regarding the climate element.
I was a member of your
community advisory group on the
climate element. I urge you to
support their recommendations.
We adjourned 18 months ago, but
in the last two weeks, a new
problem has come to light that
will make it almost impossible
to reduce tailpipe emissions
right after the midterm
elections next month. Congress
plans to repeal automotive
efficiency and emissions
standards that have been in
place for 15 years. They also
plan to repeal the law that
requires automakers to meet a
modest quota of EV sales. Those
standards have been in place
for 15 years. Because of those
standards, we have 50 Frito-Lay
delivery trucks, all electric
driving around our county,
along with Amazon delivery
trucks, all electric, and two
of us. The last me and and the
last speaker drove here in our
Bolds. And those would not have
been available without those
laws. Unfortunately, our
congressional representative
indicates that she will vote
yes to repeal those
requirements. Consider amending
the climate element to say that
you will ask your lobbyist to
support federal policies that
reduce emissions and increase
fuel efficiency. I urge you to
ask your lobbyist to ask our
representative to change her
mind. Ask her to vote no on
House Joint Resolution
202205211 and 214. It looks
like I'm about run out of time,
so I'll stop there. Thank you
very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Janet Hedgpeth followed by
Hector Inessa.
>> Good evening Council.
>> My name is Janet Hedgpeth.
HEDGEPATH. You're reaching the
end of a long process. From the
very beginning, when you chose
a higher population number, it
was apparent this body had a
determined its course. Use the
same old playbook as before.
Expand the UGA and build more
single family housing. Never
mind that the excuse. More
affordable housing never
materialized. Never mind that
the vacant buildable Lands
model or the last minute AG
report didn't. Didn't support
an expanded UGA. Never mind
that the Department of Commerce
and the legislature had new
requirements for housing in all
income bands which. More single
family housing would not meet.
Never mind that the next 20
years will challenge us with
the effects of climate change,
which are all playbook does not
address. You have made choices
all along the way that ignored
the spirit of the GMA. Now,
with the recent letter from the
Department of Commerce, you
have a clear warning that your
preferred alternative will also
violate the letter of the GMA.
However you want to spin it,
the reality is that if you
continue to insist upon this
alternative, the county will be
sued. We will lose state grants,
and I and other taxpayers here
will foot the bill money that
should go to take care of
failing roads and stormwater
systems, and making the county
more resilient for the future
will go to trying to defend a
poor, probably illegal decision.
And who benefits. A handful of
developers and a couple cities,
not the citizens. You still
have time to find the courage
to choose an alternative that
will meet the spirit and the
letter of the GMA. An
alternative that will point us
all toward the future rather
than Myers in the past.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Hector Enosa followed by
Leanne Brehmer.
>> Good afternoon.
>> My name is Hector Hinojosa,
spelled HINOJOSA. Thank you to
the council for this
opportunity to speak. Public
comment. Thank you for the
staff for all the hard work
they've been doing. I only have
a few choice comments. As the
previous speakers noted that
any lawsuit filed against the
county will be paid by the
taxpayer, period, not by the
developers. Only in their
capacity as citizens of this
county. So we will bear the
brunt of those lawsuits. So
please consider that because
the voters will next time. I
would like to just read two
items from the letter from the
Department of Commerce.
September 9th. Regarding the d
d designation of resource lands.
And I'll skip the first part as
land capacity, UGA expansion
and D designation of resource
lands are inherently
intertwined. We recommend
reevaluating each of these
together for consistency with
Wanke. 265.190.4040 CW3670A et
cetera. ET cetera. In addition.
Sorry, I've lost my place. Oh,
regarding TDRs. Please forgive
me. I should have noted it.
Transfer transfer development
Rights TDR program. In our
review, we found policy 1.1.24
potentially inconsistent with
state statute.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. I'm sure you both
all read it. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
>> Leanne Bremer, followed by
Walter Valenter. As a reminder,
there is a basket that's out in
the hallway. If you want to put
your public comments in the
basket.
>> Good evening, chair, Council
staff. My name is Lehan Bremer,
BREMER. I'm representing two
property interests this evening.
One, the portion of the former
Anderson Dairy Farm on 1/62
next to the city of Vancouver.
And the second one is Mr.
Gerald Jones, who owns property
just northeast of the city of
Vancouver. And both of these
properties are zoned AG. And
I'll just go through my remarks
here. The only time to consider
the designation of AG lands is
during this process. This
cannot happen during annual
reviews because the county must
take a holistic approach, and
the county has an affirmative
duty under the GMA to designate
AG lands that don't meet the
three part test that Mr.
Stewart talked about. Because
just because these are AG lands
today, that doesn't mean it's a
static and immutable condition
of these properties. They must
be considered in light of
additional evidence that's
brought to you in this process
that shows that they don't meet
the criteria. And the county
had an ag study that dismissed
eight out of 11 of the Wanke
factors to determine if they
have long term commercial
significance. This is a clear
error of law. At the April 28th
hearing. Chair Marshall, you
asked, is it required to
consider all 14 criteria in
designating or designating you
ask legal. They said they'd get
back to you. I don't know if
they did, but the court courts
have addressed that issue. They
have answered that question.
You do have to look at every
single of those factors, those
factors, to determine whether
land is appropriate to remain
in the agricultural designation.
And just two days ago, the
Court of Appeals Division two
said the very same thing in the
Thurston County Futurewise case,
where they said the G, M A and
its accompanying regulations
require counties to consider
the 11 nonexclusive factors so
applied to these properties,
they don't meet the definition
of AG. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Walter Valenter, followed by
Doug Colbury.
>> Hello. Chair Marshall and
commissioners or councilors. My
name is Walter Valentina,
VALENTA. I'm here to talk about
staff recommendation number 20,
which is the great piece of
property across from Prairie
High School. Two and a half
years ago when this process
started, the three property
owners got together and decided
to make a request for being
zoned residential. This
property has sat vacant for
over ten years, and there's a
real reason why Wasch dot
significantly restricts the
ability to get off the highway
there. Additionally, they built
a very nice transit stop with a
pedestrian activated crosswalk,
but you can't take your car and
drive into it. You have to go
through the local streets from
back behind. So we've worked
together, but these are three
separate owners and they have
separate opinions and their
strong will. I'm I represent
the largest property owner, but
we've worked together to try to
make a residential development
here, something that could be
built. There has been no
controversy with this. We've
worked with staff. It's never
come up in a hearing. It's
never come up in a work session.
It was approved by planning
commission the first time. And
then out of the blue at this
last time, Commissioner Barcus
tries to deny it. Why? He said
it was because we need more
commercial zoning. Well, how
come number 21 and number 22,
which is the same thing, he
didn't object to those. Well,
we found out why the northern
property, which is owned by an
LLC that's owned by AUT Gator,
has submitted a proposal that
requires the zoning to retain
the community commercial zoning.
And so he was helping that
development get approved. So
it's just in pre app. It hasn't
been approved. They don't know
if they're going to get access
onto highway 503. But the other
two property owners were
broadsided by this idea.
>> So okay.
>> Please help us.
>> Thank you. Thank you very
much,
>> Doug Kol followed by Han Lee.
>> Hi.
>> My name is Doug Kohlberg,
spelled KOLBERG. And this is
also in reference to number 20.
I'm the owner of that large
property that Walter just
described. And I, you know,
back in 2024, made an a
planning department decision to
try to change to multifamily.
My entire property. My property
is currently has a split zone
with some of the property zoned
R 30 and the property along
highway 503. And the bus stop
is community commercial. I
encourage you to rezone my
entire property to R 36, which
is a medium density multifamily
zone allowing 36 units an acre.
This will clean up the split
zoning issue. And also this is
the best use of all three
properties. I have just learned
that a pre app has been
submitted by Mr. Gaither on the
property adjacent mine for
commercial development. I want
to emphasize that if you do, if
you elect to keep the old
zoning, please remember I want
to keep my existing split
zoning. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Han Lee, followed by Tim.
Bob. Nick.
>> Good evening, Chair and
councilors. My name is Han Lee.
Last name is spelled LEE, and
I'm with H. Lee associates. And
tonight I'm representing Doug
Kohlberg. And so, you know, we
have this issue where they work
very hard with staff. And, you
know, staff can probably
elaborate on the whole process.
And, and with planning
Commission. And we all thought
we had our our 36 and last
minute. We find out tonight
that there there's a proposal
to deny our. 36 on those three
properties. And initially
coming in, we thought maybe we
can just ask for our 36 on our
property. But the problem with
that is, is that Clark County
code requires cross circulation.
And it's been known, you know,
it's been there for decades.
And so the first thing that's
going to happen is that county
staff is going to basically
require all those three
properties to try to get access
on the least classified street,
which is northeast 116th Street.
And and so the issue becomes is
that all three of these
properties are tied together,
where at the end of 1/16 Street,
which means that everybody has
to go through residential area.
So if we're commercial, we're
having the greatest impact
along the entire length of 1/16.
Until you take 1/22 to go north
to 1/19. And the problem with
that is, is that we're
impacting the neighborhood in
the greatest way. And so we
encourage you to reconsider our
36 for all three properties.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Tim, Bob, Nick, followed by
Steve Parker.
>> Good evening County. Thank
you for getting us to this
point. My name is Tim Bob,
spelled BOBRIK. I'm a real
estate broker from battleground,
and I'm here to support
Planning Staff Commission
recommendation number 24 R 36.
Zoning for the properties
across the street from Prairie
High School. I've been working
for the past 18 months with
multiple developers who were
interested in developing this,
these this area for multifamily.
Now, there's always been
consistent interest from
developers to acquire all three
properties should the property
become zoned residential rather
than commercial. The only thing
that discouraged interest and
prevented progress was the
uncertainty of the planning
process and multiple delays
with implementation date for
comp plan. Now there was a
scenario where developer was
interested in all three
properties. When the owners
requested their properties to
be zoned R 30, but that
interest significantly declined
when the county staff
considered zoning those parcels
of higher density, like R 45 or
R 50. That higher density is
very unattractive developers in
today's market. Once the county
staff understood the impact of
Wasch dot access restrictions,
and staff finally recommended
final recommendation became R
36. Zoning. The developer's
interest returned, but then the
implementation date for the
comp plan was delayed, caused
the developer to lose
confidence in the process and
walk away. Now last minute, the
one planning commissioner
questioned the residential
zoning. Real estate developers
need certainty to make
commitments. R 36 zoning is
attractive. Developers. Please
approve the staff
recommendation for number 20
once the zoning is adopted and
certain. I believe Clark County
will be will get a very nice
development on that land. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Steve. Purkey or Purkey.
Followed by Leah with the same
last name.
>> The Purkey.
>> Nope.
>> Lehan. Followed by John
Bauer. Yeah. Hey.
>> My name is Carmen de Lehan.
I go by mellow and I'm
surprised I'm even here because
we've lost half the crowd. And
by the way, you were all ripped
off one minute having to cut
your speeches down to two
minutes instead of three when
we had time. Because this
officially should have gone on
till Monday. That said it would
go on till Friday. If there
were still people present, they
would go on till Monday. And
you see half the population is
gone and didn't get to speak.
So thanks, Mr. Fuentes, for
cutting everybody's time anyhow.
Oops, sorry. I want to talk
about how the Oliver even
stated that by transportation.
You guys are down 500 million
shortfall, and you want to put
the county in debt for billions
with light rail. Can you guys
see the stupidity here that
they don't care about y'all's
money? Because it's not their
blood, sweat and tears. It's
yours. So hey, they're going to
do whatever they want with that
money. And as for the trees,
and this is what sickens me the
most out of the whole universe,
trillions of planets. They
found a planet made of water.
They found a planet that rains
diamonds, but they haven't
found a planet out of billions
with trees. Only the earth has
trees of billions of planets.
And you want to cut them. I
have no respect for people who
want to chop down forests and
cut down trees that they have.
They have studied those trees.
They cry out in pain. When you
chop them down and you think
that's funny. 20, 30 years to
grow old forest trees and you
guys want to cut them down so
some developer can make money.
That's total disrespect for
this earth and total disrespect
for future generations that
need the air that would have
been produced. That, by the way,
we already have places on earth
that are air free. Dead air.
You can't breathe. We need
every tree out there. And think
about what you're doing with
the old people. You're going to
sleep good tonight. Making them
homeless, man. It's disgusting.
Whatever.
>> Okay. Thank you. You're
welcome.
>> John Bauer, followed by
Linda Huddle.
>> Okay. Hello, Council. I live
in district two. I am.
>> Asking your last name.
>> Oh, sorry. John Bauer. BOWER.
I live in district two. I am
asking that you not expand any
of the urban growth boundaries.
Or d designate agricultural
land protected by the Growth
Management Act. We must prevent
urban sprawl, not increase it.
We must preserve agricultural
land and not destroy it. As
climate change ravages the
world, we need a sustainable
local food system to maintain
community resiliency. So much
agricultural land has been
paved over in the last 50 years
and 50 more years. Our children
and grandchildren will curse us
for every acre of food
production we gave away to
asphalt and concrete. The
Department of Commerce and your
own council agrees that this is
a waste of money, and you will
probably lose the legal battle
if you continue on your current
path. So councilors, young,
Little and Belkot, please
change your mind. You still
have time. I lived here my
entire life. I plan to spend
the rest of my life here. So
please consider Clark County's
future. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Linda. Huddle followed by
Heidi. Cody.
>> Good evening. I'm Linda
huddle. HUETTL. I live in
Cascade Park. Manufactured home
community and I'm the president
of the Resident Association
there. I have a concern
regarding the manufactured
zoning overlay plan. Use
exception clause of Keesee
40.20 .120. I have strong
feelings that a neglectful
landlord or corporation could
use this exception as a
loophole to request zoning and
redevelopment. If the intent is
to adopt the comprehensive plan,
with the use exception in place.
I'm asking for addition of
strong standards to protect
tenants. These are. A landlord
should present a relocation
report and plan that includes
relocation assistance for park
tenants, relocation resources,
referral to subsidized housing
resources, compensation for
loss of equity and actual
moving parts costs, and no lot
payments by tenants until
they're able to relocate so
they can qualify for new
housing. And the landlord
assumes responsibility for
demolition and cleanup of the
tenant unit. They also request
a relocation coordinator, the
Seattle Municipal Code and
Salmon Washington Municipal
Code have this relocation plan
in place. I have resources for
you that I can leave so you can
look at that plan. I also am
wondering about the possibility
of leaving the moratorium in
place, as that poses no
development threat, and
provides peace of mind for
tenants, and still allows the
landowner to sell the park as a
manufactured home park. Thank
you.
>> Okay. Yes. Please leave that
information for us. Okay. Thank
you.
>> As a reminder, there is a
basket. As a reminder, there is
a basket out on the table for
public comment. Heidi Cody,
followed by Claudette
Derricotte.
>> Good evening. My name is
Heidi. Cody CODY. During this
multi year process, I worked in
coalition to advocate for
equity and climate resilience
in the County Comprehensive
Plan. Together, up to 12
community based organizations,
mostly of color, submitted
seven coalition letters to
County Council, two coalition
letters to the Planning
Commission and gave many
in-person testimonies. Tonight
I'm here speaking as myself.
This five person county council
is going to make a decision
that will impact our community
health, climate resiliency and
food security, possibly forever.
I ask you to listen to the
community who lives here, who
have been telling you what we
want for well over a year.
Please do not designate any
farmlands and do not expand any
urban growth boundaries for
cities in Clark County. Please
follow the law the Washington
Department of Commerce told you
in writing that designating ag
lands is not justified. Please
call for drafting a
supplemental environmental
Impact statement with
appropriate zoning to
accommodate affordable housing
options. Please adopt
Vancouver's greenhouse gas
emissions goals. You don't need
to know how you will meet the
goals now, but you do need to
be headed in the right
direction. Finally, please stop
wasting our taxpayer dollars.
Clark County has already lost
$10 million in grants because
you've made us out of
compliance with state law. If
you continue to ignore commerce,
you are making sure that we
remain out of compliance. Thank
you for your consideration, and
I'd like to add that I agree
with Janet Hedgpeth and Don
Stinky's testimony tonight.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Claudette Derrick, followed
by Bobbie Derricotte.
>> My name is Claudette
Derricotte, DERRICOTTE, and I
also live in Cascade Park
Estates with my husband, who is
a Vietnam veteran. And thank
you very much, Linda, because
that I ditto everything she
said, and I'm here as a result
of the comment form that we
filled out when we came for the
overlay for the manufactured
home communities in Clark
County. And basically we were
asked, do we agree with the
overlay? Yes. But is my comment,
because I feel that there are
so many equity investors,
privately owned real estate
developers and real estate
property management firms that
are buying our manufactured
home parks. And then because of
the amendment that was with
Bill 1217, there's a. They can
anybody that would come into
our park that wants to buy one
of our. Homes would have to
could be gouged. And that's
what they're doing now. So as
far as the second question is,
they asked us if these parks
were rezoned because of this
exemption, that they would be
able to make them low income.
And I, I have no confidence in
the future that that that's
going to happen unless you
propose some stronger
regulations as to what these
landowners can say is an
exemption to rezone the parks
we have, because everybody is
saying that commerce, you guys.
The Elizabeth in her comment
was that this is a a form of
housing that we can have. And
what we now need is funding and
stronger laws to to preserve
our parks. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Bobby.
>> Bobby, Derek. Followed by
Steve Morasch.
>> My name is Bobby Dorokhov,
spelled D as in David,
ERRICOTTE. I don't usually talk
or share, but because of what's
happening, God told me to get
up and share the truth. So I'm
going to tell you the truth.
Five questions I had to answer
when I was 33 years young. I'm
85. Question number one who am
I? I am a human being with
feelings and an attitude.
Question number two what is the
meaning to my life? To live in
faith, family, friendships,
foes every day, eternally.
Where am I going in this life?
I know where I'm going in the
next life, wherever God's Holy
Spirit leads me and God's Holy
Spirit led me right here. When
will that happen? Number four,
when I make an attitude
adjustment. Most people got up
this morning in a negative
attitude. I don't care about
the company. I don't care about
the world. I don't care about
anybody. I don't care about God.
I don't care about me. I put on
a positive attitude. I care
about the whole world. And
number five, why me? Because
that is God's plan for me in
this life. And God bless you
and God bless America. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Steve Morasch, followed by
Bob Carroll.
>> Good evening for the record.
Steve Morasch MORASCH with
Lannen home. And I'm here
tonight to talk about the
Ridgefield at UGA, and I have
two minutes, so I'll just make
two quick points. First, I want
to call your attention to the
March 20th, 2025 City Council
Preferred Land use map, which
is in your record, and I'll
leave this copy in the basket
outside in this in this map,
the city asked for three
expansion areas the mall
property, the Northern
Industrial Reserve area and
area 12, the Jones McPherson
property. I'm not sure exactly
how that Jones McPherson
property got dropped off the
list, but I'm here to ask you
to reconsider and re add it to
the list, because the City
Council for City of Ridgefield
asked for it to be included to
meet their housing goals. And
also for our second point in
the record, January 12th, 2026,
we submitted a letter and
attached to that letter was a
study by Johnson Economics
analyzing the agricultural
resource Land Analysis for
determination of D designation.
Both my letter and the Johnson
Economics Report provide a
factual and legal basis for
designation of this 64 acres
that addresses all of the Wanke
factors. They're all discussed
in my letter and all of the
other factors and requirements
for designation, which, under
the Thurston County case that
Miss Bremer cited earlier, is a
requirement that all those
factors be considered. So we
would ask you to reconsider the
decision on the Ridgefield UGA
to fully grant the City
Council's request by including
all three of the properties,
including the Jones, McPherson
and D designate and bring it
into the UGA. Thank you very
much.
>> Thank you.
>> Bob. Carol, followed by
Gordon Matthews.
>> Good evening. Thanks for the
time to speak tonight. I'm Bob
Carol, CARROLL. Affordable
housing is an emergency.
Families across our county are
in crisis. Affordable means a
total monthly housing
>> Payment of no more than 30%
of monthly income under SB 5587
and under the Department of
Commerce statewide standards.
Please add a commitment into
the Comprehensive Plan for the
County to set goals for
affordable housing, track
progress and adjust as needed
using the aforementioned
information provided under Bill
5587. So the data and analysis
you need is already in that
bill. Setting goals and
tracking progress is the right
way to solve the affordable
housing crisis. Failing to do
so indicates our county is not
taking this crisis seriously,
and I'm asking to bring it up
for a vote. We want to see. The
public wants to see what your
attitude is on it. And then it
then we can go from there. So
thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Gordon Matthews. Isaiah
Irish followed by Bridget
Belarus.
>> Good evening Council. My
name is Isaiah Irish. IRISH. I
am among the youngest members
on the commission and I am
sharing tonight's statement in
a pair of overalls. Nearly a
century old, in an attempt to
represent the rich history and
promising future of agriculture
in our county. I will now begin
our statement. The Clark County
Agricultural Advisory
Commission voted unanimously,
unanimously at a duly scheduled
meeting on September 23rd to
make the following
recommendations to the Clark
County Council. One.
Agriculture in Clark County is
economically, historically and
environmentally important to
our community. Unfortunately,
according to the USDA, the
county has already seen a 38%
reduction in total farm land
from 2017 to 2022. The
Agricultural Advisory
Commission believes that
protecting agricultural land
during this comprehensive plan
update is fiscally responsible
choice, providing a perpetual
economic return and
contributing to long term food
security. Two the county should
amend the County Development
Code to remove the option of
cluster developments on
agriculturally sown lands, as
found in Keesee 4210 dot ten E
and add an agricultural 40
Comprehensive Plan designation
with an AG 40 zone three
Agricultural Advisory
Commission provide a
comprehensive feedback on the
Agricultural Land study. The
Commission agrees with the core
findings of the study,
including the finding to not
rely on nearby urbanization as
a rationale for designating
agricultural land for. The
Commission strongly recommends
creating programs that ensure
affordable access to farmland,
programs that help preserve
farmland in perpetuity, and
programs that designate
additional agricultural lands.
Five Clark County is endowed
with world class agricultural
soils that not only provide
ongoing economic opportunities,
but these lands also provide
enduring esthetic beauty and
dramatically enhance the
quality of life in the county.
Based on numerous and unique
benefits of agricultural lands
provide to the community, the
Agricultural Advisory
Commission strongly urges the
County Council to not designate
any AG lands in this update.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Bridget. Belarus. Martha.
Mayer. Followed by Julia
Anderson Putman.
>> Good evening. My name is
Martha Meyer. MAIER.
>> I live in Hazel Dell and I'm
an advocate for affordable
housing, housing for all people.
And I'm asking you to not
increase the UGA UGA, but to
promote more density in the
land already designated for
housing. I have an adult son
with a disability who lives in
a dense neighborhood. He's
wedged between the Hazel Dell
Target shopping center and the
freeway. Which means you means
you always hear the hum of the
freeway. He has a pocket sized
yard and no nearby parks, plus
limited parking. And yet it's
perfect for him. The noise and
lack of green space doesn't
bother him, and he doesn't own
a car. What he does have is a
walkable neighborhood. He can
walk to his job, to public
transit, and to shops and
restaurants. Most importantly,
his townhome is affordable for
him with his limited income and
assets. His special needs trust
owns a home, which means he
will have someplace to live.
After my husband and I are no
longer able to take care of him,
there is no excuse for
homelessness in a country as
rich as ours. Rather than
expanding the UGA to build
bigger houses on large lots, I
urge you to plan for housing
for all income levels and
provide incentives for
developers to build this
housing. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Alex Gerdzhikov, followed by
Wayne Dubay. Okay. Jim. Mall.
>> AM I last? Thank you.
>> I don't think so.
>> My name is Jim Mall, MAUL
Council chair, Marshall Council
staff. I first want to thank
you for your service and hard
work. I really appreciate the
job that you all do. Our
property was. We are owners of
the mall property. My brother
and I own the mall property in
Ridgefield that is recommended
for inclusion in the Ridgefield
UGA. Our property was
previously added to Ridgefield
UGA in the in the 200 or the
2007 update, and it was as part
of a challenge to that. It was
removed from the. Not included
in the UGA as part as a mapping
error as a result of a mapping
mapping error. The property is
now an island. It's a donut
hole surrounded by the city and
urban development, including.
Our property is not an
expansion of the UGA. It's
filling a hole in. It will have
a positive benefit of
increasing urban density
without increasing sprawl. We
are surrounded by urban
development. We have
subdivisions on all sides of us.
Except for the other side,
which is part of the Ridgefield
School District. The. We are at
the intersection of Cado and
Hillhurst Road. It is an
important intersection in terms
of future growth for the city
of Ridgefield. It's going to be.
At some point there is a
roundabout planned for that
intersection. There is an urban
trail planned along our
property, and it is likely also
a going to be a conductor for
traffic off of I-5 at some time.
The size it's not suitable for
agriculture zoned AG 20. It's
ten acres, two homes.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Alex Luna. Followed by
sunrise O'Mahony.
>> Good evening. My name is
Alex Luna, spelled LUNA. Our
community is clearly expressing
that we do not consent to a
bare minimum approach to
climate action, expansion of
urban growth areas, and
increasing urban sprawl. We do
not consent to the destruction
of our precious agricultural
lands and the jeopardizing of
our future food security for
ourselves, our children, and
future generations. Sometimes
our frustration is so deep that
we can't find the words.
Fortunately, we have poetry and
reflecting on the comp plan and
all I wanted to say here, I
couldn't get this poem out of
my mind. So this is
Questionnaire by Wendell Berry.
How much poison are you willing
to eat for the success of the
free market and global trade?
Please name your preferred
poisons for the sake of
goodness. How much evil are you
willing to do? Fill in the
following blanks with the names
of your favorite evils and acts
of hatred. What sacrifices are
you prepared to make for
culture and civilization?
Please list the monuments,
shrines and works of art you
would most willingly destroy in
the name of patriotism and the
flag. How much of our beloved
land are you willing to
desecrate? List in the
following spaces the mountains,
rivers, towns, farms you could
most readily do without. State
briefly the ideas, ideals, or
hopes. The energy sources. The
kinds of security for which you
would kill a child. Name,
please, the children whom you
would be willing to kill. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Sunrise, O'Mahony. Followed
by Doug Hendrick.
>> Hello and good evening,
council members. It's hard
going this late because
everything that I have. Your
last name. Sorry. Sunrise.
O'Mahony. OMAHONEY. Sorry about
that. So I'm going to. I
jokingly said a minute ago.
Ditto what a lot of people have
said tonight. Big concerns
about the legalities, the
financial end of things and
then the climate. So everybody
that has spoken for the climate,
for the environment, concerns
about legalities, concerns
about the finances, I stand
behind strongly. There's also a
lot of talk about Farmable
lands. I'm all for farm, all
for farmlands. But it's not
just farmlands. If we're saying
that the reason to be able to
develop this land is because
it's not farmable space. Those
natural spaces are important no
matter what. They're not
something that we need to take
lightly and develop. Once it's
paved over, it's paved over
forever. And that legacy is
what all of you who are voting
tonight make the decision to
vote on. Are you going to vote
to keep our spaces natural and
healthy for the environment?
And I thought it was about to
run out of time. Anyway. So are
you going to vote for that?
Young you are my representative.
I am your constituent. And I am
asking you to please. I know
that you and many of you here
are not going to say, I don't
want clean water. I don't want
to have farms that I can buy
food from. I don't want to have
clean air. I don't think any of
you can say that yet. This plan
that you're looking at says the
exact opposite. And again, just
appealing. Please think about
that, that little young Belkot.
Please think about what the
impact of what it is that
you're doing, because this is
not going to go away. It's not
going to change if you vote the
way that you're talking about
potentially voting and
hopefully don't. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Doug Hendrick. John
Westerhoff, followed by Laurie
Bramel.
>> Good evening. I'm John
Westerdal WESTERDAHL.
>> I live.
>> At 14102 northeast 52nd
Avenue, and I've been in the
Clark County residents for 33
years and raised my family here.
More importantly, I've paid my
taxes every year and I'm a
registered active voter.
Specifically, I would like to
address the proposed rezoning
rezoning area of north and
south of northeast 1/39 Street
and adjacent to northeast 50th
Avenue. Council chairman. So I
believe that's in your district.
I have three comments, and
thank you for the opportunity
to address. One, I moved into
my current residence in 2019,
and I chose it because the
surrounding area had only
single family, traditional
suburban housing code of R1-7.5.
I do not want to see that
changed. The proposed zoning
change to R 32 will
significantly impact the area
in a negative way. In my
opinion, traffic safety for the
children in the area. There's a
school in the area, parking,
property values, the
environment, neighborhood
compatibility are just some of
the impact concerns I have.
Lastly, recently within the
last year, there have been
multiple construction projects
and hundreds of apartments,
condos, townhouses along
northeast 72nd Avenue, south of
northeast 134th Street. There
is not enough infrastructure to
support those houses, let alone
additional high density zone
changes that I'm referring to
off northeast 139th Street,
which is less than a mile away.
In summary, I acknowledge and
respect the need for affordable
housing and the complexity of
the zoning decisions. But
bottom line, I don't think that
area of 100 northeast 139th is
in the county's best interest
for high density housing. Thank
you very much.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Lori Homola. Matthew Correra.
Randall Friedman. Eve Hanlon.
Who's who's I'm.
>> Yeah.
>> That's Friedman.
>> Perfect.
>> Let's go.
>> Randall Friedman, FRIEDMAN
Council. I was asked to hold up
this sign and it is perfect.
The Kamea Earth Day Society
exists to respect the legacy of
Kamea and Clark County of Earth
Days creation. Dennis Hayes
grew up the son of a chemist
mill worker. He was called to
create the first Earth Day and
took it worldwide. It is the
largest secular event in the
world. It created principles to
live by clean water, clean land
and clean air. That's why we
were we are here. We have
submitted comments to the eyes
and submit the Mill District
plan. The concept is simple as
hundreds of acres of mill
property are remediated, that
land is added to the Vacant
Lands model and is available in
the future. It is what the MTH
calls future social use.
Alternatively, canvas will live
with a large brownfield next to
its historic downtown, courtesy
of Kolke Industries and
continued sprawl. The remainder
of our comment involves the
Nevin property. This was 160
acres of bait and switch before
the campus community. 18 days
after the EIS was published,
the Nevin property was
designated rural land in the
county. I won't go over our
eyes. Comments. I will say that
last Tuesday, Kamea staff told
our planning commission that
inclusion of Nevin will require
work on the county owned Crown
Road. With that narrow canyon,
will Lacamas Creek be put into
a concrete channel? We don't
know, because it wasn't
considered. None of the traffic
impacts have been considered.
Finally, regarding TDRs, it
should not be put in a UGA with
the rights that go with that
until it is up and running
legally for votes on our city
Council and what commitment.
That's why we have volumes of
plans and codes. As Reagan said,
trust but verify. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Eve Hanlon, followed by
Diane Dempster.
>> Hello, my name is Eve Hanlon.
HANLIN. I am a small business
owner and I've lived in Clark
County since I was a kid. I
understand the economic
realities and the importance of
healthy growth. I also
understand land use as a sort
of diversified investment
portfolio, and the designation
of too many agricultural and
natural resources feels similar
to selling off too many stocks
for an immediate payday.
Instead of balancing
investments for long term
well-being, there is tremendous
evidence that changing weather
patterns will affect our
country's agricultural systems
in the near future.
Agricultural systems need to be
conserved as well as invested
in, and I'm very concerned
about future generations having
the natural resources that they
need. I also understand there
is an opportunity to amend the
plan to align greenhouse gas
emissions reduction targets
with the City of Vancouver's
reduction targets. We must do
everything possible to ensure
the health and well-being of
future generations.
Additionally, drafting a
supplemental environmental
impact study with appropriate
zoning to accommodate housing
and employment targets. I am
really new to public policy.
I've been learning a lot really
quickly because I'm concerned
and it is interesting being
here tonight. This is my first
time doing a public comment
like this. It seems really
clear what the community needs
and is asking for. And thank
you for hearing us and for
considering all of this.
>> Thank you.
>> Diane Dempster, followed by
Shirley Cline.
>> Good evening councilors.
Thank you for the opportunity
to speak. My name is Diane
Dempster, DEMPSTER. In 2016,
against legal advice, the
county approved Ridgefield's
request to expand their urban
growth boundary to include 102
acres of agricultural land,
commonly known as the Brown
properties. After that approval,
but before the Growth
Management Hearings, Board
ruled on the issue. Ridgefield
annexed the property.
Subsequently, the Growth
Management Hearing Board ruled
that the land should not have
been de-designated. But later
the courts found that since
Ridgefield had already annexed
the property before the Growth
Management Hearing Board
decision, the ruling was not
binding on Ridgefield. The
Brown property remained within
the city limits and is
currently being developed.
Ridgefield is now requesting
that the AG land adjacent to
the Brown property be
de-designated and brought into
the urban growth boundary
because of its proximity to the
now urbanized brown property.
Wrongs do not make a right.
Council should reject the
city's request. Farmland is
critical infrastructure to our
food system. Clark County has
lost 33% of its ag land in the
last five years. We need
farmers and farmland to feed
our residents. Land here is
very productive, but parcel
sizes and lack of contiguous
parcels make farming more
expensive and difficult. We
should zone larger parcels of
ag land. We have some of the
best agricultural land in the
country, but if we continue to
allow the unnecessary and
unlikely and likely unlawful D
designation of these valuable
lands, then the only food we
will have will travel thousands
of miles and will not be fresh.
Give agriculture a chance. This
is your moment to act, to show
you you truly support
agriculture, not expansion.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Shirley Klein. Tim Emineth.
Kristin Edmark followed by
Sharon Peavy.
>> Kristin Edmark, battleground
Washington. Ed Marcus EDMARK.
Like many others, I'm asking
you, please deny the urban
growth expansions, retain the
agricultural land, include
climate action in Clark
County's Comprehensive Plan
update. The Washington
Department of Commerce recently
found that the present urban
growth area appears to be large
enough for the expanded
population growth. Our
agricultural lands are
important. Please develop
climate goals which align with
the City of Vancouver. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Sharon Peavy, followed by
Monica Zazueta Tabor.
>> Good evening. Thank you for
this. Oh, my name is Sharon
PVPEVEY. Thank you for this
opportunity to share my views
on future protections for our
homes. My name is Sharon Peavy
and I live in a gated 55 plus
community with 170 homes. After
a divorce six years ago, I paid
$140,000 for my home. At the
time, the monthly space rent
was 525. It is now $1,417 and
continues to rise across 170
homes. That amounts to $240,890
in monthly revenue. For the
community owners. That should
be enough to support meaningful
maintenance and improvements,
you would think. Instead,
corporate and LLC owners buy
additional manufactured home
communities, allow existing
properties to deteriorate, and
treat residents as cash cows.
They are building wealth at the
expense of seniors and younger
homeowners. These large owners
are already preparing further
rent increases and have
challenged the 5% cap in House
Bill 1217 in Spokane Court.
Regarding the overlay, we want
to know whether this policy
differs from the protections
already granted to manufactured
home communities within the
city. If landowners can still
easily repurpose these
properties and we lose our
homes, it is the maximum
compensation only $17,000 for
our homes. I ask for stronger
protections, including higher
buyouts and a longer moratorium,
perhaps 20 years. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Monica Tabor.
>> Hello, everyone. My name is
Monica Zazueta Tabor, A
ZAZUETATABOR. This is my son,
Aries Tabor. I'm disappointed
in Councilor Glenn and
Councilor Young's vote on the
preferred alternative
threatening our agricultural
lands. The district one primary
results show I'm not alone.
Glenn won with 7369 votes, 34%.
>> Hold on, hold on. You need
to slow down, please.
>> That's our court reporter.
So if you could slow down a
little bit, could.
>> I get the time back then? Is
that okay?
>> Just keep going.
>> Okay. Glenn won with 7369
votes, 34.76%. Barely a third.
Dusty Arab. And Luke Lucas
Bardo, who both opposed
designating agricultural land,
earned a combined 7865 votes,
37.10%. That's 496 more than
Glenn Dusty missed the general
by 216 votes. The community
read the voter's pamphlet and
made their voices heard. We
need a holistic lens applied to
the Growth Management Act.
Holistic means looking at the
whole picture at once the land,
the water, the food, the
climate, the more than human
life, the well-being of the
people and the generations to
come. Instead of looking at
each piece separately. When we
do that, we see that we are
fully embedded in the web of
life and supported by our local
and global ecosystems, and we
need to start behaving that way.
Science shows that our that we
are overshooting seven of our
nine planetary boundaries. I
have printed them out so you
can look at them.
>> Baby. Oh no.
>> The baby.
>> Okay, Aries, if you would
just state your name and.
>> My name is Aries Taylor,
TABORI fear about global
warming gets so heavy that I
just push it down and try not
to think about it. And I know
that's not okay for my mental
health. This is why protecting
where we grow our food locally
matters to me. What scares me
most is that my future depends
on the choices you all are
making right now. So please go
for the same climate goals as
the city of Vancouver. I don't
want to look around and all I
see are buildings. I want to
see nature and farms. Can you.
>> Could you pause? Because I
think we have two different
speakers here. So if we could
give Aries.
>> Yeah.
>> A couple.
>> Of minutes allow.
>> I have I have like one
sentence left.
>> Well finish up, you can
finish up.
>> Can you please think about
us when you're making your
decision today.
>> I just have my.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> I just had to finish up mine
real quick. Is that okay?
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Thank you so much,
Aries. I also have a policy
suggestion called Portrait of
Place. The county will
establish a rental registration
program, a continuously updated,
publicly accessible database of
every rental dwelling in the
county, along with its manager
or management company. All
managers must register their
units and file monthly
compliance reports so the
county can monitor safe and
habitable conditions, track
vacancy rent cost and give
renters a searchable portal to
housing of all types, with
clear entry requirements posted
for each listing, noncompliance
will result in fines. We need
the full picture to know
whether this is a housing
shortage or a shortage of homes
people can actually get into
because of rent cost and
requirements.
>> Thank you, thank you. Have
you submitted that in writing
already to us?
>> I will submit it again. Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> David Toyer followed by
Wyatt Kinnee Anne.
>> Good evening councilors.
David Toyer traditional
spelling of David. Last name is
T as in Tom OYER. I am the
president of Strategic advisors
were a land use and economic
development consulting firm
that's been working with Klemz
Le Center and Ridgefield on
this TDR concept. Just wanted
to make a few brief comments
this evening on TDR, and I sent
a letter in earlier today. We
believe it's really important
to establish a policy that
provides guidance for both what
the county should do to create
a TDR program, as well as what
the city should do, and we
think that policy 1.1.24, which
was brought forward in the city
county process of proposing a
county wide planning policy, is
a good first step in that. And
Councilor Little's language
that he has also offered up is
also a good policy language
that could be included as a
county comprehensive plan
policy. Nonetheless, we have an
opportunity right now through
this comprehensive plan process
to adopt a TDR program,
something that the county
originally discussed almost 15
years ago in in studies and in
additional research. And so
this is a time and you have an
ability here to make a decision
on a TDR program. And it's a
decision on a program that
stands alone, whether or not
you designate land. That's one
decision. Whether or not you
expand your gas, that's a
different decision. And then
TDR is a decision amongst
itself. Each one has its own
criteria that have to be
considered, and you're going to
have to go through that process
as decision makers. But we
strongly encourage you to
consider adopting TDR policies
that allow the county and the
cities to move forward with
something that will help
conserve agricultural lands for
the long term. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Wyatt Kenyon. Jamie,
followed by Jamie Young.
>> Good evening. My name is
Wyatt Kenyon. Kilo. India.
November. India. Oscar.
November. I am here to chat
about code 42, 51, 20 and 4260.
20 years ago, my family was
displaced by a mobile home park
development. Counter to many
opinions. This evening. I
believe this was actually
pivotal in the foundation of my
family's wealth and prosperity,
vibrance, and my ability to
attend college. The reason I
believe that is that we learned
a valuable lesson in living in
a mobile home park, and that is
that you don't own the land
underneath like an RV park. You
should not assume that the
structure you're putting on
there is automatically implies
you living and owning the
property underneath.
Specifically, I urge the
council to understand that this
proposed language puts a
moratorium permanently on all
redevelopment, and I'm against.
Putting a stay on all
development. I think that
development might be an option
for getting people out of these
difficult situations. If I get
bit by a snake, I don't lead
others into it. And I think
that for me, it is a very
difficult position for both the
seniors and the property owners.
And so therefore, I'm in
general against the overlay
because of its outcome. But if
it overlays insisted, I insist
that they add they don't add
the expansion language. That
prohibits it from being
redeveloped, but add tactful
language that allows
redevelopment to happen. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Jamie Young. Okay, so that
is all that's currently signed
up on the sheets. Is there
anybody that didn't get a
chance that's here that would
like to speak?
>> Hello, my name is Jamie
Young. YOUNG. I live in North
Salmon Creek near the
fairgrounds on some acreage and
adjacent to several of the
parcels that are involved in
this plan, particularly the
parcel number 182138000. This
property is currently mixed use.
The decision table recommends
changing it to R 24, while the
county correspondence
identified it as r 50 on the
proposed map. So I'm trying to
make sure that I understand
that the review and
verification of this parcel
number is accurate, and we're
talking about the same thing
because our 50 versus R 24 is a
big difference. Also access to
sewer is a big concern is there
is no accessible public sewer
on northeast 1/64 Street in
that location. And I just
believe that residents who live
adjacent to these parcels under
consideration should be heard
and notified and understand
accurately what is happening
around us. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. If you didn't get
a chance to speak, go ahead and
come on up to the mic. Please
state your name clearly
spelling your last name.
>> My name is Bailey Green,
spelled GREEN. I'm a 22 year
old student pursuing a
bachelor's in environmental
sciences at Washington State
University, Vancouver, and am
the WSUV Environmental Science
Club president. I was raised in
Clark County and am deeply
invested in the ecological
restoration of Southwest
Washington. Studying
environmental science. I'm not
only conscious of the dangers
of climate change, but us
emerging adults will also bear
the brunt of the consequences
of the council's decisions over
the coming decades, as rampant
expansion and overdevelopment
in the pursuit of financial
interests continues to
devastate natural habitats.
More species rely on farmland
and open spaces as remaining
harbors for survival, including
serving as crucial stopovers
for federally protected
migratory birds, investing in
local farmland, young farmers
and gardeners are of increasing
importance to us young adults.
I and many other students work
with the student gardens at
WSUV, bringing food security
onto our campus as regional and
global food supply chains are
increasingly unstable, we are
relying on agricultural
resource lands to aid in our
food security over the next
decades, and increasing our
individual agency to tend to
these lands. Students attending
WSUV have been known to stay
within the region after
graduation, building their
lives.
>> In you. Please slow down.
>> Many are the young adults
who will be pouring back into
this county. While the next
comp plan will be in place, I
will be one of them. I urge you
to consider how we are relying
on the protection of our local
agricultural resource lands in
this county to aid in our
public health. As the climate
crisis continues to negatively
impact our food systems over
time, we have known the risks
of carbon emissions
increasingly altering our
atmosphere. And while federal
governments and international
organizations are failing US
youth, it fails. It falls to us
at the local level to make
necessary changes before it's
too late. I urge council to
prioritize the preservation of
our nature. Young scientists,
gardeners and all youth by
adopting more ambitious
greenhouse gas emission targets
and drafting a supplemental e s
that limits urban growth.
Boundary expansion protects
natural and agricultural
resource lands in the 2025 Comp
Plan update.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Okay, chair, that's all
that's signed up in the room.
We do have 14 online.
>> Okay, let's let's get
started. I think we have a
little time before we hit that
two hour mark for another break.
How are you doing, Cyndie.
>> I can handle 14 more, but
they need to slow down. I can't
write that fast.
>> Yeah, I know it's tough
because we limited their amount
of time. So anything you don't
have a chance to say, please
send us something in writing if
you haven't done that already.
Okay, let's let's keep going.
>> Caller you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and go ahead
with your comment.
>> Hello?
>> Yes. Go ahead please.
>> Yes, this is Dennis Zimmerli.
Good evening, Councilor Marchel
and councilors. I'm joining you
by phone because I was
recruited to help feed steer
tonight, so I so please excuse
any background noise.
>> Okay. Could you.
>> Please.
>> Please spell your name for
the record?
>> Sure, D I'm MERLY.
>> Okay. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Last week, I submitted
two letters identifying several
corrections needed in the
comprehensive plan update. We
asked council to act on both
letters as it makes its final
adoption decisions. Let me
briefly highlight those main
requests. First, please correct
the Surface Mining Overlay map
by adding the missing
designations to four Washougal
pit parcels within the long
standing DNR permit boundary.
DNR has reviewed the permit
file, confirmed in writing that
the approximately 120 acre
permitted area has remained
unchanged since 1972. This
correction would not expand the
DNR permit boundary or create a
new mining area. Second, ask is
the. Please revise the. Chapter
three to protect mineral
resources preferred and primary
status, continued access and
future supply and removes a
blanket Reule zone exclusion
and restore the existing mine
exception and reconciled the
FEIS acreage figures with
mineral resources actually
available. If the broader.
Chapter three policy revisions
require more time.
>> I'm sorry, your time is up.
We'll look at those letters.
>> Kaliner. You've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and go ahead
with your comment.
>> Good evening, Kimberly
Goheen Elbon. I quickly want to
say that you people there, we
the people, we are their boss.
We hired them. They should be
the ones thankful.
Unfortunately, a lot of people
had to leave. That's kind of by
design. So I had something
written up, but I lost it. But
I did something else here. So.
Kimberly Goheen Elbon
GOHEENELBON. I have deep
concerns and unyielding
opposition to current
trajectory of our local
government, specifically
regarding the state mandated
Growth Management Act. As we
the people, our constitutional
rights and our voices are
systemically, systemically
being stripped away by top down
bureaucracy mandates. The GMA,
rather than protecting our
community, has become a
dangerous tool that centralizes
power, bypasses local consent,
consent, and fundamentally
threatens the sovereignty of
patriots who want to live
freely on their lands. Also,
illegal immigration is taking
advantage of our hard earned
tax dollars, and that's another
depletion that we need to think
about. It also goes against our
federal law for our safety and
our protection. Like it or not,
our community is facing a
multi-front assault on our
environment, our health, and
our freedom. This council has
an absolute obligation,
obligation to listen to the
citizens that represent. We're
the boss. You're not. Rather
than blindly enforcing
directives that harm our
families and the land, we
depend on our agricultural
heritage and the security of
our food supply are under
direct threat. Real protection
of farmland means keeping it
pure and sustainable. Instead,
the current system permits the
widespread use of biosolids as
fertilizer. They need to outlaw
that, and shame on them for
doing it. Let us be entirely
clear biosolids are highly
toxic sewage sludge spreading
this waste under fields.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Anne Shaw, you've been sent
a request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. Spell your
last name for the record and go
ahead with your comment.
>> Anne Shaw, SHOW.
Agricultural lands are precious.
You have ample information
about how the county can comply
with state laws that govern the
GMA process, yet we've heard
very little about protecting
agricultural lands. There are
surpluses of buildable land.
Expanding urban growth areas is
not necessary. Do not deed
designate agricultural resource
lands. Protect working farms by
adopting 40 acre agricultural
zoning and remove
nonagricultural uses from the
GMA plan. Do not saddle County
residents with fiscal
irresponsibility. Do not give
in to developers who will pave
over prime agricultural lands
for their own financial gain.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Jud, wait. You've been sent
a request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and go ahead
with your comment. You're
unmuted Jud. We'll come back to
you. Phil West, you've been
sent a request to unmute.
Please go ahead and do so.
State your name for the record,
spelling your last name, and go
ahead with your comment.
>> Phil Wiest, WUEST. I'm with
GYN Group in Vancouver,
Washington. Madam Chair
councilors, thank you for
hearing my testimony. I'll be
brief. I'm in favor of I
believe it's the preferred
alternative and the request of
each of the cities for
expansions of their respective
urban growth areas. I also
support the recommendations of
the Development Engineering
Advisory Board has made to the
Council. The Dbw is made up of
professionals that understand
and have decades of experience
in the business of development
and providing housing to Clark
County residents and commercial
development and industrial
developments and high quality
jobs. I encourage you to listen
to the input of those experts.
So that's what I support. Just
a couple of quick notes on
issues that I hope you keep in
mind. And I've submitted
written testimony on some of
these issues in prior in lead
up to this hearing. First off,
there's not enough land inside
the existing Yugas. I think
that the county is confused.
It's vacant buildable lands
model, which has many flaws in
it with a true land capacity
analysis that needs to be
redone. The AG Land study was
rushed and inadequate and
didn't address minimum legal
requirements. And then finally,
there are some pretty heroic
assumptions within the plan
about how high density housing
equates to affordable housing.
And so I don't think that
aspect of the plan has been
adequately addressed either.
Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Andy Zorn, you've been sent
a request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and go ahead
with your comment.
>> Hello, my name is Andy Zorn,
ZAHN. I want to voice my strong
opposition to the expansion of
urban growth areas. Clark
County has lost too much of its
agricultural and other
undeveloped lands already. We
must put a stop to the loss of
our fields and forests, to
suburban commercial and
industrial sprawl. I remember
how beautiful Clark County was
when I was growing up in the
90s in southwest Washington,
and it's deeply saddening to
see how much of that pastoral
landscape has been buried under
subdivisions and strip malls.
Clark County has more than
enough existing built space
already, and any further
development should be focused
in the current central areas of
communities, not on top of
prime farmland or native
ecosystems. Sprawl drives up
the cost of living, increases
the burden on taxpayers to
provide services and
infrastructure, and impairs the
long term economic viability of
our communities. Please say no
to sprawl and do not expand
urban growth areas. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Robert Minturn. You've been
sent a request to unmute.
Please go ahead and do so.
State your name for the record,
spelling your last name, and go
ahead with your comment. Robert,
we've sent you a request to
unmute.
>> Is right in front of my face.
Thank you very much. My name is
Robert Minturn. I represent the
Nevin family. I agree with both
Bob Minturn and Alan Peter's
statements today. I think that
as I and others have noted
before, it abundantly clear
that Clark County will continue
to grow and outpace other
regions of this fine state. For
obvious reasons, this trend
will continue in places like
cameras. Cameras has great
opportunities economically.
They have great schools, as in
past Yugas, the. The county and
cities have under planned and
ended up against the boundaries,
therefore causing more growth
further away. That's the
surprising thing. The Nevin
property provides opportunity
for a smart growth approach.
>> Excuse me, could you spell
your name for the record?
>> Yes. Thank MINTURN. Smart
growth does not enhance urban
growth. It controls urban
growth and it gives opportunity
to all income levels and people
that want to buy homes, not
just landowners, get to live on
five acre parcels we are trying
to get away from that. Would
like to go with a more smart
growth approach. Our family has
been on the land for over 53
years. The land has not been
farmed and it is deemed no
irrigation water available. The
soil types have been proven to
not be prime agricultural land.
It has surface rock, basalt and
it's even shown in the county
mapping that was just recently
done in the agricultural study
that the soils do not behoove
farming. If we are already
zoned, our properties are
already four, five and 20 acre
parcels, and unfortunately
they're going to be sold.
>> Thank you. I'm sorry your
time is up.
>> Caller you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and go ahead
with your comment.
>> Hello. Good evening, Chair
Marshall and councilors. This
is Olivia Zimmerli Z. I'm MERLY,
and I'm speaking in support of
the preferred alternative,
including retention of the
North Field expansion. I
submitted FEIS letter, sets out
the supporting analysis and
requested corrections. North
Richfield has carried an urban
reserve overlay since 1994. It
adjoins Paradise Point
Subdivision, which is also the
planned site of the 2027 Parade
of Homes, as well as the Costco
commercial area and I-5, the
expanding alien casino and
resort complex is also nearby.
I ask that you please evaluate
the Johnson Economics study and
property specific evidence
under all three agricultural
land factors that being urban
growth, character, agricultural
capability and long term
commercial significance.
Consider soil drainage, crop
history, production costs, and
market conditions within the
county wide analysis. The
proposal employment with the
proposal excuse me proposal
combines employment with nearly
1000 homes intended for
households of 80% of Ami. More
importantly, modeled capacity
elsewhere does not establish
that equivalent affordable
housing will be delivered
elsewhere. Please evaluate the
city's analysis of housing
capacity below. 80% of Ami
before adoption. Please correct
the acreage and capacity
descriptions. Make signs
addressing the agricultural
record and the city city's
housing, employment and
infrastructure needs. And
please retain Northridge Field,
the preferred alternative.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Cindy Hsu. You've been sent
a request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and please
proceed with your comment.
>> My name is Cindy Hsu. HOSS
as in Sam z u. Thank you for
staying late to hear from your
constituents, the ones who
voted for you, I appreciate
that. I want to bring up a
couple points. Number one,
developers, a lot of these
developers are nationwide. They
are not local. They come here,
they develop. They leave.
Number two concurrency. This is
a big problem. It needs to be
addressed. We were promised, I
understand, by a different
council. We were promised that
infrastructure would be before
development. It didn't happen.
You're still responsible
because you are the county
council. Number livestock. I
want to deal with this. I live
on five acres off of 179th
Street. I have livestock. If
you change your zoning, I will
be next to 3 to 5 story
apartment buildings with
livestock next door. There
needs to be a buffer between
livestock and apartments. That
is common sense, not rocket
science. You're you're basing
your county planning off of
Olympia and Tacoma. They should
be a lesson in what not to do,
not what to do. Their traffic
patterns are problems, and ours
will be too. On 179th Street,
we have already failed. By your
own standards, changing the
standards is irresponsible. I
also agree with Gary's mom. I'm
sorry I didn't catch her name,
but I think her proposal makes
a lot of sense. I don't want to
take up more of your time.
Thank you for hearing me. Good
night.
>> Thank you.
>> Wendy Cleveland, you've been
sent a request to unmute.
Please go ahead and do so.
Spelling your last. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and go ahead
with your record with your
comment. It's getting late.
>> Wendy Cleveland, CLEVELAND.
Earlier this year, I stood
before you to speak about this
comp plan. I was primarily
focused on battleground site
specific request for 450 acres
of privately owned, pristine
rural land known as the Dollars
Corner expansion. When I found
out that the decisions had been
made about the land by both the
Planning Commission and the
county staff, using nothing
more than county wide color
block maps, I was appalled, so
appalled that my colleague and
I brought in blown up satellite
view maps with streets and real
pictures taken on the ground.
Those pictures showed what
we're about to lose. And it's
not just here. It's all over
the county. The stands of
protected white oak, surface
level water and ponds, and a
fish bearing stream running
nearly the length and breadth
of that parcel. The council
member from district one even
came out with us for a site
visit, before returning to his
position on the dais and voting
with the majority to go ahead
with its destruction. One good
person can save the world,
starting with one good deed,
one day at a time. Hearts can
change, people can care. And
one by one, more of us can
begin to stand up. Stand up to
the corruption and ill
intentioned acts that threaten
our natural resources and
beautiful way of life here in
Clark County. My question for
you here is today, who among
you will remember your roots
and join me in standing up to
choose to be on the right side
of history with this historic
vote? Someone once told me that
integrity is a word for the
young. I prefer to think it is
a word for the brave. Be brave.
Good night.
>> Thank you.
>> Donna Sinclair, you've been
sent a request to unmute.
Please go ahead and do so.
State your name for the record,
spelling your last name, and go
ahead with your comment.
>> Hi. Thank you so much. My
name is Donna Sinclair,
SINCLAIR, and I want to thank
the councilors and the county
staff for staying here tonight
and listening so intently. I'm
here to talk about affordable
housing, which we all know is
one of the most pressing
challenges that we have here in
Clark County. It affects
everything. And what I want to
talk about is how we measure it.
So we know it's not enough to
just say that we need
affordable, affordable housing.
We have to be serious about
addressing the shortage. And to
do that, I would like to see us
establish clear goals, measure
whether we are meeting them,
and adjust our strategies when
we aren't. So what we know is
that the state is already
providing information under SB
5587, and I think it's
important to note that a
general commitment to
increasing affordable housing
shows good intentions, but it's
not sufficient to ensure
results. So what I'm going to
ask is if you would please add
language to the comprehensive
plan that sets affordable
housing goals, tracks progress
and adjust strategies needed
each year using the data that's
provided by the state under
5587. That data shows the
number of households by income
bracket, the number of
affordable housing units
available to those households,
and most importantly, the
shortfall or surplus of
affordable housing. So the
language provides a simple
commitment to accountability,
and it should be in the
comprehensive plan. So please
set goals, measure progress,
look at what's working and
what's not, and adjust
accordingly to effectively
address affordable housing, we
have to know whether our
policies are actually closing
the gap. A concrete action
cycle using real data will make
that possible. Please add this
commitment to the comprehensive
plan. And since I have 10s left,
I just want to say it's been
really amazing to hear all of
the people come in here to talk
about clean air, water,
agricultural land, urban farms,
and I really hope that you will
support what they've been
saying. And the mobile home
overlay. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Emery, you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and go ahead
with your comment.
>> Hello. My name is Sarah
Emery. Last name a m as in Mary
IRA. I come here today. Just a
strong support of the
Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan. I was born and raised in
Vancouver and have spent most
of my life in Clark County.
Over the years I've watched our
community grow, but I have also
seen housing become
increasingly difficult to
afford for many local residents.
Like countless people who grew
up here, I would like to
continue building my future in
the community I call home.
However, the rising cost of
housing has made home ownership
feel increasingly out of reach.
One of the primary reasons
housing costs continue to
increase is the shortage of
available housing. When demand
significantly exceeds supply,
prices increase, making it
harder for working families,
young professionals and first
time home buyers to purchase a
home. Expanding the supply of
land available for residential
development is an important
step toward addressing the
challenge. The comprehensive
Growth Management plan will
help create opportunities for
additional housing that can
accommodate our growing
population and ease upward
pressure on housing prices.
Clark County's growth is not
slowing down. The question is
whether we will plan reasonably
for that growth or allow
housing shortages to become
even more severe by providing
room for new neighborhoods and
housing development. This plan
will help ensure that future
generations of Clark County
residents have a realistic
opportunity to live and work in
the communities where they grew
up. As someone who has deep
roots in Vancouver, I believe
it is important for local
government to support policies
that increase housing
availability and improve
affordability. Thank you for
your time.
>> Thank you.
>> Justin Berger, you've been
sent a request to unmute.
Please go ahead and do so.
State your name for the record,
spelling your last name, and
please proceed with your
comment.
>> Good evening, Chair Marshall
and councillors. My name is
Justin Berger, that's BURGER. I
live and farm in unincorporated
Clark County. I'm asking you to
remove the farmland D
designations items five through
nine and 28. The county doesn't
need this land and D
designating it invites an
appeal. The county will very
likely lose at the taxpayers
expense. You chose a growth
target nearly 2000 people above
the state's most likely
forecast. And it still fits
Commerce, Commerce wrote on
September 22nd. That, and I
quote it appears that the
current urban growth area
boundaries are sufficient. And
your staff's memo shows this
plan provides about 10,500 more
homes than the county needs.
Commerce also warned that D
designating farmland because it
sits near growth and I quote,
has not been found to be
defensible. Your planning
director acknowledged this in
writing, and your Agricultural
Advisory Commission unanimously
recommended keeping existing
farmland. This county already
lost this fight over its 2007
and 2016 plan to designate, by
my count, written comments
oppose these. These
designations more than 8 to 1
outside. Outside of the two
cities. The support comes from
landowners, their families,
developers and law firms. A
promise without details is an
empty promise. Even the city's
own suggested language lets the
boundaries expand before any
program exists, and the
Planning commission voted down.
The only version requiring an
acre protected for an acre
converted. These designations
would, by a lawsuit, not land.
Farmland once paved, is gone
for our children. Please keep
it in agriculture. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Patty Newkirk. You've been
sent a request to unmute.
Please go ahead and do so.
State your name for the record,
spelling your last name, and
please proceed with your
comment.
>> Hello, my name is Patty
Newkirk, NEWKIRK. I just would
like to have you approve the
overlay plan for mobile home
parks. I've lived at Great
Western Mobile Home Park for 30
years, and, you know, I've I've
seen managers come and go and
some enforce the rules and some
didn't. And that's always been
frustrating and still is. I
think if the overlay zone, if
the owners I'm sorry, if the
owners go through the hoops and
are still able to sell the
parks out from us, they should
compensate us more than what
the state is. Rule is saying
from 11 to $17,000, because our
homes are worth more than that.
So I it would be nice if there
was some kind of a rule stuck
in there about that. And also,
there are people in this park
that are making house payments.
What are they going to do about
that? You know, I feel like
that they should be compensated
because that wouldn't be right
if they got kicked out and
still had to make their house
payment. But please vote for
the overlay zone. Thank you
very much.
>> Thank you. One more, I'm
told.
>> Color, you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and please
proceed with your comment.
>> Rob Anderson, can you hear
me? A NDERSON.
>> Yes we can.
>> Perfect. So I'm very
privileged to be the last. I
heard Donna Sinclair, earlier,
the vice chair of the Democrat
Party, give comment and many
other Democrats that evoke the
two magic words affordable
housing. They have signs all
throughout the county and want
you to think that they believe
in affordable housing. But the
problem is, is that many, many
Democrats like Donna Sinclair
came out tonight, and they're
advocating for a policy that
would absolutely ruin
affordable housing. And it's
just simple elementary
understanding of economics and
it's supply and demand. And if
you adopt a no growth plan, it
is a recipe for skyrocketing
costs that will just make
homeownership unattainable. And
the little truth here, if I may
just give a little more of an
opinion, is, is that many who
spoke tonight here have radical
views that want to strip
private property rights and
just hate capitalists. And
developers are the capitalists.
And so they want to just end
that all together. And so I
would ask that the county
council would take a common
sense, reasonable understanding
that would help with affordable
housing by having modest growth
built into it, instead of a
radical view of no growth. That
will be devastating to future
generations for home ownership.
Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. And I'm told we
have two more.
>> Yes. Jamie Housley, you've
been sent a request to unmute.
Please go ahead and do so.
State your name for the record,
spelling your last name, and
please proceed with your
comment.
>> Yes. Good evening, Madam
Chair. Council, for the record,
Jamie Housley, HOWSLEY. Two
minutes is not a long time, and
we've been submitting a
sufficient number of writing to.
Add on to our testimony, but I
want to briefly touch on the
three requests by the cities of
Richfield and Camas. First, Mr.
Stewart eloquently stated the
reasoning behind the two
requests that they have before
you tonight, including that the
properties on the North
Richfield area have been in the
Urban reserve overlay since
1994. Those properties are
characterised by urban growth,
as they have the city limits on
three sides of them. Also
adjoining I-5 and then the
Cowlitz tribe encroaching from
the north side. Again, we refer
you to our September 24th
letter for more detailed data
on that specific request. And
then the mall request is even
more egregious, with the city
limits surrounding it on four
sides, a middle school across
the street, and the regional
sports complex also across the
street for the center. As Miss
Merrill had pointed out, none
of those lands out there are
farm. They're paved over with
businesses approved by Clark
County as it is, and the
Cowlitz Tribe is encroaching
very closely. And then as far
as the Nevin property out in
Camas, I think Mr. Peters
eloquently stated the rationale
behind that. The properties are
characterized by urban growth,
with the city limits adjacent
to the property and the city of
Washougal right to the south of
it. Your own agricultural
report shows that these are not
prime farmland or not farmland,
a statewide significance. And
so therefore, the designation
of that has been in error for
more than 30 years. And I think
that the property owners have
testified to the fact that
they're not using it for
agricultural purposes. So again,
just refer to our letter of the
24th and you'll have additional
detail. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Jude, wait. We've sent you a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and please
proceed with your comment.
>> It says we can't hear you so.
>> We can hear you.
>> Oh great. My name is Jude.
Wait WAIT. A wide array of
tools are necessary to ensure
the long term viability of
agriculture, farming, water
resource protection as mandated
by the GMA and its intent. For
example, TDR is but one tool.
Another of the many climate
element policies regarding
agriculture and food is the
right to food, which is
encompasses more than threats
to food security and food
access. The right to food.
Should you believe in feeding
the children now and into the
future, has a corollary farming,
food production and land
stewardship. Our community
services, another universal
principle deriving from WSU
extension research on state and
national policies to support
long term agriculture is. This.
Farmland must be treated as
critical infrastructure. So
this applies to the county and
considering benefits to an
array of municipal
infrastructure, stormwater
management, aquifer recharge
revenue, energy, climate impact
reductions, emergency response,
and a decentralized food supply
chain. Do you have the
requisite political will? Given
that Clark County has
documented cumulative impacts
of sprawl and accumulated loss
of natural resources needed to
ensure resilience and
adaptability? Will you take a
do no harm and care for the
future generations? I just
wanted to paraphrase one
national organization, Ducks
Unlimited partners with farmers,
ranchers and public agencies to
manage water resources and land
use in ways that benefit fish,
waterfowl and sustainable
agriculture. Investing your
decisions in climate resilience
policies includes honoring
critical infrastructure and the
mantra.
>> Thank you, Jude. And I see
we have yet one more.
>> Tim post. You've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record, spelling
your last name, and please
proceed with your comment.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair and
County Councillors. My name is
Tim Probst, PROBST. And thanks
for the excellent conversations.
All night long I'd like to add
my voice to the many, many
folks who have talked about
affordable housing as an
emergency and a crisis, and how
important it is to set goals
and track them and make
adjustments to make sure we're
meeting our goals over time to.
So I would like to ask for the
not the whole Sep plan, but the.
The comp plan to include
language that commits us to
that and commits us to use the
measures from Senate Bill 5587
so that we're using good
industry standards to measure
our progress on affordable
housing. It's so important for
so many families, and doing it
right is the right thing to do.
I'd also like to add my voice
to so many people who spoke
very eloquently tonight, asking
for the county to adopt the
same climate goal as the city
of Vancouver and allow zoning
for affordable apartments, not
designating farmland, but add
more protections for farmland
and supporting the AG
Commission recommendations as
well. It was wonderful to hear
so many citizens talking about
that tonight. And just to close
the the Hosap plan does not
hold the weight of law. It's
really just a recommendation
without teeth. So I would
really ask for you to add to
the comprehensive plan, the
good work of tracking and
adjusting as needed so that we
meet our affordable housing
goals as a county well into the
future. So thank you very much.
It's been a wonderful listening
tonight.
>> Thank you.
>> Chair, that completes public
comment.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
So thanks, everyone for hanging
in there. I want to thank
everyone who's come forward to
speak. I think there are
probably several questions that
were raised based on some of
the comments I, I would like to
close. Public comment, I think.
Is that what I'm close public
comment, but carry over this
meeting to tomorrow at 10 a.m.
where the council will
deliberate and folks are
welcome to attend in person and
observe or participate, at
least as observers online. So
with that, I guess I will. What
I'm not adjourning, what am I
doing?
>> You'll continue to tomorrow
at 10 a.m.
>> Continuing tomorrow till ten.
Thank you.