Officials debated whether to expand Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to accommodate future housing and employment growth or to manage this growth through infill and higher density within existing boundaries. Expanding the UGAs would necessitate extending infrastructure into rural areas and converting valuable agricultural land, prompting discussions about zoning adjustments and implementing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Additionally, the council evaluated specific site proposals for the comprehensive plan's Environmental Impact Statement, such as whether to rezone previously subdivided agricultural parcels in Camas for multifamily or mixed-use development.
Building_development
Clark County Council · Apr 28, 2026 · 1:15:58–1:16:10 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: capital facilities UGA comprehensive plan subdivision zoning density infrastructure
What was said
1:14:55 And that is the alternative to what would be analyzed here as an option besides that. But that is inevitable, the landowner. Multiple reports here have said that they could have already done this. And they've been holding out for this potential of doing something bigger for the community. >> What is the zoning around adjacent to this? And where is the growth boundary? Is that the yellow? >> So to the west is the urban growth area. And then along to the south, that these parcels are split zone. And the portions abutting the road are zoned community commercial. So that's also part of the urban growth boundary. >> And what color is it? >> This is, these properties are CC commercial. >> CC, okay. >> Community commercial.
1:15:55 >> They're not in the city limits. >> No, they're in the UGA, they've not been annexed yet. >> They haven't been annexed? >> No. >> When did, so they came in in 2016? >> No, I think these were 2007. >> 2007, and they haven't annexed them yet. >> Correct. >> Right. >> That would make me question the need. Thank you, go ahead.
1:16:22 >> Mr. Chair, just a question, that actually was an interesting comment to me. Because this is, I think, one of the challenges of the Growth Management Act is then, I don't know what the ultimate numbers are going to be, but the numbers may not justify this as residential land. But I think all of us here at this dais would agree that 16 partial to 5 acres a piece is not what we want, so I don't know what the, I look at this like I would love to see if we could make a change. Is it multi-family that they had? What level of density did they have for this? >> They proposed an MF18, which I think is-
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 1:15:58–1:16:10 capital facilities, UGA, comprehensive plan, subdivision, zoning, density, infrastructure
are zoned community commercial. So that's also part of the urban growth boundary. >> And what color is it? >> This is, these properties are CC commercial. >> CC, okay. >> Community commercial. >> They're not in the city limits. >> No, they're in the UGA, they've not been annexed yet. >> They haven't been annexed? >> No. >> When did, so they came in in 2016? >> No, I think these were 2007. >> 2007, and they haven't annexed them yet. >> Correct. >> Right. >> That would make me question the need. T