The Planning Commission reviewed updates to the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, focusing on Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary expansions for several cities and rezoning efforts to increase residential density and allow for middle housing. Staff also presented the Capital Facilities Plan, highlighting a $550 million transportation infrastructure deficit and proposing adjustments to traffic impact fees to account for construction inflation. Additionally, a representative from the City of Battle Ground requested specific amendments to their proposed UGA to include land for a water reservoir and a residential subdivision, emphasizing growth in areas with existing infrastructure.
Building_development
Clark County Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026 · 32:34–36:17 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: capital facilities UGA density PUD annexation rezoning plat infrastructure traffic impact comprehensive plan subdivision zoning affordable housing concurrency
What was said
31:26 just very small, I think it's 14 acres, it is known as the walls property when they testify. In case they do, currently it's ag and this other property to the north is also ag. Let's go to the next slide for the town of Yakult. Again, planning commission members, this is only 12 acres, Yakult expansion, there are other areas that the town of Yakult asked for, but you did not recommend them and the council did not only dismiss the council advance as you did. What about Vancouver and Washougo, those two cities are not recommending any expansion to the urban growth boundary, that's why we didn't include them. We can go to the next slide.
32:26 So in the Vancouver unincorporated area, these are map amendments, this is more of a summary we have been sharing with you that we are mending the zoning in the urban medium and urban high, this will be in the apartment multi-family districts, currently we have five residential and office residential districts, we were trying to combine those to three residential and office residential districts, in other words, in the R district, we would like to see R12 going to R24, R18, and these 18 numbers are units, 18 units to an acre to 22 going
33:19 to R36, and then R30, R34 going to R50, similarly in the OR, the OR is office residential district, you can do either office or multi-family. Why did we recommend this? The housing work that we started prior to the legislature passing several housing bills, the HOSAP study, which some of you participated in that committee, and we made changes to the single-family district that are now allowed for a variety of housing type from accessory dwelling unit to triplex, fourplex, townhouses, and so forth, that you can now develop in
34:18 the single-family zone. That was prohibited prior to the legislature requiring us under House Bill 1220 to consider opening up the single-family district that has been exclusively zoned for single-family detached or attached single-family homes to allow for a variety of housing type, which we accomplished through that first amendment or implementation of the HOSAP study. That action itself increases the density in the single-family zone to about 21.8 units to an acre, which is technically 22 units to an acre, so it makes no sense to live in
35:14 the multi-family zone to live R-12, R-18, when you can get up to 22 units in the R district, so this is why we are trying to graduate this up. So that's one of the changes that we are recommending in the Vancouver unincorporated area. Other changes were minor amendments to the zoning in certain R-110, R-120, and R-175, and then we made other zoning and compliance designation on nine size-specific requests, again, within the existing urban growth boundary. Again, as you all know, there were so many property owners that submitted size-specific
36:10 requests, which were studied in all three, and none of those were recommended to move forward by the Planning Commission and as well as the Council. There were other requests, but the Council decided not to touch forests or deal with mining overlay, given the fact that we have no new information to revisit surface mining overlay or revisiting the forest designation. So with that, we can go to the next slide, so I can just share with you, as I mentioned, part of this periodic update, our focus has been on housing and also climate, and I can
37:09 touch on that briefly. I said housing because this is not new to you since we've been coming to you and reworking
Evidence (2 matches)
direct keyword 32:34–33:05 capital facilities, UGA, density, PUD, annexation, rezoning, plat, infrastructure, traffic impact, comprehensive plan, subdivision, zoning, affordable housing, concurrency
xpansion to the urban growth boundary, that's why we didn't include them. We can go to the next slide. So in the Vancouver unincorporated area, these are map amendments, this is more of a summary we have been sharing with you that we are mending the zoning in the urban medium and urban high, this will be in the apartment multi-family districts, currently we have five residential and office residential districts, we were trying to combine those to three residential and office residential district
direct keyword 35:52–36:17 capital facilities, UGA, density, PUD, annexation, rezoning, plat, infrastructure, traffic impact, comprehensive plan, subdivision, zoning, affordable housing, concurrency
o this is why we are trying to graduate this up. So that's one of the changes that we are recommending in the Vancouver unincorporated area. Other changes were minor amendments to the zoning in certain R-110, R-120, and R-175, and then we made other zoning and compliance designation on nine size-specific requests, again, within the existing urban growth boundary. Again, as you all know, there were so many property owners that submitted size-specific requests, which were studied in all three, and