County and city officials reviewed the Comprehensive Plan update, focusing on Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansions, consolidating multi-family zoning to increase housing density, and strategies to address a $550 million transportation infrastructure deficit. Representatives from Ridgefield and La Center advocated for a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to balance agricultural preservation with affordable housing, while Yacolt disputed county land capacity models regarding recent residential subdivisions. Additionally, Vancouver and Battle Ground proposed specific boundary and rezoning amendments to better integrate mixed-use developments, reduce traffic impacts, and manage future municipal growth.
Building_development
Clark County Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026 · 1:02:30–1:02:57 · 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
1:01:29 The title is the school impact fees of planning commission recommendation 716. And then it has technically what I would read as then our recommendation on this slide. So that's all I'm highlighting. I'm not saying there's anything- >> No, you're right. I'm just highlighting that. >> Not dead. >> Ron. >> This is Ron Barca. For the chair, I'm trying to understand when do we vote on the capital facilities plan itself as part of the comprehensive plan. I'm hearing components of it, but I'm not hearing us adopting the entire capital facilities plan, which I believe is a requirement per GMA. So can us and everybody here have a clear understanding about when we're voting on the capital facilities plan?
1:02:23 >> Jose, help us out here. >> I think it's part of the comprehensive plan overall. So we've stripped out the schools and the fire. So when you adopt the rest of the comprehensive plan, like I said, the appendix A has the capital facilities plan that has the transportation impact fees embedded in that. And so that's when you would adopt that or move to adopt that. >> What about the cities? Do we got to go through all the cities again? >> No, I don't think you, the cities are appendix E, but you don't have to weigh in on the cities. >> Right, okay. >> So this is Ron Barca again.
1:03:20 So an understanding then in the way that you laid this out, we're adopting it just with like all the chapters all just rolled into. >> Unless you have specific things that you want to call out and vote on or have make changes. >> Okay. >> Or amendments to. >> I very much want to break capital facilities out specifically. I actually believe that when it comes time, we should be voting on all of the chapters individually before we even get into the land use aspect of it. I believe the way that this is set up, it's backwards from what we would want to have clear understanding of each of the elements in the housing, transportation, etc., etc., etc., before we get into the land use.
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 1:02:30–1:02:57 capital facilities, UGA, density, PUD, annexation, rezoning, plat, infrastructure, traffic impact, comprehensive plan, subdivision, zoning, affordable housing, concurrency
ting the entire capital facilities plan, which I believe is a requirement per GMA. So can us and everybody here have a clear understanding about when we're voting on the capital facilities plan? >> Jose, help us out here. >> I think it's part of the comprehensive plan overall. So we've stripped out the schools and the fire. So when you adopt the rest of the comprehensive plan, like I said, the appendix A has the capital facilities plan that has the transportation impact fees embedded in that. An