Building_development

1:36:26 >> It's actually near what is circled in what looks to me like teal here at the southern -- I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? I'm not -- I might have misheard you. >> My understanding is you're concerned that Yacolt had come before us and asked for certain parcels to be brought in. We didn't necessarily follow your recommendation or your request. And that could be based very much on faulty data and faulty assumptions. Which parcel, is there a specific parcel number that you -- because we can't even recommend -- if you have a specific recommendation, like we would like this parcel included, these 20 acres, these 50 acres, these 100 acres. Which ones and where are they, and then -- Yeah, does that make sense?

1:37:24 >> Yes, I believe the parcels are in the south and southwest portion of the UGA, if it's possible, I can confirm that and circle back with you. >> I think that would be helpful if you had a very -- the city of battleground came with some very specific requests and recommendations that are actionable. I would recommend that you would include that for the record to us, that would be really helpful. >> Certainly. >> Jose, do you have any clarity on that? >> Yeah, we can provide you a map that shows where those parcels are, what was in alternative two that wasn't moved forward in the preferred alternative. And that's why there's a difference between the numbers in the DEIS and the FEIS because of the removal of those three areas.

1:38:22 There's to the southeast and then two to the northeast. In terms of the development that occurred, I had a conversation with Mr. Dennis and explained to him that the projected growth was from 2023 to 2045. So any development that occurs is captured within that projection. So that's why we didn't exclude it from the model because it's already incorporated in that anticipated growth. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Any other questions for Jakob? Commissioner Barca. >> This is Ron Barca, I'm going back to our conversation about Yakult before, and I'm hoping that someone from staff can remind me.

1:39:18 Was there limitations that were placed on Yakult's growth based on the aspect of septic penetration and the lack of sewer?

1:39:36 >> 12,000, yeah. So I think that they don't have sewer, so the septic requires a 12,500, I think, square foot lot minimum. >> Okay, so it puts it into the aspect, that's their minimum lot size at 12,000. Okay. >> Correct. >> Any other questions? Okay, Vancouver. >> Good evening. Brian Snodgrass, S-N-O-D-G-R-A-S-S, on behalf of the city of Vancouver. Here, first of all, to thank this group, the city council, excuse me, the county council, county staff, and then our small city counterparts for reaching this point, which is a very important milestone.

1:40:32 I think as our letter you should have in the record this week from council member Eric Paulson indicates, a congratulations as well for the proposed plan, fulfilling one of its most important tasks in providing more than ample growth opportunities for the future. As you may recollect, the plan was originally anchored on aggressive growth forecasts. Those are then accommodated through a model which had quite a bit of review, at least on the residential side, not so much on the job side, but the result there is that some outdated assumptions are resulting in more capacity than is actually, we believe, than being reported, so ample growth opportunities. And important to emphasize that those are not only for rental opportunities, that's been some of the discussion, but also ownership as well, and the best indication of that I think in terms of metrics is you can look to the FEIS,

1:41:32 for instance, notes that more than three times as much land countywide is zoned for low density housing development than it is for high density housing development and mixed use combined. There are a couple of areas that in our view need to be addressed to bring this process to a successful and defensible conclusion. One of those is within the Vancouver UGA, the existing UGA unincorporated area, some, and emphasize some, it doesn't have to be a large amount, zoning needs to be provided in our view in the many areas where residents are being forced, and current zoning essentially forces them, and proposed zoning does as well, to drive over a mile to the nearest work or shopping opportunity. And we had, this is inconsistent with climate requirements, it's inconsistent with current county policy that says interrelated uses should locate near each other.

1:42:31 And we had earlier provided about two years ago a list of potential sites that could accommodate supportive zoning, none have been included. Most of those lands are now proposed for zoning that either outright allows, disallows, excuse me, any of those supportive commercial or employment opportunities, or in a few cases, it's mixed use that would allow it, but doesn't necessarily incent it. Going forward, we understand there's quite a bit on the planning commission's plate. We would simply ask that you, if you're unable to address the zoning issue in these hearings, to at least recommend that the city council consider in future work plans post adoption that this be addressed. It's an important issue to the city of Vancouver, and I think to the livability of the residents in the area, and I think to the defensibility in terms of GMA requirements of the county plan.

1:43:25 The other issue raised, and it's in the letter as well, is in regards a couple of issues that, legal issues that need to be resolved one way or the other, and how they get resolved I think is of potentially regional consequence, and so we just would very much want to hear a discussion, I should say, among yourselves, among staff, among county council, of how these are going to get resolved. One of those is there is a sizable county-wide surplus, as you know, land surplus. The most recent information we could find in the record before you about that was in the FEIS, which said there was 10,000 more housing unit capacity than there is forecast county-wide. If that's not resolved, and I trust it will be in some way, that's a fairly basic GMA violation. There's a more nuanced issue surrounding that doesn't affect us directly, but it does indirectly surrounding the agricultural land study.

1:44:23 We are on record as supporting the self-determination of the other cities. If that hasn't changed, how the issue gets resolved is of some importance and needs some discussion. Certainly what we had heard in our understanding of the study was that it found that agriculture was viable. If there are other interpretations, that's a matter that I think also we would want to hear discussed. Both of these issues raise important questions for us, and I think in the region. One of those is, will the growth forecasts or VBL assumptions be changed at the 11th hour? We're somewhat wary of that because that happened earlier in this process in the Vancouver UGA, triggered a couple of at least temporary proposed expansions which made no sense on the ground, and the county I think wisely pulled back from those. If small city expansions requiring agriculture are adopted but then removed by the hearing board as they have been in the past, will the growth have to be made up in the Vancouver UGA?

1:45:21 And I think lastly, in the Vancouver UGA on the question of capital facilities adequacy, what are the implications if the county is found in GMA violation as it has been quite often in the past on these issues and becomes grant ineligible, what are the implications for service adequacy in those areas? So those are our comments. Happy to answer any questions. >> Questions for Vancouver? Mr. Barca. >> Ron Barca. So looking at the capital facilities plans, are there elements of fees or regional zones that you've had to come up with,

1:46:11 different taxation policies to try and raise the revenue higher than what is currently in place for the city of Vancouver now? >> That's a detailed question I'd have to get back to you on. The short answer is I don't know, as I said, about what. If I understand you're asking, what changes have we had to make in the capital facilities plan that we just adopted? We adopted all our plans this past June that do things differently. Is that your question? >> Sorry. >> If I understand your question, it's in the Vancouver city of capital facilities plans. What have we done differently in this recently adopted plan? Is that the question? >> That's correct. I mean, it's a range of things, but I can give a follow up with a more detailed answer if that's what you need. >> Okay.

1:47:09 Yeah, looking at the capital facilities plan as it's outlined in, I think it's appendix E. Most of the cities just show a completely balanced budget. Whatever their expenditures are, however many millions of dollars it is, and then it shows on the other side, there is revenue to pay for it. Vancouver's the only one that put in the aspect of the actual funding mechanisms. And so that's why I was wondering whether you've gone down enough detail to understand what that is, which I think puts you above what the other cities did. But I was wondering whether that also included the aspect of saying there are some places where revenues had to change to meet those demands. >> Yeah, let me follow up. >> Thanks. >> Any other questions?

1:48:06 With that said, that's the end of the cities. So we have about a little less than 20 people. What I'd like to do right now is take a- >> I think we have, is Camus Online? >> Is Camus Online? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I thought I'd call them out. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Okay, so it looks like Camus is actually here. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> You should be able to unmute now, Alan. >> Yes, hello. >> Hello. >> Hi, this is Alan Peters. I'm the Community Development Director with the City of Camus. I apologize, I wasn't able to sign on to the meeting earlier. But here now and wanted to thank, first of all, Chair Johnson and the Planning Commission.

1:49:03 We're here today at another key milestone in the county's periodically update process. And we're looking to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation at this time to the county council on adoption of the countywide 2045 plan. Camus, of course, appreciates the partnership we've had with the county and the opportunity we've had to work together on this update with your staff. As well as the other cities in Clark County. We support the draft plan and the inclusion of the two expansion areas requested for Camus included in the EIS preferred alternative. First of all, Grovefield, we believe this presents a unique opportunity to bring in public poor property that would be committed to job creation. Including Grovefield in the UGA would provide zoning and infrastructure needed to advance the Port of Camus. While she goes economic development goals will helping us meet our job targets.

1:49:59 The Nevin property is another important expansion area located in proximity to urban development and infrastructure in Camus in Los Hugo. While this property is largely zoned agricultural and undeveloped, it's 160 acres include five acre lots that could be developed with single family homes. And we believe inclusion of the Nevin property into the Camus UGA to offer urban development is a better use of this property and in better alignment with the GMA. So we would encourage the County Planning Commission to forward a recommendation including Camus's request. And then finally, I want to also reiterate our support for incorporating transfer development rights policies into the plan. These programs have been successfully implemented across the state. And I believe that the time is now come in Clark County for this opportunity. There's some momentum for it. And I think a TDR program presents an important opportunity to connect our

1:50:58 desire to preserve ag lands and provide land capacity for jobs and housing in our city. So, again, I want to thank the Planning Commission and encourage you, as we conclude this process, to get us across the finish line here and support Camus's growth plans. Thank you. Questions for Camus? Is this Commissioner Barca? Please go ahead, Alicia. This is really simple and I think you already answered it. But does the City of Camus support a TDR program in conjunction with the proposed UGA changes? Yes, the City of Camus is in support of a TDR program. Thank you.

1:51:51 This is Commissioner Barca. I would like a little bit of clarification, please, on the 244 acres that's shown on the map. Is that to be considered urban low density? So there are two components to that expansion request. The grow field property, we would designate a mixed employment, which is a type of light industrial zone. The 160 or so acre admin property, it is included in the preferred alternative as multifamily high. That was our initial request. The City later amended that request and actually requested an employment designation.

1:52:44 But our understanding is that request came in too late and so it was included in the EIS as multifamily. Okay, that's what I wanted to try and get some clarification on. So for the Nevin property specifically, you're going to anticipate bringing it in as employment land, not any type of housing?