Clark County Planning Commission

0:00 (upbeat music)

0:30 Okay, good evening Planning Commissioners, members of the public and staff. I'd like to call this hybrid public hearing to order for Thursday, August 20th, 2026. My name is Carl Johnson and I'm the Chairman of the Clark County Planning Commission. The role of the Planning Commission is to review and analyze comprehensive plan amendments, zoning changes, and other land-related issues. We follow a public process, including holding hearings, during which the public has an opportunity to provide additional perspectives and information. In legislative matters, the role of the Planning Commission is advisory. The county council will hold separate hearings, consider our recommendations, and then they will make a final determination.

1:26 Our rules of procedure, the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing tonight and take testimony. All public comments received before tonight's hearing have been sent to PC members and entered into the public record. County staff will be present first, and the Planning Commission can ask questions. Next, we will invite the applicant to speak, if there is one, and then the members of the public who wish to provide testimony. To get to the public comment portions of our agenda, we will provide more information on how to participate both virtually and in person. However, if you are in person tonight and wish to provide comment on a hearing agenda item, please sign up via the sign up sheets in the back of the room. I think they're still there. During the public testimony, you'll have three minutes to speak, and remarks should be directed to the Planning Commission only.

2:22 Please, do not repeat testimony that has already been provided. At the conclusion of public testimony, staff and the applicant may respond to the comments, and the public portion of the hearing will then be closed. The Planning Commission will then deliberate and make recommendations to the Clark County Council. For both virtual and in person members of the Planning Commission and staff, please ensure that your microphones are muted unless you are speaking. Planning Commissioner, members, when you make a motion and/or second, please state your name for the court reporter. Any conflicts of interest? Do any members of the Planning Commission have any conflicts of interest related to tonight's hearing items? Hearing none in person or online, we will proceed with a roll call. Jeff, can we do that please? >> Brian Halpert. >> Here. >> Mark Bergfold. >> Here. >> Kyle Thadness.

3:21 >> Here. >> Ron Barca. >> Here. >> Jack Haroon. >> Here. >> Alicia LaDuke Montgomery. >> Here. >> Carl Johnson. >> Here. We'll just quick some general business items before we start. Approval of the agenda for August 20th. Can I get a motion and a second please? >> Commissioner Brian Halpert, I move that we approve the agenda for tonight. >> This is Commissioner Berg and I'll second. >> Jeff, we have a motion and a second to approve our agenda for August 20th, can we get a roll call please? >> Brian Halbert. >> Aye. >> Mark Bergfold. >> Aye. >> Kyle Thadness. >> Aye. >> Ron Barca. >> Aye. >> Jack Haroon. >> Aye. >> Alicia LaDuke Montgomery. >> Aye. >> Carl Johnson. >> Aye. >> Seven, zero. >> Motion passes. Next can we get approval for the minutes for July 16th, 2026. I'll take a motion and a second please.

4:20 >> Commissioner Thadness, I move to approve the minutes for July 16th, 2026. >> Commissioner Halbert, I second that motion. >> We have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, Jeff? >> Brian Halbert. >> Aye. >> Mark Bergfold. >> Aye. >> Kyle Thadness. >> Aye. >> Ron Barca. >> Aye. >> Jack Haroon. >> Aye. >> Alicia LaDuke Montgomery. >> Aye. >> Carl Johnson. >> Aye. Motion, sorry, go ahead, Jeff. >> Sorry, seven, zero. >> Motion passes. So next up is communications from the public which are not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone that wishes to speak tonight on any item that is not on tonight's agenda? Online or otherwise? Ma'am, you can come up right here and it's just not anything about what we're talking about here. But if you have something separate, go right ahead, okay?

5:20 >> My name is Susie Reed and I live in Hawkinson. I've been living here for eight years now. And it's kind of a peripheral issue, so I'm not sure where it falls in. >> Okay, sure. >> When I moved here, coming back to Washington, having grown up in Washington, I found a beautiful property and I have had some interesting experiences. And I'm concerned as there is growth. The things that I'm interested in knowing is the transparency of development in terms of how bids are made, who gets them, and the construction pieces. Because in my experience here and also in my house in Sedona, I have had what Robert Green refers to as real estate mobbing.

6:15 And in that pursuit, because I am a researcher, I have researched that for five years. And I have found some things that concern me a great deal in terms of interconnections and workings in the community and multi-state. And so I just want to -- if I'm going to live here now and living here now, I want to be sure that these transactions with all of the things that are going on with financial issues in the country and that sort of thing, that there's a very transparent, open bidding process. And I am here to learn what you do primarily. Because what I have found, not pointing any fingers here, but I have found a network of folks that I have concerns about. And so I would like to see what your processes are, what you hope to accomplish,

7:14 what the design is as you add additional housing and the access for that. So we don't have, you know, reflecting pool problems or that sort of thing. You know, I don't want to bring any more of that up than what I've mentioned because this isn't the appropriate venue. But it's significant, and so the transparency is really important. And that's really what I wanted to say. And I'm just here to learn. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Jeff, do we have -- >> Hold on. Can -- >> Yes, go ahead, Cindy. >> Please spell their last name. >> Can you spell your last name? >> R-E-E-D. >> R-E-E-D, Cindy. >> Thank you. >> Okay, yeah, you want to, yeah. >> We have one more hand. >> Yeah, come on up, we'll do these first, then we'll do that, yeah.

8:14 Just make sure you write in the microphone so our recorder can spell your name. >> Okay, yeah, my name is James Slater. I live at 16716 Northwest 61st Avenue in Ridgefield, and I wanted to give you some input about my personal property, our personal property, as it relates to the comprehensive plan. >> Can we hold that until we actually -- this time is spelled out right now for -- >> Well, I came up because you said if it was not on the agenda that you should come up now, and I'm not on -- >> No, no, no, no, it will be, we're going to be talking about the comprehensive plan. >> Okay. >> Yeah, this was just like, let's say, that's kind of generic there, so if you can give me just a second, we're going to be coming, and we're going to -- >> Okay. >> And I'll -- >> No problem.

9:07 >> -- put you at the front line if you'd like, yeah, yeah. >> For attendees using their computer or WebEx application, if you would like to speak, please use the raise hand icon. For attendees using the telephone audio only option, press star 3 on your phone's number panel to raise your hand. For those in person that would like to provide comment, please raise your hand. Once acknowledged, you may come to the microphone towards the front of the room. Public comments are limited to three minutes per person in order to accommodate all speakers. Again, this portion of tonight's hearing is only for items not listed on tonight's agenda. We will begin with those in the hearing room who would like to make a general comment. Was there anybody else who would like to make a comment on items not listed on tonight's agenda? >> This is Commissioner LaDuke Montgomery.

10:06 I don't know where this fits, but I'm out of town today, unfortunately, for a family funeral, and I may have to leave the hearing a bit early, and I just wanted to say I deeply value all the public comment that is anticipated, having seen some of the folks that are in the room from the Zoom, and so if I do end up leaving in the middle of the public hearing, it's not because I don't care, and I plan to review the recording and the written testimony and public comment that's been submitted and to participate in any deliberations and votes that occur. But thank you. >> Thank you. All right. No one else in the hearing room. We will now call on those people on WebEx or the phone that have raised their hands. For those people using the telephone options, press star six on your phone's number panel to unmute yourself when it is your turn to speak.

11:05 >> Good evening. This is Jackie Lane. My ask for your recommendations to the council is that you don't de-designate any ag land, that you ensure your recommendations follow the law specifically for GM. >> We're going to get to the comprehensive part. These are for items still that are not on -- we're going to get to that in just a second, if you can hold on. >> I apologize. >> That's okay. >> There are no other raised hands online. >> Okay. So here we go. We're going to go to the -- to our general business and our public hearing item. Reminders to the public. If you are providing public testimony in person, please sign the sheet in the back. And if you are joining remotely, we'll provide those instructions if you don't know how to do it.

12:02 So we're going to dive right in now to the comprehensive growth management plan. With that said, we'll get a staff presentation first from Oliver or Jose. Jose. I never know. Okay. >> Good evening, Planning Commission members, especially the chair, vice chair, and members of the PC Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Oliver, community planning director. With me this evening is Jose Alvarez, who is our land use program manager. I have several of our staff here. I cannot call them individually, but I would like to sincerely thank them for the work that they have done. We had a kickoff of this process in early 2023, and here we are.

13:00 So great work. I also want to thank the Planning Commission for a series of work sessions that you've had with the planning staff, and some of you attended open houses that we had, and I also want to thank the county residents that showed up at many of our open houses. Why am I saying thank you? You have a lot of documents associated with this process, and we were coming to you in various work sessions, going over what staff have produced, and what came through the public participation process as well, and here we are.

13:55 So I want to commend you and commend our planning staff and the general public for their participation. We went to so many -- we had so many open houses. We attended so many other groups that have invited us, various neighborhood association, NAC, and other stakeholders that have participated in the process. So tonight I'm just going to give you a general overview of what is before you and help you to the best that we can answer your questions and help you in making your recommendation to the council. So tonight if we can go to the next slide, I'll just go over quickly the agenda or the format that we will follow this evening.

14:55 In this overview, an adoption process followed by a community framework plan and countywide planning policies will then get into the preferred alternative, and that is what is before you. All the work that we have done to date is reflective of the preferred alternative, which was the basis of the final environmental impact study, will then highlight -- provide you some highlight of proposed changes, starting with the major ones, comp plan, text and policies, then share with you what we have done and the public changes made to Title 40, which is the county unified development code.

15:49 We'll talk briefly about the capital facilities plan to support the preferred alternative, and also the county capital facilities financial plan, identifying at least in the first six years of the 20-year plan how we are going to fund the necessary services to support the plan. The plan will then talk about the material atlas, and then school, fire, and traffic impact fees, of which you have already made a recommendation on school and fire, so you will be -- that will be before you again, but the focus is going to be on the traffic impact fee, and finally, the environmental impact statement that formed the basis of us kicking off this hearing. Next slide, please.

16:48 BC members, you have seen this slide before. This is our general project schedule, which we have in four phases. As I mentioned in the beginning, we had a kickoff of this update in this room January of 2023. You can see I'm not going to go through each item, but as you can see, every phase, all the items checked off have been completed. We are now in the adoption process, which is the final phase. We have submitted to the Department of State, Department of Commerce, all our documents, even though it's all in draft form, but the same thing that is before you is what we have

17:46 submitted to the Department of Commerce to start our 60-day comment period. The council, and you can make a recommendation, the council cannot make a decision until that 60-day comment period. We are now where we second, is where we are. We have had a series of work sessions with you, so this is the beginning of the hearing process where, at the end, you'll be making your recommendation to council. Anything that will have a work session with council to review your recommendation, and we're anticipating that the council will have their own hearing, as you indicated, Chair Carl Johnson, and take additional public testimony before they complete this process by, our goal is by October 16th.

18:43 I see, I didn't mention them, but I see two of our legal staff are here, David Laws and Rebecca Ward-Hamilton are here, so if there are any legal questions, they're here to support us. They have been supporting us and providing us guidance since Miss Chris Cook retired. Next slide. Our PC members, I think I will start with the community framework plan. We are not recommending any changes to the community framework plan. Just as a background, the community framework plan was adopted in 1993.

19:38 It was a 50-year vision of how the community wants to grow, and this is countywide, and we used this framework plan to then develop our 20-year growth plan consistent with the framework plan or that vision. This I believe is the fourth or fifth time that we are updating the plan that was adopted in 1994, and each periodic update will re-adopt the community framework plan. I have been really teasing my staff that the next periodic update will require a check-in

20:32 with the community to see whether the vision, a 50-year vision, still remains. This again was adopted in 1993, and when this was adopted in 1993, I think the county population was a little bit over or less than 260,000. Now we are over 540,000, so I think it's proper to check in to see whether the vision still stands. But I can say unequivocally that we are pretty much developing very close to the framework plan. If you look at it, even though it's a conceptual map, but it provides and reflects how the community at the time wants to grow.

21:27 Next slide, please. Under state law, revised Code of Washington, 3678-210, counties and cities are required to collaborate in developing a county-wide planning policy to govern the development of comprehensive plan and also the Washington Administrative Code, 365-196-305 ensures consistency between comprehensive plan of counties and cities sharing a common border or related regional issues. We have come to you going over various county-wide planning policies and we will touch upon one

22:25 or two that I also want to give a shout-out to all the local jurisdictions in the county. We have been working with them, meeting with them monthly since we started this process, so I commend them for collaborative effort. They have testified and I see some of them here in the room. So I appreciate the working cooperatively with the county. These two sections that I mentioned require us to work collaboratively and to make sure that our county and cities plan are internally consistent. And if I may continue, the purpose of the county-wide planning policy is to facilitate transformation of local governance in the urban growth areas, typically through annexation.

23:22 I think we shared with planning commission and when we had the work session with council annexation, it is according to the growth management law, the cities are expected gradually but one day to annex majority of, if not all, the areas that are within their urban growth boundary. So that urban governmental services are primarily provided by cities and rural and regional services are provided by the county. That is what the growth management has called for. So as part of the purpose of the county-wide planning policies, collaboration and agreement between county and city jurisdiction to include some policies in each jurisdiction comprehensive plan for consistency.

24:20 As I mentioned earlier, the county-wide planning policy was first developed in 1994. It was amended in '04. Then we also did the periodic update in '07, it was amended again and also in 2016. As part of this process, we went through all the county-wide planning policies and amended them where appropriate and added one or two additional county-wide planning policy, one that calls for us to coordinate and consult with the tribe if we have any within our jurisdiction. We have the college tribe, they are part of our planning team that we meet with monthly

25:18 and other service providers. Next slide, please. What is before you is I take a look at the preferred alternative land use plan that you made a recommendation that went to council. Council reviewed your recommendation and made some minor changes which I will go through with you briefly. But what is before you is the preferred land use plan which is the basis of this hearing and this process. We are no longer talking about alternative one, two, and three, all those were studied when we did the draft environmental impact statement, now this is the final.

26:16 If we can go to the next slide, please. We start with the city of Burrow ground, this is the Burrow ground of the area as is reflected in the preferred plan that the council advanced for the study of the final environmental impact statement. If you recall, planning commission members, your recommendation was to include both the meadow glade area X out and the dollar's corner, the city of Burrow ground moving west towards dollar's corner and the area to the northwest of the current road boundary, the two red circle area.

27:09 So those areas identify in solid black both to the north and to the west, the two areas that the council moved forward and included in the preferred, they excluded the meadow glade area as the city of Burrow ground had requested. You're going to hear from the city of Burrow ground later in their testimony if there are any other areas that would like you to consider, but I'll leave that up to them. If you look at the total acreage is roughly 488 acres total expansion, the area, meadow glade area excluded is about 327 acres.

28:02 So the difference is about 161 acres in terms of expansion area if you look at it by acreage. Next slide. In this is Burrow ground urban growth area, the preferred alternative, the two areas, the Grovefield airport to there on the east side as well as the property to further to the east known as the Naveen property. In your recommendation on the preferred alternative that went to council, you only recommended

28:52 the Evergreen airport coming into commerce urban growth boundary while the Naveen property was studied in all three, alternative three, you did not recommend that piece to be part of this process, but the council said studied it. So total acreage there if this is accepted is 244 acres, but just want to highlight that in your recommendation you only recommended the Grovefield airport. Next slide, please. This is the city of Lecenter urban growth boundary showing you in red second area the preferred alternative, these are the two areas that the cities as there may be other areas

29:50 in all three that was not included, but this is consistent with your recommendation even though you asked for, you made your recommendation for including the contingent on TDR which the council did not move forward on, a total area for expansion, those area that are in green is a total of 121 acres. You can see the area to the north, there is a wide area in the middle, the city of Lecenter may be testifying, asking you to include that area because you don't want to leave that donut hole, but that will be when they testify if that's going to be their acts. Let's go to the next slide, please.

30:48 Planning commissioners, this is the city of Ridgefield urban growth boundary, a total of 239 acres, this is what is shown on the preferred, there are other areas in all three which the council did not, you and the council did not advance to be included in the preferred. The smaller area to the south of this 239, the property to the south there in red is 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.

31:46 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. 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

32:42 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 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?

33:39 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 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

34:37 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 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.

35:28 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 none of those were recommended to move forward by the Planning Commission and as well as the Council.

36:21 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 touch on that briefly. I said housing because this is not new to you since we've been coming to you and reworking

37:19 our housing element. We have been doing so to be consistent with all the new bills that the legislature passed. The last legislative session focused heavily on housing, and you have H.P. 1110, you have H.P. 1220, I cannot mention all of them, these are the two that I recall or remember quickly, but this required us to no longer encourage, but to plan for and accommodate housing for all economic segments of the population, including permanent supportive housing. The new policies also address racially disparity impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing.

38:13 So these new bills require us to no longer just say we are encouraging, it requires us to plan for, and to do so, which we share with you all, that we are now required to provide housing or plan for housing by various incumbents, and we can get into that if you like, but we've shared those with you when we did the allocation. The second major bill that the legislature passed, which prompted them to give what I would call the 2025, 2026, and 2027 adopters additional six months was their late passage

39:02 of the climate element, which is the H.P. 1181, with what I commend the committee that worked on the new chapter, the count is now required to adopt a climate chapter, and with specific elements such as resiliency and greenhouse gas reduction, environmental justice, and best available science requirement, so we have a new chapter now dealing with climate element. It's no surprise, I can say that there was a study done a couple of years ago, growing healthier, there were some folks who were really not happy about that study, but in

39:59 that study we had a chapter on climate, you know, climate chapter, what was said in that report, if I may, not editorial, is really happening, we are beginning to see severe temperature, if you will, severe flooding, severe fire, and this new element has this climate bill has so many components in it, how to reduce greenhouse reduction, we have a target, and I'm hoping that when the council and you hear testimony from the public and

40:53 those that worked on the climate bill, you may hear whether you set the target to 2050 or move that up to 2045, I'll leave that up to the policy makers, but we are recommending setting a reduction target to 2050, but that is just part of the climate bill also require us to look at our current transportation element, and as a result of that bill, we are now required to also provide and adopt reduction in vehicle mile travel and strive equitably to implement multi-modal transportation network in a way consistent with environmental justice, that's

41:48 one of the requirements in the new bill, that's why I'm highlighting those, and also we are now have a new requirement to create ADA transition plan for transportation facilities and adopt active transportation level of service standards, all of those we have shared with you, so those are the major changes you will find in the housing climate and transportation element, there are other chapters, now there are about 15 or 16 chapters or elements, those are the chapters as we went through with you in our work sessions, those changes were made as a result of update required of us because of new legislative update, we also looked

42:47 at those chapters and updated them just for clarity, and then every time you look at it, there must be some errors, so we used this opportunity to create as many as we can, and then we provided opportunity to various advisory groups to review the chapters and affected internal departments to also review the changes that we are making and provide us input, so those are the changes you will find when you review or the public review each of the chapters, and as we shared with you, there is a table, like I said earlier, there's so many documents that we have put on your lab to review to help you make your informed recommendations

43:44 and findings to counsel, I cannot thank staff enough for the work that they have put through and all our partners in my meetings, monthly we have Clark Regional sitting at the table, we have the tribe, we have C-TRAN, we have ROTC, I cannot thank them all enough, but let me stop there, this is a team effort, so I will turn the rest of the highlights of the amendment, starting with our county code to Jose Alvarez, I will stop there unless if you have questions for me before I turn it over to Jose, otherwise Jose's right. Make sure you stay, do you have any questions for Oliver right now? Go ahead, Ron. This is Commissioner Barca, did I hear something? Alisa? Alisa, sure.

44:44 Oh, I'll wait until after Mr. Barca. Okay, thank you. So Oliver, I'm interested in you addressing what has come in from future wise concerning the climate elements, I heard you go through a couple of things. Do you believe that you have adequately answered what is future wise's concerns around the climate, I'm trying to remember the exact phraseology of it, but it's climate impact I believe? I will say that we have followed commerce guidance in writing our chapter, I do not

45:36 believe that the commerce guidance stress what development regulations we should adopt, so my response to you will be yes. If we have not followed the commerce guidance, I will be concerned. I will say that I don't believe that future wise, not a criticism, but just an observation. I don't think they have all the supporting documents that we have provided, and we have also provided our climate chapter to commerce if there are any issues, I believe we will address them. As you know, development regulation, for example, you can do it concurrently with this process.

46:34 You can also do your development regulation, you have to come up with whatever that is one year after your adoption. So the other areas which we have shared with you and our council, for example, you know that weather is requiring every new home to be electrified or whatever using electricity other than gas, that is hung up currently in the courts. So I wouldn't be writing a rule favoring electricity over gas until the Supreme Court makes a decision on that. I'm just using that as an example. There are some changes that will come through the international building code, which is not yet in my shop, but when that comes, I believe that our building official will work

47:32 to update our building code to reflect whatever the new rules may be. So that will be my response to your – that's my observation in terms of the comment from future-wise. I'm not downplaying that, but I think they need to look at our record and knowing that we have followed commerce guidance. Okay. So thank you for that. I believe what I'm hearing then is in regard to that, you believe you've already built a record that follows commerce's instructions and that when that information or the documentation from that science is released or put into the record, then it will go ahead and prove the point that the county has met the requirements. That would be my conclusion.

48:25 And like I said, if there are areas that commerce says, ah, here's the new development regulation you have to put in place, we will have opportunity to respond. But have we followed best available science, best information, and best guidance provided by commerce, which the law says that commerce needs to provide guidance to local jurisdictions to develop the chapter. We have followed that. Thank you. Alicia? Thank you, Commissioner LaDuke-Montgomery. I just wanted to say thank you to the staff. I know this has been a monumental effort. It's still ongoing. But just as a first time serving commissioner, I've found the materials and responsiveness

49:20 to questions extremely helpful and just wanted to say thank you for that work by you and your team and all of the county staff. Thank you, Alicia. Thank you, Columbia Planning Commission, Alicia. Appreciate that. Any other questions for Oliver? Okay, Jose, go ahead. Okay. Next slide. I'm sorry, Jose Alvarez, land use program manager. So the county code amendments, these are on this slide primarily housing related to address the new housing legislation that Oliver had discussed, the consolidation of the multifamily zones that he showed earlier, and the uses allowed in those zones. So the amendments to the manufactured home park to protect those, and then refinements to some of the recently adopted middle housing code that was adopted a couple of years ago.

50:19 I think exhibit three in your documents has a table of comments that lists all of the code sections that will be amended. Next slide. So this slide is primarily dealing with the transportation impact fee section of the code. The real -- the biggest change here is outside of some clarifications, this was the inclusion of the annual automatic adjustment to the impact fee rate based on Washington-based construction inflation index. And then like I said, some refinements to that section and a reference to the appendix as opposed to the traffic impact fee technical document. Next slide.

51:12 So on the capital facilities plans, the growth management act requires that the land use plan have sufficient infrastructure, i.e., capital facilities, which are listed there on the slide and to serve the land use plan and ensure that there's sufficient resources to pay for it. We've worked with our jurisdiction partners and also service providers that also participate in our monthly meetings and we've reached out to them for input and appendix E captures all of the capital facilities analysis that we received from the jurisdictions and the service providers to demonstrate that they can serve the plan over the next 20 years.

52:08 Next slide. The transportation costs to serve the 20-year plan, county has to demonstrate that the funding is available to pay for the needed infrastructure and if not, we need to identify strategies that can close that gap. This discussion analysis is covered in appendix A. In here we're showing that we have a deficit, rather large deficit of over $550 million and we've identified some of the strategies that could be used to narrow that gap and we've had that conversation for council for

52:57 their consideration and what the options they have going forward to try to reduce that gap. Next slide. So the capital facilities financial plan is internal to the county so the county has listed the transportation, parks and open space, storm water drainage, county buildings and other facilities and you can see what the sort of expenditures are anticipated and where the revenue sources are for that and that we have sufficient resources identified for

53:45 that and this is representing the six-year, the most recently adopted 2026 to 2031 financial plan for the county. Next slide. So the Arterial Alice is a county managed planning document and GIS map that designates the official network alignment and functional classifications, the principal minor collectors or major roadways in the county. We worked with our GIS staff to do an overhaul of how the document is created and try to set up a system so that we can better record changes that are made.

54:39 Sometimes when a subdivision happens or through that development process a road is identified on the Arterial Alice and through that process it may be shifted or moved and there isn't really a good feedback loop to record that and so we want to make sure that we are able to capture those more efficiently going forward and that is part of the work we did and why there were so many errors that we had to correct over the last 10-year period. Next slide. So the school impact fees you reviewed and made recommendation to counsel on July 16. We are looking to have a separate hearing with counsel September 15. This is just an informational item to include in the record. Next slide.

55:38 This is also something that you reviewed the fire impact fees on the same day and we are also taking that to counsel for the September 15 hearing. Next slide. The transportation impact fees we shared with you two weeks ago and we have updated numbers based on our review of the consultant's analysis we found that they had inadvertently omitted four intersections from the analysis and when we asked them to include those the changes you see are reflective of those the inclusion of those four intersections. So that is why they are highlighted and that is why they are different from what you saw two weeks ago. Next slide.

56:33 So the environmental review that we undertook for this comprehensive plan update is just looking at the proposals and the alternatives to accommodate the growth that is planned over the next 20 years. It is not a decision document it presents options and the impacts and the review is covering the impacts from the anticipated population and employment growth over the next 20 years. We issued the draft environmental impact statement in October 1st of 2025 we had a 60-day comment period on that we received over 330 comments and then we responded to those and then the

57:27 final EIS was issued July 24th of this year. >> All we have for the presentation. >> Is there any questions for Jose? >> Commissioner Haroon. >> Jose, I noticed on the, we had made a recommendation on some impact fees and they weren't reflected in the chart which is before us. Is there a reason that that wasn't corrected? >> No. >> Specifically like the Woodland School District?

58:06 >> This is Oliver Jaco, your correct planning commissioner, Jaco Haroon. Yeah, this is your recommendation, the council have not made a decision on that yet. It's yet to go to council, but I know you made a recommendation not to approve it. It was, I believe, 43 or something like that. So we did share your recommendation with the council. But because they have not made a decision, we left it as it is here. But you are correct that you did not approve Woodland. >> But isn't our final recommendation based on our previous recommendations? Like, I mean, because we're having a package that we're going to vote on to give our recommendation. And then some of our recommendations aren't accurately reflected within, outside of stuff that's been highlighted because the council had made certain changes. How does that work?

59:05 Because if we're thinking, we'd already recommended this and then staff doesn't change it in the official documents, then we vote on it again. We technically changed our recommendation. >> Right, and I think we're going to have a separate hearing. And within that hearing, we're going to share with the council what you recommended for each of the school districts. This is just showing what the school districts submitted to us. And so that's what their proposal is. We don't have to take another action. What we're going to take forward to the council is your recommendation to not approve. This doesn't say approve or denial of any of these. This is just what was proposed. >> Okay, I guess I'm just a little confused because I think we're here to make a recommendation in the total package, correct? >> Right, and you've already made a recommendation on these, so you don't have to discuss this. >> But- >> [INAUDIBLE]

1:00:02 >> Yeah, so I guess that's why I'm just confused because it feels like we've created a document- >> No. >> And then the document's been changed and then we're going to vote on the document and they're like, see, you know. >> No, it's not changed. If you recall in my brief overview, I said you are not acting on the fire and schools. You're going to be voting on the traffic impact fees. If you get to fire and school, a motion can be made that your previous recommendation stands. I think Jose is correct that what we are showing here is what the school district have provided us. I made the observation that you have reviewed this, you took a public testimony, made your recommendation. The council has not acted on that recommendation.

1:00:58 We are acknowledging that if you make a motion today, it will be consistent with what you already made motion on before. And that will also what will go before the council. They have not taken any action. So we obligated to show an orally to inform the public that a woodland you did not vote to approve that. >> I appreciate that, but I'm just looking at that. 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

1:01:58 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? >> 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.

1:02:57 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. 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

1:03:55 clear understanding of each of the elements in the housing, transportation, etc., etc., etc., before we get into the land use. >> So that would be my recommendation, but specifically with transportation, as you laid out, we have about a half a billion dollars of problems to discuss before we go forward, I think. >> And when you say land use, you mean the mapping changes that are listed? >> Yeah. >> Okay, what I'd like to do is pull it back. Is there any more questions for staff? Let's start there. Anybody online? Okay, let's go forward with public testimony then, based on what staff said. Jeff, can you, again, just a reminder,

1:04:52 you have, the cities will come first. How many cities do we have here? I'll put you in alphabetical order. >> So whoever's first battleground, the first campus, the center, Richfield, Yakult, and Vancouver. So we'll just do that. If you can come up to the reserve chairs. >> It might be appropriate for about a five minute break, since we've been at it for an hour and a half, I know we have a- >> Let's try to get through the, they have five minutes, let's try to get through the cities first, okay? That would be helpful. So can I have the cities come up to the reserve part? Just see how many I have first. We're going to give you a five minute time limit, please adhere to that. It's just, we have other, looks like a big list up here that a lot of people are going to want to speak. And so with that said, do we have battleground here? Make sure you state your name and spell it.

1:05:48 >> Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Sam Crumet, for the record. Spell C-R-U-M-M-E-T-H-T. I have a letter, I'll go ahead and pass out a hard copy if you'd like to. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. It's been a pleasure also working with county staff. It's been quite the process, but appreciate the collaboration. First of all, battleground is in support of the preferred alternative shown in the final environmental impact statement. Specifically for battleground, the big effort here is to expand our urban growth boundary to the dollars corner expansion area. >> Can I, just one second.

1:06:47 Can we try to mute that? I think that's what's feeding back. I'm sorry, we're here to mute here. I don't, that's not, no, you keep yours on. It's a feedback, yeah. >> I'd be happy to sit up there too, if that's easier.

1:07:20 >> Okay, better? >> Yes, much better, thank you. >> Better for me as well, thank you. We do have a couple amendments that we'd request to make to the preferred alternative. And that's listed as number 26 and number 27 in the decision making package that's on the large matrix you have there. I'll go over these briefly. First of all, and there's some illustrations in the letter that I gave you. The first is a 35 acre parcel owned by the city of battleground and we have our water reservoirs on that property. We would like that parcel brought into the city for permitting reasons and just efficiencies of having our utilities in the city.

1:08:15 That would come in as a low density designation. There's a conservation covenant on that parcel. The city, it's not city policy to have any housing or anything on that property. It would be strictly for our water reservoirs. So that's recommendation 26. This didn't just come out lately. This was supported by our city's planning commission as well as the city council in the fall of 2025. It was included in all the correspondence to you as the planning commission as well as county council, but I think what happened is it just got glossed over. It was in our letters, but I understand there's a lot of material to go over. And then the other amendment is three parcels. This would be number 27 in the decision making packet that you have.

1:09:10 These three parcels would come in as residential. Again, supported by our council and planning commission, 17 acres approximately. The big reason for this is we have subdivisions on the west and south side of this project. And then we have a half street improvement that's made that would essentially just stay a half street for 10 years because the city couldn't further develop in this area. We do have a developer that has shown interest in that. I know that's not really a part of your decision making, but we find that this would be a logical place to add some additional housing into our city. It'd be a minor amendment. It would not materially affect our land capacity analysis or any of that. So, those are our two amendments.

1:10:07 And I think I'll just briefly speak to the Meadowglade piece because I know there's some discussion of having that put back in our urban growth boundary. The reason we would rather not have that in is because in 2020, we did a major planning effort. It's called the Land Use Master Plan. It's on our web page. And at that point, we decided it's best not to grow in that direction, but to focus our growth down the 502 corridor toward the Dollars Corner expansion. That would allow for some housing growth in the commercial districts that we would have in the Dollars Corner expansion area. So, we really didn't want to jeopardize, in a sense, having excess growth, particularly knowing that we need to comply with the Growth Management Act at the end of the day.

1:11:02 So, we have a conservative growth plan that is going to accommodate our needs for both jobs and housing in the next 20 years. Thank you for listening, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Any questions for Battleground? I do. What is your fundamental difference between taking Meadowglade out, but then adding the parcels of number 27, which is low density itself, it's got surrounding development on it. I would say fundamentally it appears to be the same other than the direction of the growth. Yeah, the fundamental difference I would say would be the proximity to existing city infrastructure.

1:11:59 Our existing city infrastructure isn't readily available in the Meadowglade area. We have capital plans for that area currently, but in terms of being able to quickly get homes built, those parcels, and again, it's only 17 acres, could readily be converted to housing. But they're both low density developments already in place, right? Yes. Okay, and they're both contiguous to your existing city limits. Correct. Okay. So what I'm hearing is Battleground is foregoing any future development to the south? Essentially at this time, it could be in 10 years, we come back during the next periodic

1:12:56 review and say, we think we're now ready to pull Meadowglade back in. You want to pull it back in? But really the planning exercise, I'll go back to our land use master plan update 2021, we looked at all sides of our city, north, south, east, west, for technical reasons I won't get into at this point, growing westward was the most feasible place to go, and that was particularly for job growth. Okay, and I guess I understand the aspect of wanting to expand in the purposes of job growth. It still comes back to me, I think, for us, looking at balancing budgets, working out details, you're giving what you think is less desirable area for your purposes, giving it

1:13:54 back to the county, for the county to absorb it back into their budget, and have to deal with the aspects of whatever growth is able to come towards it, regardless of Battleground's growth, it's going to be the growth that the county then permits and allows and pays for. Well, it's currently in the urban growth boundary, it's still Clark County's jurisdiction, it's still the county's, however, in terms of growing efficiently, urbanizing, and really a cost efficiency, not county versus city, but the most efficient way to grow, we believe, is not going south toward that meadow glade area, but where our existing infrastructure is, particularly the SR 502, now four-lane highway, which is a major investment, we find that

1:14:53 that's where we want to put our investment, is where there's already existing significant investment. On the north side of the highway only? Probably the north, some sections of the south side, we did avoid agriculturally designated areas along that corridor. >> All right, thank you. Commissioner Fadness. >> Yes, Commissioner Fadness, this is a question for the city, but Oliver, you might need to jump in as well. My understanding was that these amendments weren't included in the final EIS, these areas that you're asking for in the amendments. I just want to know how that would affect our process since I don't believe these were studied, correct? >> They were studied. They were included in the draft environmental impact statement under alternative three that included all of the site-specific requests around battlegrounds, so they were studied.

1:15:51 >> I guess what's the process then of including that into the final EIS? >> I don't think there would be any additional analysis, it would just be your recommendation whether council agrees or not. >> Okay, thanks. I just wanted to understand there wasn't going to be a lot of additional work if we were to bring these in, so thank you. >> Commissioner, just to address Commissioner Marcus' comment on, I know we shared the same concern on pulling medical aid back, like they were dumping in expense back to the county. I remember amongst somewhere that there was, I think it was from staff or something that said that we were mistaken and that there was actually no cost, that it wasn't going to cost the county anything additional.

1:16:49 I remember it was an after the fact, I don't know what letter it was at this point in the years, thousands of pages of documents, but I think there was something addressing our concern that we had regarding that, but I'm not sure, so. >> Do we have any more questions for the applicant? Hearing none, thank you. Next up. >> Thank you. Sorry, Ron. >> Chair, before we go forward, I just want to address what Commissioner Aaron had said. I think fundamentally this is still back to the idea that they're taking it out of their urban growth area, which it should be part of their plan for annexation. They should be planning for it for capital facilities. They're taking it out so the county is going to, at some point in time, be faced with the aspect of the growth along that boundary line and have to deal with that.

1:17:43 And we're shifting it to their westward expansion for the purposes of jobs, but how much of that area ends up becoming the tent pole for growth? And I don't believe, looking at the boundary, that it's going to be feasible to think that there isn't going to be a need to bring it back in or to have the adoption unless the city is really committed to not growing southerly anymore. So my concern is it fits the purposes of this particular growth plan at this particular moment, but it isn't really long term planning. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Kamas? Do we have a representative from Kamas? Kamas is not here. Let's center. >> [INAUDIBLE]

1:18:36 >> Okay, sorry about that. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Angie Merrill, M-E-R-R-I-L-L. I'm the city planner for City of La Center, and I'd like to first note that, we're sorry, that Mayor Stroven could not be here this evening as he's out of town. The city of La Center would like to express its support for exploring and implementing a transfer of development rights, or TDR, program for the agricultural lands. As La Center has worked through the comprehensive plan update, our city leaders and staff repeatedly engaged with residents and stakeholders to understand their vision for the community.

1:19:35 I've consistently heard three important priorities, maintaining a small town charm and feel of downtown La Center, focusing growth near the I-5 junction where transportation and infrastructure can support it, and creating family wage jobs so La Center does not become simply a bedroom community. Our city council unanimously adopted a preferred alternative that reflects those priorities, including targeted growth around I-5 as well as downtown and Tim and Landing sub area plans. We believe this approach provides opportunities for needed housing and employment while preserving the character that makes La Center special. La Center understands and supports the importance of preserving productive agricultural lands. At this time, we believe we need to be innovative and we need innovative tools that allow us to accomplish both goals, protecting valuable

1:20:33 agricultural land while giving smaller cities the ability to accommodate responsible growth. The small town character of La Center is one of the very reasons people choose to live, work, and invest in our community. We want to preserve the character while planning responsibly for the future. We appreciate the county's consideration of a TDR program and encourage the planning commission to support the innovative approach to balancing agricultural preservation with the growth needs of Clark County's smaller cities. I'd also like to address Oliver had noted that in our preferred alternative there was a donut hole as far as expanding. So you have it pulled up here.

1:21:23 So the parcel that is in white, it's parcel 986027200 is owned by Clark Public Utilities. And we initially didn't ask to bring it into the city, but we don't want to leave a donut hole. So that is something that we have requested to bring into the city as well. And so I just want to thank you for your time and the opportunity to give testimony this evening. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. >> Questions for La Center? >> This is Commissioner LaDuke Montgomery. I just wanted to clarify, so La Center is in favor of a TDR program in conjunction with proposed UGA changes? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, Commissioner Halbert, I want to understand that donut hole just a little more.

1:22:19 Is it on one of the, on the matrix here that we're going to be voting on? >> It is. So up to the north, the northwest, you can see there's the green, the parcel's in green, and then there's just a donut hole. >> I got that. I'm just wondering where it's at on our matrix for voting. >> 28. >> No, number 28. Okay, okay. Maybe that answers it. Let me take a look at 28. >> Number 28. That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for La Center? Okay. >> Quick question for staff. >> Go ahead. >> You're really quick, you're really quick. >> Yeah, this is Ron Barca. In regard to number 28, it's a five acre parcel owned by Clark PUD. It also says D designation of agricultural lands.

1:23:14 Is this Clark PUD parcel ag land? >> Yeah, it's designated ag, correct. >> It is? >> Yes. >> And what's its utilization right now? Is it being used as ag? >> I think it's a station. >> Yeah, there's some kind of substation. >> Substation on it. Okay. >> As a substation, it can be allowed in the ag. >> Okay, certainly, I was just wondering how it showed up in the agricultural study. Whether it showed it as prime land or how that this was working. Okay, thank you. >> Yes, yes, it did. >> Prime land with a substation on it? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Soil and other characteristics. Any more questions for the sir? Okay, moving on. Steve Richfield.

1:24:10 >> Good evening, Chair, members of the Planning Commission, for the record. My name is Steve Stewart, S-T-U-A-R-T. I am the city manager for the city of Ridgefield. We're here to, number one, thank you for all of your work and thank staff for the coordination with our team. It's been extensive working through all of the changes in GMA, including providing adequate affordable housing, climate element, and all of the changes that we're now working toward completion. Secondly, we're here to support the preferred alternative that went into the FEIS and the Planning Commission's recommendation on those items associated with Ridgefield.

1:25:01 Those recommendations, we believe, meet our community's vision that has been established through extensive process in Envision 2045, our comp planning process. It also assures that we meet GMA requirements for providing affordable housing and adequate jobs for our community into the future. It does so by targeting our density in the places where it makes sense, using mixed use hubs that have the services and amenities to support them. Primarily within our existing boundaries. But we also, to meet our requirements moving forward, are looking at limited expansions in areas already characterized by urban growth. Those two areas that you see on the map that is on the screen at this point, the first one is what we call the mall property that is approximately 14 acres that was spoken of earlier. That area is surrounded by the city of Ridgefield's urban growth area,

1:25:58 almost completely surrounded by the city limits of the city of Ridgefield. It was surrounded in 2007 and has been a donut hole since that time. It is characterized by urban growth and development in a variety of ways that we have submitted into the record. And are willing to give additional detail to as requested. The second piece is what we call the North Industrial Urban Reserve area. This area was placed in industrial urban reserve 30 plus years ago in 1994, as an area to be used for future industrial and job growth. That is 30 plus years from where we sit now. It is characterized by urban growth as it is surrounded on three sides by the city of Ridgefield. It is boundaried on the east boundary is I-5. On the west is an arterial that connects the city of Ridgefield with the Cowlitz tribal

1:26:57 reservation that is directly north of this property area. These targeted expansion areas give us the opportunity again to provide adequate affordable housing and jobs in mixed use hubs, which is the proposed uses for those areas. Finally, we see an opportunity. We see an opportunity that has not existed for many years to be able to do better. And thus, the City of Ridgefield has joined the City of La Center, City of Camas, others who have promoted a transfer of development rights program to actually create opportunity for affordable housing and jobs, while also preserving commercially viable farmland in Clark County. This opportunity will be expressed more deeply by the professional that the three cities of Camas, La Center, and Ridgefield have been working with later in testimony. So I won't go into any additional detail. We remain committed to that concept.

1:27:55 We remain committed to the connection between this expansion and a TDR program. And our city council is willing to put their words in writing and create that letter of intent, an inter-local agreement, with the county that solidifies that partnership moving forward. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, and thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Steve. Any questions for Ridgefield? Go ahead. >> This is Commissioner LaDuke. Go ahead, Ron. >> That lag time. >> Yeah. >> This is Ron Barca. On the map, there are several small parcels that also show themselves as job creation or urban low density residential. Is it the city's intent to go ahead and annex those and

1:28:51 bring them in as well as these large parcels? >> Forgive me, Commissioner. Are you speaking to the areas that are currently, they're cross-hashed and are in urban holding? >> Yes. There are sub-area plans for both the Carty Road sub-area, which is the southern cross-hashed area, and the G Creek Plateau sub-area, which is the cross-hashed area. We used to call it the donut hole, but G Creek Plateau sounded a lot better. There was a sub-area plan adopted for both of those areas with implementing code. And the implementing code and sub-area plans were done in close connection with the people who live there, the people who have established that unique character in those areas, and making sure that as it develops, it develops with that unique character in place. We do not see the need to up zone every area of the city of Ridgefield. You can create density through targeted areas of mixed use without having to hurt or harm existing neighborhoods' integrity.

1:29:50 So these two areas do have a unique character. They have really tough topography, a lot of ridges, thus Ridgefield. So we have a lot of areas that are not developable if you look at the VBLM in those areas. >> So- >> The answer is yes. >> The answer is yes. >> Yes, we are actively annexing those areas as we speak. I actually have an annexation proposal for one of those areas on our agenda next Thursday. >> All right, thank you. >> Commissioner LaDuke Montgomery. >> Thank you, and I appreciate the city of Ridgefield's efforts in developing concepts around the TDR program and putting some proposals in writing. So appreciate that. >> And just the same question as we said to Lecenter, does Ridgefield support a TDR program in conjunction with the proposed UGA changes? >> Yes. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, any other questions for Ridgefield?

1:30:49 Once again, great job Steve. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. Up next is, do we have Yacolt here, any chats? Is Yacolt online? >> I am here. >> Okay, you have five minutes, city of Yacolt. >> Thank you, good evening chair and commissioners, my name is Allison Baker, it's B-A-K-E-R. I'm a planner with Jackson Civil and I'm testifying on behalf of the town of Yacolt. Thank you for the opportunity to comment tonight. Yacolt does not support the preferred alternatives treatment of our residential land capacity. We're asking the commission's help to get the record corrected before the comprehensive plan moves forward. In November 2024, Yacolt's planner of record, Paul Dennis, told this commission that a 20 acre parcel in town had developed into 47 homes over that summer.

1:31:46 Consuming land that Yacolt was counting toward its 150 unit housing allocation through 2045. Mr. Dennis asked the county to reflect this in their capacity numbers. And to consider a possible UGA expansion to replace those units. And that is part of the record from that 2024 meeting. The October 2025 draft EIS proposed a 90 acre UGA expansion for Yacolt. Which included both residential and employment growth. And under that alternative, which became the preferred alternative, Yacolt showed a 118 unit housing surplus. So a total of 228, I'm sorry, 268 units of capacity against the 150 unit target.

1:32:40 However, the final EIS published this July cut that UGA expansion to just 12 acres for employment only. The residential component is gone and Yacolt's housing units changed from the 118 unit surplus to now a seven unit deficit. So it's a 125 unit swing using what seems to be the same capacity estimate. And we couldn't find an explanation for the change. I checked the parcel that Mr. Dennis flagged in 2024 using the county assessor and auditor records, which confirm it was subdivided into 47 lots in January 2024 and sold individually that February. And building values were already on record.

1:33:35 The county's jurisdiction map for the preferred alternative shows the land as vacant. While a more current 2025 VBLM map shows that property as built out. So if the preferred alternatives capacity figures are based on an outdated map, that seven unit deficit is likely unreliable and the true shortfall could be even larger. So. You know, we'd welcome clarification on how this figure was recalculated. Disclosure matters for transparency and understanding, especially when considering a change that determines whether Yacolt has room to grow.

1:34:26 Yacolt has low housing inventory already and the lots sell quickly. People want to live there and that demand won't necessarily be redirected to neighboring jurisdictions where the county's models show surplus as suggested in the FEIS. Yacolt's rural development pattern means that infill and density tools that other jurisdictions use to absorb growth won't necessarily pencil here until a certain level of development exists. And unmet demand will translate into higher housing prices or sprawl, which is what the GMA's boundary system exists to prevent. Yacolt and the surrounding areas will absorb the impact and every unit not built in Yacolt is property tax base, utility revenue and commercial activity removed from the community.

1:35:24 So we're asking the commission to do three things. First, we would like the county to explain the drop in Yacolt's capacity between the draft and the final EIS, including whether it reflects that parcel that Mr. Dennis mentioned in the 2024 meeting. Second, until an explanation is provided, we'd like you to not treat that seven unit deficit as the full extent of Yacolt's shortfall as the true number might be larger. And we'd like you to not close the door on the residential UGA expansion within Yacolt based on an unverified figure. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there any questions for Yacolt? >> This is Commissioner Haroon. So question for you, what land are you asking to be brought back in?

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? Well, that would have been our intent, our understanding, again, based on the timing of our request, not making it in time for the EIS. So the EIS evaluated this as high density residential. And so that is what the proposed plan shows it as being included in. And I think we would accept that designation. Our preference, of course, would be commercial.

1:53:39 And I think that's something that if it is brought in as residential, we would certainly keep in mind the possibility of perhaps being a mixed use development or something like that that would be still consistent with whatever the adopted plan is. Okay, underneath the Grove Field property, you are creating, as the vernacular is now, somewhat of a doughnut hole by not being contiguous in adopting those parcels into the urban growth boundary as well. Is there a particular reason why you didn't look at those parcels, but you went up to Grove? Is it specifically for job growth? Yes, that's absolutely correct. This request was made specifically by the Port of Kamiswa Shufel, and it is linked specifically to their property that they own.

1:54:36 So it does, I think of it more as a peninsula, but a doughnut hole is fine, too. It certainly does create an irregular boundary, but we have no interest at this point in expanding in this area. This is a largely parcelized part of Fern Prairie with a lot of smaller rural lots and really I don't think fits in with our plans. But the opportunity to bring in Grove Field, again, it's strictly for jobs. And this came at the request of the Port of Kamiswa Shufel, something that we felt much more comfortable with. It also avoids ag land, so a lot of the property in that area, or some of the property in the area would include ag land. And so we sought to avoid that in this instance. Thank you. Any other questions for Kamis? Hearing none, thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

1:55:36 With that said, we are now done with the cities, and we have about 17 or 18 people potentially signed up. What I'd like to do right now is give our recorder about a ten minute break, and then we'll start up with the testimony from you guys. Okay, so let's take a ten minute little break here and we'll get going. >> There's four chairs up here and two microphones here. And as I call your name, I'm going to call four at a time, so just for expediting to sit up here and then you can come up front. Just be clear to spell your name first and last and talk slowly. You'll get three minutes and I'll just try to respect that because it gets going here. So the first four people I have on the list here, do we have anybody online to speak of first?

1:56:31 >> We do have several people online, but we thought we were going to do the room first. >> All right, we'll do this first, okay. Angie Merrill, are you here still? >> City. >> City, Don? >> Thank you. Don, could you just come up? You'll be first, Don. Claudette? Don, you could actually come right up to the mic. Susan, are you going to speak again? Is she still here? I think she already spoke. Wait, no, no, Linda? Are you here, Linda? Yeah, that's right there. And then Janet, are you here? Go next to Linda. And then, is that David? David Toyer? David, are you here? >> Yeah. >> Okay, sorry I can't read these. And then the next one will be Peter. No, not Peter, excuse me. Teresa Hardy, are you still here? Teresa, can you come up to the last, can you slide over one, David? Thank you.

1:57:31 Wait, yeah. Hold on, Teresa. I'm sorry, I mixed it up. We had someone still coming up. Okay, we'll take off now and. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Before we get started, I do need to read our instructions. >> Okay, go ahead and read your instructions. >> Please note, to be a party of record, you must submit written testimony before, during, or prior to the close of tonight's hearing. Or provide oral testimony at the public hearing, or request in writing to be a party of record. If written comments were received prior to August 20th, 2026, they were submitted to the planning commission members and posted on the planning commission website. Tonight's hearing is being transcribed by a court reporter, so please spell your first and last name and speak slowly. Public comment time is limited to three minutes. >> Okay, go ahead sir, thank you. >> Testing, is this working? >> Yes. >> Hello everyone, my name is Don Steinke.

1:58:30 I live in rural, Steinke, S-T-E-I-N-K-E. I live in rural East Clark County. I was on the climate advisory group. I'm here to support the recommendations that they made and urge that you pass them. We unanimously agreed to recommend approximately 150 goal and policy proposals. I suggest the consideration at some time of an additional issue that did not surface until six months ago after we had finished meeting. The new issue is grid scale batteries. Grid scale batteries vary from the size of dumpsters to shipping containers. The Colombian newspaper reported last week that the Pacific Northwest and Conservation Council said we needed 5.2 gigawatts of battery storage regionally by 2032.

1:59:30 Batteries are needed to shave peak demand and to store daytime solar energy for use in the evening. Grid scale batteries vary in power from one to nine megawatts. We need approximately 1,500 grid scale batteries regionally by 2032. Currently, we have one in the entire state. Portland has 30 right across the river from here.

2:00:02 We need 1,500 more in the region, but maybe only 50 in Clark County by 2032. The question is, where do we put them, and how will we regulate them? We need them. About two years ago, a developer tried to install one battery in rural Thurston County, and people protested. Their protest was motivated by a serious battery fire at the Moss Landing battery complex in California. That battery complex was not properly regulated. The project in Thurston County was eventually approved on the condition that the fire department approve of it. The Pacific Power Council says we also need grid scale batteries. Do we concentrate them in industrial areas like Portland General Electric has done? Or do we distribute grid scale batteries on commercial roofs and

2:01:01 in church parking lots like Minnesota is doing, or both? The law requires us to reduce emissions. Batteries can help us do that. Batteries also provide some resilience in the events of a cyber attack or wildfire. It's suggesting that we welcome grid scale batteries, but also develop regulations to minimize the risk. Thank you. >> Thank you for your conversation, sir. Next up is Claudette. >> Can you hear me? >> Okay, good. My name is Claudette Deracati, and I live at Cascade Park Estates, which is a manufactured home park. And we- >> Can you spell your name, please?

2:01:59 >> Spell my name, okay. First name, you want it spelled also? Okay, C-L-A-U-D-E-T-T-E. Last name, D-E-R-R-I-C-O-T-T-E.

2:02:15 We've lived there since 2018. And I live there with my husband, who is a Vietnam veteran. We have, a lot of us, my colleagues are here too, advocating to preserve the manufactured home parks in unincorporated Clark County. So I have been given, shared by Glenn, a memo on June 22nd, and it talks about the 34 manufactured home parks that are home to over 2,000 households in our both urban areas and rural areas. And what we are trying to advocate is to keep our manufactured homes manufactured home parks. And we appreciate the work that you've all done to include us in that plan.

2:03:13 And what it says in the memo of the manufactured housing park code concepts is that this is a form of housing that we can, most of us can afford. I'm sorry, I'm a little discombobulated right now. But in here, what you're saying is that what I'm hearing and what I'm learning, because I'm still learning the process of all of this, is that when you make your plan, there's the idea of having high density. And what we need to do is to preserve the park so that, I'm running out of time. So we want to just remind you that when you go to consider something viable or non-viable, maybe there should be some extra support in there as to what is

2:04:08 non-viable so that we don't lose our manufactured home parks to rezoning. Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. You did a great job. Yeah. >> Just one moment, Claudette, before you go. >> Sorry, yes. >> Are you aware of the work that staff has done? >> Yes. >> Okay, and have you seen that particular document in the proposal? >> Yes, I was going to try to overview on it. But it's the idea of protecting them and the equality of the people because there's so many of us. I mean, I spoke to Mr. Silver who's the CEO of the Vancouver Housing Authority on Monday. They had a meeting at the library. And he has approached many times for people to buy, for them to buy the manufactured home parks. But we need funding.

2:05:05 If we can get funding and have it available, then our communities can buy them also. So in the whole concept of 20 years down the road, there are options. We could become co-ops and own the property. A lot of us want to improve our properties and our homes, but we can't because we're on the edge of the cliff waiting to be rezoned and kicked out. And the RCW is two years. I mean, we have to get out in two years and we do not get the value back from our homes. So yes, I understand what you have all done and we have been following it and we appreciate it. But we need to preserve our housing. And in the state, not just unincorporated, there are approximately 1,200 registered manufactured home parks in Washington state. Maybe those that aren't registered, there's 1,600, that's 65,000 households.

2:06:03 >> So just for my understanding, you've been working with staff and you've seen the proposal and you're in favor of it. And if there's anything else, I think in regards to your group, if there needs to be continued contact, you know who to contact. >> Yes, we do. >> All right, that's what I was hoping for. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Linda. >> Do I need to turn anything on? >> It's on. >> Okay, my name is Linda Huddle, H-U-E-T-T-L and Linda with an I. I live in Cascade Parks as well. I am the president of the Resident Association. I'd like to thank you for clarifying the role of the planning commission and the county council. I've been in front of a county council on more than one occasion looking for

2:07:01 the moratorium which was preventing redevelopment of manufactured home parks which they passed. My understanding is that expires in April or early of next year and that they are working on a more permanent solution for us. After listening to everything that you said tonight with increasing density in the zoning and increasing the number of people, I'm just questioning how that impacts the manufactured home park. And I also have a concern because, as Claudette said, if we are sold or redeveloped, we get a percentage of appraised value for our houses and lose all of our own equity while having to pay lot rent until we move and having to pay for demolition of our homes. Which is a significant issue for seniors and for people of low income.

2:07:58 So I am asking that you continue to support the council in a moratorium about redevelopment. And I have a comment on a personal level. As I'm aging in society, I thought my biggest concern was going to be that my children were going to choose my nursing home. And now my biggest concern is that I have to be concerned about the possibility of losing my home. So I thank you for your time and appreciate your efforts. >> That was great testimony. Thank you, ma'am, I appreciate it. Janet?

2:08:55 >> Good evening. My name is Janet Easley, J-A-N-E-T-E-A-S-L-E-Y. I am a resident, as the others are, of Cascade Park Village, which is a manufactured home park in Clark County. I read with interest the proposed wording of Clark County Code 40 to 5120, entitled Manufactured Home Park Overlay District. To summarize, the sections intended to preserve existing manufactured home parks and prevent the displacement of existing residents. Redevelopment of manufactured homes would be limited. I am uncomfortable with section E use exception exemption. A property owner of a manufactured home park may seek a zone change for the property for several reasons. The last reason is the applicant proposes to redevelop the site with affordable housing and

2:09:48 will assist existing residents to minimize displacement, including relocation assistance, etc. I assume the planning commission would subject any such proposal to analysis before approval. I have several thoughts about this. The owner of a manufactured home park can probably easily determine that he or she can earn more money if more affordable housing is built on the manufactured home site. We have 170 homes, and 300 multi-family homes or apartments could replace the 170 manufactured homes. Then, of course, the property owner will receive much more money in rent and lease payments. Our manufactured home park is located in a commercial area, and the property is certainly subject to redevelopment pressures. Present residents of the manufactured homes on the site will be forced to move. They will not receive full value for their homes, and their homes would be destroyed.

2:10:47 In our park residents, our seniors most have fixed incomes, and some live solely on social security. Moving will be disastrous for them. Some may become homeless. Does the county really want to destroy 170 manufactured homes? The wording here appears to allow exactly what we've spoken to the county council about, our fear of being forced to move from our homes. I suspect that this section is included to assure the present owners of manufactured home parks that there is a way for them to redevelop their properties for another use and make more money. I plead that this wording would be changed or eliminated. Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. Yeah, next up, David. Real quickly, Theresa, if you can come up in the chair. Doug, are you here? Doug Burger, are you speaking tonight?

2:11:45 Doug, okay. Dale? Sharon? Sharon, come up there, Sharon. Jim, I think it's Jim. Are you here, Jim? Come up here, Jim. And one more, Jim Slater. You come up, Jim. Come up, Jim Mann, Maine? Then how about Bobby Derrico? Bobby, are you here? Come on up. You going to speak? Just up here. Okay, thank you very much, sir, for being patient with me. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Chair and members of the commission. David Toyer, D-A-V-I-D, last name, T-O-Y-E-R. With Toyer Strategic Advisors, we're a land use planning and

2:12:42 economic development consulting firm located up in Everett. And we've had the privilege of working with the cities of Ridgefield, Le Center and Camas to provide technical advice and expertise on transfer of development rights. As you heard from the cities earlier this evening, relative to their proposed EGA expansions, they do support creation of a county-wide TDR program. And one of the things that we've done in working with the cities was help them propose a language that is in the land use element on page 31. It's county-wide planning policy 1.1.24. And that establishes a specific policy that directs the creation of a transfer of development rights program.

2:13:37 And it also sets it up to allow the county council to require that UGA expansions can be done contingent upon participation in a transfer of development rights program. It ties that to the execution of an inter-local agreement. And so we appreciate the work that the planning commission did earlier this year and last year to make their recommendation in favor of several of those urban growth boundary expansions for the cities. And then you did make your recommendation contingent upon the creation of a transfer of development rights program. And recognizing the need to make sure that there's a policy framework and a process that would be in effect, that's where the genesis for this language has come from. It has been shared with the council and we would encourage the commission,

2:14:37 as you contemplate the recommendations you made previously in support of those expansions that made it into the preferred alternative. But you also likewise make sure that you take a look at that language in the land use element and reconcile how that fits with the previous recommendation you made. And I think your desire unanimously as a planning commission to want to put in motion really a unique and innovative approach to preserving agricultural land as well as providing for helping cities accomplish their growth planning goals. So, thank you, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Any questions? I think Alicia has one. None, thank you sir, appreciate your comments. >> Thank you. >> Let's go with, Teresa, you're up next.

2:15:38 >> Good evening, Teresa Hardy, H-A-R-D-Y. I have two concerns, the first one I'm going to read. Many of us in the community were eager to see new planning commissioners who we saw as wanting to protect our natural resources. But we're surprised when we watched you support a preferred alternative that needlessly expands UGAs and destroys designated agricultural land. In the case of battleground ag quality rural land that should be designated as ag. We're confused by this decision given that it's been reiterated time and again that the VBLM shows that it is unnecessary to expand UGAs to accommodate the projected growth population. And as Brian Snodgrass, City of Vancouver, just addressed, now the county's final environmental impact statement has put this fact in writing as well. It states, given the planning assumptions for growth rate and jobs acre,

2:16:32 the preferred alternative exceeds the land capacity needed to accommodate the housing and job growth projected for the next 20 years. So even if you stay with your previous position to expand UGAs like you did with the preferred alternative, we believe you owe it to the public to really discuss this. We believe that the UGA should be expanded. Explain why you believe the UGA should be expanded when that's not what the VBLM shows is necessary. When the county's own FEIS document states so, and when it violates the Growth Management Act to needlessly expand UGAs, which will predictably land the county on the losing end of a court battle that could potentially cost taxpayers a lot of money. The next thing I want to address is that as a Sierra Club, we would like to see that you not move forward with approving the changes that have been made four years ago,

2:17:29 which was multi-family residential outdoor area standards. And that are now multi-family residential amenity standards, recreation and landscape has been taken out of that. Originally, four years ago, it was the DEIB who brought it, and I have it in those packets. The first thing was when they brought it to council as an interim ordinance, and that was just a combined landscaping and recreation. Then it went to the biannual, and it was Brian Ng at the time who said that it should not go through the biannual because there were unintended consequences, there were density implications, that it was not a minor amendment, it should be considered under policy. Planning Commission went ahead and approved it, it went forward. Then it went through the multi-family housing options, it went through the tech forum. The tech forum did not include any public input on that. The only way you could do anything is to attend those meetings and send an email in later.

2:18:27 We feel that there is not enough public input that has been put into this, that there are a lot of unintended consequences. There's equity issues around this, because now in the 2026 latest draft, it's not just multi-family housing. It's transitional housing, permanent supportive housing. This needs to be addressed, it needs to be looked at more closely for climate, equity, and everything else. There's a lot of changes that have been made and the public doesn't know anything about this. So we're asking for you not to move this forward in the comp plan. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. >> Who's next here? Is it Sharon up there? >> Yeah.

2:19:15 >> Good evening, my name is Sharon Pevey. And I am also a manufactured home owner in Cascade Park. And I need to, okay, ooh, okay, yes. Well, I'm also a homeowner in Cascade Park community. And it's been quite an experience living in one of these communities. We are now an investment for most of the owners, and it's widely known. They're buying and selling like crazy. And as soon as I moved in, the price increases started for rent. I paid $140,000 for my house.

2:20:13 If we lose our home, we only get 17 at the most, and 10,000 for a smaller home. So anyway, because of all the changes and what was happening, I joined a statewide group. And we fought to pass bills in Olympia. And we were the ones that passed the rent stabilization, and it was heartbreaking. We were in Olympia, and so most of these communities are for senior citizens. We have young families as well, but a lot of senior citizens. And we were hearing an 80-some-year-old woman talk about her $1,000 rent increase, and she was headed to the street. And so our policy makers, we were all in tears that day.

2:21:13 But so anyway, we did get the rent stability, but we have a bad amendment on the bill now also. So we have a hard time even selling our homes. When we sell our homes, our owners get a one-time rent gouge to whoever wants to buy your property. And so our houses have to come way down in price in order to sell even right now. So we've been through a lot. We really appreciated working with the county on trying to protect our homes and trying to help us. And so we really appreciated, they spent a lot of time with us trying to get to know what we are dealing with actually. And we're senior citizens. We thought we were going to live affordably the rest of our lives. And so we are hoping and

2:22:08 praying for overlay zoning for stability. At least we would appreciate that. So am I off? Do I have a little more time? No, I'm done. Okay, but thank you so much for listening. >> Thank you. Who's next? Jim, trying to get you. There we go. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> My name is Jim Schlatter, S-C-H-L-A-T-T-E-R. And the reason I'm here tonight is to give you some input about the property my wife and I own that's west of Northwest 61st Avenue at 169th Street. It's 23 acres.

2:23:04 And it was in the comp plan, when they changed it, they made our property only, ten acre minimum, with all the other property in every direction around us, five acre minimums. Which was hard to understand. The only speculation that I could make was maybe it was because it was the remainder of a cluster lot development that was done 33 years ago. And however, if you look at the cluster lot plat, and if you look at the cluster lot regulations, nowhere on there does it say it should be zoned a lower density because it was previously part of a cluster lot development. It simply says that it cannot be further developed until the zoning changes, period.

2:24:01 So there's no reason to have made our property only ten acres when everybody else is around us is five. And in fact, south of us and adjoining us there's six one acre home sites. North and adjoining us there's seven one and a quarter acre zone sites. And to the northeast of us is somewhere around a dozen one to two acre lots. So, but really all I'm asking for is to correct this mistake and show in the comp plan, five acre parcels is fine. That's what was given to everybody else.

2:24:46 Okay, good I have more time. So anyway, I'm asking you to please consider looking at that and realizing that it was a mistake. I'm going to have to go through a zone chain request, which costs a great deal of money because of this mistake. And so I'm hoping that you can at least correct the comp plan to where our property is the same as everybody around us, the five acre parcels. And you can look on your comprehensive plan map and there's our little property that's brown and everybody else's is the five acre color around us. So I appreciate your time, I hope you can consider this. I did, I wrote a letter that I'd like to turn in if that's okay.

2:25:43 But I just had one other comment. I'm a retired developer, home builder, both single family and multifamily. And when I hear about zone changes going up to 43 and 50 units per acre, you make land almost unsaleable. And you force a developer to build something that people don't want. You end up with four story, 400 square foot studio apartments. And so I just think that density is just too high. And anyway, thank you. >> Wait, hold on, we have a question for you. >> Jim, Commissioner Bryan. >> Sure. >> Could you give me your cross streets again so I could look up the property? >> Yes, I can give you the address.

2:26:35 But it's Northwest 61st Avenue at Northwest 169th Street. And it's west, on the west side of 61st Avenue. >> Great, thank you. >> The address is 16716 Northwest 61st Avenue, Ridgefield. I can give you the parcel number too. >> Okay. >> Thank you for being patient. Ben, you're the first one to walk up and wait this long. >> Well, I'm sorry for the mistake, anyway, thank you. >> Yeah, next is Bobby. Come on up, Bobby. And then give me a second here. Sam? No, let's see, Walter. Walter, you still here? Go, take a seat there, sir.

2:27:35 Diane, are you here? Come on up to the front row. Janet, are you here, Janet? Can you come to the front row? Dave Rowe? Come on up, Dave. And Bert, no, Bert, do you want to, is Bert here? I don't think Bert wants to speak. Okay, I think that's all. Is there anybody else that wants to speak that I didn't get? Okay, go ahead, sir. Thank you for being patient. >> B-O-B-B-Y-D-E-R-R-I-C-O-T-T-E. Just to let you know, sir, I never signed up to speak here. I do not talk in public. I do not talk, give speeches. All I'm gonna share right now, sir, I'm gonna tell you the truth about what and

2:28:30 who I am and what my hope is for the future. All of these ladies and gentlemen here, I live in the compound with them, with my wife, Claudette. I love where I live. First of all, I never had a home. This is the first real home I ever bought in 2018. Lived in rentals as a kid, joined the service, did my time in Vietnam. Almost got killed but not in Vietnam, in Cambodia. But God saved my life through another human being because if not, I wouldn't be talking and sharing. So, all I can tell you, sir, is I was homeless when I was 50 years young in

2:29:30 Long Beach, California. I still had a job, but I gave everything away to my ex-wife. I didn't want anything because she never had anything. But I knew that if I gave everything to her, the house, everything, gave her half my pension from the company I worked in Long Beach. And I was in debt up to my neck. Went back to Hawaii, met Claudette. She helped me pay my bills off. So, we got married. I retired from Hawaii, came here. We bought a manufactured home park here. If you have ever been homeless, I'm gonna tell you the loneliest thing about homelessness.

2:30:30 I feel it for those ladies and gentlemen out there, even senior citizens. My age of 85, being all alone, that's terrible. And finally, my children, I have two sons and a grandson. Oldest grandson, 58, my youngest son, 56. My grandson was born in 1988. I haven't seen him ever since he was born. So, I pray for him. I hope that things will be better for the future generation. I don't care about me, I care about the future generation. You think about it, because they're going to be homeless.

2:31:28 My grandson, my sons never have a home. And I want to thank you, and God bless you for doing what you do, sir. >> Sir, thank you for your comments, and especially thank you for your service, too. We appreciate it. >> You're the first gentleman that told me that, and nobody else told me that except you. >> My daughter right now, real quickly, my daughter's in Vietnam right now. Yeah, I just thought of it, so thank you for your service, sir. >> Thank you for your kindness. >> I got you. >> Okay, so thank you for your service. >> Yours too. >> Okay, we got that back together. >> I don't like you people, but I love you because you are a human being. >> You're like me. >> Diane, is it Diane, you're up next? Okay. >> Hi, good evening.

2:32:27 Thank you all for sticking through this evening, it's a long evening. Diane Dempster, I live in Vancouver, Vermont incorporated Clark County, and I'm very concerned about the loss of agricultural land that will occur if the preferred alternative is adopted. Clark County's lost so much agricultural land in farmers in the last 30 years, that a once thriving agricultural economy struggles to even be recognized as an industry. With a growing population, we need all the ag land we have left to feed the current and anticipated demand for local food. The ag land study shows that most of the land in Clark County is prime agricultural land. Approving the preferred alternative would result in the de-designation of 509 acres of prime agricultural land. It's a myth that we need more land to create affordable housing.

2:33:26 Single family homes are the more expensive to build, take up most of the land, and are out of the price range for many Clark County residents. Building on land outside the UGB costs more in infrastructure, such as roads and sewers. The county's own studies show that there is plenty of land inside the urban growth boundary to meet the upcoming demand, and it's cheaper to build there. The housing we need is for low to moderate income families, not single family homes in rural parts of the county. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you for your comments tonight. Let's see, Janet? >> Good evening, Chair Johnson. >> Can you turn it on? Just hit the button there. Yeah, one of them there. There we go. Thank you.

2:34:25 >> Thank you. Good evening, Chair Johnson, commissioners. My name is Janet Hedgepath, J-A-N-E-T-H-E-D-G-E-P. P-A-T-H. I'm a citizen of Clark County. As I've watched the comp plan process, it has become evident that the intent from the very beginning was to craft a comp plan that continued business as usual. As I saw decisions made disregarding data and trying to skirt the mandates of the GMA and the new legislation as the city of Vancouver wonderfully outlined. I recall that old dictum, follow the money, and I ask, who benefits from these choices and who pays? This comp plan accommodates developers in some of the cities who use the myth of needing more land and relaxed standards and fees to create affordable housing. Whether this commission and council still believe this ruse, or

2:35:25 just use it as a convenient excuse, doesn't really matter. Because the results are the same. Citizens live with more low density zoning, or sprawl, and less ag land, and no more affordable housing. Tax payers pay the increased cost for utilities, roads, and services that weren't covered by TIFs, and no more affordable housing. And we all feel the loss of grants and state monies in the county's efforts to continue developing as it has previously, with no more affordable housing. Tax payers pay for the lawsuits that result from allowing questionable development, and no more affordable housing. So I ask as you move forward, please give more consideration to the impacts on everyday citizens and the cost to the tax payers, and

2:36:23 not just the development community, and what is best for them. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, ma'am. Let's see, it looks like we have Dave? Dave Rowe, come on. Dave Rowe, come on up. Is there anybody else in the audience that- >> I've got a handout from Dave. >> Okay, thank you, we've got it up here, Dave.

2:36:58 >> Dave Rowe, R-O-W-E, I live in Battleground. I gave a handout for you to look at. It's Clark County has an unutilized asset on the comprehensive growth plan. Little mention of the Chulachi Prairie Railroad in the comprehensive plan. That map behind me was drew out in 1894. And that Chulachi Prairie Railroad is on that map. It's over 130 years old. We don't use it enough that that would help our county. The handout I just gave you talks about rail bikes. Rail bikes are used in many other rail lines,

2:37:56 such as Mount Hood Railroad. And they charge $199 per bike with two people. Pudding Creek Rail Bike charges $265, $100 for two people bike. And Noro River in California charges $495 per four person bike. So what I'm asking you, could we just think about utilizing that railroad to a better degree? If we would use rail bikes there, they would sure help our schools. Some of the income could be revenue to help our school budgets, which is already needed.

2:38:49 Chulachi, Clark County upgraded that corridor, so it could be used by rail bikes. So I'm just asking you to kind of put in your comprehensive plan that there's other things to be used other than just a railroad. It is a freight train right now, and it could be put in for passenger rail, too. I'm wearing this conductor's uniform because I'm a conductor down in Lake Oswego. We could have more conductors like they were in 18, they were running from 1902 till 1932. While they were running freight on this line, and they were charging $1.70 for passengers back in that time, and they hauled quite a few passengers.

2:39:47 In Portland, from 1915 to 1920, 4 million people a year rode the trains in the Willamette Valley up to Vancouver. So I'd like to see them come back. Thank you. >> Perfect timing. Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak? Come on up, ma'am, and just go ahead and take the mic. State your name. >> Chair, just for the record, I want to do that rail bike thing. So I think we should at least get one and explore the opportunities and maybe for a weekend. >> I agree. >> Yeah. >> I'll second the motion. >> Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am. >> Okay, my name is Lisa Row, R-O-W-E. I don't think we're related. I'm also a resident at Cascade Park Estates.

2:40:45 I'm actually the newly elected treasurer secretary, so I'm trying to get caught up on all of this stuff that affects me. So when I moved here, actually I wasn't prepared to speak, but now I feel this is personal because I'm scared. But when I moved here, I was planning on moving to Portland area. And I just happened to see online these manufactured homes that had garages and yards. That's where I want to live. So I ended up buying my house, spent every penny I had. And frequently now, every week on Facebook, there's many posts that say we're moving to the Vancouver area from Florida or whatever. And they say, what's the best area to live? Where's good schools? 90% of the responses are, don't move here. Crime's bad, homelessness is bad, rents are up, don't move here. So I don't think that, I mean, I'm all for progress, growth is necessary.

2:41:42 But I don't think people are going to be scrambling to come to Clark County to live in a box in a high density area. Mobile home parks are a great example of affordable housing. And so I think that, again, growth, progress is great. But it shouldn't come at the sacrifice of our already affordable housing. because people don't want to, I have medical issues, physical limitations that I can't go up and down stairs. I can't go to an apartment and take groceries in and out, take my dog in and up and down. Young families that want to buy a house can't afford it, and the mobile homes are a great option for that. Seniors can live independently, it's just a great option. Before I came here, I lived in one for 23 years, and I loved it. But I think it's just an option that shouldn't be taken away.

2:42:36 And we shouldn't be growing at the sacrifice of our homes. I think it's, yeah, because I may not lose everything if they take away our homes. I would have to leave Washington, go back to probably California, Nevada, somewhere where I have some support. And, I mean, nobody cares if one person leaves, but it's not going to be just me. Nobody's going to come here if there's nothing, there's no options. It's got the same high density apartments that are in every city. There's going to be nothing unique about this area that's going to draw people in, it's not going to be appealing. So I do know about the moratoriums and stuff, and we definitely appreciate that, all the work that's going in that. But we need a more permanent solution, so thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, we appreciate that. Yes, ma'am. Yes, come up. Make sure you state your name.

2:43:33 >> My name is Susie Reed, S-U-S-I-E-R-E-E-D. I've been listening, I came here to learn. Like I mentioned, for me I'm an educational specialist, it's like learning a foreign language. And so I have an awareness level now that's pretty minimal, but I appreciate learning this. But I wanted to share with you, when I moved here, and I won't go into detail, I started having real estate mobbing. I have prime property. I even had somebody walk by the house and say, prime real estate, and then it started, backflow valve was taken out, dirt put in the sprinklers. That kind of thing is happening on a regular basis.

2:44:31 I cannot get help with it. And as I listen to these other people's stories, one of the things that, I worked for 50 years, and I knew of fadness, I'm anxious to ask you about it. But when I was, my son was six, I had cancer, and he came out and had a dream, and he said to me, "Mom, I had a dream last night, I have a message for you." And I said, you know, I just thought it's a kid thing, he'd been watching TV with mom again. And he looked at me and he said, "Why would you look for anything with your head when you can find it with your heart? When you make your decision, this is an interesting kid, when you make your decisions, be sure that you use your heart." And as I listened to these people tonight, and I listened, I asked the knowledge base that you gentlemen demonstrated in the types of questions that you asked was very impressive.

2:45:27 I don't know what it all means, but I could tell that there was a strong knowledge base behind those questions. So that's the head part. This is the heart part. And in anything that we do in life, I worked with kids with autism, anything that we do within life, the question becomes, what is our purpose? What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to accomplish a grand scale, or are we trying to reach the individual person and make a quality of life where people don't say, "Don't move here." I was excited to come back, and I've had one heck of a time since I've been here, and I refuse to give up. I've learned to walk three times, I'm not giving up.

2:46:17 But I'd really like you to consider these people's needs and make sure that they don't lose -- I mean, I worked for 50 years, and I could lose everything. I might go join you, but they can't -- you can't start over. And then there's our kids. What are they going to do? So that has to be part of the configuration. What is affordable housing for those that come after us, because we're all just a little bit away from disaster? Thank you. >> Thank you again. Okay, that said, I think that was it. Do we have anybody online that would like to go ahead and do your -- >> All right, we will now call those participants that have joined remotely via computer or telephone. Please raise your virtual hand or press star 3 on your phone to let us know you would like to provide comment.

2:47:14 For those using telephone options, press star 6 on your phone to unmute yourself when it is your turn to speak. >> So Chair, we have several people online, but only a few raised hands so far. The raised hands have come up in order, so I'll just call on them in the order that they raise their hands. So first, I'm going to unmute Steve. Steve Thauberg, go ahead when you're ready. And Steve, I've sent you an unmute request. If you would like to speak, go ahead, otherwise we'll move on. Okay. >> Who's speaking? Is that Jeff? >> No, this is Bart. I'm sorry, Cindy, Bart catching. >> Okay, thank you. Okay, so Steve has lowered his hand, so we'll go to caller 2. Caller 2, I'm sending you an unmute request.

2:48:13 If you could identify yourself. >> Hello? >> Yes. >> This is Steve Thauberg. Can you hear me? >> Oh, well, now we can, Steve. Yes. >> Okay, I had a problem on clicking the unmute button. It didn't work. >> Okay, go ahead, Steve. We can hear you now. >> This is Steve Thauberg, S-T-E-V-E-T-H-A-L-B-E-R-G. I'd like to address the climate element. The planning commission and county should adopt measures to protect and enhance tree crown cover, as tree crown cover is associated with multiple health benefits. And I please see the document that I sent to you guys earlier today. Housing development is a concern in the county, and the construction of homes, especially high density dwellings, frequently results in the destruction of trees. The county should adopt a tree protection

2:49:12 and replacement program. The city of Vancouver's urban tree and forestry program can be used as a template. A measure to protect and enhance tree crown cover will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air and water quality, and enhance the quality of life, which are all part of HB 1181. With regards to chapter four, environmental element, I'd like to see added to 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.10.2, the adoption of a public benefit rating system, commonly known as a PBRS, is currently adopted in 20 of Washington's counties. A PBRS will enhance the success of meeting all the goals of the environmental element,

2:50:08 and those goals mandated in HB 1181. Regarding chapter five, the transportation element, I'd like to see added to 5.0.16, the approval of development projects, whether they're residential or commercial, should occur without exceeding the volume to capacity ratios, the VC ratio of 0.9, and this will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is also addressed in HB 1181. Regarding the preferred alternative, the planning commission is urged to reconsider their adoption of altering the urban growth boundaries for the cities in Clark County as those changes are inadequate in the goals for concurrency, traffic and infrastructure,

2:51:06 and the county admits that there is a projected $554 million shortfall in funding necessary for transportation improvements. The current system further sets up conflicts with adhering to goals for concurrency and the loss of agricultural land. I refer you to the document that I sent to you guys earlier today for other issues that I'd like entered into the record. Thank you. >> Great timing. Thank you, sir, for your comments. >> Next in line, Chair, we have Jackie Lane. Jackie, I've sent you an unmute request. >> Good evening, commissioners, I'll keep this pretty short because a lot of people have spoken more clearly than I can. But I would ask that you do not de-designate any ag land in this plan, that you ensure that your recommendations follow the law, specifically the GMA.

2:52:05 And I would listen to the City of Vancouver as regards the county's actions in the Vancouver UGA and ensure that impact fees and the cost of infrastructure, supporting new development is covered by developers, the taxpayers like me who've been here for years and years. I don't want my taxes going up in order to, somebody else speaking, in order to cover development growth. And I don't want traffic to get worse because the county can't afford the infrastructure needed for new development. So that's it. Thank you. Have a great night. >> Thank you for your comments, ma'am. >> Next up, we have first name Heidi. Heidi, I've sent you an unmute request.

2:52:57 >> Hello, my name is Heidi Pozzo, H-E-I-D-I-P-O-Z-Z-O. This plan adds density where the, excuse me, the county's records say it cannot be served. Not the roads, not the creeks, not the schools, not the parks. On concurrency, more density is being added to the 179th and Salmon Creek corridors on roads that are already project problems. In May, in the 174th Street subdivision case, the applicant's traffic engineer identified road segments that exceeded the county's adopted .9 volume to capacity standard. The GMA requires a concurrency ordinance that denies development dropping a road below the standard. Clark County has one. These segments fail and the developments are approved anyway. Under a code section never written to approve a failing test.

2:53:54 A program never says no is not a concurrency program. The GMA also requires the housing and transportation elements to balance. That cannot be determined here. This plan requires bike lanes and paths on 106 miles of county road. That space comes from buying land or existing lanes. The county has not designated which roads lose lanes, so none of it is modeled. The analysis was run on the network as it exists today. The housing this plan assigns here needs to be reassessed. Stormwater. Two creeks take all the water from this corridor. Whipple and Mill both too warm and both eroding. Whipple ran over the temperature limit for fish on 71 of 93 days. Some of that is existing development, but everything this plan adds makes both creeks worse. The water can't infiltrate here, so the developments

2:54:54 hold their runoff in detention facility, then pushes it to the creek. The facility slows the water down, but the water still arrives. And the forest is coming down. In the Mill Creek catchment, the county projects 2/3 gone at the build-out, with hard services more than doubling. Every development complies, but nothing adds them together. And together, they are eroding the banks and heating the water. A basin plan is the only tool that looks at a whole stream. Neither creek has one. The comp plan commits the county to basin planning in two policies, then assigns density to two basins without one. The analysis has not been done. My fuller comments are in the record. From a park's perspective, a 90-acre deficit of parks on the east side of I-5 exists, and the park district will pause new development. From a school's perspective, Ridgefield and battleground plans were written on the heels of the pandemic.

2:55:54 Updates are required every four years, and that didn't happen. I ask you to recommend that the county reapply the urban holding until the county answers questions the studies raise. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, ma'am. We have one more raised hand right now. Jim Byrne. Jim, I'm unmuting, sending you an unmute request. Jim, if you want to speak, unmute yourself. OK, hearing none, now we have call in user two, sending you an unmute request. Could you identify yourself?

2:56:46 Hello, my name is Peter Bells. I hope you can hear me. Spelled P-E-P-E-R and then F-E-L-S. 13 years ago, the University of Washington published Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State. That study predicted most of what we're now facing-- increased temperatures and heat waves, more severe rainfall events, increased areas burned by fires, drought, lower snowpack, decreased streamflows, and the other things that we're facing, such as more days of poor air quality due to wildfire smoke. Those predictions have come true. In other words, climate change is here globally and in Washington.

2:57:45 The study said how much and how fast climate changes occur depends on both the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and how the climate changes in response to those emissions. The legislature required consideration of climate change as part of the comprehensive plan process. Clark County should be doing its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help us all have healthier lives and a healthier planet. Your citizens advisory panel recommended that county adopt the same greenhouse gas emission standards as Vancouver. We all live in the same air shed, and we're all equally impacted by what happens in the city and the county. I urge you to recommend adoption of the same emission standards as Vancouver. The legislature also required the county to have sufficient supply of agricultural lands

2:58:41 to sustain a local agricultural community or economy. I agree with pretty much everything Diane Dempster said about that. I think Clark County has the potential to have an even more vibrant agricultural economy than we have now by supporting local ag and value added crops such as wine grapes, organic vegetables, and the many things that our local farmers are already producing. However, they can't be sustained without full use of all available agricultural land. The county should withdraw its approval of extensions of the urban growth boundaries over any agricultural land. Allowing up zoning of ag lands not only harms the agricultural economy, but also increases the need for more vehicle miles traveled and reduces the benefits of more density toward reducing greenhouse gases.

2:59:38 Please honor the recommendations of your Agricultural Advisory Commission. Finally, I want to urge you to consider working with C-TRAN to subsidize fare so all bus travel within the county is free. You'll increase ridership at a small cost because fare income is only about 15% of the total C-TRAN revenues. This will also improve greenhouse gas reduction by increasing use of mass transit. And by increasing transit use, you may reduce impacts on the transportation infrastructure budget, which you mentioned you have a deficit. I've lived in this county for over 30 years-- Sir, we've run over your time if you could wrap it up, please. I am wrapping up. Perhaps two sentences here. OK. I've lived in the county for over 30 years and watched increased urbanization and reduction of agricultural and farmlands. The quality of life has suffered. I'm concerned about the future my children and grandchildren

3:00:38 face. Please recommend adoption of policies that will begin to reduce the trends of climate change. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. OK. Jim Byrne has his hand raised again. Jim, why don't you try unmuting yourself again? I don't know why we're not getting-- Can you repeat? Hello? Yeah. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. We can hear you now. Go ahead with your comments. Thank you. My name is Jim Byrne, B-Y-R-N-E, and I live in Ridgefield. Brian Snodgrass, the Vancouver city planner,

3:01:34 stated earlier today that there exists a surplus of building lots in the buildable lands inventory. And he was concerned that there may be potential litigation if the current preferred alternative is accepted. And I would agree with him. We suffer a loss of agricultural lands, and you'll have to de-designate those agricultural lands. I'm also concerned about the climate change. The Growth Management Act says we

3:02:29 need to deal with climate change in HB 8111. And I think that the preferred alternative will cause an increase in greenhouse gases and an increase in vehicle miles traveled. I believe the county should adopt the City of Vancouver's greenhouse grass criteria. I also have a concern over concurrency, but that was addressed thoroughly earlier. And thanks for listening. Thanks for the work you do. Thanks for going through this process. Thank you for your comment, sir. Chair, we have a hand raised again, but it's caller user call-in two again, which I thought was Peter. I'm going to request unmute and confirm that before we move off of it, because I don't know who it is. I sent you an unmute request, call-in user two.

3:03:28 Could you identify yourself?

3:03:34 And hand is lowered. That is the end of the raised hands online. OK, so we have all of the people online. Is there anybody else in here that hasn't commented that would like to comment? Seeing none, we will now close the portion of the public comment and bring it back to us here. What I'd like to do, it's 15 minutes to 10. I would like to leave this hearing open and resume it for discussion with the Planning Commission on-- what's the date again? Help me out here. September 3. September 3, correct? Correct. Yes, and so we will come back. And so those of you that have waded through all this, we have so much stuff, and we had a lot of stuff sent to us today that we have to get through.

3:04:32 So what we'd like to do, bring it back. And for those of you who waited, hopefully for us to resolve this, I don't think it's going to happen tonight. Is there any comments from the commissioners? Yeah, Ron. Commissioner Barka, I have a couple questions for staff. One is, with all of the focus we've had on the manufacturing housing ordinance, I want to make sure that I understand where our discussion is on that in relationship to all of the exhibits and chapters that we have. Where do we see it and discuss it? It's in the code changes section, and we can provide you the specific code section that deals with the mobile home park overlay and the proposed changes. I've also asked for next time we meet,

3:05:31 a clarity on what we will be voting on exactly. So I know there is a lot of relevant confusion on how we're going to do this. So I've spoken to Oliver, and Oliver's going to bring it back to where we can see these things. And maybe that's one of the things that we're looking at there too, Ron. Right, I just wanted to make sure if it was part of a bigger chapter that we were making sure that we had an opportunity to get into it as expressed here for the concern. And so I am anticipating that we're going to go through the individual chapters, which gives us an opportunity to add, subtract, or agree with as stated by staff. And it's also going to have to include, in some cases, the exhibits, because that's where most of the capital facility questions arises. And I think it's exhibit E. Yeah. And there's a lot that we need to go through on that.

3:06:30 So I'm fine with going through them. But the question was where would we find that portion of it. That was a question that I had open. And so Jose said he'll find it. And I trust him. And we'll get to it. You can find that in exhibit 3, the proposed title 40 code changes. And then it's under the table of contents. It's listed as page 109, which is the manufactured home park overlay 40.250.120. And there's also a 40.260.140, which is manufactured home park standards and requirements. All right, thank you.

3:07:28 Any other questions for staff? Go ahead. Oh, I don't have a question for staff. But I do want to assure everybody, thank you for coming, staying late, testifying. I know we're like up here. A lot of times we're looking at our phones, but we're pulling up documents. And we do read your comments. We do very much appreciate your input. And don't think you're not being heard, because we are reading, we are listening, and we're paying attention. So thank you so much for coming out. Sure. Yes. You said the date, but not the time. That would be 6.30, right? Correct. As usual. They're not feeding us that day, OK? Don't want to be on the record. Any other comments? We're not closing this. Any other general business or whatever? Any comments from the planning commission? Is public testimony closed now? Public testimony is closed.

3:08:27 We've closed that. But the meeting is still-- I guess we can close the meeting, right? Whatever, I'll just leave it. You guys figure it out. Any questions? Thank you again for staying so late. We appreciate it. And thank you for being so kind, too. Makes it easier for us. So have a good evening.