Clark County Planning Commission

0:00 A little bit. Tonight will be a little bit different. We won't call the meeting to order. We're going to go into executive session, but we're going to do a roll call first. So we'll come back in the meeting when we call the order. Just a mental note, all public comment had been closed from the time before. So if some of you are waiting to comment, that portion's closed. We'll come back and deliberate. But right now, what I'm going to do is call a roll call real quick. The meeting's not open yet officially, but we will. I'll call a roll call. We'll go into a quick executive session. I don't know how long that'll be. It shouldn't be that long. Then we'll be back here to deliberate on what we've been working on.

0:58 So with that said, Jeff, can we get a roll call, please? Ryan Albert. Here. Mark Bergbold. Here. Kyle Fadness. Here. Ron Barka. Here. Jack Caroon. Here. Alicia LaDuke Montgomery. Here. Carl Johnson. Here. So with that said, where are we going to go? Back to the backcourt. So we'll. That way. Okay. So we'll go down that way and we'll be back. Public, please be patient. Chair. Chair, we do need to put on the record the amount of time. My suggestion at this point is 30 minutes. Says that on here. 30 minutes with no potential action. I'm just reading what was said on here. Yeah, so we'll just put 30. Who was talking? Carl is. That was Rebecca Ward-Palmerton. That was our attorney. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, Cindy. But we'll 30 minutes.

1:57 Yeah. 30 minutes. Council, 30 minutes? Okay. And then we'll just go down there for no more than 30 minutes or whatever. Okay. All right. Thank you. A hybrid public hearing to order for Thursday, September 3rd, 2026. My name is Carl Johnson. I'm the chairman of the Clark County Planning Commission. The role of the Planning Commission is to review and to analyze comprehensive plan amendments, zoning changes and other land use related issues. We allow excuse me. 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.

2:57 We'll hold separate hearings, consider our recommendations, and they will make the final decision. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing tonight. We have closed. I'm kind of going to change this. We have closed the public comments. So this part does not pertain to what's happening tonight other than if you're speaking about something that is not on the docket and I'll get to that in a minute. Okay. We will deliberate tonight and make recommendations that are not on the docket. We will deliberate tonight and make recommendations that are not on the docket and I'll get to that in a minute. Okay. recommendations to the county council for both virtual and in-person members of the planning commission staff please ensure that your microphones are muted unless you are speaking planning commissioners when you make a motion or second please state your name for the court reporter tonight are there any conflicts of interest from the planning commissioners that are here tonight seeing none we will proceed

3:54 jeff can we get a roll call just for the record again please brian halpert here mark birchbold here kyle fadness here ron barca here jack haroon here alicia duke montgomery here carl johnson here i need a motion for the and a second for the approval of the agenda for set september 3rd 2026. commissioner fadness i moved to approve the agenda for september 3rd 2026. commissioner burke though i'll second that we have a motion in second jeff can we get a roll call please ryan halbert hi mark burkefold hi kyle fettus hi ron barca hi chakran hi alicia duke montgomery hi carl johnson all right seven zero motion passes can i get another motion and second for approval of the minutes for august uh 20th 2026. this is commissioner barca i'd like to make a motion to accept the minutes as written

4:54 Commissioner Huynh, I second that. We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can you get a roll call, please? Ryan Halbert? Aye. Mark Bergfold? Aye. Kyle Vandes? Aye. Ron Barca? Aye. Jack Caron? Aye. Alicia with Duke Montgomery? Aye. Carl Johnson? Aye. 7-0. Motion passes. The next section of our hearing tonight are communications from the public of items that are not on the agenda tonight. So if you came and you wanted to speak for three minutes regarding something other than what's on here, you can do that right now. Jeff, do you see anybody online? I'll go ahead and give the instructions first. Okay, great. We'll do that. Thank you. 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 free on your phone's number panel to raise your hand. For those in person that would like to provide comment, please raise your hand.

5:52 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. Please raise your hand and the chair will call on you to come up front to the microphone. Please provide your first and last name for the court reporter. I don't see any raised hands in the hearing room. We will now call on those people on WebEx or the phone that have raised their hand. For those people using the telephone option, press star six on your phone's number panel to unmute yourself when it is your turn to speak. We do not have anybody online with a raised hand either. Okay, hearing none, we will now move on to the main hearing. Again, I want to thank you all for waiting while we were in executive session and your patience. It'll be a long evening. We have a lot on here to get through. Our

6:52 idea tonight is to try to get through this to get it to county in a timely manner. So it is a lot. So please be patient and just listen away. So right now, we're going to go into deliberation with the commissioners regarding the 200, excuse me, 2025 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update. Clark County is updating its comprehensive plan to meet the Growth Management Act. Our deadlines are established in RCW 36.7A. The update process began January 19, 2023. The county council adopted the population and job numbers, the 20-year planning horizon that ends in 2045. The council also adopted public involvement plan that the county has implemented. The environmental review process included an analysis of three alternatives and a final environmental impact statement on the preferred alternate was released on July 12, 2020. The plan is now in effect. We are going to go into deliberation with the commissioners regarding the Growth Management Act.

7:49 We are going to go into deliberation with the commissioners regarding the Growth Management Act. The purpose of this hearing is for the Planning Commission to take public testimony we have already done but is to deliberate and make recommendations to the council on the topics listed below. Changes to the comprehensive and zoning plan map, updates to policy and text in the comprehensive plan document, changes to Clark County Code Title 40, the county's unified development code, to implement the map, change the ATLAS and update the capital facilities and capital facilities plans, and update the school, fire and traffic impact fees. That in a nutshell is what we are going to try to do. We have 104 items of which some will be able to go right through but what I'm going to do tonight and hopefully staff can challenge me and stop me or correct me or help me out here, Jose, I'm just going to start from the top with Battleground and go down through these,

8:48 and then if you have something to say, go ahead. So there's two things I want to bring your attention to. One of the arterial ATLAS was omitted from the decision matrix, so we want to add that as number 29A. And then, And that was the arterial ATLAS. And that was the arterial ATLAS. Item 23 is a site-specific request. Item 23 is a site-specific request. Item 23 is a site-specific request. There's no change to what's on the table, There's no change to what's on the table, There's no change to what's on the table, but I just wanted to disclose that on the but I just wanted to disclose that on the but I just wanted to disclose that on the map, it's showing as R50, map, it's showing as R50, map, it's showing as R50, and that's a remnant from Alternative and that's a remnant from Alternative and that's a remnant from Alternative 2. 2. 2. So if you make the So if you make the So if you make the motion to approve it as is written, motion to approve it as is written, motion to approve it as is written, that will be updated and reflected in that will be updated and reflected in that will be updated and reflected in what goes to Council. what goes to Council. what goes to Council. Okay. Okay. Okay. Chair, this is Commissioner Chair, this is Commissioner

9:47 Chair, this is Commissioner Birkfeld. Birkfeld. Birkfeld. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Is it possible to have the maps Is it possible to have the maps Is it possible to have the maps on display while we're discussing on display while we're discussing on display while we're discussing the options? the options? the options? Yeah, we can pull those up for you. Yeah, we can pull those up for you. Yeah, we can pull those up for you. Okay, as needed. Okay, as needed. Okay, as needed. As needed, yeah. As needed, yeah. As needed, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. Sure. Sure. Are there any other questions Are there any other questions Are there any other questions on process from the Commissioners? on process from the Commissioners? on process from the Commissioners? Okay. Okay. Okay. So we will start off with Battleground So we will start off with Battleground So we will start off with Battleground UGA to expand the UGA towards Dollar's UGA to expand the UGA towards Dollar's UGA to expand the UGA towards Dollar's Corner for additional employment Corner for additional employment Corner for additional employment capacity. capacity. capacity. That is the one where we go down 502. That is the one where we go down 502. That is the one where we go down 502. Is there any amendments, discussion Is there any amendments, discussion Is there any amendments, discussion regarding our recommendations? regarding our recommendations? regarding our recommendations? If not on any of these, I am open to If not on any of these, I am open to If not on any of these, I am open to taking a motion in a second as needed. taking a motion in a second as needed. taking a motion in a second as needed. This is Commissioner LaDuke Montgomery. This is Commissioner LaDuke Montgomery. This is Commissioner LaDuke Montgomery. Regarding kind of starting off here Regarding kind of starting off here Regarding kind of starting off here with the various UGA expansion with the various UGA expansion with the various UGA expansion decisions, our prior, you know, vote decisions, our prior, you know, vote

10:45 decisions, our prior, you know, vote regarding which alternative to study is regarding which alternative to study is regarding which alternative to study is part of the FEIS and now coming back to part of the FEIS and now coming back to part of the FEIS and now coming back to us for a final vote, we recommended us for a final vote, we recommended us for a final vote, we recommended alternative two but contingent upon alternative two but contingent upon alternative two but contingent upon implementation of a TDR program. And we implementation of a TDR program. And we implementation of a TDR program. And we had a lot of discussion about had a lot of discussion about had a lot of discussion about no net loss of agricultural lands no net loss of agricultural lands no net loss of agricultural lands and how do we, you know, balance these and how do we, you know, balance these and how do we, you know, balance these competing issues of development and competing issues of development and competing issues of development and housing and housing and housing and employment capacity with preserving employment capacity with preserving employment capacity with preserving agricultural lands. agricultural lands. agricultural lands. And so I'd like to And so I'd like to And so I'd like to either now or at the applicable time either now or at the applicable time either now or at the applicable time but before we vote on any of the UGA but before we vote on any of the UGA but before we vote on any of the UGA expansions expansions expansions propose an amendment propose an amendment propose an amendment to policy 1.1.24 to policy 1.1.24

11:34 to policy 1.1.24 perhaps a more concrete framework of perhaps a more concrete framework of perhaps a more concrete framework of what that TDR program might look like what that TDR program might look like what that TDR program might look like um such that when we're voting on these um such that when we're voting on these um such that when we're voting on these UGA amendments UGA amendments UGA amendments um we we as each of our commissioners um we we as each of our commissioners um we we as each of our commissioners would kind of know what we would be would kind of know what we would be would kind of know what we would be voting on in terms of that TDR voting on in terms of that TDR voting on in terms of that TDR contingency contingency contingency yeah that I was yeah that I was yeah that I was five through nine are uh five through nine are uh five through nine are uh de-designations of ag so that's kind de-designations of ag so that's kind de-designations of ag so that's kind of where I was going to lump them in so I of where I was going to lump them in so I of where I was going to lump them in so I was hoping I was going was hoping I was going was hoping I was going so for example one two and three here on so for example one two and three here on so for example one two and three here on battleground were not um ag related battleground were not um ag related battleground were not um ag related so and there's others obviously but I so and there's others obviously but I so and there's others obviously but I was just going to go down those and then was just going to go down those and then when we got to five when we got to five when we got to five through nine okay we could put that through nine okay we could put that through nine okay we could put that amendment maybe you could drop an amendment maybe you could drop an amendment maybe you could drop an amendment then we don't we can say the amendment then we don't we can say the amendment then we don't we can say the amendment once and then amendment once and then amendment once and then drop it on all nine for efficiency what drop it on all nine for efficiency what drop it on all nine for efficiency what do you think sure I'll come back to it do you think sure I'll come back to it do you think sure I'll come back to it all right back to battleground will we all right back to battleground will we all right back to battleground will we take a motion uh in a second on the outground or is there any discussion

12:28 this is this is commissioner barker can we have the map pulled up please

12:46 i i believe it's the far left that drives out towards dollars corners is that the red or the blue i'm looking at it's both both okay so we see the expansion there the red and the blue so is the part of it this is commissioner barker i believe blue is considered rural land in the zoning designation and the red pink color is going to be commercial is that correct the blue is proposed to be uh industrial employment and the red is commercial so in its current state are the are the colors um the same uh amount of commercial land is out there and because dollars corners was a rural center

13:46 Okay. That's the current. Okay. So the portions of the blue are RC1. The red is primarily the CR2, which is commercial. So the blue is mostly RC1 and R5. Okay. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Bark, again. So it has the appearance that mostly the commercial land is overlaid on commercial land. So it has the appearance that mostly the commercial land is overlaid on commercial land. So it has the appearance that mostly the commercial land is overlaid on commercial land. So it has the appearance that mostly the commercial land is overlaid on commercial land. So it has the appearance that mostly the commercial land is overlaid on commercial land. So it has the appearance that mostly the commercial land is overlaid on commercial land. So it has the appearance that mostly the commercial land is overlaid on commercial land. So it has the appearance that mostly the commercial land is overlaid on what is commercial now commercial land is overlaid on what is commercial now

14:45 commercial land is overlaid on what is commercial now with a little bit of changes to it. with a little bit of changes to it. But the industrial land goes all the way But the industrial land goes all the way through the R1 designation. RC1. Yeah? All right. Thanks. Commissioner Halbert here. I want to make a motion that we accept the Battleground UGA as presented. We have a second. This is Commissioner Fadness. Would you be able to -- was that just for item number one? Yes, for one. Okay. Commissioner Fadness, I'll second that. We have a motion and a second to approve Battleground UGA to expand UGA towards Dollar's Corner. Can we get a roll call, please? Brian Halbert. Aye. Mark Bergfold. Aye. Kyle Fadness. Aye. Ron Barber. Aye. Marka.

15:44 No. Jack Caron. Yes. Alicia LaDuke Montgomery. Yes. Carl Johnson. Yes. 6-1. Motion passes. We didn't hear Alicia's vote. Yes. Map recommendations number two, Battleground UGA to expand UGA to the north for additional residential capacity. Can we see that on the map, please? oh that's that little sliver right there okay it says the r3 and r7 yeah okay is there any discussion on this if not a motion in a second would be appropriate commissioner fatness i move to approve the expansion of the uga as presented we have a second commissioner berthold i'll second that we have a motion in a second jeff can we get a roll call please

16:43 brian halbert aye mark berkfold aye kyle fatness aye ron barca no jack caron aye alicia leduc montgomery aye carl johnson aye 6-1 motion passes uh to expand the uga to north for additional capacity number three item number three battleground uga remove the southwest portion of the uga from this would be coming you know correct me if i'm wrong is the metal glade this is the metal glade move that's correct and correct uh council has brought that back and said battleground wants that removed and council uh corrected from long said they don't they don't they agreed with that they agreed with battleground to remove it yes oh okay just take it just check it okay so again i'll take any discussion or a motion either way this is ron barca um

17:43 the i think the point for me with all of the battleground votes is the idea of um how battleground is going about doing their long-term planning uh the idea that even if the council is okay with just giving back metal glade um i don't believe it's in the best interest of the county it doesn't move the agenda forward for the county to take on more of the urban development and i think it's a mistake on our part even if council voted three to two to accept it um i'm looking at the idea of how difficult it's going to be for the county to make ends meet and the idea of taking this parcel of land back on i think is just convenient but not thought worthy and it should be thought worthy so my other two votes were predicated on the same one that battleground isn't looking at long-term planning they're looking at immediate gratification

18:41 through the industrial land and the commercial land and um my position on this is that all three of these parcels needed better inclusion in their long-term planning any other discussion commissioner leduc montgomery i agree regarding the meadow glade um expansion or i guess giving it back to the county on that point um this is commissioner fannis i guess just to clarify what you're saying um commissioner barca is is you keep mentioning that the county would have to take on urban development but if if this parcel is taken out of the the urban growth area i don't believe that that dense urban development that you're talking will be able to take place um jose or oliver could you speak to what the zoning would resort to if it's taken out of the uga and and what could be developed in that area

19:41 uh this is oliver thank you planning commissioner carl uh madness the area if removed from the battleground uga as they propose that area will revert back to rural zoning predominantly rural five and in some cases uh two and a half acre loss and five acre loss but it's going to be rural however um if there are college sheriff call it will be the responsibility of the sheriff county to respond but broadly speaking uh the area will revert back to rural uh zoning thank you oliver yeah that i mean i just don't really have a concern i guess with bringing this back to the county because what's what's the difference of like you say if it's not densely developing and there's a sheriff's call there's really not a difference

20:41 whether it's two miles to the west there or it's just in this corner here it's not like we're bringing in a lot of sewer storm and in count or city provided utilities that the county would have to pay for um commissioner barca here um i guess in that regard first of all i think it's meadow glade is a rural center and so the zoning is down to one acre isn't that yes so if you look at the map of property to the east would be one acre rc1 and then the middle would be rc 2.5 and then on the west would be r5 and that's what had essentially been zoned prior to it being incorporated in the battleground uga and so commissioner fatness i think also in the context the state allows with a recent law change

21:39 that we have not adopted yet but i believe that rural lots are going to be able to all have an adu that's a detached adu on them they can have attached adus now realistically we could look at a 20 25 percent uh growth increase without doing any kind of rural land changes at all in there and should the density get taken in closer than it would be able to go even higher in that regard we did hear from the fire district that serves that now it's the fire district out by the fairgrounds that's serving it not the fire district that serves the city of battleground um the sheriff's office even if this is perhaps not the strongest case for it i think what we're looking at though is the idea that uh jurisdictions uh need to pick

22:37 up their responsibility and i don't believe that the city of battleground is so small now that it can go ahead and just decide that it doesn't want to take in land that it desired before this shows me that there's a lot of land that battleground has not even annexed yet but they want to drive out towards the money of the industrial and commercial lands and dollars corners um i gonna go back to the idea that i don't think the city is doing long-term planning i think they're doing immediate gratification and it serves them best just to get that off their books so they can go ahead and take the other parcel up to the north and bring that in instead i i do understand what you're saying but i will disagree just because um you know they are developing where the the corridors have been the the roads have been

23:34 improved and where it makes more sense to develop and and that's kind of my final statement on it thank you any other questions commissioner leduc montgomery and i think just echoing somewhat mr barca's point that if there's multiple requests to expand i think they need to keep what they already have and take care of it if they're all wanting to expand they need to already take care of what's in their you know jurisdiction to care for and so that's again why i'm against the removal um is in tandem with well they're wanting expansion and they need to also maintain care for what they've got i think it's known that battleground that's why 502 is white that's why battleground needs commercial land it needs industrial land and i think like you said i agree with you uh kyle that that's where they're going um i i'm not sure where it's at but

24:32 if council is there i'm i'm inclined to say okay um you know let's uh remove it back to the county that's my my place but i would look at a motion and a second from anybody this is commissioner fatness i move to remove the portion of the uga as presented do we have second on that commissioner halbert i will second that motion so we have a motion in a second jeff can we get a roll call please ryan halbert aye mark berkfold aye kyle fatness aye ron barker no jack caroon hi alicia with duke montgomery no carl johnson aye 5-2 motion passes now we move on to the canvas uga to expand this is just the airport one the grove airport uh which is out north

25:31 of canvas right there it's just the airport and uh area is there any discussion on this this is commissioner barca for staff um the way the map is shown right here is the white section underneath the airport remaining in the county i think it wraps around like that it's a donut is it? this area here that yeah that area there that's correct the only thing that they're um adding to the uga is the area that's designated airport and unfortunately i think that's all of it i know there's a portion that's of airport that's they're not proposing to annex but

26:31 i think that's all of it i know there's a portion that's of airport that's designated airport and yes thank you questions or comments regarding this would take a motion or a second if not now commissioner hubbard just to be clear is it is the uh purple color that is being annexed okay being added to the uga then uh commissioner halbert i'll make a motion that uh cameras uga expand to include the growth field airport we have a motion to expand the cameras uga to include the growth field airport we have a motion to expand the cameras uga at grove field is there a second please commissioner haroon i second it we have a motion second jeff can we get a roll call brian halbert aye mark bergfold aye kyle fadness aye ron barca hi jack haroon aye alicia duke montgomery aye carl johnson aye seven zero motion passes now we're gonna go through uh five six seven eight and nine each of

27:27 these are are include a de-designation of ag land so i know that we had talked about a tdr if somebody wants to speak to that now and that maybe we could just get that discussion i don't want to say out of the way but we could just attach it to each of those thank you this is commissioner leduc montgomery and what i have is a proposed policy language change to policy 1.1.24 uh which i think staff had prepared a proposed policy to um for our tdr program and we've had discussion about that and i just wanted to propose amended language um that if it was adopted in my mind would then tie any vote to expand the uga through the designation of agricultural lands those de-designations would be tied to the implement of implementation of this tdr program so that's where this

28:25 proposed policy change is coming from and so i can read my proposed language of the policy and then i have a quick statement on why i think this is more defensible um if we are to move to de-designate any agricultural land um so proposed policy language 1.1.24 clark county and participating cities shall cooperatively adopt and implement a county-wide transfer of development rights or tdr program to permanently conserve agricultural lands while accommodating the urban growth adopted through the 2025 comprehensive plan periodic update uga expansions that include de-designated agricultural lands shall be subject to an urban holding designation until applicable tdr requirements are satisfied the county and affected city shall enter into an interlocal

29:21 agreement establishing tdr requirements implementation responsibilities conservation objectives and timelines the county-wide tdr program shall be fully operational no later than december 31st 2027. the program shall ensure the permanent conservation of at minimum one acre of agricultural land for each acre of designated agricultural land converted through ug expansion while also ensuring no net loss of agricultural resource lands resulting from adopted uga acreage or planned housing population or employment capacity resulting from implementation of the tdr program the program shall include a mechanism for identifying and evaluating rural lands for suitability of designation or redesignation as agricultural resource lands if sufficient tdr credits are unavailable or if the tdr program is not operational by the implementation deadline

30:21 the county and affected city shall use purchase or transfer of development rights permanent conservation easements or another mechanism providing substantially equivalent permanent agricultural conservation failure delay or insufficient participation in the tdr program shall not result in removal reduction or reversion of an adopted uga expansion or a reduction in its planned urban capacity future uga expansions involving designated agricultural resource lands shall participate in the tdr program and provide permanent agricultural conservation at a minimum one-to-one acreage ratio or provide an alternative mechanism achieving substantially equivalent permanent agricultural conservation so that is my proposed policy language and i can talk briefly about where i'm coming from with that

31:17 so the alternative to uga expansion involves you know de-designation of agricultural lands and we had talked previously about adopt tying that to the adoption of a tdr policy and i think that that policy needs to be meaningful if we're talking about actually de-designating lands especially when the county's already been sued for non-compliance with the timelines around this comp plan thinking about defensibility in my mind as an individual commissioner the gma requires us to reconcile two obligations rcw 36.70 a.060 requires the county to assure the conservation of designated agricultural resource lands while rcw 36.70 a.110 requires ugas to contain sufficient areas and densities to accommodate to accommodate projected urban growth

32:11 the department of commerce's rules are also relevant whack 365-196-310 states that ugas should not be expanded into designated agricultural or other resource lands unless no other option is available and whack 365-196-815 explains that conservation means keeping resource lands available for commercial production and preventing their conversion into incompatible uses and then there's been some washington supreme court decisions that reinforce the importance of taking the agricultural conservation obligation seriously in the case of king county versus the central puget sound growth management hearings board the supreme court considered uses proposed on designated agricultural lands and held that the challenged amendments did not comply with the gma the court was recognizing the acts agricultural land provisions that protect continued viability of agricultural resource lands and industries

33:06 and the lesson i take from that is that conservation under the gma needs to have some sort of substantive meeting not just calling land agricultural while adopting policies that undermine a continued availability for agricultural production and similarly there was a king county versus central puget sound growth management hearings board case in 1999 where the supreme court made clear that an individual uga designation remains subject to substantive review for compliance with the gross management act so i think some of these concerns certainly we've heard in our own record throughout the process there was the environmental review that identified potential conflicts with alternative two's conversion of ag land and the gma's requirement government expansions into designated ag land um we had our whole you know discussion about tdrs during our original recommendation for what to study there was the agricultural advisory commission that unanimously recommended maintaining existing ag land recently there was an agreement between the

34:04 central puget resource ag land and we've heard significant and repeated public comment throughout the process um about the need or the desire of the community to conserve agricultural land capacity um and then there's you know references and feedback in the feis the vacant middle buildable lands model and others written testimony that we've received to this effect and so for me the tdr provides an import the policy i propose provides an important means of addressing those concerns with the urban growth that's been contemplated in alternative two um rcw 43.362005 and point zero one zero expressly recognized tdrs as a mechanism to permanently protect sending lands while transferring development opportunity into receiving areas and i think that's along the lines of the balance we're trying to achieve here or that's been discussed and so my position is that i find the uga expansions being proposed um are substantially

35:03 reasonable under the growth management act when there is convert when we're talking about conversion of agricultural land if it's paired directly with an enforceable commitment to permanently conserve ag land elsewhere that results in no net loss of agricultural resource land so if there's a de-designation one area there would need to be a designation redesignation protection in another area so that we're not having a net loss when there's potential concerns about is there enough demand for the capacity in the first instance so that's why i support a no net loss approach on both sides on the one hand one acre of qualifying ag land permanently conserved for every acre designated land that is converted while preserving the uga acreage and housing you know population employment capacity that's being proposed to be adopted through this comp plan update i also wanted to ensure that our tdr proposal includes a date certain and a fallback in case there isn't something durable so we don't

36:03 end up in a situation where we vote to agree with certain ag landy designation but there's not really an enforceable or durable tdr process then that tdr process and come to fruition and so then it's essentially the uga you know is expanded regardless without that intentionality of the ag conservation goals and i think we saw that with our last round where we said yes we were voting to approve these various de-designations of ag land tied to a tdr program and then the council agreed with the de-designation but took out our recommendation about tying it to tdr so that's my reasoning for wanting to propose a more specific and hopefully durable connection of voting to de-designate certain ag lands with on the one hand voting to update this policy saying it's expressly being subject to a tdr so i think that's something that we're going to continue to work on as we go forward

37:03 so there's no net loss of ag land i know that's a lot but that's i put some thought into it so with that said let's just we're going to get there so we're going to start with number five thank you for the for that part of that commissioner uh so we're going to start with the canvas uga which includes a d-dex nation of agricultural resource land and a uga a uga expansion to the east for housing so with that said we're going to discuss that one so if there's discussion about the tdr and whatever this is where that begins but we're going to specifically start with each one of these so commissioner barker go ahead this is commissioner barker i i'm i'm sorry chair but i think to go forward with alicia's recommendation we need to go to number 33 the chapter one and get that revision at 1.124 put in place before we go forward with any discussion of any designated land this is commissioner leduc montgomery i agree i think a fastest approach or a streamlined approach would be

38:02 to go to that um section i propose this policy and then whether or not it's adopted we can then quickly vote on the others in light of whatever the outcome is okay so let's jump to page five which is number 33 uh chapter one land use element uh we went through all these chapters before um so i would take your amendment alicia however you want to do that and we could vote on that up or you could go back okay can can we discuss oh yeah sure we're doing 33 now 33 yeah by discussing the tdr yes yeah correct okay uh this commissioner haroon um so i liked what we passed originally i would recommend that we go back and just send back what we passed originally there was quite a bit of debate and thought about that the no net loss provision is a death nail to the development because in in essence what you're saying is you're gonna have to go find some

39:02 you're gonna have to parcel together like if you have 100 acres or 500 acres you're gonna have to go purchase 500 r5 lots and designate them permanently agricultural land and it's economically infeasible because all of a sudden your your cost per acre goes to an extraordinary amount your 700 000 or 100 000 and so so what happens is it's just a backdoor way of just killing any any of the de-designation so that's so versus taking large portions of agricultural land in um that you can purchase in blocks and we're talking about the the farmers are are putting a permanent covenant easement however that the tdr program works um it makes it more viable for the farmer um and it helps

40:00 with the ag the existing agriculture and it ensures that that in perpetuity is going to remain agricultural and productive agricultural land the the the no net loss provision is a poison pill to any development because you cannot functionally purchase um stuff that's zoned for residential and um and then flip it to agricultural um to do that so so 100 on board for the tdr program i like it because i think it helps the farmers i think we can get larger blocks of land that's more functional um and um i like what we had passed originally um but um i appreciate the spirit of the no net loss um but i live in a there's a practicality to it that it needs to be functional um as well so that's kind of my that's my concern i'm yeah okay commissioner barker you yeah so commissioner i i think you're

40:59 mistaken somewhat in the context of this this is the purchase of development rights not the purchase of the land this is only the idea of having the tdr program buy up the development rights of some other parcel for the sake of moving forward into the de-designation aspect of it so it isn't the full-blown purchase it's whatever number is an agreeable number for the sake of getting that purchase of development rights taken off of a new parcel and then added back into the ability to develop in the ag land that has become de-designated i appreciate i appreciate your thought process there but it's just kind of a distinction without a difference in that if you take the de-designation aspect of it and you take the de-designation aspect of it and you take the de-designation aspect of it and you take if you if you take a parcel that you could build a house on and then make it so you cannot

41:58 build a house on it right you you're not you're stripping all of the value so whether or not you're taking physical custody of the land you've stripped the value from the land so it's the same thing in residential building right now a one acre parcel a three acre parcel and a five acre parcel and a five acre parcel and a five acre parcel and a five acre parcel and a five acre parcel and a five acre parcel and a five acre parcel it's about the it's about the authority to be able to it's about the it's about the authority to be able to build a single family house there so it doesn't build a single family house there so it doesn't matter the parcel size so um if that if i'm trying matter the parcel size so um if that if i'm trying to to to answer your your your concern there but to to answer your your your concern there but the the that's the no what happens with the no net the the that's the no what happens with the no net loss provision if you're just if you you're loss provision if you're just if you you're stripping out the ability to make it a viable stripping out the ability to make it a viable product does that make sense no it doesn't make sense to me because in the context what you're doing is you're you're changing the hierarchy of

42:58 what it's used for so you're saying in the context that there's the ability to put a single family dwelling on it and what we're saying is through the purchase of the development right now the highest utilization for it remains in the context of agricultural production um over the long term in the but then you would know but then you would know longer be able to put a single family longer be able to put a single family house there house there that's right because you purchased that that's right because you purchased that development which makes the land development which makes the land fairly worthless from a development fairly worthless from a development um um all right so i guess we're back to the all right so i guess we're back to the idea of saying highest and best use in idea of saying highest and best use in your in your estimation the aspect of your in your estimation the aspect of highest and best use is only if you highest and best use is only if you build some development on it a single build some development on it a single family dwelling or whatever the case is family dwelling or whatever the case is i think what alicia pointed to though is i think what alicia pointed to though is there's pretty strong language already in

43:56 there's pretty strong language already in the state law about needing to the state law about needing to preserve and to utilize preserve and to utilize that so that so we have already just recently had uh in we have already just recently had uh in the county the county a particular farm get the purchase of a particular farm get the purchase of development rights come off of it from development rights come off of it from farmland trust i think it was farmland trust i think it was joy farm something like that joy farm something like that um in the um in the in that regard uh they made a in that regard uh they made a conscious choice conscious choice they weren't in the context of they weren't in the context of making their land less valuable to them making their land less valuable to them what it does is it allows them what it does is it allows them the ability to get paid up front for them the ability to get paid up front for them to be able to do more with it to be able to do more with it so this is only for people this is for so this is only for people this is for only people that only people that want to agree to it though jack and i want to agree to it though jack and i think what you're doing is you're think what you're doing is you're saying you're making their decision for them saying you're making their decision for them by saying that the only way that by saying you're making their decision for them by saying that the only way that they can make money on that land in they can make money on that land in your estimation is if they decide to your estimation is if they decide to convert it

44:55 convert it no you're and this is no you're and this is and what i'm talking about is the code and what i'm talking about is the code language specifically but what you just language specifically but what you just referred to referred to um of the the farmer permanently sold um of the the farmer permanently sold their development rights their development rights okay um that's exact but it was already okay um that's exact but it was already zoned ag zoned ag the land the farm was already nagged land the land the farm was already nagged land and what i'm saying is and what i'm saying is that that's exactly what the original that that's exactly what the original stuff that we passed stuff that we passed allowed to do that we go to that farmer allowed to do that we go to that farmer say hey you got this farm say hey you got this farm we're going to purchase any future we're going to purchase any future development rights at the zoning chain development rights at the zoning chain this will permanently be ag um and then this will permanently be ag um and then here's here's um you know some financial here's here's um you know some financial consideration for that consideration for that what so so there was there wasn't in what so so there was there wasn't in in this case with a no net loss in this case with a no net loss it wouldn't apply okay because um it wouldn't apply okay because um because what what my understanding of because what what my understanding of the code language um um that allows the code language um um that allows alicia's proposed is alicia's proposed is we then have to go find land that is not

45:54 we then have to go find land that is not currently zoned agriculture currently zoned agriculture purchase those development rights and purchase those development rights and turn it into agriculture turn it into agriculture and so and that's that's that's a concern i and so and that's that's that's a concern i have have which makes it financially infeasible and you won't which makes it financially infeasible and you won't the the program won't work so it's the the program won't work so it's the no net loss is what i have no net loss is what i have real concerns with some of the timeline real concerns with some of the timeline stuff i think i want to look at stuff i think i want to look at the whole clock on the the whole clock on the adoption and how quickly you know adoption and how quickly you know it can be implemented but that's it can be implemented but that's um and that's why i like the original um and that's why i like the original language that we originally approved language that we originally approved any other discussions on it on this any other discussions on it on this commissioner leduc montgomery i think commissioner leduc montgomery i think there's another perspective which is there's another perspective which is what what we pass or you know refer to what what we pass or you know refer to the council and then gets passed the council and then gets passed is also there's already a legal is also there's already a legal challenge in court and i think that challenge in court and i think that absent absent a no net loss provision it's going to be a a no net loss provision it's going to be a lot less defensible before

46:53 lot less defensible before the hearings board or any appeal for the hearings board or any appeal for the county the county that it's taken this long and then that it's taken this long and then we're still getting to a place of an we're still getting to a place of an alternative to alternative to and all this de-designation that isn't and all this de-designation that isn't really fully supported really fully supported by the full record going back through this by the full record going back through this whole process whole process you you understand that it doesn't work that you you understand that it doesn't work that that a tdr with a no net loss that that a tdr with a no net loss does not work does not work that that a tdr with a no net loss does not work i don't agree with i don't agree with that well okay explain to me how the that well okay explain to me how the finances work finances work behind that it doesn't it doesn't work behind that it doesn't it doesn't work this is this is a really big deal this is this is a really big deal because because yeah um we have these cities that yeah um we have these cities that desperately need this land desperately need this land and and then you make it financially and and then you make it financially infeasible for that to be developed infeasible for that to be developed because they would then have to go find because they would then have to go find something that's something that's non-resourced land and so we're not helping the existing non-resourced land and so we're not helping the existing farmer we're finding somebody somebody that has has developable land that's or non-resource that has has developable land that's or non-resource that has has developable land that's or non-resource land land right and then asking them to convert it right and then asking them to convert it

47:52 right and then asking them to convert it to um undevelopable land or you know it'd to um undevelopable land or you know it'd to um undevelopable land or you know it'd be agricultural land be agricultural land be agricultural land um and then the the finances behind that um and then the the finances behind that um and then the the finances behind that work because work because work because because you're saying hey can i give you because you're saying hey can i give you because you're saying hey can i give you x amount of dollars for you never to x amount of dollars for you never to x amount of dollars for you never to develop here and you're like well this develop here and you're like well this develop here and you're like well this is what the land's worth is what the land's worth is what the land's worth so and if you strip those rights away so and if you strip those rights away so and if you strip those rights away you strip all the value away you strip all the value away you strip all the value away so you would have to renew renumerate so you would have to renew renumerate so you would have to renew renumerate that which then doesn't work that which then doesn't work that which then doesn't work from a development standpoint from a development standpoint from a development standpoint for the for the developer so it for the for the developer so it for the for the developer so it it doesn't work and i want to pass it doesn't work and i want to pass something that actually something that actually something that actually can work and that actually helps our can work and that actually helps our can work and that actually helps our current agricultural committee so that's current agricultural committee so that's current agricultural committee so that's it's a big deal the no net loss thing is it's a big deal the no net loss thing is it's a big deal the no net loss thing is a is a huge deal a is a huge deal a is a huge deal so i guess just to clarify in your mind so i guess just to clarify in your mind so i guess just to clarify in your mind if somebody had land that was zoned say if somebody had land that was zoned say if somebody had land that was zoned say residential but they were using a large residential but they were using a large residential but they were using a large portion of it for agricultural uses

48:54 because that person just wouldn't agree to it. Right. So let's say you have 40 acres, and it's all zoned residential. It's worth, I don't know, I want to say right now, like $500,000 an acre. If it's agricultural land, it's probably worth $30,000 an acre, $20,000 an acre. So there's a $470,000 nexus that you would have to then purchase those rights for for it to be even-steven, right? I guess where I'm coming from is-- So unless they're altruistic and go, well, I'm 80 years old, and I wanted to keep them farming, but that's different. And I'm just looking at it from an economic standpoint. Right. And I'm saying economically, some people do actually value agricultural use on residential properties such that they would agree to something like that, because they do want to conserve agricultural uses. I'm not disagreeing that there is definitely

49:54 people like that. I'm just saying from a marketplace standpoint. I mean, you're looking for the unicorns versus the-- and I've read some articles with the data center people telling them they were offered $20 million, but they took two and put it into permanent conservation. And I applaud them for it. But I'm saying from a market reality, from a functional market, which is what we're trying to create with a TDR, that doesn't work. I mean, I would do it with my own land. I currently have residential property in Clark County, and I use half of it for agricultural purposes. We raise turkeys. We have an orchard. We have gardens. And I would sign up for this program. I'm not disagreeing with you that there are individuals that value that. But I'm just saying at scale, it falls apart. I guess we've heard so much public comment and participation in this whole process that it sounds like there is a significant portion

50:52 of the community that does value the agricultural aspect of land use in Clark County that there probably would be a market for it. And I'm also concerned about the basis for the UGA expansions absent a no net loss from a legal standpoint where we're talking about it being challenged. And so that's just kind of my final position on it is I think no net loss is the most legally defensible. And it's consistent with a significant amount of public-- public feedback, and the Ag Commission study, and the vacant buildable lands model. To me, it's that middle path that is the most defensible approach to trying to address this issue. Any more discussion on this? I do have something in that regard. This is Commissioner Barca. I guess I would look at it right now as the Planning Commission has a lot of very difficult decisions in regards to the aspect of its--

51:51 it's hardly ever the case where we have a full win-win and everybody's happy with what the outcome is. We are the arbitrators of somebody being disappointed somewhere along the line. But what I see with this is our opportunity, Jack, is the idea of give the people that are interested, whether they're unicorns or maybe they're much more available in the marketplace than you think, give them an opportunity to participate in the program. And the way that Alicia has put the wording in place is if the program is not viable in that regard, then it collapses back to the idea of the jurisdictions either get a purchase of development rights on their own that they're able to pull forward, or that the land reverts into the UGA and that's a closed deal and it never happens again. So I think the way that we're looking at this,

52:50 the way that Alicia worded it, we're putting it into the context of having some belief system that there is going to be able to be a TDR program with purchase rights that would be viable based on what the county did and come forward. If we go back to the aspect of what you're saying is, I have the same concern as Alicia already spoke on the idea that it's much more along the line of-- the development community will see that there's an opportunity to go forward, but I don't think we're having the strength of presenting this growth plan to the state for review and have it hold up in that regard. So to me, if we don't have a very viable program that we believe that the public is asking for and we're going forward in that regard, then we're really in a position that says,

53:50 we don't have the foundation for us to be able to even bring in any of this designated land. So in the land use element, we have a TDR that's been placed in it. That's the one you're looking at right now, correct? 1.1.24, whatever. Is that correct? Yeah. So what would seem to be the disagreement here is, it sounds like some of us want to put in something more added to this, or we approve the land use element with a TDR already in it. So to get moving on this, I can see everybody's position, it seems to be. I would entertain a motion to either accept the land use element chapter as is with the TDR program that you're looking at on the board.

54:49 Or not. And I want to be very clear, if we make a motion that says, I want to add this, and then we say no, it's voted down, we're going to have a land use chapter that's messed up. So my point is, be careful in how we make this motion. So whoever makes the motion, they make the motion. But the reality is, is there's a TDR right there. And to me, it has-- I'm reading timelines, full implementation. There's no limitation of transfer of development rights and any requirements or limitations placed on the expansion area at such time the TDR program is implemented. We don't have this until we approve this chapter. And we're going to be approving, or not approving, de-designations. So these are happening simultaneously. So I'm looking for a motion that either up or down on the land use element, as is with the TDR, or not. Is this Commissioner Arum? This is Commissioner Arum.

55:48 All right, I move that we accept the TDR as written and as in the record in 1.124. And can you add and approve chapter 1? Would you fairly amend-- I mean, we're approving the land use element. And approving the land use element, yes. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner, if I had a second. We have a motion and a second to approve chapter 1 of the land use element-- I'll have some discussion-- land use element with the TDR-- that is currently written in front of us, 1.124. OK, that's the motion, and seconded on the table. Discussion? Thank you, Commissioner LeDuc-Montgomery. I think I'd read this provision, and I'm glad that there is a starting point included. But my concerns remain the same, that it doesn't have specific dates certain, and it feels a little too nebulous. And I'm concerned about durability here. And so I had proposed some dates certain, and again, the no,

56:48 net loss aspect to me is really important for a legal defensibility standpoint to be able to feel confident in voting to approve these multiple agricultural land de-designations. And so that's where I just wasn't fully comfortable going with a de-designation vote with the current starting point language. And so I took that and tried to expand on it to make it a little bit more durable to where I felt comfortable. And so that's where I was wanting to propose the language I read earlier to basically replace what's in the 1.124 in front of us. We currently have a motion and a second to accept the land use element with the existing TDR. So unless there's a friendly amendment added to that, which probably not, I'm looking for a roll call. And let's wait. Is there any more discussion? Ron?

57:47 Well, I'm concerned-- Who are you? Yeah. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Halbert here. I'm just concerned. I think, Alicia, you need to make an amendment at this point. And then we vote on that amendment to accept your language changes here or not, and then come back and approve the whole chapter. I have some concerns over your language also, and that I'd like to know more about it and the impacts of it. And you know, Jack's brought some-- you know, some valid points up. And I'd like to know that-- have some time to figure out the economic impacts of actually implementing a lot of shells in that-- shell dues in that no net loss language. And so just I'm struggling with it from that standpoint without having the chance to absorb it and understand how it actually is implemented in the process here. So--

58:47 Does that make sense to make-- Yes, it does. The only way I think we can get around that is withdraw the motion and vote on Alicia's amendment or whatever, and then redo that if the motion is willing to be withdrawn. I would like to vote on the motion. OK. The motion's on the table. Can we get a roll call, please, Jeff? Brian Albert? Excuse me, but what-- Commissioner Halbert, what motion are-- Chapter 1-- Just Chapter 1. --approving as presented. --as presented, Landry's element. Yeah, as presented. Thank you. Aye. Mark Bergfold? Aye. Kyle Fadness? Aye. Ron Barca? No. Jack Caron? Aye. Alicia LeDuc-Montgomery? No. Carl Johnson? Aye. 5-2. Motion passes on Chapter 1. Now we can write that in. Now what we can do is understanding that the TDR that we have approved just now, you're looking at it, would apply--

59:47 correct me, right? That's what we're doing. We're putting that TDR over the top of these de-designations. Correct, Jose? So when I'm approving or disapproving these de-designations, it's with the understanding that the TDR that is written in the land use 1.1.24 is part of that. That's my understanding of how that works. That's good. OK. Moving ahead then, we're going to start with number five, CAMA. CAMAS, UGA. Include the de-designation of agriculture resource land in UGA. Can we flip that map up? I'm assuming that is the one to the east of-- between Washougal and CAMAS. There it is, the big square there. This is Commissioner Harun. On here it says expansion to the east for housing. My understanding was that CAMAS had changed that, like,

1:00:46 an original-- it was like a mixed use. Was that correct? I believe they-- after we did the DEIS, they proposed a change to non-residential use. And so non-residential use was not studied in the DEIS. Any discussion on the AG? And it also would be a good time also, just to reiterate, positions on TDRs, too, as we go through these, for the record. This is Commissioner Fanas. I just want to make sure, Jose, that doesn't affect-- since it wasn't studied in the DEIS, that does not affect us in that aspect, that it would be zoned commercial instead of residential. I think--

1:01:46 So the-- at this-- you're not making a motion to change the zoning if, upon annexation, a city decided to change the zoning, this process will have long terminated. OK. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure that it didn't affect us. Any other discussions on the CAMAS, anyone? This is Commissioner Barka. Just for the record, then, based on the vote that we just took on the land use-- land use chapter, I don't think any of the de-designated parcels are going to be viable based on what the county needs to do. So I'll be voting no on all of them. OK. Commissioner LeDuc-Montgomery and the same position, for the same reasons I kind of already discussed. And I just think, from a defensibility standpoint, without the no net loss, I don't think things are going to be on a strong position. Any other discussions on this? Just real quick, I just want to reiterate,

1:02:45 a point that I had brought up a long time ago. The land is already-- half of the land that they're asking to bring in is already five acre parcels, gentlemen farms. And it will get developed as McMansions ranches. I think having either its housing density or commercial use is going to be much better use of that property. So I would be voting no. To let them bring it in. I would take a motion or a second, unless there's more discussion. Commissioner Heroun, I move that we approve number five to include the campus UGA, the de-designation land. Commissioner Fadness, I'll second. We have a motion to second, Jeff. Can we have a roll call, please? Brian Halpert. Aye. Mark Burgfold. Aye.

1:03:45 Kyle Fadness. Aye. Ron Barca. No. Jack Caroon. Aye. Leisha LaDuke Montgomery. No. Carl Johnson. No. 4 to 3. 4 to 3 passes. 4 to 3. OK, we're moving on to the next one. LeCenter, UGA, de-designate agricultural resource lands and expand the UGA to the north of additional employment capacity. Any discussion or motion in seconds? This is Commissioner Fadness. I just couldn't remember when we had-- we had done the initial vote on this one. Did we vote to approve? Yes. OK. This is Oliver. You voted to approve with the-- tying into the TDR motion as was in your previous motion. And we can pull that up so that you can see that, if you like. That's OK. I just wanted to confirm. Yes. Any other discussion?

1:04:45 For a motion or a second? Commissioner Halbert, I make a motion that we accept LeCenter, UGA, number 6 here to de-designate agricultural lands. Commissioner Bergfold, I'll second that. We have a motion to second. Jeff, can we get a roll call, please? Brian Halbert. Aye. Mark Bergfold. Aye. Kyle Fadness. Aye. Ron Barca. No. Jack Caron. Aye. Lee Shula, Duke Montgomery. No. Carl Johnson. Aye. 5 to 2. 5 to 2 passes. Moving on. LeCenter, UGA, designate agriculture resource lands and expand the UGA to the southwest for additional employment capacity. Discussion or motion? Commissioner Halbert. Can you slow down just a little bit, please? Yes, I sure will. No problem. I was just reading it, Sandy. Sorry. Go ahead.

1:05:44 Commissioner Halbert here. Hey, on this one, I just don't recall, again, like you were asking, Kyle, how did we deal with this particular one last time? I couldn't even find that we voted on this one last time. At least -- I thought we did. I thought we -- We did. Yeah. This is Commissioner -- This is another donut, right? No. This was the one that goes down to the south on the west side of the highway. Oh. Okay. So Commissioner Barca had brought up a point, I believe, of the center getting hemmed in by the tribe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner, and, you know, this one I had trouble with seeing bringing this one into the center urban growth area. It just -- it seems like an expansion, like, way off, kind of not within the center of

1:06:42 -- of the center development there. I do understand the concern of getting hemmed in by the tribal lands expansion, but I do have difficulties with seeing this one come into the UGA myself. I've seen the center with schools and everything constantly try to go from the town down the hill and up towards the casino, so I understand that it's out there, but there's a history of the center. And the center schools and everybody else trying to get that connection to I-5. So I think this is the attempt, as best I can see. That was just my two cents. So either way, we're still back to where we were. It's an agricultural de-designation. Again, I'll look for a motion and a second. This is Commissioner Haroon. I will move that we accept the number seven, the center de-designation of agricultural resource land to the southwest for additional employment capacity.

1:07:42 We have a motion. Can I get a second, please? Commissioner Bergfold, I'll make a second. We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call? Brian Halbert. Aye. Mark Bergfold. Aye. Kyle Fadlis. No. Ron Barca. No. Jack Caroon. Aye. Oeshula Duke-Montgomery. No. Carl Johnson. Aye. 4-3. Okay. Moving on to number eight, Richfield UGA. This is the first de-designation for Richfield Agricultural Resource Lands and expanding the UGA to the north for additional employment and housing capacity. Discussion? Whoa. Which one was this? This was the little one or the big one? Big blue. Okay. Any discussion? I think Steve did a pretty good job in explaining this.

1:08:41 I thought it was really -- it was like made a good point. So a motion. This is Commissioner Haroun. Number eight, I recommend that we approve the de-designation of Agricultural Resource Lands and expand the UGA to the north for additional employment and housing capacity. We have a motion. Can I get a second, please? Commissioner Halbert, I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Can we get a vote, Jeff? Ryan Halbert? Aye. Mark Birkvold? Aye. Kyle Fadness? No. Ron Barca? No. Jack Caron? Aye. Alisha LaDuke Montgomery? No. Carl Johnson? Aye. Four-three. Number nine, the second Richfield expansion of de-designation of Agricultural Resource Lands and expand the UGA to the southwest for additional housing capacity. This has been referred as the mall property. A little piece right there, I believe it. Again, discussion or motion?

1:09:41 Is that the donut hole? Commissioner Halbert, I was going to ask the same question. Is that the donut hole property that we've talked about? I think that's one of the many donut holes we've talked about. That's correct. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, any discussion? Motion? Seconds? Something? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion?

1:10:41 No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay.

1:11:41 Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay.

1:17:41 Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No.

1:18:41 Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No.

1:54:41 Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion?

1:55:41 No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion?

3:36:40 Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion? No. Okay. Any discussion?

Topic	Confidence	Timestamp	Keywords
building_development	direct	2:32	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	8:04	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	10:12	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	11:42	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	13:08	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	15:58	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	19:52	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	28:09	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	33:28	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	37:16	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	45:26	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	51:00	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	52:43	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	1:01:49	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	1:06:52	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
building_development	direct	1:08:54	zoning, annexation, comprehensive plan, density, uga, UGA, traffic impact, capital facilities	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	0:29	public comment, public testimony, public hearing, Public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	3:03	public comment, public testimony, public hearing, Public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	5:52	public comment, public testimony, public hearing, Public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	7:55	public comment, public testimony, public hearing, Public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	29:15	interlocal agreement	View
surveillance_flock	direct	26:59	cameras	View

Clark County Planning Commission

Documents

Agenda

Slides / on-screen documents

Discussions