Clark County Council

0:00 >> Good evening and welcome everyone. Calling to order the Clark County Council, Monday, April 27th, 2026. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance if you join me in standing. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, amen. >> Thank you, and then moving on to the roll call. Michelle? >> Yes. >> Council Young? >> Here. >> Councilor Belcott? >> Present. >> Councilor Fuentes? >> Here. >> Councilor Little? >> Present. >> And Chair Marshall? >> Here. >> Thank you. Okay, before we get started, I have a little explaining to do.

0:58 This is a public hearing on the preferred land use alternative for the comprehensive plan update. The planning department will give a brief overview. We'll open it to public comments and the elected officials have asked to go first and we're going to accommodate their request. And then also, we've had a request from one of our boards and commissions to go following the electeds. And out of courtesy, we'll accommodate that. I think it would just be the Ag Commission and Deeb. So if there are people from those that will represent a position that they have taken, that would be welcome at that time. And then it doesn't mean you get more than three minutes, though. Everybody gets the same three minutes unless, and I think we have a reasonable size crowd that everybody could have their three minutes.

1:56 Unless someone wants to shorten that time or put a time limit on it, we're okay? Great. Okay, with that, I'll turn it over to Oliver and Jose.

2:10 >> Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Clark County Council. Before I start, I will turn it over to the county manager to say a few things. >> Yeah, I just wanted to remind council and the public that this has been a very lengthy process. Council's been working on the comp plan updates since 2022. There's been a lot of intentional and thoughtful work done by our staff, by our city partners and other partners in the community. And as the Chair said, tonight's a time for the council to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission with regards to the selection of the preferred land use alternatives. So at this time, I just want to send this over to our incredible staff here and have them lead us in this process tonight. So thank you. >> Thank you, Kathleen.

3:06 Again, thank you again, Councillors, for the record, Oliver, Ojiako. And with me this afternoon is Jose Alvarez, our program manager when it comes to land use planning in my shop. I just have very few brief remarks to make. And then we'll go over the few slides that we have and then get to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Councillors, as the county manager indicated, I just want to focus just briefly on process. The process to this periodic update, 2025 to 2045 planning period, began with the completion of the 2022 buildable lands report.

4:06 That report was submitted to the Washington Department of Commerce. And consistent with the commerce guideline or guidance on preparing that report, that guidance was published in 2019. Following the passage of E2-SSB 5254. Councillors, after that bill was passed by the legislature, the Department of Commerce put out their guidance. The council appointed a technical advisory group to review our current tool that we use known as the vacant buildable lands model. And we hired a consultant, Eco Northwest.

5:01 And they went through almost 18 months reviewing our current model. And following the guidance from commerce, helped the county and the cities to fulfill that obligation to provide evaluation of what have happened in the last five years. And doing so require us to collect data on building information what have occurred on the ground. Comparing that to the various assumptions that went into the development of the current plan. That evaluation, Councillor says that that should be completed. And I'm reading from RCW 367125 section.

5:59 Always known as section 215B sub B. The evaluation shall be completed no later than three years prior to the deadline for the review. And if necessary, update the completion of the comprehensive plan and development regulations, which require us in section RCW 367130. That is the provision that, as I have come before you often and say that Clark County is one of the counties required to plan fully under the Growth Management Act. It is the I-5 corridor counties, so we are one of the counties required to fully plan under the Growth Management Act.

6:55 So when we completed that report, we send it to Commerce. At the time I made an observation that that action is a GMA action and also appealable. No one appealed that report when it was submitted to the state. As a result of that provision, we completed that report three years before we started. It doesn't say have to study the next day. But in 2022, or before I get to 2022, we started after that report was completed. We began the conversation with our local jurisdiction. We have under section 30 to complete our update. And remember that provision says review and

7:53 if necessary, update your comprehensive plan and the associated development regulation. So we started that conversation with our cities. And in January of 2023, we had a kickoff in this room, whereby we invited the director of the Growth Management Division at Commerce, Mr. Dave Anderson, to come and give us what we need to understand. Because we had newly elected councilors at the time, we want to do this kickoff not only to their benefit, but also to the benefit of other elected officials and our city partners. Some of them attended. Councilor Marshall, I know you were in the audience and the county manager welcomed

8:52 Dave and the staff from Commerce. After that kickoff, in 2023, we started meeting monthly with all our local jurisdictions. And I want to give them special thanks for the coordination, the consultation, and the cooperation with the county staff. It has been a very wonderful process and I appreciate working with all the local jurisdictions. And the role of the county is to pick the population we have to plan for. And also, the job numbers we have to plan for. And the council did that.

9:44 You picked a population of 718,154 for end year of 2045. That doesn't mean we are planning for 700 and just the difference from the base year to the end year, which is about 200,000 or less, because we are now at about a little bit over 500 plus current population in Clark County. So if you add the difference, that's what gets us to the population number that the council picked. You also picked a job number of 88,000, I'll round it up to 88,100. Following that decision, we worked with our local jurisdictions and went through multiple hearings, multiple meetings before

10:43 the council approved the allocation that went to all the, that was county wide. So every jurisdiction knows what they're planning for in terms of both housing unit and jobs. What I will say in terms of job is that there is unlike population where we have to rely on the Washington State Office of Financial Management. We historically have gone to Washington Employment Department and rely on Scott Bailey, who is a labor economist. No one have objected to that. It is Scott that provide us the number of job we have to plan for. And the council or the county have made a concerted policy choice that

11:39 you want to be, because as you're planning for rooftops, you also have to plan for a job associated with that. It's always been the county aspiration or policy to get us to a one to one ratio. In terms of job housing balance, I don't have to tell the council, but you know that majority of our county resident crosses the river to work. So our housing balance have not been one to one, but this is a policy choice that the council have made that you would like us to get to close to 1.1. And following that allocation, there were so many bills that the legislature passed, particularly to address issue of

12:35 the housing crisis that is not unique to Clark County, but all over. They put a group together that came up with the fact that the state of Washington would need to produce a 1 million housing unit in the next 20 years. They came to that conclusion by including what they considered as existing deficiencies, if you will, plus what we needed in the future. And that resulted in the HAP tool, and Jose can explain that much better. But the Department of Commerce came up with that tool. Every county planning under the GMA, hence you picked your population. You plug in your number, it gives you how many unit or

13:34 your share of that 1 million unit. Our number came to 103,000 new housing unit plus or minus. Other bill that the legislature passed is House Bill 1110. That is the one that gets you to ADU. They made provisions and asked local governments to update their development regulation to account for that bill. They also passed House Bill 1220 that gets to the middle housing. And if you read the intent of that, it gets to the heart that local government have zoned predominantly single family, which appears to be exclusively for single family building.

14:30 That we have to open that as a way of change to allow for what is known as middle housing, allowing for a variety of housing choices. I commend the council for working with us, passing the HOSAP study, and then giving us money through the upper funding to implement that plan. I don't have to say, but the council did make changes to our housing and title 40 code, which allows for a variety of housing type. Now, when that bill passed, there were some people calling me, some folks calling me, this means the death of single family construction in the county, my response was no, it doesn't mean that.

15:24 All this means is what we have been doing have not been working. If you zone these areas exclusively for single family, there is no option to do any other type of housing. And the foresight of our council allowing us to do that HOSAP study and then the changes that you made, that's why I'm relying on process. All those things were approved and you, the council approved that. Now you can allow duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhouses, cottage housing, and other variety of housing type in the single family zone. That's as a result of the House Bill 1110 and 1220. The other legislation, the other bill that the legislature passed,

16:21 which was the climate bill, the climate bill passed very late. And that's why the legislature gave us another six months to complete the plan because the original date by statute was June of 2025. They gave us additional six months because they passed that climate bill very late, extending it to December of 2025. Now, what is before you, as the county manager indicated is a very complex. I know we provided you a link to all the documents relating to this hearing. I will assume that you've read it.

17:15 So what is before you is the recommendation of the Planning Commission. You had a joint hearing with the Planning Commission, two joint hearings, one on January 8th and also on January 15th. You went away, the Planning Commission made their deliberation and arrived at this recommendation that is before you. I know we had a work session where some Planning Commission members appeared before you and tried to answer questions as to why they voted the way they voted, but that is what is before you. So let's go to the next slide.

18:06 This is the just very quick overview of our presentation this evening. The background SIPA and GMA connection. There's not much I can say, except that they have been, what I may call a migration or combination of SIPA and GMA. So now we are required on such a project to do environmental impact statement and final EIS. So you have the Planning Commission and then we'll talk about next steps. Let's go to the counselors. You have seen this, I will continue to show it until the gavel comes down. This is the project schedule. We have four phases.

19:03 We are where we have the box, the selection of preferred alternative. I'm not gonna go into phase one, two, and three, and four. That's where we are. With the selection of the preferred, we will move into the real technical analysis of doing the final EIS. And then updating our various chapters. And then that will also include working with our consultant. We have two consultant now, one working on the environmental and one working on capital facilities plan and the transportation analysis to support the land use that the council selects. That will then keep us moving into the final phase of adoption. We say final date of adoption date to be determined. I'm not gonna go into any of that.

19:59 I think we have worked with council to get to a schedule, which I don't know what's gonna happen to, but I'm not gonna go there. Our legal council may ask a question if you have. So let's go to the next slide. So these are the decision, some of these decision are already my opening remark. But we started this process with, because it's required in the law that we have a public participation plan, which the council approved by resolution. And we have followed that public participation plan, providing opportunity for the public to continue to comment on the process before the final decision is made. I talked about the population where the council chose 7, 18, 154. I'm glad I didn't miss that up.

20:58 And then the employment, even though it says at 269, that is the total job expected by 2045. The number we are planning for is 88,100. I talked about the housing and employment allocation by UGA. The council have seen that. If you recall, you had several meetings. And like I said earlier, I commend all our city partners. They made an adjustment, if you recall, for cameras. And then we went into the scoping and then the selection of alternative to be studied in the DEIS. As part of that, I give credit to our city partners.

21:56 But because the cities did include land designated as agriculture, that led to multiple hearings and workshops. And the council then agreed, because there have been changes made to the GMA, that you are no longer required to do ag on a parcel-by-parcel basis, or even by area-wide, that it has to be county-wide. And the council agreed to commence an ag study, which was completed and presented to council. So let's go to the next slide. Jose can talk about this later, but let's go to the next slide. We can come back to this if there are questions. So let's go to the next slide.

22:52 I would like Jose to begin using either the table to help the council understand the recommendation of the Planning Commission, or you can also present that same information by looking at maps. So you see each of the decisions that the PC made by map and by jurisdiction. So whichever, Jose, you want to start with, go ahead. Thank you for listening to me. I think I took longer than I wanted to, but thank you.

23:30 I'll just begin with the preferred alternative map and just really highlight the two differences from alternative two that the Planning Commission recommended. And then we can get into the table as we're going through the decision-making process. So in Yakult originally, there was some proposed expansions for residential, and the Planning Commission recommended not to include those. So they just recommended this area highlighted in red for an expansion for employment, because the area in gray

24:28 to the right is currently designated for employment, but is being considered for park land. And so with that loss, there is going to be a need for additional employment.

24:52 And then in Battleground, the area highlighted in green with the green diagonals was part of Metal Glade that Battleground wanted to have removed from their urban growth area, and the Planning Commission recommended retaining that area. And so that was the second recommendation that was made by the Planning Commission. And then the third involved the areas in the Vancouver urban growth area. East of WSU along Northeast 50th, there was originally a proposal for expansion in this area for employment. And then also an area north of 179th along 10th

25:52 to bring that area in for employment, and they recommended not including that as well. That's the summary of the changes. I'll go back to the presentation just to highlight one other recommendation that was made by the Planning Commission. And that's if the council looks at bringing in any land for agricultural de-designation, sort of have that conjoined with a TDR program. And that's there and was approved five to two.

26:49 And so all of these individual decisions were taken, and we can go through those when you're beginning the deliberation after you hear from the public.

27:08 OK. Is there a question? Yeah, sure. In your discussions with the cities, do you have any newer employment and housing allocation numbers or adjustments? Who's speaking? Oh, this is Matt Little. Sorry. So since the DEIS, we've been having conversations with the jurisdictions, and they have provided us some adjustments to estimating capacity in their UGAs. And we can share that with you this evening as well. Are there any immediate questions from council? If not, I think we can move into the public comment period. And just a reminder to everyone and for the benefit of our court reporter, please state your name

28:04 before making comments or asking questions and speak slowly. And she'll remind us if we don't follow those instructions. Yes, go ahead. Councilor Young. If I might, I think it would be beneficial for staff to review what we were just talking about prior to public comment, because I think it is a substantial material change. In terms of the capacity and how that's been adjusted for jobs and housing, I think that would be good for everyone to see at this point.

28:58 [SIDE CONVERSATION]

29:24 OK, so just to give you an update. So this column B is the housing target, and that's what was allocated to the jurisdictions. And that was where the 103,695 units come from. The alternative one housing capacity was 99,839. And alternative two, there's a capacity of 142,396. So we're well over by 39,000 what the capacity total is. Based on the adjustments we received from the jurisdictions, we were able to trim that down to 112,000. Primarily, adjustments from the city of Vancouver.

30:21 Also, adjustments from the city of Richfield. And reduction from the city of Camas. And then again, the way we treat the capacity in the rural area, which is based on the existing zoning. And we've never done any down zoning. So as long as we have sufficient capacity to accommodate that, that's the total that we carry forward. The big change in the Vancouver unincorporated area, we were the last to make any adjustments based on what we received from the other jurisdictions. So included in that proposal is a reduction in some of the proposed up zoning, particularly in the 179th street area.

31:18 And the Mill Creek up zoning that was proposed. And then a reduction in the density assumptions for our low density R15, R16, and R175. That was assumed to be 14 units for all three. And that became a tier of 12 for R15, 10 for R16, and eight for R175. And then a reduction in the housing density in the Highway 99 overlay from 75 units to 40 units an acre. And so that's how we end up with that total and that 112,000. This next column, G, is including the adjustments that were made by the Planning Commission.

32:14 So that is really the re-inclusion of the Meadow Glade area in the battleground UGA. And that increases the capacity just short of 300 units. And then the removal of the expansion area in Yakult reduces their capacity by about 143 units. So in total, the two columns in the gray were from 8,600 to 8,700 over what the target is still. But we've made significant improvement. Great, and thank you for that. I think this is important information for everyone to see before they give their comments. And these are the numbers that through these years and the decisions, as they've added up, are the numbers that we're planning for.

33:14 And that even if we adopted what the Planning Commission was recommended, we'd be 8,767 over capacity. And then there's the jobs numbers.

33:35 So as Oliver mentioned, we're planning for about 88,100 jobs. Some of those jobs don't require site. They're not site-specific. It's work from home, construction, government, because our model excludes publicly owned properties. So it's not reflected in the model. So the 66,532 total jobs is what was allocated to the jurisdictions that required some land base. And alternative one, that went down to 61,000. Alternative two is 69,800. And alternative two, the job capacity with adjustments

34:34 went up to 70,000. There was some-- part of the reduction in the center was removal of some of the Cowlitz tribal land that's within the city's jurisdiction that went into trust after the DEIS was published. There's increases in the city of Richfield for their employment capacity, and so that's reflecting that 70,000. The Planning Commission recommendation, the reduction for the unincorporated Vancouver UGA from 15,900 to 14,200 is reflecting that change to remove the expansion areas in the Vancouver UGA east of WSU and then north of 179th along 10th.

35:33 And that was done primarily because the city of Vancouver showing an excess capacity of 3,200 units, and the idea would be to reallocate that portion of the unincorporated Vancouver UGA to the city and also 835 jobs that were allocated that were over allocated to Washougal based on a zoning change that wasn't captured when the model was run initially. So in total, we're over capacity on jobs by just under 1,900 jobs, and overall, with the Growth Management Act, you have a little more flexibility

36:29 with employment capacity than you do with housing, and so that's where we are with that. OK, thank you for that. Any immediate questions from the council? We'll have plenty of time to ask questions after this, but let's proceed to the public hearing. And again, I want to remind people this public hearing is strictly on the comprehensive plan update and selection of the preferred alternative, and I'd also like to remind people for the benefit of our court reporter, please state your name before making comments or asking questions. So we're going to start with the electeds, and I'll just take them alphabetically. Is there someone here from battleground who would like to speak? Please come forward. And along with stating your name,

37:27 can you please spell your last name for the court reporter as she's requested? Sure, do I need to turn this on? Yep. OK, my name is Sam Crummet, C-R-U-M-M-E-T-T. I'm the planning supervisor with the city of battleground. Thank you, Chair Marshall and council. I appreciate this process. It's in some ways impossible. It's 1,000 decisions in one process. So hats off to you for giving us another opportunity to speak to you directly. I did submit a letter into the record with details, but I'll just try to provide some broad brush strokes. I'll speak to the meadow glade issue. The city would recommend that that stays out of our urban growth boundary. The reason for that is we did an extensive study in 2021,

38:24 and we found that that area is not best suited for residential growth at this time. And it was also the sentiment of most of the residents in there. They kind of wanted things to stay status quo. So we'd like to honor that. And in terms of, I think, the challenge with housing, particularly with all the housing bills that have come from the state to support middle housing, our strategy is we found we need to up zone certain areas and provide more middle housing types. So that relieves the need to provide more land for more of the single family type housing, which we've had in the past. The meadow glade area may come in in 10, 20 years at another periodic review process. But at this time, I think to make our numbers work and with the state mandates, we need to see housing more compact instead of going outward.

39:23 And the second strategy is by taking that portion out. It really sets us up for leverage for our dollars corner expansion, which is our primary move in this comp plan update. It's primarily for jobs. But we would envision some multi-family housing in the commercial areas above that first floor commercial. So that's all kind of baked into our plans and studies. There's a few other things we could speak about in terms of the expansion area. The environmental work, those would be regulated under our critical areas when annexed to the city of battleground. And the reason why we are planning to the west is to the north is the East Fork of the Lewis River. To the east is the Cascade Mountain Range, essentially,

40:22 the foothills there. South is the Salmon Creek Greenway. So in our analysis, kind of westward is the best we can go. And thank you for the opportunity to speak. Appreciate it. Thank you. OK, Kamas. Good afternoon, Chair Marshall and Councillors. And my last name is H-E-I-N, Tim. My name is Tim Heine, Kamas City Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem. I'm here representing the city of Kamas. Mayor Hogan submitted a letter to the record last week. And I'm here to complement that with a few additional points. Before serving on council, I spent 17 years on the Kamas Planning Commission. So I can relate well to the decisions that you have to make. And thank you for all your time in addressing these. Growth management ultimately comes down to land supply and constraints.

41:22 Over the time, the land we have left in Kamas becomes more constrained. That means, for us specifically, wetlands, steep slopes, and other limitations. On paper and the maps, our capacity can look sufficient, but on the ground, it often isn't. We can't rely on underperforming or environmentally constrained land and expect to meet our growth targets. Kamas has made real progress on housing. And our 2045 plan goes further with significant upzoning, middle housing and ADUs, increased density across neighborhoods, and we are leaning into housing for all income levels, especially diversified housing. In fact, Lieutenant Governor Heck spoke about that two weeks ago in terms of being able to provide more middle housing and to free up starter homes for families that want to start out as well as families that have empty nesters that have large homes that want to decrease the size of their homes,

42:21 freeing up that housing. That's what we want to do in Kamas through diversified housing. But our community also needs jobs. We need jobs close to where people live so we can reduce commuting, and we need jobs to support a strong tax base for our services and jobs that provide incomes that allow people to afford housing. Without jobs, affordability gets worse, not better. Jobs are why Kamas is requesting two modest urban growth area expansions. First, Grow Field. Grow Field is publicly owned by the Port of Kamas Washougal. Ports are among the most effective job creators in our state with a clear mission to promote economic development and commerce. The Port of Kamas Washougal has that mandate. We look forward to working with them to turn Grow Field into a meaningful economic employment center. Second is the Nevin property. Nevin property is 160 acres, just miles from downtown Kamas. When the owners approach us, they propose

43:19 residential development. But after visiting the property and looking at our needs and our community's desires, we determined that we wanted to see jobs here. So our intent in Kamas is for the Nevin property to apply commercial land use designation. We understand this requires agricultural designation, but this is not functioning agricultural land, and it has not been for 30 years. It's surrounded by urban development and infrastructure and is already divided into 116 five-acre parcels, which is what that will become if this is not changed to support our request. Thank you very much. Thank you. OK, list center. Hello. I'm Angie Merrill. I'm sorry.

44:15 M-E-R-R-I-L-L. Good afternoon. I'm with the city of La Center. I'm the city planner. Good evening, council. The city of La Center thanks you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the 2045 comprehensive plan. Throughout the development of the comprehensive plan, city leaders and staff have repeatedly engaged public and stakeholders to hear their vision for the city of La Center. Through this outreach, we've heard several consistent messages. Maintain our small town charm and feel of downtown La Center. Focus growth near the I-5 junction, where there's adequate transportation and infrastructure to support growth. Provide family wage jobs in the city to prevent becoming a bedroom community. With these goals, the city council unanimously adopted a preferred alternative that closely mirrors

45:14 the county's alternative, too. This alternative includes targeted free zones to provide housing for all income levels, as well as targeted [AUDIO OUT] on land around I-5 corridor and providing jobs. Without these minor expansions, the city will fall short by nearly 600 jobs. The areas proposed for expansions are already characterized by urban development and are directly adjacent to I-5 and the Cowlitz reservation. The city has established a close partnership with the Cowlitz tribe and shares their vision for the junction to be a center point of entertainment, recreation, and commerce. If these areas are not brought into the city, they will be developed by the tribe and will have no way to meet the UGA state and county requirements. The city encourages the council to include all 14

46:13 de-designation criteria included in the WAC and the egg study. The criteria supports the de-designation of these lands for urban growth. The city understands and supports the need to preserve productive agricultural land with the county and continues to work with the county and other cities to develop a TDR program to allow productive agriculture to be preserved and to still allow for needed growth of urban areas within the county. We have worked hard over the past four years to develop a preferred land use alternative that meets the state and county requirements and maintains our small town charm that defines the center. The city respectively requests that the county council selects alternative two as recommended by the county planning commission and proceed towards the final EIS.

47:12 Thank you. OK. Are you going to call out Pleasant Valley? Because I'm from Pleasant Valley. Pleasant Valley is a city? Because I'm not in the city. It's a neighborhood. Yeah, it's Pleasant Valley area. You'll have an opportunity to speak, but the cities are going first. OK, Ridgefield. Good afternoon. For the record, I am Mayor Matt Cole with the city of Ridgefield, C-O-L-E. I want to start by first thanking you for your partnership over this process. A good policy is built through earnest deliberation, and I believe we should approach that all in the same spirit. But I'm here today because Ridgefield has a vision. Our community built it. Our council adopted it, and we need your help to honor it.

48:11 And this comp plan isn't just about numbers, lines, and datas. It's about setting the vision for our cities and the county for the next 20 years. And I trust you know that in Ridgefield, we care deeply about our community, its unique needs, and the expressed desires of its residents. And I trust that you understand that our planning efforts are intended to honor the work and preserve Ridgefield's character through balancing the needs of local growth. Our vision embraces local growth in a way that makes sense locally and focuses on active, well-serviced, mixed-use hubs rather than blanket densification of existing neighborhoods that our residents cherish. To do this, we need capacity for 1,261 jobs and 840 affordable housing units in the targeted UGA expansion areas that were brought into this conversation by property owners and are already characterized by urban development. These target expansion areas don't meet the needs of the requirements for designation as ag.

49:10 So to confirm, we're asking that the county council direct staff to review these sites against all 14 legally required criteria that were included in the county-wide ag study but were mostly dismissed. Even though our targeted expansion areas don't meet the definition of ag, we see a unique opportunity to save land that does through a TDR program that we proposed. And now we're asking the county council to direct staff to include county-wide planning policies and comp plan policies necessary to form the foundation for that program. Our community has a vision and needs for how we grow, and our city council is tasked with meeting those needs, but we need your help. So with that, we ask that you please support DEIS alternative number two and proceed with the additional work that we are requesting. And as we've consistently shown, we stand ready to assist in getting the work done in a timely

50:08 fashion, but more importantly, a way that's done right. This is how Ridgefield meets its targets-- realistically, responsibly, and together. And we ask that you, again, direct all staff to apply all 14 criteria and support alternative two to help us do this right. Thank you again for your partnership. We look forward to the good outcome here. Thank you. OK, city of Vancouver. Good evening. Brian Snodres, speaking in place of my council and mayor who have hearings and workshops on Monday afternoon and are unable to attend. First, I want to thank you for the work in getting to the preferred alternative stage. It's an important juncture. Did want to say, though, this is the first we saw of some of the specific numbers of the capacities.

51:07 We did work with the county on making some updates to ours, which reduced it somewhat. It's the first we knew of a deficit in the Vancouver UGA, which obviously is a great deal of interest to the city. We saw what some of the numbers were for the city of Vancouver, but this is the first inkling of a deficit in the VUGA. That's easily addressed by the council. You can change the allocation. The county-wide surpluses, as Chair Marshall picked up on, is still there. But that step would need to be taken. And we would want to be able to respond to any VUGA expansions that are made in light of this newly revealed deficit in the VUGA. In terms of-- as regards the city and the VUGA, we support the Planning Commission's recommendation with a couple of small exceptions noted in our letter.

52:06 We would note that that does provide not only ample surplus of land, even with these adjustments discussed, but also still some opportunities for homeownership, which are letter outlines and other further benefits. The one area of disagreement with the plan-- or rather, one area we want to particularly affirm for the plan from the Planning Commission is their decision to remove the VUGA employment expansions, including the northern one on 219th Street. That came about by a math problem earlier that had been resolved. And it looks like some of the math problem may have reared its head again. But it was never added for the particular qualities of what was going on in the ground. Our letter goes into some detail on that. We did not recommend against it, as there was some discussion on the Planning Commission because of it being far away from the city or revenue issues,

53:06 but rather because of its parcelized and critical lands nature, which probably would mean that if it is brought in now, it would develop in a-- only partially develop, and some of it would likely be before you on a request at some point in the near future to convert to residential. One area of disagreement with the Planning Commission recommendation is on including the failure to include additional commercial opportunities in the existing VUGA in areas where there are no such opportunities for miles around. This issue has been before you. We've discussed it previously. We recognize it's a hard one to deal with in this kind of a setting. Like TDRs, we are proposing a change in policy language so the issue can be addressed going forward in the future. On TDRs, our letter elaborates a little bit further. We've received your letter. Thank you.

54:05 OK. Anyone from Washougal? We have Mitch-- He said Vancouver. He was Vancouver. Mitch Knipe on the phone online. Thank you. Mitch, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and spell your last name for the record and go ahead with your comment. Thank you. My name is Mitch Knipe. Last name is spelled K-N-E-I-P-P. Thank you, Chair Marshall and fellow councilors. I will be brief in my comments. As noted at the joint county council and planning commission hearing, the city of Washougal is in support of alternative 2. And we agree with the planning commission's recommendation to you as it pertains to Washougal. That is listed as alternative number 2E in the preferred alternative selection table listed in exhibit B. However, I did want to note that preferred alternative selection

55:03 table was also used by the planning commission when they made their current recommendation to you. But in their table, alternative number 2E also noted that the excess employment capacity in the city of Vancouver was going to be used to accommodate the jobs that Washougal was over allocated, as Jose spoke about earlier. The overall allocation of jobs to Washougal and the willingness of Vancouver to accept those jobs to remedy that situation has been an issue that I've noted several times in my previous testimony. So I just, once again, wanted to bring that solution to the council's attention. Thank you again for working with this process. Thank you to staff. And true to my word, I was briefed. But I'll be available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much. OK, Woodland. We have a little bit of Woodland in our comprehensive plan. No one here.

56:03 OK, that brings us to Yakult. Nobody here from Yakult. OK, then we'll move on to the boards and commissions. And the Agricultural Commission has a statement they'd like to make.

56:27 Hello, council. Nice to see you all. Mo McKenna, last name, M-C-K-E-N-N-A. I am the co-chair of the Agricultural Advisory Commission. And tonight I am speaking on behalf of the commission. Last Wednesday night at our meeting, the commission voted unanimously to have me share a few points from our recommendations as you can consider what alternative you want to study. We're so glad that so many people have been listening to our recommendations, especially around our support of TDR, PDR, and mitigation programs. But we have a couple key points we wanted to reiterate tonight. First, we assert that these farmland protection programs should be implemented countywide and with all cities

57:26 participating. Second, we ask that no farmland is de-designated prior to a program being in place. We'd like to have no de-designation during this comprehensive plan update to make sure that the work of developing a program that aligns with the GMA that we know is going to take research, lots of input from various stakeholders, that that program is done well, and that it actually protects farmland in the end. Thanks so much for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone representing DEEP? Good evening, council. I'm Eric Alimo, G-O-L-E-M-O, with the Development Engineering Advisory Board. I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment. Also, I want to reference two memos that were submitted.

58:24 And I'm going to try not to repeat those and just add a little additional information that might provide some input to the group as well. First, I want to talk about what the alternatives really are and what they mean to the community. So alternative one is basically no change. It has no new land added. There's no new housing, no increase in density. It does nothing to address the housing shortage and affordability. It's basically the status quo. Looking at alternative two, it primarily relies on increased density, very minor expansions to the boundary, mostly requested by the cities. And most of that is for jobs land and strategic expansions towards transportation corridors. Alternate three includes all the site-specific requests by residents of the county. Now, they're not all created equal. Some of these are far from the boundary that shouldn't be considered. But what's recommended today is very minimal expansion

59:24 at all in the next 20 years for residential development. We're looking at trying to meet all of our needs with increased density. This is an extremely important decision that will shape our community in the next years to come. Of these alternatives, we support a blend of alternative two and three, which would include some of the site-specific requests near or adjacent to the current boundary. That said, all the alternatives fall short of our future growth that is practical and achieved consistent with development patterns. For some expansion-- so we recommend some expansion of the urban growth boundary necessary to adequately address the housing shortage and affordability crisis. As a result, the plan risks creating structural housing deficit immediately upon adoption. Planning for housing that is not financially viable to build does not solve the housing crisis. It deepens it.

1:00:22 And Clark County must do more than technically comply with the state requirements. We need a plan that looks at our quality of life and the character of our community. The cities did a good job today of recommending what they visioned for their cities. And I would recommend that the county listen to the cities as well and some of the recommendations that they made for their communities. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other boards or commissions out there that would like to speak? OK. Are you coming forward? Yes. Is this a position that the Planning Commission has taken? No, I'm speaking as an individual member. Should I wait till later? Yes, we're moving right into that next, so thank you. OK, then we're just going to go down the list for everyone.

1:01:20 Oh, I think there's one more board and commission. That's you. I do have a statement from the-- Come on forward.

1:01:34 We submitted-- my name is Michelle Hanlon. Michelle with one L, and Hanlon, H-A-N-L-O-N. We submitted a letter, so I'm just going to briefly read parts of it, let you look at the whole thing later. With expansion comes both opportunity and responsibility, not only to build the housing and infrastructure, but to build community. Historically, new developments were expected to include parks, playgrounds, green spaces, recognizing the quality of life extends beyond structures. Today, we have an opportunity to evolve that vision by also investing in arts and culture as essential infrastructure for a thriving, connected community. As new developments bring in families, residents, visitors, the need for accessible arts and cultural programming grows. Arts are not a luxury.

1:02:33 They are a proving contributor to mental health, social connection, local identity, and economic vitality. From Forbes in October 25, a single museum or festival may stimulate local jobs. But over time, it also builds civic pride, strengthens networks, and attracts long-term investments. We were-- I'm going to skip that paragraph-- responsible development includes planning for the whole human experience. Clark County should become a vital environment where residents find belonging and thrive. We are asking for greater investment in the cultural life of the county. We are asking for alignment. As Clark County grows, so too should its investment in the arts and culture that bring people together. And I do want to read a quote from Mayor Matt

1:03:32 Cole of Ridgefield. "Growth is never just about what gets built. Healthy growth is about who we become in the process." In Ridgefield, we've seen that investing in the arts strengthens community identity and brings people together. If we want communities that truly thrive, arts and culture have to be part of the foundation. Thank you all for listening, and thank you, Mayor Cole. Thank you. That's from our Arts Commission, so thank you very much. I think that takes care of the boards and commissions, and we'll move on to individuals. And again, three-minute limit. We'll take people as they've signed up in the room, and then we'll go online. Go ahead. Again, as you're called up to the podium, remember to state your first name

1:04:30 and spell your last name. Carmen De Leon. Yeah, my name is Carmen De Leon, D-E-L-E-O-N, and I go by Mello. And I guess we're talking about the growth of this county. And one of the numbers this guy told us was it's going to be 718,000. And like we just had last week, the sheriff begging for help. When are they going to add some schools for that 17-- almost a million people in the northwest part right here? Where are the new schools? Where are the new hospitals? Where is the new infrastructure for all these buildings? For example, they build a hospital out there in Salmon Creek. It's an empty building right now because they forgot to put aside money for the people who work there. So there's an empty building. So just because it's a surplus, it

1:05:29 could be because they forgot something kind of important, like staffing the building they just built. And you should take into consideration that part of these people are all for the city of Vancouver, and they don't care about the other cities. They want to make La Center and Ridgefield all Vancouver. They want to expand annexation all the rest of Clark County into Vancouver when Vancouver is questionable as it is because of the amount of homelessness and meth going on in this town. Anyways, so we're talking about expansion, and we want jobs in Canvas. I've talked to many people. Everybody agrees that a third bridge is an option. They love the idea of it being out there in Canvas. It would provide jobs. And expanding I-205 by putting more lanes is better than a billion dollar bridge we do not need. Back east, there was a four mile bridge back east by Boston that cost, I think, $400 million. Why do they want $17 billion for the I-5 bridge?

1:06:29 You really need to question the city of Vancouver, and anything done by the city of Vancouver needs to be taken with a grain of salt because you have some serious issues going on in the city of Vancouver. But we have some sanity going on in Canvas and Ridgefield. They actually had a surplus out there in Ridgefield, so I'm kind of proud of them. But I do suggest tourism, and I'm running out of time. But for example, the Eiffel Tower gets six million people a year. The Space Needle gets, I think, about two or three million a year. We have nothing in Vancouver. That's why I suggested a tram instead of light rail to put a tram from the Expo Center out to Ridgefield, which even if we got 5,000 or even 50,000 only tourists, that's still more than the 450 people they have crossing that interstate bridge on the bus daily, which is a joke to try and expand light rail because it's a big old rip off. So if you want to make money instead of just keep losing money, then invest in some tourism out there in Ridgefield

1:07:28 by making a tram or maybe getting some jobs out there in Canvas by building another bridge. And St. Helens wants a bridge too, so there's no reason to put billions of dollars into the interstate bridge at all. Thanks. Thank you. Kimberly Goheen-Elvin. Kimberly Goheen-Elvin, G-O-H-E-E-N-E-L-B-O-N. Clark County chose to adopt the GMA-- excuse me, I'm going to start over. On tonight's, I always print off the agenda. And tonight, two hours ago, they put public comment on here. I think it's not transparent that the people did not know there really actually was a public comment. They do this quite a bit when you have a government ruling over the people. Clark County chose to adopt the GMA. Not all counties in the state of Washington did, but this council did without a vote of the people.

1:08:25 This was a governmental action, so I'm going to state, I respectfully remind this council of Washington State Constitution Article 1, Section 1, which states that all political power is inherent in the people and governments drive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Elected officials are our public servants. You exist to protect the rights of the citizens, not to manage our lives without our direct consent. Implement the will of the people here. I've asked-- there's some examples of not following the will of the people. For instance, we voted down three times light rail. There's a lot more going on if you people would start getting active. I've asked for years to implement a five-year no growth overlay over Clark County. There are-- I also want to state that there are 889 pages of written comments.

1:09:22 Most agree to stopping our overpopulation pollution here in Clark County. My La Center Council-- I live in La Center-- the council chose to vote to develop Timmons Landing, even though 60 people showed up, to say no development, as they have for decades. There's eagles that fly up there. We had Arbor Day celebration last Wednesday, so I brought it up that, well, the eagles need a tree up there, but they're going to cut them down and they're going to develop up there, and I say no. So they did not follow the will of the people. Vancouver wants to be the second largest city in the Washington state. They followed the United Nations agenda 21-2030. Look it up. And are now a 15-minute city, or you can call it a smart city, to have high density and plan to eliminate cars, hence light rail. By the way, the new city streets cannot--

1:10:19 you can't get a big bus down there, so that's all a mess too. But you know what? They used your hard-earned tax dollars to do this. They're waiting for billions of dollars for the new bridge, but in the meantime, they're getting paid their millions of dollars, folks. I guarantee you that. And they don't care. So land use will be restricted in the area's future as AI-powered cameras will take a picture of your license plate if you leave your 15-minute city. That's coming. You don't see it now. You don't want to see it. You're going to be in denial, but I'll tell you this. It's happening. God is always good. Amen. Thank you. Your time is up. Mike Roth?

1:11:05 Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mike Roth, R-O-T-H. I am requesting the inclusion of parcel number 115621190 into the UGB. Just a brief history. Our family has resided in Clark County for 85 years. For 54 of those years, we dairy farmed. 31 years ago, we moved our operation to Idaho, where there was infrastructure to support ag, availability of feed, a better climate for agriculture, and the lack of urban pressure. And I'm proud to say that 20% of the milk that goes to make Chobani yogurt comes from our family. The highest and best use for our family's remaining land

1:12:03 in Clark County is not for growing grass hay, but is providing land for homes for future Clark County citizens. When you look at land use planning, we must look at what actually is on the ground today. By every practical and legal definition, this property is already characterized by urban growth. Right across the street, the land is zoned R-16 and R-17.5 for medium to high density urban housing. Directly to our south, there are fully built urban subdivisions. This property is not a remote rural outpost. It is an urban peninsula surrounded by city density. Under the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.170, land cannot be designated as agriculture or long-term rural if it is already characterized by urban growth.

1:13:02 It defies state law and basic common sense to pretend that this parcel is anything other than urban. The public investments have already been made here. We have public water. Northwest natural gas is already in the street. And public sewer is located to the south and east. The county is currently undertaking multi-million dollar road improvements on Ward Road to handle urban traffic. Furthermore, the Hawkinson School District has two new schools coming to serve this exact area. If we want those schools to be successful, we need to provide housing near them so kids can walk or take short drives rather than adding to regional traffic congestion. We are not just asking for a boundary line change. We are offering a partnership. We fully support the proposed transfer of development right program as a tool to make this happen. If you approve this site-specific request

1:14:01 and bring us into the UGB, we are prepared to accept an urban overlay. We commit to finding a qualifying aggregate sending site to purchase GDR credits. Thank you. Ron Barka. Ron Barka, B-A-R-C-A. Council, I am here to support the Ag Commission and what Mike Roth just said in the context of saying this is our opportunity to build trust and reliance on government to help the people based on the decisions they are asking us to make. The reality is this is an election year.

1:14:59 We are looking at the idea of adopting a plan. Whatever gets adopted by this council will go forward. If we postpone, if we talk about future changes, we are turning that over to a future council. And there's no way for us to know how that council will perform to our expectations. What we're looking at is if it's postponed, it's expendable. The public has come forward and largely proclaimed the desire to protect ag as designated land. In my opinion, the very best way is a TDR program that will protect for the long term both ag land that is designated and future land that could become designated.

1:15:57 In my opinion, if you include any ag land in the preferred alternative, it must be covered by interlocal agreement. And an urban overlay needs to be put in place to prevent annexation. Without a functioning TDR program, it could not be brought in to anybody's urban area. I think this is the most important part where there's risk, but we build trust. Concerning battleground, Meadowglade right now can add up to two ADUs per parcel from the changes that have happened in the state law. For battleground to say that the area is not viable as an opportunity to continue

1:16:55 to grow their housing stock, I think it's disingenuous. What we're looking at is even if only half of the potential parcels go forward, that's still 100% potentially developing every single parcel without having to subdivide a single parcel. If we look at this as a cheap, quick way to boost the housing stock, it must remain inside the city limits. We're looking at-- time's up? Time's up. Sorry. Thank you. Heidi Cody. Hello. My name is Heidi Cody. Last name is C-O-D-Y. Thank you for your work

1:17:53 on Clark County's comprehensive plan. I'm here to share a letter signed by 83 individuals and 11 organizations to show broad community support for equitable land use planning in our comprehensive plan. We urge you to adopt land use alternative one, which will plan for our futures, retain prime agricultural lands, protect farms and related jobs, provide local food security, allow us to elevate indigenous food practices, food forests, and food sovereignty, allow us to be better prepared for emergencies, and also create climate resilience, which complies with the Growth Management Act's climate element. Here is why we urge you to not adopt the other alternatives. There's no legal reason to allow urban growth area expansions. Clark County already decided that no urban growth area expansions are needed to accommodate projected jobs and growth.

1:18:52 UGA expansions will not guarantee more affordable housing. Hundreds of acres may be paved over and developed. That land will be gone forever. De-designating ad lands was ascribed by Clark County's attorney, Chris Cook, as the absolute definition of urban sprawl. Alternative one also aligns with the ag land use study. Council should accept the study's findings, which include the stability of food bank networks and strong farm-to-market linkages are vital considerations for resilient and equitable local food system. And the continued conversion of ag lands to non-farm uses poses a direct risk to this system, as it may eventually undermine the viability of the local agricultural economy upon which these food security networks depend.

1:19:49 Alternative one also aligns with the Ag Advisory Commission's advice, which is to use encroaching development as a justification to de-designate ag lands is to always be chipping away at agricultural land. This goes against the purpose of the agricultural land designations, the conservation purpose of those designations. Alternative one will also conserve birds and wildlife, support cleaner air, and support climate resilience. It is fundamentally inequitable for Clark County to keep building as usual and sacrifice our farmland for private interests who don't actually need it. Adopting alternative one will intentionally protect the future for all Clark County residents. Clark County Council now has the opportunity to right historical wrongs and protect our land for future generations. We, the undersigned 83 individuals and 11

1:20:46 organizations, urge Clark County Council to adopt alternative one. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mark Leed. My name is Mark Leed. Last name is spelled L-E-E-D. I serve as Chair of Lewitt Group of the Sierra Club based here in Vancouver. I support alternative one, the no change alternative. The county staff's own modeling has shown that the current urban growth areas have capacity to accommodate expected growth over the next 20 years. Based on this, it would be irresponsible to take any action that would lead to further loss of our farmland to sprawling, inefficient development. I also oppose the city of La Centers and the city of Ridgefield site-specific requests

1:21:43 that would add hundreds of acres of designated agricultural land to their urban growth areas. And I oppose the city of Battlegrounds' proposed expansion westward toward Dollar's Corner. This is very concerning because this request would lead to the loss of important wetlands and ag quality rural lands. Clark County should also include an explicit greenhouse gas reduction goal matching the goals adopted by the city of Vancouver. Without an explicit goal, the recommendations made by the Climate Community Advisory Group will be rendered ineffective. Encroaching development should not be used as a rationale for designating agricultural land. This type of reasoning goes against the conservation purposes of designating agricultural land to begin with and could only lead to further sprawl.

1:22:41 As of June, I will have been a Clark County resident and a resident of Vancouver's International District for 21 years. I welcome all our new residents and appreciate the growing diversity they bring. I've also seen an alarming loss of rural land since moving here in 2005. We can grow smartly without sacrificing more farmland to build McMansions and big box stores. We owe it to future generations to preserve our green spaces and a working farm economy. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Claire, last.

1:23:31 Good evening. My name is Claire Lust, L-U-S-T, Ridgefield Community Development Director. I'd like to first echo Mayor Cole's earlier ask for adoption of DEIS alternative 2 with modifications we've worked through with county staff. And I'll add that the targeted expansions in DEIS alt 2 are even more necessary now. Since BBLM was run for the DEIS, we've seen nearly 1,000 additional units and lots, putting further pressure on the capacity of the existing UGA to develop the city's vision through 2045 and provide a full 20-year land supply for growth, including affordable housing. Since the Planning Commission supported DEIS alternative 2, we've been working productively with county staff

1:24:31 to refine our planning assumptions within the framework of alt 2 to ensure that they first fully capture the intent of our council's preferred land use plan, and second, produce housing and jobs capacity that aligns with the allocations we're all working together to meet. We expect and ask for the staff level coordination to continue through adoption of the final EIS and thank county staff for their expertise and willingness to problem-solve together. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Jason Job. Hi, my name is Jason Job. Last name is Job. Thank you, counselors, for the opportunity to speak.

1:25:30 I moved to Vancouver in July of last year. I am definitely a benefactor of the county's growth plan. I live in the 179th corridor. And basically, to support the current growth plan, the county solution is to basically enable this high-density housing. I'm not opposed to the growth. I'm asking for the county to focus on responsible growth, responsible growth that includes the infrastructure needed to support that growth. This includes roads to support normal and emergency access, sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, green spaces. I don't see any of that. I see that is all like an afterthought. So really, what I'm looking at is if you look at the road studies that have been done on 179th, five of them fail, basically at the end of all of the improvements that are going to be done. Is anybody looking at that? I mean, what are we building here? I think that to support this, I was in a hearing last week for the 174th Division. The applicant's own engineering team basically stated, quote,

1:26:30 no conceivable set of improvements can resolve the concurrency problem. So is that a problem? I see that as a problem. I think that's why we have county card code 403350.020, and we have RCW3670A.390, which basically gives the county and the state the ability to say, wait a minute, we're growing our housing too fast for the infrastructure. We need to pause. We need to get our infrastructure in place to support that growth. I think everybody wants growth, right? We need it, but we want to do it responsibly, taking care of our citizens and our children. Thank you. - Thank you. Mike Paulette.

1:27:21 - My name's Mike Paulette, P-A-U-L-E-T-T-O. I'm one of the property owners out near exit 16 near the tribe as well as the center area, and I would keep this short. Alternative two is my chosen one. So you've heard from me before. Alternative two, please. - Thank you. Steve Thalberg. Steve Thalberg, T-H-A-L-B-E-R-G. Hello, council. Despite the planning commission's decision, I prefer alternative one as it meets local and state requirements for providing adequate housing options within 3% of the goal and preserves 100% of the existing agricultural land. It aligns with state law and honors the agricultural study

1:28:19 and protects food security. Should you decide to not go with alternative one, I recommend four items. One, no de-designation of Ag 20 zoned properties unless the property owner consents. Two, no enrollment of properties into an urban growth boundary unless the property owner consents. Three, no approval of additions to the urban growth boundary until concurrency needs are met. You've heard other speakers talk about the need for infrastructure to support housing. And no approval of development until concurrency needs are met. TDRs were discussed by several people and associated with and related to a TDR is a public benefit rating system. I hope that the county will move forward

1:29:18 on a public benefit rating system which will protect agricultural lands when they're in transition from one owner user to another. And it will benefit non-designated agricultural land that is utilized for agriculture and conservation purposes. A PBR best would augment TDR. Thank you for your time. - Thank you. David Toyer. - Good evening. Thank you, Chair Marshall, members of the council. David Toyer with Toyer Strategic Advisors. We're a land use and economic development consulting firm and we've been working with the city of Ridgefield and cities of La Center and Camas and had the opportunity to be here last month for a joint session you held with the city on transfer of development rights.

1:30:17 Wanted to point out that, again, as I mentioned during that presentation, you really have a unique opportunity here with the recommendation the planning commission has made to adopt a TDR program in concert with expansion of a regrowth areas. That said, where you're at right now with selecting a preferred alternative is kind of that key point in time by which it's really necessary for you to provide direction that if you wanna establish a TDR program and you wanna advance on this unique opportunity, now would be the time to start that phase process of implementing a TDR program by establishing a policy framework that supports the creation of TDRs. That would include providing direction that transfer of development rights program implementation be acknowledged in the FEIS and then also that you would work to establish some at least basic policy framework

1:31:17 within your county-wide planning policies and the comprehensive plan itself. I submitted yesterday a technical memorandum that we put together. And in that technical memorandum, I provided an overview of the types of policies that other counties and cities have regarding transfer of development rights. And really, you could go as simple as policies that Clark County have adopted to promote innovative programs, or you could go more complex on the policy side of establishing more detailed program requirements for transfer of development rights. Really, the opportunity is yours right now. And you could take advantage of a chance to do something similar to other counties in the state. In fact, as pointed out in our memo, and I wanted to make sure I highlighted this evening, both Kitsap County and Snohomish County have policies in place that do tie the ability

1:32:15 to expand urban growth boundaries to the use of transfer of development rights. And so it is proposed in other locations that it does exist, and it's something that you can do. And you don't have to bite everything off at the same time. But there is an opportunity, as I discussed in my presentation on March 18th, for the county to take that first step towards that adoption of a kind of policy framework that at least starts you down the path of creating something that Planning Commission and others have recognized is an advantage that you should be taking advantage of. So thank you, appreciate your time. - Thank you. - Can you spell your name, please? - He almost got away. - Yep, T as in Tom, O-Y-E-R. - Thank you. Thank you, Cindy.

1:33:15 And as a reminder, yes, just to make sure that we're spelling the last names and stating the first names as we come up. Win Gursich.

1:33:32 - My name is Win Gursich, and it's G-R-C-I-C-H. I'm here tonight because a few years ago when Michelle had run the first to get the position she's in, I had heard a, this was a message they were saying that in this city, Clark County, in the cities, they can only order one fire truck every three years because there's only one place in the United States that make fire trucks, and it's back east. So when they make a fire truck and you have to have it shipped out here, you're paying for the transportation on a railroad or whatever, and I think if the city council instead of taxing all of us for everything, use some land use and build a fire truck factory on the west coast. You'd have, you could do a lot of things getting grant money or having the people that build things to donate, or there'll be people that would be interested in this, and this would be a good way to bring revenue

1:34:31 to the county, and this is something that we need because all this growth, if you only get one fire truck every three years in every city or county throughout the United States, we don't have the fire trucks for growth. So when you estimate how many people are for one fire truck, that's crazy. And the one thing too, as far as this land growth, I hope you don't put any data centers in this area. That would take all the water, and you wouldn't have agriculture. And it's very important that people know this because you can put out fires with frequencies. If you ever built this fire truck factory, you'd make lots of revenue on that. The people wouldn't be taxed to death, but you can also put out fires with frequencies,

1:35:29 and you can check that out. I've given you lots of information on it, and I just hope that it follows through. But another thing too, your building inspector, I live in Philbrook Farms. They built my house using nails instead of screws, and it was approved by your building inspector. These nails are popping out, and I'm paying 50 bucks an hour to have somebody take them out and put screws in. So I think you need to check out what they're approving here. There was a lot of things on my house done wrong, and if you're building all this redevelopment, that these houses should be, my house is six years old and it's falling apart. That's because of what they've approved. So I really think you need to check out your building inspectors, whatever you build, and you don't put nails instead of screws in sheet rock, because it's very expensive to have to fix it. And I shouldn't have had to do that, right?

1:36:29 And it's Philbrook's farm area that did this, and they're building lots of places. But once again, another thing too is that the sidewalks are starting to lift, and they want the homeowners to pay for the sidewalk replacement. - Thank you very much. - That should not be. - Janet Hedgepath. - Good afternoon, Chair Marshall, Council. My name is Janet Hedgepath, H-E-D-G-E-P-A-T-H. And I'm urging you to adopt alternative one and save our ag lands. I do get it, change is hard. From the start, this body has used the well-worn playbook of the past. Choose a higher population number, expand the U-G-J, the U-G-A, and build more single-family homes using the rationale.

1:37:28 Despite no results to that effect. Then, the Department of Commerce required housing in specific income bands, and the vacant buildable lands model determined all forecasted growth could be accommodated with the current U-G-As. Even the new numbers that were produced tonight show alternative two is overkill. A new strategy was required. Enter a rushed ag study that delayed the comp plan. However, the study designated the proposed expansion as prime ag land and farmlands of statewide significance. Well, that didn't turn out right. Thus, TDR is to the rescue. But the recommendation of your Agricultural Commission

1:38:26 is to maintain existing designations and have a moratorium on up-soding of the lands to allow time for a thoughtful, real process. What will it take for you to let go of this antiquated playbook? Which reminds me of a story I once heard about trapping monkeys. Hunters wedge a banana in a large jar with a narrow mouth. The monkey comes along, grabs the banana, and before it can figure out how to get the banana out of the jar, it hears the hunters coming and grows frantic. It can let go and be free. Most held on and were trapped. Please, don't trap us in a paradigm of the past

1:39:24 that benefits a few at the expense of the many. Make choices that will prepare us for a future that will be much different than 30 years ago. Adopt alternative one and get on with the comp plan. Thank you. - Thank you. Nelson Holmberg. - Good evening, counselors, thank you. My name is Nelson Holmberg, speaking H-O-L-M-B-E-R-G. I am speaking on behalf of the 750 members of the Building Industry Association of Clark County. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input as you consider the preferred land use alternative at the core of the decision, sorry, at the core of the decision is a simple

1:40:22 but critical reality. Housing and employment land must be planned together, and both must be truly buildable, not just theoretical on paper. As highlighted in our submitted comments, much of the land currently identified for development is constrained by critical areas, environmental limitations, and topography. These constraints significantly reduce what is actually feasible to build. When we overestimate capacity, we unintentionally create a shortage of both housing and employment land, which drives up costs, pushes families farther from where they work. That imbalance has real consequences. Longer commutes, increased infrastructure strain, and reduced economic competitiveness. We strongly support the Planning Commission's recommendation in addition to a strong look at site-specific requests

1:41:22 for rezoning. Those property owners who submitted requests deserve a fair review on their own, and this council has yet to do so. This can help ensure that growth is directed to areas with infrastructure, services, and local planning alignment, rather than based on assumptions that may not reflect real-world conditions. Ultimately, we encourage you to support an approach that reflects realistic, buildable land capacity, preserves and expands employment lands, and meaningfully increases housing opportunity. This is a pivotal decision. Getting it right will share affordability, will shape affordability, economic vitality, and quality of life in Clark County for decades to come. Thank you again for your consideration. - Thank you. Let me just ask the audience here,

1:42:22 how many additional people would like to speak? Okay, quite a few. I've been asking for a break, five-minute break. We will come back at 10 'til. Thank you for your patience. (dramatic music) - This webinar is being recorded and summarized. - Okay, we're back from our break. If folks can settle back down, and we'll continue our public hearing. So, Ms. Shelley, call the next person. - Gary J. Goodwin? Gary J. Goodwin?

1:43:18 - We can circle back here. - Okay, I will move on to the next person. Marvin Gearing? - That's G-E-R-I-N-G. My name is Marvin Gearing. I live at 21115 Northeast 10th Avenue, just south of the battleground exit. I'm located directly across from the Washington State Department of Transportation's Future Regional Transportation Center. I've lived here for over 50 years, and for the last 30 years, we've been promised and put under an urban industrial holding

1:44:14 as part of the Discovery Corridor Plan, which has created great uncertainty. Without knowing if or when it's going to be commercial, industrial, or kept residential keeps us all from being able to make informed decisions in the future regarding our business, residence, or estates. The urban holding has created a cloud over our properties. Currently, there's a patchwork of over 12 commercial or industrial businesses already operating legally and illegally between 209th and 219th Street on 10th Avenue. Businesses such as excavation companies, two truck repair shops, livestock feed stores, portable sanitary service, drop box waste removal companies,

1:45:14 asphalt contractors, and others, including the Washington State Department of Transportation properties are using these and not all legal. Clearly, there's a certain need for zoning for business along this corridor, which highlights the reason it was originally identified and planned for future commercial and industrial growth with its proximity between two major exits, that's 179th and 219th. They're both along the I-5 corridor. A new water main and high-voltage transmission lines have been installed along 10th Avenue for current and future use. It's already there, along with the sewer line in Maine that is currently brought in and located

1:46:13 on the Washington State property of their transportation center to serve this area, but it cannot be legally utilized until the properties are brought into the urban growth boundaries. We're asking the county council for our property to be brought back into the urban growth as indicated on the proposed maps prior to January of this year. As we have been promised and as has been planned for for the past 30 years. - Thank you very much. Your time is up. - Yeah, thank you. - Wendy Cleveland. - All right, Wendy Cleveland, C-L-E-V-E-L-A-N-D. I urge the council to adopt alternative one

1:47:10 and further deny battleground site-specific request. It falls to our moral character whether we choose to be good stewards of the land in the time in which we live. Do we preserve or exploit it for its resources? The choices you make here today will not just affect the land, but also the people who currently live on it, the wildlife, the water, and the entire ecosystem. That land is over our aquifer. It's a sponge and a filter for the drinking water we all enjoy. Your choice on this matter affects so much more than just who controls the land. The city of battleground made a site-specific request for 450 acres of beautiful wild land to be brought into the UGA, land that has Mill Creek, a large fish-bearing stream, running the length and breadth of it, land that Jose Alvarez himself told us in an email that he estimates that more than 200 acres of it has ag capabilities. People live on that rural five-zone land.

1:48:09 It's all privately owned. They have built their homes, raised families, and lived their lives along the stream banks and under the sheltering canopy of old-growth trees. You'll hear the argument that it's all just commercial or industrial land anyway, and the current business at Dollar's Corner are an eyesore, but that's not true. And if the county planning commission or the staff had gone out there, they would have seen that beauty themselves. If you vote to approve their request and extend the UGA out to 67th Avenue per BG's request, there will only be more urbanization, not less. Trees and streams are not an eyesore, but factories and industries are. I would like to contend that Battleground already has enough land to meet the 2045 comp playing goal of 7,500 jobs in their existing city limits. In fact, in their already zoned light industrial land, there are roughly 100 acres left. 60 of those remaining industrial acres have been bought by a company that vows to build a large convention center,

1:49:08 a church, and a hotel, maybe 45 year-round jobs. Those are nonconformative uses in an industrial zoned land. In order to be able to build nonconformative in an industrial zoned land, there must be surplus industrial land somewhere else within the city limits. I figured that could not be the case. Otherwise, why would Battleground tell the planning commission that they don't currently have enough land to meet their job goal? Has the chair or any other member of this council besides Councilor Young been out to see this land that you're gonna be voting on to decide the fate of today? It seems like local politicians have lost their way. Instead of searching for truth and justice, they're chasing down the path of perceived power and the almighty dollar. History is being written this evening, and you have the chance to decide today which side you want your legacy to be on. In a world where there is right and there is wrong, please uphold what is right.

1:50:06 - Thank you. - Alyssa Hoyt. - Good evening. Good evening, Alyssa Hoyt, H-O-Y-T, and I'm speaking in support of Alternative One. First of all, it maintains prime public agricultural lands. Seeing the spread of industrial areas in rural, semi-rural, and residential areas is sad to me. As a former small farmer in the Dollars Corner area, I value the availability of agricultural and rural lands for food production. I value access to local foods. I value the importance of local foods to our economy, both for tourism and for in-county dollars, and for food resilience. Second, Battlegrounds plan to annex Dollars Corner and rezone the West End development impacts recent residential development

1:51:05 and includes wetlands areas that are unsuitable for business development. This process needs to be done thoughtfully with engagement with citizens and with land-specific consideration. Third, the urban growth needs to be focused on creating livable, affordable, and desirable neighborhoods. Please consider maintaining the character of Clark County through responsible growth, balancing transit, density, open space, all while building a healthy economy with long-term vision, thank you. - Thank you. Bolton Minister. John Spencer. - Good evening, Chair Marshall and commissioners. My name is John Spencer, S-P-E-N-C-E-R. Basically, I want to ditto the Ag Commission

1:52:03 which is probably not a big surprise. I also want to talk to some of what you've heard about of so-called unviable farmland. I am currently farming on what might have been considered unviable farmland. The Nevin property that Camas wants looks actually better than the farmland I am currently farming. Just because it hasn't been farmed doesn't mean that it can't be farmed. Matter of fact, you can put a field of blueberries in the middle of a city and create a lot of food. Don't listen to arguments that it's surrounded by the city or that it hasn't been used or that it somehow isn't economically viable.

1:53:01 It is, it can be, and it will have its turn if it's still there for future generations. Thanks much, have a great evening. - Thank you. Laura Fernandez.

1:53:29 - Hello, Laura Fernandez, F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-C. So I'd like to say thank you for the postcard. It's nice to receive that. I stood here before you months ago asking you to revise the lot lines of your draft comprehensive growth plan. We requested that the boundary line on the northern side of 228th Street be moved south to 224th Street, spanning from 72nd to 77th Ave. These two RC1 neighborhoods are fully developed, privately owned streets with gated entrances. There is no land available to be zoned into west side employment to create 120 jobs.

1:54:29 Bob on 224th Circle has spent the last two and a half years building three beautiful homes for him, his wife, his son, and one for his daughter. They bought in knowing there was a construction yard butted to their backyards, but were also not aware of this proposed rezoning as they did not receive a hearing notice. Our lots are not confined into a neat rectangle. There would be no way to subdivide as we require the full acre for our biofilter pod systems.

1:55:18 Reading and digesting all this data is complex. Burke, who resides hundreds of miles away, most likely did not delve into the complexity of our lots. One neighbor's perspective was the council's, just go with Burke's proposal and rubber stamp it. We do not fit in with this rubber stamp of approval. Please move your boundary lines south to the existing light industrial commercial area. I understand Sam Crummett's concern about creating donuts or jagged lines within zoning boundaries. One unanswered question I had was why is the southwest corner of the RC1 lots omitted in creating non-contiguous lines?

1:56:14 Here's a picture of the lines and the non-contiguous. Sorry. Every day all over the world for thousands of people, results or ideas do not go as planned. That's where the words revision or outbuilds were derived from. - I'm sorry, your time is up. - Even our constitution of the United States has been amended 27 times. - Thank you. - Wish I could speak better. - Diane Dempster. - Good evening. My name is Diane Dempster, D-E-M-P-S-T-E-R, and I'm speaking today on behalf of Friends of Clark County, a local non-profit advocacy organization representing thousands of supporters,

1:57:13 residents of Clark County, to express our position for the preferred alternative for the comprehensive plan update. Clark County's own modeling establishes that all its cities can accommodate their projected population within existing urban growth areas, meaning there is no legal reason to expand the UGAs. Clark County's preferred alternative for the comp plan should reflect this reality. Expansion of the current UGAs and paving over hundreds of acres of prime farmland for expensive, sprawling, emissions-inducing development is not necessary. Additionally, the 2025 ag land study found that all currently designated ag lands meet the legal criteria for designation in Washington state law. The study also included that Clark County has additional high-quality soils in our rural areas

1:58:12 that are not currently designated as ag lands, but meet the criteria for designation. Hundreds of acres of designated agricultural land with prime soils and additional ag-quality rural land will be destroyed if the cities are permitted their UGA expansions for development. These lands represent an invaluable community resource. Considering the need to feed our growing population and climate change resiliency, we must protect the farm industry and jobs they represent. Furthermore, Friends of Clark County agrees with the comp plan recommendations of the Clark County Ag Advisory Commission on the subject of transfer of development rights, and additionally recommends a policy to be included in the 2025 comprehensive plan update that commits to developing a farmland protection program

1:59:08 within 12 months of the completion of the 2025 plan. We strongly support a program that aligns with the GMA that's countywide and actually protects existing ag land and potential ag land. There should be no de-designation of ag land as part of the 2025 comprehensive plan process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide knowledgeable and factual input into the plan. Thank you very much. - Thank you. Mary Peltz. I didn't wish to speak. Tim Eminent.

1:59:57 (clears throat) - Hello. Tim Eminent, E-M-I-N-E-T-H. Address, 5585 East Evergreen Boulevard. I've lived in Vancouver since 1960, so I've seen a lot of changes. For 16 years, I lived along the Washougal River. We got a development across the river from me, turned down 16 or 18 acres because it was in a floodplain. He got the, the developer got the change from a 100-year floodplain to a 500-year floodplain. In the time that I lived there, it flooded three more times in that less than 500-year period or however you want to look at it. When they were developing the lots, the Fish and Wildlife had said they weren't supposed

2:00:55 to remove any vegetation along the river. I would call them up and say the backhoe was down there, taking all the trees away. I was told, well, that was the Fish and Wildlife's recommendation. You need to talk to them. I talked to the Fish and Wildlife. They say that was Clark County. Clark County needs to, they adopted that. Called Clark County, they said, well, that's been annexed into the city of Washougal, so now you need to talk to the city of Washougal. So it was kick the can here, here, there. So I'm here talking about, we need clean water. We've got forever chemicals in one of our wells here in Vancouver, or maybe two, I'm not sure. You guys want to take wetlands and develop it. We just, we need to have some clean water and jurisdictions that'll stand behind

2:01:53 what's supposed to happen. I don't have a lot of time left. I'm not gonna be around that long, but it'd be nice to have people with kids and grandkids, their kids be able to fish, drink clean water. I used to be able to play along the Columbia River as a kid, good luck trying to find a spot to even get down to the river other than a small park. That's all I got, thank you. - Thank you. Stephen McCulloch? - Thank you, Councilors. I would like to add to what Mr. Gering added a few minutes ago. - Please spell your last name. - Sorry, Stephen McCulloch. It's M-C-C-U-L-L-O-C-H. I, too, live along the Discovery Corridor on 10th Avenue, and I'm fortunate to live right next to the Department of Transportation land.

2:02:49 And I can tell you, they're planning on developing that from everything I can see, because they already have crews in there at least two or three times a week with equipment. They're using it as a storage lot already. But a lot of that area has been under a urban reserve

2:03:15 designation, which has kind of frozen that land for any landowners like myself. That area is not a good area for any residential. It is way too close to the freeway that most people would choose to want to have a home. Even my home, which is quite a ways from the freeway compared to other homes along that stretch, still gets noise from the freeway. And I couldn't imagine how noisy it would be in some of that open area if it were developed for residential. So it really makes sense to make that a commercial corridor. As Marvin Goering already has stated, there are quite a few businesses that already operate along there. And to change it to that designation with the access it has to the freeway, just makes common sense.

2:04:14 Thank you very much, have a good evening. - Thank you. Alicia LaDuke Montgomery. - Thank you, good evening, chair, council members. Alicia LaDuke Montgomery, L-E capital D-U-C space. M-O-N-T-G-O-M-E-R-Y. Couldn't be long enough. I'm speaking tonight as a Clark County resident, but also as an individual member of the planning commission, not on behalf of the planning commission as a whole. I echo the support for others who have testified, including the ag commission, fellow commissioner, Mr. Barca, and others who have spoken to the wisdom of moving forward with the TDR program to protect agricultural capacity long-term

2:05:13 while balancing strategic growth when needed. I want to briefly clarify the context and intent behind the planning commission's recommendation, because I think it's critical to your deliberation and decision. The transcript of the work section shows that the commission's recommendation to select alternative to components was not unconditional. The commissioner's votes for the request for de-designation of ag land were expressly subject to an understanding and condition of a functioning TDR program being in place. And that was reflected in the recommendation coming out of the planning commission on a majority vote. So the majority of planning commissioners agreed no de-designation without TDR guarantees and protections, if and only if that's in place,

2:06:12 then maybe move forward with some of the specific lands identified for de-designation as essentially prime candidates for that TDR program to take effect. The purpose of those conditions was to line the recommendation with the Growth Management Act, directing growth into urban areas while conserving agricultural lands of long-term significance. And a TDR program can do that, but only if it's real, operational, and enforceable. The materials you have, including the proposed inter-local agreements as frameworks, may contemplate de-designation of ag lands and inclusion in the UGA now, with details of TDR program to follow later. And that is where the risk lies. I have significant concern about allowing automatic UGA expansion after time expires

2:07:10 and there's no TDR program. Rather, those lands should be re-designated agricultural if a TDR is not in place by the end of the chosen period. There needs to be a maintained overlay during that process until TDRs and the sending and receiving sites are specified and the rights purchased. If those aren't in place, then there is no functioning TDR program with enforceable requirements and alternative one would then be the better course of action. Thank you. - Thank you very much. Isaiah Irish. - Thank you, Council, for your time today. My name is Isaiah Irish, I-R-I-S-H. I operate a small mixed vegetable farm in the county and today I'm speaking as an individual. I'm speaking here in what was formerly

2:08:09 the prune capital of the world. And although we no longer elect a prune queen every year, agriculture is as critical to our future as it was to our past. I urge no de-designation of agricultural land in the county with this comp plan update. Although some of the land being considered by the cities for de-designation and development has been described as having no economic future in agriculture, I wish to speak to the economic and cultural value of the agricultural land that remains in the county. When we impose our collective idea of conventional farming on the plots of farmland that remain between our neighborhoods, I can understand the perspective of those who speak in favor of de-designating this land. A field of roundup ready corn planted in dusty earth, fence row to fence row is not a desirable neighbor, but conventional agriculture is not the future of agriculture. Many of the farmers who have commented throughout this process have operations

2:09:08 within our communities. They sit on just a few acres and feed their neighbors. These farms are not only useful providing food and jobs, they are also beautiful. They are desirable neighbors. These farmers and farms are critical in regenerating our landscape and carrying the knowledge of land tending and stewardship forward through our generations. Conventional agriculture has devastated the soils. Since the development of petroleum-based fertility in the midst of World War II, we have lost most of our topsoil in this nation. Fertility cycles have been destroyed, forsaking nature to impose our will. Growing 100 calories of corn using some 800 calories of petroleum will never make sense. With this conventional mindset, there is no future of economically viable agriculture anywhere. Farmers in the best-growing land of our nation haven't turned a profit in years with this conventional agroeconomy. As hopeless as this all sounds, there is hope.

2:10:06 Our land has been degraded, but it can recover. Our participation with the land can regenerate our region. If we are thoughtful and observant, we can grow our agricultural output while increasing the value of the communities and landscape. This small farm future relies on ag land being available for next generations of growers. The ripple of de-designating ag land will be felt in many more of the agricultural parcels in the county in the form of land speculation. I believe in the creativity and ingenuity of our community. I am confident we can create the homes to welcome the increasing amount of people who want to call this region home without carving out more agricultural land. I hope the council will be firm in standing with the agricultural community and retaining all of our remaining agricultural land. Thank you for your time today. - Thank you. Alex Luna. (rustling)

2:11:00 - Good evening, my name's Alex Luna, L-U-N-A. An incredible testimony, Isaiah, amazing. I've been a homeowner, business owner, and advocate of Clark County for almost 15 years. This city and county has become almost unrecognizable to me. You can't walk more than a block without seeing the effects of urban sprawl on this place. From towering buildings blocking the view of our most iconic mountains to highways covered in trash, all in what seems to be an effort to rebuild Vancouver in Portland or Seattle's image. I've watched some of our oldest historic buildings be knocked down in favor of shiny, new, uninspiring, dystopian superstructures. I've seen former U-pick farms cut down so that instead of freshly picked berries, we get houses that are a carbon copy of one another, each with a car or two,

2:11:59 all to be off-gassing for years to come. The amount of agricultural land in Clark County has been eroded by the county's actions over the decades since the passage of the original comprehensive plan, and still, it would seem it's not enough to satisfy the insatiable hunger of greed. The county's own modeling shows that all of our current urban areas have the capacity for growth for the next 20 years. If the council selects any alternative that allows for urban growth area expansions, especially those that include the de-designation of agricultural land, they will be illegally permitting the permanent destruction of hundreds of acres of our prime farmlands. Alternative one is the only responsible choice. To use encroaching development as a justification to de-designate land will continue to chip away at agricultural land, which goes against the conservation purpose of the agricultural land designations. If you allow this, you will be responsible

2:12:56 for the destruction of family-owned multi-generational farms that feed our community fresh, locally-grown food. Indigenous peoples have long said, "When the last tree is cut down, "the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, "you will realize that you cannot eat money." I wonder what this place would look like if we valued stewardship as much as growth, if we protected the land that feeds our community and allows us to be resilient as our climate changes. Just as our residents need housing and jobs, they also need food. Thank you. - Thank you. Steve Morass. No need to run. - Well, I know it's gonna be a long night, and I'd like to move things along.

2:13:52 So, for the record, Steve Morass, M-O-R-A-S-C-H, and I would like to talk briefly about the county staff memo and analysis that was submitted today. It's based on some rosy assumptions as to need and how many houses we're going to need in the next 20 years, and I would encourage the county to err on the side of caution with a overcapacity rather than trying to hit the number exactly, and then if a mistake was made, we will have an undercapacity or a shortfall which will lead to even greater affordability issues. Trying to predict anything 20 years into the future is a difficult task, and so there should be some effort to accommodate a somewhat of a slight overcapacity

2:14:51 so there's room for an error to have occurred or for maybe more growth than was anticipated without having an undersupply that would significantly increase costs of housing for the general public. I would also point out that the capacity estimates as discussed in the staff memo are based on this idea, and it comes from new state law, that all single-family zoning districts must allow fourplexes and multiplexes to be built and can't be restricted to single-family only. So the capacity number really envisions that no new single-family residences will be built on undeveloped lands during the planning horizon. That's how they show adequate capacity. So in essence, a vote for alternative one

2:15:51 is a vote for no new single-family developments in the next 20 years, which will also significantly increase the price of single-family homes and make the dream of owning a single-family home unaffordable for most people. Before my time runs out, I wanna turn to the reason I came tonight, which is to advocate for the Jones-McPherson property in the city of Ridgefield UGA. This is property the city has requested to be brought into the UGA. It's adjacent to the UGA on two sides. It's near a new school, and the letter that I submitted together with the Johnson Economics Report that is attached shows compliance with all of the WAC factors for de-designating farmland, and we would encourage you to listen to the city of Ridgefield and include this property into the UGA.

2:16:49 Thank you. - Thank you. - Monica, is what the table?

2:17:08 You guys are making lower, there we go, awesome. I'm not that tall. All right. Good evening, council members. My name is Monica Zazwetha Tabor, T-A-B-O-R. I am here today because I believe that the way we organize our land reflects our deepest values. I believe in a holistic future based on regeneration. We don't just manage growth, but actually live and thrive in balance with the ecology that sustains us all. For me, protecting our land isn't just about a rule or a choice. It is a spiritual and ethical calling to stay rooted in the living world and to make sure our communities stay strong as our climate changes. This is also about providing for all the children here and now, yeah, and seven generations into the future. We owe it to them. Because of this, I urge the council

2:18:07 to select alternative one as the preferred alternative. It is the only choice that fits a sustainable regenerative future. The county's own data shows that our current urban growth areas can already handle all the predicted growth for housing and jobs over the next 20 years. Expanding these boundaries now is unnecessary. If we do it, we are just allowing the absolute definition of urban sprawl as the county's own lawyer put it. We are risking the permanent loss of hundreds of acres of prime farmland. In a time of instability, being able to grow our own food is our most vital lifeline. We cannot eat houses. Also, building more housing doesn't mean lower housing prices. In 2025, I paid $450 for a one bedroom apartment. Now in 2026, the average rent for a one bedroom apartment is around $1,500.

2:19:06 More houses got built. It didn't go lower. I ask you to honor the Agricultural Advisory Commission's recommendation to keep all our current farming protections in place. I've served on the Environmental Justice Coalition and the Community Advisory Group. No matter where we stand on the climate conversation, I hope we can all agree that taking care of our backyard is common sense. Setting goals for the well-being of our people and our land is a smart insurance policy for our future. I urge the county to adopt the CAG recommendations and work hand in hand with the city of Vancouver by sharing ideas and coordinating our efforts. We find the most efficient, cost effective ways to keep our community healthy and our economy strong. I hope you all make the responsible choice to make sure that Clark County is prepared for whatever the future brings. Today, I humbly ask the council to step back and look past the short-term interests of developers

2:20:04 and instead consider the collective future of everyone in this county. Please honor the Agricultural Land Study and the law by choosing alternative one. Please let's choose a path of humility and service to the ecosystem that feeds us all. - Thank you very much. Theresa Hardy.

2:20:31 - Good evening, Theresa Hardy, H-A-R-D-Y. I just wanna make a reference to the fact that it wasn't clear when public comment was on the agenda. So maybe going forward so people would know whether they're showing up or would be helpful. And then I wanna thank those people who have brought up climate and climate change because it's an overriding issue that weighs heavily on all decision makings. I'm actually here for the Sierra Club, the EXCOMM, along with Mark Lead, who spoke earlier. We support land use policies that encourage healthy, equitable, and opportunity-rich communities and that protect our most valuable farmlands, forests, and water resources. The preferred alternative must accommodate the selective population and employment projections

2:21:27 within the existing urban growth areas. We support alternative one. And then the main reason why I'm here is to address battlegrounds request for 450 acres. That is pretty much our vibe to be light industrial. We wanna thank Councilor Young for taking a good part of his Saturday to go out and actually look at what that land is. It is a lot of trees in the center. There is white oak along Mill Creek, which runs through it, which is protected. There is, as Wendy said, it is ag quality land, over 200 acres. A big part of this is that battleground already has existing light industrial that is not ag capacity.

2:22:25 And then the fourth issue that needs to be considered is water and within battleground chapter six environment, October 2025, their draft comprehensive plan under conditions and trends, critical areas. It says the city contains critical areas, including fish and wildlife and frequently flooded areas. That is the 450 acres. Mill Creek, the fish, frequently flooded areas. It goes on to say that frequently flooded canary, frequently flooded areas that are designated in that, and that includes Mill Creek. As you look at approving that, we ask you to stay with alternative one.

2:23:20 Do not approve alternative two that 450 acres should remain 450 acres as it currently is. Thank you. - Thank you. - Malada Allen.

2:23:46 - I'm Malada Allen, and I have been crossing out just about everything that people had said. So my dissertation is a little bit, can you hear me now? - Can you please spell your last name for the record? - A-L-L-E-N. - Thank you. - The English spelling. - I am very, very impressed with some of the testimony for the alternative number one, because I had a whole dissertation on that, but I had to cross most of it out, because I do not want to repeat what the others had said. I am for the alternative number one, for many, many reasons, including that,

2:24:44 although there was a quote unquote alternative proposed for TDRs in the islands, I know from experience, they do not live forever. It only depends on the next person or two that will decide it's tragic end. And of course, the GMA law is quite specific about the resource designated lands. If you adopt any other alternative other than number one, you will end up in lawsuits, very expensive ones, that will cost the county and the residents a lot of money.

2:25:39 To develop into this conglomerate quote unquote expansion, it will require new infrastructure. Again, that will result in a lot of expense to all of us.

2:26:04 But unfortunately, the farms are going away very quickly in our area. And those are necessary resources in case of any unexpected disaster and or national security problems. That is part of our survival, and that does happen, because we cannot eat concrete. We cannot eat those expensive houses that we cannot afford, that all of us will suffer. - Thank you very much. - Thank you. - Terri Allen.

2:27:02 - Good evening, council. Terri Allen, A-L-L-E-N. I'm here to support Malata Allen's comments regarding the comprehensive plan. She has a doctorate in land use planning and management, 20 years of professional land use planning and project management at the county level. In addition, she served for seven years as a Clark County planning commissioner. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your consideration of her comment. - Thank you. - Lise Sanatoi, Sanatoi, sorry. Okay, so that seems to be everybody that signed. - I didn't get called, I was on there. - Your name? - Gary Goodwin. - Yep, I called you a while ago, but you might have been out of the room. I might have been in the bathroom. - That's quite all right. - Okay.

2:28:01 - Can you find him and mark him? - Sorry about that. - No worries. Just make sure to spell your last name for the record, please. - Okay, I need to spell my first name, too. My first name is with two R's, and my last name is Goodwin, G-O-O-D-W-I-N. You can't be all bad with a last name like Goodwin. Somebody had to do something here. I mean, this is getting pretty intense. I wanna first off say that I was actually on the Growth Management Board in 1992 and 1993, and this is a picture of me saying that, were they gonna get the sewer for all the apartments next to the college? And I knew the sewer line 'cause I actually helped build the sewer line, and it started at 36 inches and went to 42 inches, and it's gotta be pretty full right now. But anyway, I was told when I was on the board that my property would come into growth

2:29:01 within five to 10 years maximum, and that was in about 1994 by the county representative, and that services would be there. And I don't know what math you're using, but we're 32 years later, okay? And so I don't know if it's gonna come to growth now. If they would've told me that not in my lifetime was I gonna develop my property that is my only IRA, it's my only retirement fund, and one of these days I'm gonna have to leave there, and I'd like to utilize the amount of money that I'm gonna get from it the best I can. So can I ask to be brought into growth here now? - If you submitted a request earlier-- - I have not. - Yeah, I think it will have to wait 'til after this comp plan process is completed. - And again then, how do I enforce the fact that the county told me these lies,

2:30:01 and now here we are? I mean, if they would've told me not in your lifetime, Mr. Goodwin, my dad lived to be 66, I'm gonna be 73 in August. I don't know if I'm gonna live to another 20 years to be able to do something with my land. I look at this as this is like they down-zoned my property from two and a half acres to urban reserve tens, and now it's rural residential fives. So is this taking my property rights through zoning? I believe that it really is. Anyway, I wanna call this what it really is. This is the Anti-Growth Management Act. It's not a growth management act. It's kinda like the Affordable Care Act and the Anti-Inflation Act. If you put the right name, it just sounds better, when it really, really isn't. So I was also, I called your office, Sue, twice this year to make an appointment to sit down and go over all this stuff,

2:31:00 'cause I've saved all this stuff from the '90s. I have all these articles and all these that I would like to share with you if I possibly could, but I was told by someone in your office that about the promise, they says, "Well, we knew people come and go, "so we really don't have to honor your promise." And so I don't think that's really right neither. So I could go on, but I guess I'm just about out of time here anyway. What about affordability? The affordability went away as you limit more land to be able to be available, then the costs go up. And so, anyway, if you'd like to meet with me, I'd be happy to meet with you. - Shoot me an email, we'll set something up. - Okay, thank you. - Thank you. - Is there anybody else in the room that didn't get a chance to sign up that would like to speak, excuse me, please come to the podium.

2:31:57 State your first and spell your last name for the record. - Push the button. - Oh, you just turned it off, Isla. - There you go, there you go. - It's gone. - It's good. - Very well, Isla Westergaard, W-E-S-T-E-R-G-A-R-D. I will be brief, it's a long night. I'm not much for change, for fixing what's not broke. And to me, some planning is a bit like a joke. But growth means to prepare, cut here, add there. Just please remember to keep the best, toss the rest. So after all the work that staff has done,

2:32:55 I'm supporting alternative one. Thank you. - Thank you very much. Okay, last call for in the room. Okay, we do have a few folks online. - Do we know how many? - Five. - Five, okay. Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please state your name for the record, spelling your last name, and go ahead with your comment. - My name's Patty with an I, Reynolds, R-E-Y-N-O-L-D-S. And I'm a resident of unincorporated Clark County, adding my voice to those who are pleading on behalf of the wetlands and the amazingly rich agricultural lands spread throughout our county. I've seen humans look at their surroundings as just a financial objective, purchased to get rezoned to sell to those who want to plant homes, warehouses, or other commercial businesses. I've seen humans move into a new development,

2:33:53 bulldozed into postage stamp size lots, holding 4,000 square foot homes next to a longstanding working dairy farm, and then filing junctions to stop the smell of cows from permeating their neighborhood. These same humans complain about the noise and droppings of Canadian geese as they fly overhead, looking for that marsh and feeding ground that now seems to be asphalt and cement. Can any of you really state that we have no need for locally produced food? Do you really believe that we can just put a fence around some land and call it rural, while all around it the land is being dug up, animal habitats are being uprooted or moved elsewhere, roads are being destroyed? Are you balancing out the water needs of those relying on the groundwater as you approve new rural-esque neighborhoods? Or is the plan to demand that those with 30 to 50-year-old wells foot the bill to have miles of cement tubes connect our homes to city water? Drive around a bit and you'll see empty buildings

2:34:52 and strip malls filled with vacancies. Yet we're to believe that there's a need to convert agricultural wetland and residentially zoned lands to light industrial and commercial to satisfy the pocketbooks of those now demanding the removal of these wetlands and the rezoning of land for greater personal profit. Some of the cities are pushing for development and changes that might well create a problem for an adjacent area. Many recent and current road changes have not been well received by existing residents in anticipation of those new folks each city hopes to entice into their tax base. The infrastructure of unincorporated Clark County looks about the same as it did more than 30 years ago. These are the same narrow roads with minimal post-development improvement that have been assaulted by construction vehicles causing unrepaired surface damage and large new neighborhoods with hundreds of additional cars. The planning commission has voted to exclude

2:35:51 the only GMA map that will not traumatize the natural resources of our county. The other maps include the outlandish juggling of our wild, wet, agricultural and rural lands thinking you can, yes, I'm gonna quote it, "Pave our paradise and put up your parking lots." They've decided that either of these questionably palliative options will satisfy our vision of our beautiful county, and I don't think they're right. Thank you. - Thank you. Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so. State your name for the record, spelling your last name, and go ahead with your comment. Jim, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so, spell your last name, and go ahead with your comment.

2:36:46 Okay, we're gonna move on to the next person. Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please state your name for the record. State your name for the record, spell your last name, and go ahead with your comment. - Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please state your name for the record, spelling your last name, and go ahead with your comment. - Hello? - Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. - Yes, my name is Dennis Zimmerman, V-I-M-M-E-R-L-Y, a fourth generation of the land and rich field alternative two is not eggplant, but Johnny needs to conduct a full analysis

2:37:44 using all 14 criteria. - I'm sorry, I can't understand him. There's static or something going on. - Yeah, I don't know. Maybe you could slow down a little bit and speak a little more clearly. We'll see if that can resolve the problem. - The land and alternative two has never been well suited for productive or commercial farming. Clay soils, lack of water, existing habitat constraints, challenging topography, and significantly limits its viability for meaningful agricultural use. Is that any better? - Yes, that's much better. Cindy, is that better for you? - Yes, yes, absolutely. - Thank you.

2:38:41 - Just as important is the broader context, the area known as the Discovery Corridor has long been planned for urban growth. To the south is the Costco Commercial Center, to the east is I-5 with the Seventh-day Adventist Regional Headquarters and the Paradise Land Unit Development to the west. In addition, the Calitz tribe continues to acquire land moving south towards Richfield, reinforcing the clear path of development. Egg designation alone does not create food productions, food security, or create working farms. Given these realities, the county should move forward with selecting alternative two, including the adoption of the TDR policies.

2:39:36 - Does that conclude your comments? - Yes. - Okay, thank you very much. - I must have a bad connection, thank you. - I think we got the gist. - Okay. - Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so. State your name for the record, spelling your last name, and go ahead with your comment. - My name is Ann Shaw, S-H-A-W. Counselors, please support the alternative one update of the comp plan. Decisions by previous councils have already provided a 20-year growth capacity in the county.

2:40:36 There is no legal requirement to sacrifice county farmlands just to expand Carr County as a bedroom community for Portland. Alternative one supports county families and homesteads who depend on a resilient local agricultural economy. Changing the designation of agricultural land places the county's farming industry at risk. The county is legally required to support its local agricultural economy and maintain a sufficient supply of agricultural lands. The county has an obligation to develop a legally sound framework and clear criteria for de-designating agricultural land. Protect our collective future. Do not allow prime agricultural land to be paved over with urban sprawl. Thank you. - Thank you. - Caller, you've been sent to request to unmute.

2:41:34 Please go ahead and do so, spelling your last name, and go ahead with your comment. - Hi, county council members. My name is Olivia Zimmerman, Z-I-M-M-E-R-L-Y. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you guys tonight. I'm calling to express my strong support for alternative two. I'm a fifth generation resident of Ridgefield. My family has resided in Ridgefield for over 150 years now. While my family has historically farmed in Ridgefield and throughout the county, that is no longer the case. Today, most of the farming takes place east of the mountain. I own property within Ridgefield's proposed north expansion area. This land does not contribute to local agricultural production. There are no working farms in this area, and it is not viable for farming.

2:42:33 It also does not provide any food resources for the county. The proposed expansion area is surrounded by the city limits on the free side, Costco in and out to the south, my side to the east, and Paradise PUD to the west. I know many younger people my age that want to reside in Ridgefield, but need options for affordable housing and access to good paying jobs. Alternative two will help make this possible. I strongly urge the council to select alternative two and conduct the full analysis. It is the most logical choice for thoughtful and strategic urban expansion.

2:43:12 - Thank you. - Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so. State your name, spelling your last name for the record, and go ahead with your comment. - Good evening. My name is Heidi Pozzo, P-O-Z-Z-O. I'm asking the council not to select a preferred alternative tonight that adds density to the 179th corridor. This county has a long history of taking corrective action when concurrency standards are not met in this area. Right now, the standards are not being met and the county is not acting. This area has a history of increased development paired with a history of corrective action. The 179th area was under urban holding precisely because it was known the roads were not sufficient. The Salmon Creek area immediately to the south has been under three separate development moratoria since 1997. Urban holding, moratoria, and code amendments are tools this county has used in this area when the network falls behind.

2:44:12 The county is not taking corrective action now and the evidence is in the hearing room. Last Thursday, at the hearing for the 174th Street subdivision, the hearing examiner asked staff where in the code the county has authorized to override a failing quarter volume to capacity ratio with passing intersection level of service. Staff could not explain. The hearing examiner and the developer's attorney then agreed on the record that the practice is not in the code. The legislative record on that point is unambiguous. When the county adopted volume to capacity as the corridor standard in 2014, the override practice was specifically addressed. Volume to capacity made the corridor measure. Intersection level of service was preserved as a safety net, a bare minimum floor, not as a way to override a failing corridor. That history is in the deep planning commission and board of commissioner minutes and staff reports from 2014. The override practice has no foundation in the code

2:45:12 or the legislative intent behind it. That override is how recent staff concurrency analysis in the corridor has been waved through. Without it, the corridor fails on its own data. RCW 36.70A.0706B requires a financial commitment to complete road improvements within six years, not to fund them on paper to complete them. The record from 2019 is clear that the county believed it did not need to complete the 179th area, only to have financing reasonably in place. That is half the standard and half the county skipped. So the pattern is this. Density is pushed into the corridor. The county applies the wrong half of the GMA standard. Road projects don't get completed and concurrency code is then overridden to keep approving development on roads that won't support the volume. Please do not select an alternative tonight

2:46:11 that adds density. Do what the county has done before and address the problem. Direct staff to develop a moratorium for this corridor. Thank you. - Thank you. - Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so. State your name, spelling your last name for the record and go ahead with your comment. - Is that-- - Randall, if you can unmute. We'll move on to the other person. Jude, we've sent you a request to unmute. If you could go ahead and do so, spell your last name and go ahead with your comment. - Can you hear me now? - Yes, we can. - My name is Jude Waite, W-A-I-T.

2:47:10 And I am going to summarize some of my comments that I submitted in the past and resubmitted in the portal. I would like to remind us what the Agricultural Advisory Commission has recommended. The Agricultural Land Study priorities and recommendations. And I would like to bring back a previous testimony of Friends of Clark County and several, not enough, watershed restoration experts regarding the lack of adequate mitigation for water quality and water quantity. And remind us that we are 95 or so dependent as designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a designated aquifer, such that we are completely reliant on our aquifer for our drinking water.

2:48:08 And we are not adequately protecting its recharge because we are instituting too much pavement. And I understand that some of the cities with their development plans actually have not shown that they can supply enough water for the residential development. It doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere. And I'd also like to remind us to incorporate the climate element, policies and recommendations more fully, particularly equity and access and protecting vulnerable residents. And the policies consensed by the Environmental Justice Coalition and Climate Advisory Groups. And I think we need to rethink the housing and jobs projections, especially to include farm and food-related economic development opportunities on the many acres of agriculturally designated

2:49:08 and rurally designated land in production or potentially in production. Maybe de-silo some of the county operations for example, parks and recreation is paving some of the best food growing land on one of their properties and removing very old trees from another. Unfortunately, affordable housing is really lacked on the ground reality now or in the future. And I don't know if any of the solutions proposed or the counting of the numbers and the projections actually address that because supply and demand has a huge gap and affordability is really a misnomer. Like farmers in the county, we are very much overburdened so we're not all here today. And I appreciate your attention. Thank you. - Thank you.

2:50:06 Randall, we've sent you another request to unmute. If you could go ahead and do so and spell your last name for the record and go ahead with your comment. We'll try Jim one last time. Jim, we've sent you a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so, spell your last name for the record and go ahead with your comment.

2:50:48 (mumbling) - That concludes public comment, Chair. They're not on the phone, ma'am. - Okay, all right, thank you. So that concludes public comment. I would like to ask the planning staff if there were any corrections. I know the city of Vancouver, I think they had some, came away with some misinformation related to the capacity or is there anything else that you'd like to comment on? - Yeah, so we provided not this spreadsheet but a capacity analysis that showed this same data

2:51:45 to the city and I think they were just confused by the unincorporated UGA and the reduction that we were showing as deficit. So didn't really understand that we were looking at that as the VUGA in its entirety and so as we would reduce our capacity as we take on theirs. So essentially we're, overall it's the same number. - They don't have a deficit, though. - No, they do not, no. - Okay, all right. Anything else you'd like to respond to? Okay, well we've had three hours of testimony. I think there's still a lot of deliberations yet to go and I would just want to, I guess, ask if there's anything if you want to, if there's a desire to continue this

2:52:42 till tomorrow or power through the rest of this evening. - Chair. - Chair. - Well, yeah, this is Matt Little. I'd love to get it done tonight. I appreciate all the public comments. I've learned a lot from them. I don't think tonight is a final decision, obviously. This is a decision of what is the menu of options that we think is worthy of a full environmental analysis and then after we get that environmental analysis, then we make a final decision based on that. So I'm actually prepared with two motions to present if I got a second, but happy to have some discussion. - We're not taking motion, I've just asked one question and that's what I'd like responses. - We're ready to go. - Okay, great. Others? - Chair.

2:53:40 I would prefer to be able to ask staff questions that have been generated that we have developed based on the conversation that we've heard and then I would prefer to continue the hearing to tomorrow to give us some time to incorporate some of these thoughts that we've had tonight and then in addition, I'll be honest, although I was busy all day today preparing for this meeting, I had email after email land in my mailbox and I've not been able to review them. - Yeah, I think we've all experienced that. Councilor Belcott? - Ditto on what Councilor Young says. - Okay, I would say ditto as well, but we'll have, and Councilor Fuentes? - Councilor Young, thanks for reminding me about the dozens of emails I received the last couple hours before the beginning of this hearing

2:54:39 and I will have to agree with one of my colleagues that I would prefer to read them before we make a decision, so a continuation is probably in order. - Great. So we'll continue with our deliberations tomorrow at 10, but for the remainder of the evening, we will have clarifying questions of staff. Is that okay? I'm seeing nods, okay. Does anyone have a question? Councilor Young? - Chair Marshall, can we just clarify that public comment is closed? - Yes, public comment is closed and there'll be no opportunity for public comment tomorrow. It'll be strictly the Council's deliberations. Thank you. - Everybody looks my way.

2:55:37 I did have a few questions. So the first question I have is I've heard a lot of support for alternative one this evening and can you describe what alternative one would mean in terms of the cities, all of them, including the county and the urban growth area, the desire to increase density, to up zone and increased middle housing. And then the last question would be what does it mean for all of the jurisdictions ability to be in compliance with the new state laws that have been passed?

2:56:28 - That's a broad question and they're thinking.

2:56:54 (silence)

2:57:20 So the alternative one includes no expansion of the current urban growth area and it includes no changes. So in the legislation that was passed and the requirement to have housing by default, income ban is gonna require some change to the zoning, requiring the jurisdictions to up zone. I think the sentiment might be to keep the same urban growth boundaries. And so the jurisdictions that are proposing growth boundary expansions, battleground moving to the west,

2:58:20 Camas for the airport at the minimum, and then they have a second, the Nevin property, La Center and Ridgefield have both expressed interest in expanding their UGAs. All the other jurisdictions have not, except for Yakult also expressed concern or expansion request. The planning commission recommended not pursuing that and also recommended not pursuing what the county had proposed for employment. - But all of those are alternatives too. So alternative one is no change. That means we're not up zoning, we're not increasing density, and we're also not making the changes that are required to comply with state law. - That's correct.

2:59:15 Okay, I did want to, I wanted to understand, I think it's important to have a public conversation about this. From my understanding of a conversation that I had with you guys today, your recommendation for up zoning in the area around 179th has changed. Am I correct in that? - That's correct, that's what we're proposing to reduce the capacity, the excess capacity from that 43,000 to the 32,000 would include making changes to the area at 179th to essentially keep it as is except for the areas that are currently zoned urban medium. So if it's R-12, the proposals will still stay to go to R-24.

3:00:15 But anything that was R-20 or R-16 or R-175, it was mostly proposed to go to R-24. And that is not part of that reduction. - Okay, and then do you know just, you may not have this off the top of your head, but how many housing units did that amount to reducing?

3:00:39 - It's a little over 10,000, not just, are you just talking generally or just in that location? - In that location. - I don't know specifically, I can get that. - Yeah, if you could get that too. - I'd be interested in that as well. - Actually, those are my questions. That's it, thank you. - Chair. - Okay, yes, go ahead. - Thank you. Just a couple of questions as well. You mentioned that alternative one doesn't require increased density, correct? - As presented now. - Right. - So alternative one is a no action alternative. So you can't, it doesn't include any proposed density the way of zoning, the way it's presented now.

3:01:37 Doesn't mean that you can have an alternative that couldn't do that. - But it doesn't discourage it either, right? There's no wording about discouraging and, okay, got it. Now my question is, what percentage of projected growth can be accommodated with the existing UGAs? - So essentially that 99,000 out of 103,000. - Okay, and I'm curious, 'cause we all know that urban sprawl requires a lot of infrastructure, and I don't know if you can answer this question, but when infrastructure funding gaps exist under the expansion alternatives, so that if we were to select alternative two, requires a ton of infrastructures, roads, sewage, sewer systems, et cetera. So do we have an idea of what the funding gap may be if that was the preferred alternative? - So that's part of the next stage in this process.

3:02:37 Once we hit a preferred alternative, we're gonna do a capital facilities analysis to determine exactly what the cost is and what the infrastructure needs will be. - And at the end of the day, it's the taxpayer that is burdened with that infrastructure, correct? - Has this been posted on our website? - Not yet, no. - Will it be posted? - We can, yes. - Okay, it'd be good for us to get copies of this before. - We've sent it out. - Did you send that? - I think, yeah, we send it to everyone. - I was reading other things. - Right. - Okay, great, thanks. Oh, and then the timeline, we did submit a timeline for completion of the comp plan to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Has that been posted, or could that be made available? To the public? - We can do both. - We can do both. - We can post it, but it hasn't been posted yet.

3:03:35 - Okay, I think it would be good for the public to understand the very tight timeline that we're operating under. Great. - We, as staff, can post that one of the comments I would like to make based on some of the testimony is that this baseline information, so that it's not misunderstood, this is based on, at the time this was done, and staff correct, Jose, correct me if I'm wrong, this is 2022. - Yes. - 2022. So, we are now in 2026. So, I'm sure that if we were to run the model now,

3:04:33 these existing capacities in all to one will change, because some land would have developed. However, that may make this number smaller. It could also make the 103 much smaller as well, because you're no longer planning for 103,000 plus. Why is that? If you say that some of these numbers will change, because some have developed, or are no longer available, because they're now being subdivided, if there are no homes yet built, we will capture that, but there are no folks there yet. However, what you have to do is, if X number of unit have been absorbed

3:05:32 since we have been doing this plan, you have to estimate what number of folks that is, because since we have been doing this, if you take the time, the council approve the population to plan for, people are moving in. Those that are moving in are part of your growth, so you gotta subtract it, depending on where your nest base is. So, we gotta be careful in looking at this and say this is it. So, I just want to put that out there. The comment about numbers, it is data that informs you of what decision you need to make. You can't ignore it. So, yes, in alt one, coming to your question, if changes are made, and the cities wants to do so,

3:06:30 it's possible in alt one. Part of the question for us is, what has been studied in the draft EIS? How much do you want to deviate from that? And if you do, does that rise to the level of another analysis? And how would that impact your schedule? If you know, we are one of the counties that was appealed, because we didn't meet our deadline. And we are now, we have an order from the growth board to complete our plan by July 31st of this year. Don't know whether they will agree to this or not. So, I want to be mindful that I'm not leaving any stone unturned,

3:07:28 because if they said no, we will be in a bind. If they agree to this, we have to keep to this without creating additional work or decision that will put us into a supplemental. - Thank you, did you have anything else to add? - No. - Councilor Young, your light's on. Okay, and so, is this a continuation of our meeting for tomorrow? So, am I not adjuring what-- - You're gonna continue to a certain date and time, so I would say continue to tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. - Okay, the council will continue our meeting 'til tomorrow at 10 a.m. where we will continue our deliberations. Am I adjourning? - You can adjourn now.

3:08:28 - Recess, okay, we'll recess overnight. Everyone have a good evening. Thank you for your patience out there. - Thank you. - See you tomorrow. (upbeat music)