Clark County Council

0:00 >> Good morning and welcome. Calling to order Clark County Council meeting which is a continuation of yesterday's meeting but today it's April 28, 2026 and we're continuing from last night which was the April 27th. Starting from a long recess. So let's start with the roll call. >> Councilor Young? >> Here. >> Councilor Belcott? >> Present. >> Councilor Fuentes? >> Here. >> Councilor Little? >> Present. >> Chair Marshall? >> Here. >> Are there any amendments to the agenda? >> Yes, Chair.

0:52 >> I'd like to request council to add an executive session in accordance with RCW 42-31-101 little i for 15 minutes. No potential after action. >> Okay, and that we'll be doing before we go into deliberations. >> That's correct, it would be if council agrees at the beginning of the meeting. >> Yes. >> Okay, well let me ask the council, are you amenable to an executive session? >> At the beginning of the meeting? >> Yes. >> Chair? >> Yes. >> I prefer not to do an executive session. I feel like we've heard everything that we need to hear and everything should be out in the open when we make our decisions. If this is about potential of being sued, I know we're going to get sued no matter what decision we make. So I don't think there's more to learn there.

1:52 But yeah, I'd prefer this way to just proceed without an executive session. >> I would be favor in executive session. >> Councilor Belcott? >> I'm changed my mind. I agree with Councilor Little. Everything that we have been talking about should be transparent and open to the public. And we did share more information last night. >> Councilor Young. >> I would support an executive session. I have a couple questions myself, so. >> Great. Okay, well that's three of us, so we will, I think at the outset of this meeting, proceed to an executive session for 15 minutes. I want to just round that maybe to 10, 20. >> Sure. >> Yes. >> I will wait out here for it to sit.

2:46 >> This webinar is being recorded and summarized. >> Okay, Council has returned from our executive session. Just ask, are there any motions? Councilor Fuentes? >> I got a motion to have our legal counsel review. >> I can't hear him. >> Sorry. >> He's thinking about what his motion is. You'll hear it when he's ready to reveal it. >> Thank you. Yes, Chair, Councilor Fuentes, I do have a motion. I have a motion to allow our legal counsel to review documents that were submitted on April 23rd, 2026.

3:47 >> Is that all documents or certain documents or? >> Chair, let me change my motion. All documents related to the preferred alternative selection that have been submitted. >> Again, do you want to narrow that down, Annie? >> Councilor Young, did you want to try and help out? >> If you could refine that to letters, any letters from attorneys that have potential legal arguments in them. >> Thank you, that's helpful. >> Thank you, let's refine that. Chair, I'd like a motion to allow our legal counsel to review any letters from attorneys that require review and might have a legal outcome in our decision.

4:46 >> Is there a second? >> Chair? >> Let me just see if there's a second to that, unless you wanted to second it. >> I need a clarification. >> Okay, let me just see if there's a, is there a second? >> I'll second. >> There is a second. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Little. >> Are these documents that were previously privileged or currently privileged and were reviewed in executive session only? >> No, they're all public. They've all been posted. >> Okay, and the request is just to release them or post them? >> It's to- >> They're already posted. They're already public. It would be to have a legal review of the opinions expressed in those letters we've received from attorneys. >> Okay. >> Chair? >> Yes, go ahead. >> Will this delay the outcome of today's meeting,

5:42 making decisions since we want to give our council time to review legal documents? >> No, we'll steam ahead with our decision today. We're going to come up with our preferred alternative today. >> Okay. >> I would just clarify, it's not selecting the preferred alternative, but it's determining what we want to be further studied and analyzed as part of the environmental impact statement. >> I believe that's called the preferred alternative. And then we'll have a final decision later. Jose, did you want to clarify? Maybe we're using the wrong terminology. >> So the analysis has already begun with the three alternatives that have been selected. The preferred alternative has to fall within the range that's been studied in the DEIS. So that's the selection of the preferred alternative.

6:38 Then we'll do some capital facilities analysis, and the final EIS will be completed based on that. >> And from that, we'll make our final decision. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right, any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor, say aye. >> Aye. Opposed, no. >> Abstain. >> Abstentions? >> Abstain, yes. >> Yes, one abstention. Counselor Belcott? >> Abstain, sorry. >> Two abstentions, thank you. Okay, the motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay, now we're going to be moving back to our agenda on deliberating on selecting the preferred alternative.

7:31 And I think that following the planning commission's lead, we'll just go through the chart and maybe you could put that up here. And this also includes the planning commission's recommendations. So we can, I would just advise you all to be prepared to make motions and second. And we'll discuss these item by item as we go down. Does that sound reasonable? Chair? >> Yes. >> I am prepared with two motions that would be much more simpler than this, so I would like to proceed with my first motion. I would want to first describe the two motions before I offer them. >> Okay, can I just check with the council to see how they would like to proceed if they want to proceed? Which you can explain how you're proceeding or to follow how the planning commission dealt with these things.

8:30 >> Okay, I'm just offering to explain what I'm proposing. >> Yes, please go ahead. >> Okay, the first motion will, well first of all as we have said, this is a decision today on what are the menu of options that we want fully studied. It's not a final decision, it's a decision that will provide more analysis so we can make a future decision a couple months from now. With that in mind, I want to respect all the work that the planning commission put into this. We spent a lot of time interviewing candidates and making sure that there are diverse interests on that planning commission. They made some pretty strong decisions including a seven to zero decision at the beginning against alternative one. The others that were involved here are different versions of alternative two,

9:30 which was also strongly supported either seven, zero, six, two, or five, two. And so what I would like to do as one of my motions today would be to support the planning commission decision minus one, except for one change with battlegrounds request which is under 2A to, instead of have the word retain, to have the word remove there. And then also not include the TDR motion or stipulation. And then I would want to have a separate motion to discuss the Nevin property in Camas because I think it's worthy of a separate discussion. That was voted three to four against by the planning commission, and that is 3B. So I would be offering two different motions to proceed,

10:29 probably starting with the Nevin property so we could have a discussion on that one. And then I have a little bit more direction on what I'd like to be seeing in the environmental analysis, which I guess I could just say right now, I'd like to see once we make a decision here that there'd be extra emphasis placed on studying climate impacts, including miles traveled and all the things that need to be considered in that decision. Also food security, what impact this will have to food security in our community. Tribal concerns, recently received a letter from the college tribe where they mentioned some cultural concerns. I want to make sure that we have that fully analyzed. Also on adequate housing for all income levels. We'd like to see the new chart on employment and housing,

11:29 especially on housing to see how it breaks down for different income levels for each jurisdiction. And then finally, to go further into the de-designation criteria, make sure that all 14 are also further analyzed by the county staff so that we can make our own independent decision. So that's how I'd like to proceed today, offering those two different motions. >> Okay, I would suggest related to further policy direction or the EIS that we wait till we make our decision on the preferred alternative. Then we can have further discussion because I think it warrants a lot of further discussion. I personally would prefer to follow the planning commission's process in terms of just going down the line in the chart and discussing each item specifically. >> Chair?

12:26 >> Yes, go ahead. >> Just to clarify what Councilor Young, excuse me, Councilor Little is suggesting a blanket motion to approve a preferred alternative based on the decisions that the planning commission made? >> Yes, with what? >> Yes, with one correction on battlegrounds. >> Okay, well, no, that's fine, I don't need any more information. I think that's incredibly irresponsible, Councilor Little. I think it is the responsibility and the duty of this council to move by line item and have a discussion about these decisions as opposed to a blanket statement. >> A blanket motion. >> Other Councillors as far as just the process to make our decisions? >> I could go either way on this. I am a fan of making sure the public is aware, but this has definitely been through the ringer.

13:24 I mean, there is extensive discussion with the planning commission. I really feel like that at this point it is, I wouldn't say it's easy, but I would say that people certainly can be aware of the content of these. And there haven't been any changes since the planning commission, so I really could go either way. I think it could save potential time for sure, or would save by going with a motion similar to what Councilor Little has suggested. I could go either way. >> Sure. >> I just want to add that I had mentioned an important part of this motion would be to not include the TDR stipulation from the planning commission. The reason I'm considering that is that I believe that the time for that will be when we make a final decision, I think that would be the appropriate time.

14:21 There's a lot of groups that are saying that we are connecting a decision on TDRs or credits to help justify de-designation. And last time when we had a discussion on this, we all said, as well as the city said, that any decision on de-designation should stand on its own. And it should follow the law, which is following the 14 criteria. So I think that we should not have in this analysis a TDR program, even though I'm a huge supporter of that, I think that's more appropriate when we make a final decision to make a separate motion on a TDR program, so that's my intent. >> I think that confuses things because the planning commission's decisions were based on that TDR recommendation. That it's conditional, those, well, I don't know. If you're agreeing to the de-designations without

15:21 any way to trade that off, that's very different than what the planning commission recommended. I would still like to go back to, let's just go down top to bottom. I think that's the cleanest way to do it. It may take a little bit longer, but assures that we have an opportunity to weigh in on the planning commission's recommendation. >> Anyway, I would like to make my motion if people will allow me to make it. I would like to first make a motion to support. >> I feel like we haven't decided on our process. If we're going to follow this, I would just say, maybe there's it. We've got someone who could go either way, two of us who would like to follow the planning commission. Councillor Belcott hasn't weighed in.

16:16 >> I just want to hear more of what Councillor Little was trying to describe before I make a decision. >> Well, he's ready to move on to motions. >> I'm ready to describe more. So how I was going to start is instead of doing the whole enchilada at once, I was going to have a separate discussion about the Camas decision on the Nevin property. Because I live there, it was a split three to four decision against. And the other motion will be supporting the planning commission's decision except for changing the battleground to say where the city wanted to remove the metal glade. And the planning commission decided to say retain.

17:09 So I was going to suggest that we go with the city's proposal there, and which the staff also supported. So that was the only change to the other one. But I wanted to start with the Nevin property to get that one decided whether we're going to include that in the preferred alternative or not. >> I think this is a very confused way to go about this. It would be better to start from top to bottom and make our decisions. >> I'm happy to do the whole thing at once, then. I would like to make a motion to approve what the planning commission decided in exhibit B and accept on 2A to change the word from retain to remove. Also, it will not include the TDR decision, and we will hold on 3B and Camas. So that's my motion. >> I'll second that.

18:05 >> Okay, on 2A, the planning commission voted to retain meadow glade, and you want to remove meadow glade? >> Yeah, change the word from retain to remove.

18:26 >> And that was the city's request, and the staff supported it originally. >> Okay, so it's been moved and seconded. We're ready for discussion. Councillors? Go ahead. >> This has been a long and painful conversation. Where I am at right now is, we found out yesterday that changes to the model made a difference of 30,000 housing units, which creates just a, It makes it evidence that small changes can make a significant difference to this. And I think at this point, I anticipate and

19:24 actually staff had said yesterday that they're going to be making refinements. We're going to see as part of the FEIS, we're going to see current data being placed into the model. What has developed and what land is now no longer vacant, those two things can change significantly. So I think at this point, all we're doing is selecting what we are instructing the consultant to do further analysis on. It's not a final decision. Anything that we remove at this point, because it will have not been studied, will no longer be an option for us to consider when we make the final decision. And I think that we should have flexibility and keep our options open as we continue to get new data and refine data. So, I am supportive of this motion at this point in time.

20:23 Battleground, nobody has asked for that, or I mean, nobody has said that they want that to be in their urban growth boundaries, so I'm okay making that change. I will say, however, and hopefully we'll continue to have a conversation on TDR, because I agree with you, any de-designation has to be done based on its own merit. But for me, in order to do, to consider any expansion that included what was once ag land, I won't do it without some form of stipulation ensuring that there is a TDR program that will be in place. And that there is something attached that disallows urbanization of those parcels until the TDR program is built.

21:22 So, I don't know where that stands with going on later, but I can be supportive of the motion as it is currently.

21:33 >> I would like to amend the motion to remove the de-designation of all of the agricultural resource lands. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. >> Would, just clarification, wouldn't that need to be asked as a friendly amendment? >> Yeah. >> At this point? >> To be friendly or not, it's an amendment. >> Yeah, I don't accept that amendment. >> To clarify as point of order, Amber Smith, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, respect to that. Because there is an amendment and there's a second for it that has been proposed, it would require a vote of the council by a majority to approve and adopt that amendment before moving on with respect to the original motion. So you have essentially a motion with inside the motion right now.

22:29 So there would need to be discussion and then a decision about whether or not to accept the amendment from the whole body before we go on to the final decision on the first proposed. If it either goes as it was originally proposed by Councilor Little or if it will move forward as the amended. >> Thank you. >> My understanding of Robert's Rules, I'm not going to override you, but my understanding has to be accepted as a friendly amendment. Otherwise, the original motion has to be voted on as it stood. >> Yeah. >> Well, she's looking that up, I'll speak to my amendment. I think the history of land use and growth management act in Clark County has been very, very clear. As far as de-designating agricultural land and we have even more,

23:29 I think, stronger arguments not to de-designate agricultural land because of the ag study that was conducted. Now the ag study has been criticized, but I think what the criticism is, is some didn't like the outcome of the ag study. And so we can, if we choose, go back and look at some of those criteria. But I would just guess if the outcome doesn't meet with those who are advocating to de-designated agriculture, there would still be criticism of any ag study. But time after time, when we, as a county council, have tried to de-designate agricultural land, we've lost time after time. And it has come at a good deal of cost when we've been out of compliance

24:24 by sticking to our guns that we really, really wanted this agricultural land to come in. So I think it makes no sense to me to keep trying to pursue that with this track record that we already have. It will be very, very costly. It will put the county at risk of receiving funds. And you just need to look at the history to understand that. Any other comments? >> I would just say the same thing I've been saying for a long time. The ag study studied specific criteria. Instead, based on these particular criteria, it could be considered for designation. It did not look at all of the criteria.

25:19 It decided on whether or not it was going to look at the criteria, but it did not evaluate it on all of the criteria. >> It was evaluated on the required criteria and some of the discretionary criteria. I think it met the objectives and the requirements of, I think that's goal eight. >> Are we discussing my motion, or is there a legitimate amendment? >> We're discussing the amendment. >> I'm asking the attorney. >> You can ask me first, and I'll refer to her. Go ahead. >> Again, Amber Smith. With respect to Robert's rules of order, it does not formally recognize friendly amendments. It's something that's encouraged, but it's not necessarily adopted. And for a definition of a friendly amendment, it usually is something that clarifies or

26:16 refines a motion that is already on the floor. This would technically not be considered one because it is a material change with respect to the motion. So with Robert's rules of order, when there is amendment to a motion that is a material amendment, as I stated previously, what has been done here is there's an amendment with a second on the floor, which would require the council to make a vote to determine whether or not to proceed with an amended motion or to reject the amendment and then move forward with respect to the original motion that's on the floor. So we need a vote for the amendment to see if the amendment is actually going to be before you as a final decision. >> So we are still discussing the amendment. Did you have something to add? >> Yeah, well, I'd like to vote against the amendment. But in discussion here, this is not a decision about designation.

27:16 This is a decision to study the city's proposals to us and the planning commission's strong recommendations to us to study them so that we can make a future decision. >> The planning commission's strong recommendation was to tie that conditionally to a TDR program, so. >> Also before they voted, they voted seven to zero against alternative one, not based on the TDR program.

27:51 >> Okay, is there any other discussion related to the amendment? Okay, all those in favor, this is roll call, okay. >> Councilor Young. >> No. >> Councilor Belcott. >> Can you re-clarify the motion? I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part. >> Sure, the motion is to remove any de-designation of agricultural land from the recommendation. So that would be Ridgefield, Lissenter, and Camas, who are all requesting de-designation. >> Do you need any more information? >> Have we moved on to the vote?

28:48 >> She's thinking, okay, take your time. >> Maybe perhaps if I could clarify a little bit. So the motion on the floor, the original motion, is that we adopt what came out of the planning commission in terms of their recommendation. With the exception of the metal glades area, we would remove that. And the amendment proposed by Chair Marshall is that we remove any of the parts from the planning commission recommendation that are currently designated as agricultural land. So that no land is de-designated, which means it could not come into the urban growth boundary. >> Go ahead, Amber. >> And again, just to clarify as well as this point of order, it is a motion to approve the amending of the original motion that's on the floor.

29:43 This is not to make the final determination as to whether or not you are approving or accepting the motion for which preferred alternative. It's just the motion to either approve or deny the amendment to the original motion. >> Can we do roll call and have Councilor Belcott last? >> I think we can just do the roll call. We started the roll call. >> Councilor Belcott, are you ready to vote on the amendment? >> I like Councilor Little's suggestion of going last, if that's possible. >> Councilor Fuentes? >> No. >> I think we should just follow our regular procedures. And go as we have always gone when we do a roll call vote. Thank you. >> I'm making a determination.

30:42 >> Okay, so we had Councilor Young. >> No. >> Councilor Belcott? >> Aye. >> Councilor Fuentes? >> Aye. >> Councilor Little? >> This is a vote to exclude all city's proposals to de-designate land. >> It would be the opposite of my motion, Councilor Belcott. >> Councilor Belcott has voted, would you? >> This would be the opposite of my motion. It would nullify my motion. >> I would just determine you're out of order. Would you just please vote? >> She may not be aware of the- >> Would you just please vote? >> Actually, I wasn't. Thank you for clarification, Councilor Little. >> This is a little bit confusing for these motions.

31:39 >> Would you like to change your vote? >> Please, Councilor Little. >> If she doesn't understand it- >> Please, Councilor Little. >> She can change her vote. >> I do not have the floor at this moment. Councilor Belcott, would you like to change your vote? >> Yes. >> And how are you voting? >> The opposite. >> That would be no? >> Yes. >> Okay, continue. >> No. >> Yes. >> I was muted. Councilor Little, you said? >> A big no. >> Okay, and Chair Marshall. >> Yes, okay. Motion, the amendment fails. Back to the original motion. Would you like to restate that?

32:35 >> Yes, it would be the Planning Commission's recommendation in exhibit B, except changing the word under 2A from retain to remove. And excluding the TDR stipulation and saving the CAMIS 3B for a future motion and discussion.

33:05 >> Chair? >> Yes. >> Can I just get a little bit of clarification here? When you talk about removing TDR, can you explain exactly what it is that you're moving? >> Sorry, it would be the Planning Commission's recommendation minus the other recommendation at the end, so it would not include that motion that they made to directly tie a TDR program to all of these decisions. And as you described, I am in the same line of thought as you of making sure that we do start a TDR program this year while we're all still here at the council. And I think it would be more appropriate to do that at a final decision.

34:04 Because this is a decision, as you said, to decide what will be analyzed. And as I said before, a lot of people have been saying that we are tying the TDR program to a de-designation decision, which is not my intent and is not what the law requires. The law requires de-designation decisions to be made on their own based on 14 criteria laid out in law. So I would save that for later, and that's why it's not included in this motion. >> Could I just ask for a clarification? Is it required to consider all 14 criteria in de-designating or designating?

34:57 >> Hi, this is Oliver Ojoka. I think if I understand your question, Council and Chair, I think this is more of, I'll leave that to the legal council to advise the council on that.

35:23 >> [INAUDIBLE] >> We are consulting with outside council as well. And I want to make sure that there's concurrence of all legal council before we answer that question for you all. >> Please take a moment to do that, because I think that it was- >> It was speaking, I'm sorry. >> State your name. >> Senior Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Rebecca Ward-Palmerton. >> Okay, I think it's important to get an answer to that, because it was stated that all 14 are required. And I'm not sure that's accurate. Are there other points to discuss? Yes, please. >> Yes, as I understand, there's three required criteria and then 11 optional.

36:22 But I believe they should all be considered, and since the decision is up to us, I will want to look at all 14. >> Okay, so that's a policy decision, I think we answered it amongst ourselves.

36:41 Okay, and I would like to just read for the public's understanding the recommendation by the Planning Commission related to TDR program. Their recommendation, any agricultural land considered for UGA inclusion would be subject to an urban holding overlay, an inter-local agreement that allows a time certain for an equitable TDR program to be developed by the county. And in parentheses with participation and inclusion of all stakeholders, end of parentheses, resulting in an equitable solution to agricultural designation and designation in the county. That's what your motion would remove, Councillor Little? >> Yes. >> Okay.

37:37 Any other discussion on the motion? Councillor Fuentes. >> We're still waiting on a response from legal, correct? >> I think there was a correction related to what was required in terms of those criteria. And it was a policy decision recommendation by Councillor Little to include all 14 in the examination. >> Okay. >> That's not part of the motion at this point, though. >> I was recently talking about TDRs, is that what you're talking about? >> No, the 14 criteria and having it analyzed is not a part of the motion, so if that's something we do- >> Is that part of the motion?

38:33 >> No, a very straightforward motion here, again for the third time, but I know this is important stuff. >> I just want to, I'm comfortable at this point, I don't need to have it repeated. We just had a side conversation, essentially we weren't really discussing the motion at hand. >> That's right. Okay, is there any other discussion, anything from staff? Are you ready to- >> Sure. >> I think before we vote, I'd like to make a statement because I know the direction that this vote is going. First of all, I want to thank staff for all the work that they've done, and we had quite a turnout last night. There were a lot of people that expressed their concerns through comments and public testimony. It was evident that there is strong support, particularly for preferred alternative one. Now, I know that we're not making the final decision today on what the outcome will be, but

39:29 what is important, what I heard consistently yesterday was preserving farmland and avoiding the designation of agricultural lands. I also want to acknowledge the testimony from the Agricultural Commission. They spoke in support of the transfer of development rights, which I strongly support. And it can be an important tool, thank you for removing that for further discussion. Because I do believe that work should happen after we complete the comprehensive plan update and can thoughtfully implement a county-wide program, not just specific to one or two cities. But there's no need to rush that in today's decision. At the core of this discussion is a simple question. Do we need to expand our urban growth areas to meet the needs of the next 18, 19 years? Based on the evidence before us, particularly in the draft environmental impact statement, the answer is an absolute no. The DIS shows that these cities have sufficient, that cities of Richfield and the center in particular have sufficient capacity within their urban growth areas to accommodate projected housing.

40:28 And employment growth over the planning period, meaning the next 18, 19 years. That is critical finding, because if capacity already exists, then expansion is not necessary. It is a policy choice, and it's choice with real consequences. Expanding UGA's requires extending infrastructure, roads, sewer, water, and emergency services into areas that are currently rural. Something that this county is currently not equipped to support now or probably into the future. That brings significant upfront costs and long-term fiscal obligations, costs that will ultimately be borne by you, the taxpayer, and future taxpayers. It also leads to the permanent loss of agricultural land, something that we cannot afford. And this is where the county's own agricultural land study becomes particularly important. The study confirms that the vast majority of our designated agricultural lands meet state criteria for long-term commercial significance and- >> Sorry, can you slow down? >> Yes. >> Please.

41:27 >> And that these are, in many cases, prime agricultural lands. In fact, the study suggests that some lands may even warrant additional protection, not less. So when we talk about expanding UGA's, we are not talking about unused or low value land. We are talking about converting some of the most productive agricultural land in our county. That has real implications for food security, for our local economy, and for long-term resilience. There is also a clear connection to climate change. Expanding outward increases vehicle miles traveled, contributes to higher greenhouses, gas emissions, and makes it more difficult to meet our climate goals. If we are serious about climate action, then our land use decisions must reflect that. I also heard about the need for more housing. I couldn't agree more. We need more housing. But the DEIS makes clear that the issue is not simply local land supply. It is how we use the land we already have.

42:25 That means focusing on infill, increasing density where appropriate, and aligning land use with infrastructure and transportation investments. This is about discipline and planning. Under the Washington Growth Management Act, we are called to manage growth responsibly. To direct it into areas where it can be supported efficiently and sustainably. Expanding outward before we fully utilize existing capacity rounds counter to that intent. I encourage, I implore this council to carefully consider what our constituents are asking for. Last night, we heard clear support for a more conservative approach. One that protects farmland and prioritizes responsible growth. We should take that seriously. We must also consider the broader implications of our decisions today. Choosing a preferred alternative that expands UGA's unnecessarily could expose the county to legal challenges if it is consistent with the Growth Management Act or not adequately supported by the record. This is a risk we should not take lightly.

43:23 And finally, this is not about stopping growth. Growth is coming, and we should plan for it. But we must do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, environmentally sustainable, supports food security, and reflects the values of our community. Know that this is not the final decision. But I strongly reject the Planning Commission's proposal and recommendations. >> Chair? >> Yes, please go ahead. >> Two days ago, the data that we had said alternative two would provide an excess of 38,000 housing units. The information we got yesterday says it's only eight. That is a huge discrepancy. And this data is still four years old and needs to be updated. I think the prudent thing to do is to make sure that we have our options open. Once we close them, we can't go back.

44:23 If that model changes more and we find out we have a deficit, we've got a real problem if we don't study these other alternatives. >> Okay. >> I would just want to follow up on that. Was it a discrepancy, or were there revisions to assumptions that resulted in that lower number but still over 8,000 in excess for housing? >> They were all revisions provided by the jurisdictions and the county. >> Chair. >> Great, okay. Thanks, Councilor Fuentes. Staff, Councilor Young mentioned that there's a possibility that the model, that the data that was provided yesterday, the updated data, could potentially change. Could that happen again? >> So if we are going to update the model to bring it up to current,

45:19 because everything right now has been based on the 2022 model or year. If we bring it up to 2025, there's going to be differences whether they're significant in terms of how much we still need to allocate and whether we have sufficient capacity. We don't know at this point, but we will be doing both. There's no question we've increased the population, so we have to plan for less people. Then there's no question that we've consumed land in the intervening three years. But where that shakes out, we don't know. >> Did you say that we decrease the population or increase the population projections? >> So we've been planning for folks from 2022 to 2045. We've added people in the three years since.

46:17 So the population that we're planning for from 2025 to 2045 will be less than when we started in 2022. >> When you analyze and provided data on population growth over the next couple of decades, is it a conservative figure, is it an aggressive figure? And I ask, because population is slowing, right? Not just in Clark County, but across this country. So we're projecting that we're going to grow to approximately 715, 000 individuals in this county over the next 18, 19 years. Do you believe that that projection will hold, which would, and if it does, we require the amount of housing and employment figures that were recommended. >> So the population that the council

47:12 adopted was above the medium that was recommended by OFM, which works out to roughly 1.4% per year. Most of the population growth that we receive is from in-migration. So to the extent that there's a slowdown nationally or from migration, we would be affected by that. But in the several years that we've seen, population growth vacillates every year. So it's really hard to say whether that'll hold or not. >> So it sounds like it's pretty evident to me that the figures that you are utilizing in terms of population projection over the next couple of decades are a bit ambitious. I'm not a demographer. [LAUGH] I don't believe that we're going to grow to the 720,000 people that are projected in the reports that were given to this council. >> What if we do?

48:12 >> People are having less kids, that's a good start. We're becoming increasingly expensive and so people don't want to move to expensive communities where they can't afford housing. >> Chair, quick question for staff, if I may? >> Yes. >> What is our current housing shortage?

48:37 We don't know. >> I don't know. The tool that was created by commerce accounts for a housing shortage within their model. We can sort of back into that. They also use a persons per household figure in 2045 that's much lower than our current household. How those are going to be reconciled and what portion of the growth is actually attributed to a shortage of housing is really difficult to say. >> Okay, my impression, I don't know where this comes from, so it could be inaccurate. But I recall whether it be a Columbian article or from the half tool, I don't remember.

49:31 But from my understanding, it was around 20,000 units that were short in the county currently. >> I know there was a study done that was what the state has been talking about. There's a need for a million housing units. >> Yeah, and so my point is when we're talking about looking at a potential 8,000 unit in excess, and that's if we go with the preferred alternative that the planning commission has moved forward with. 8,000 is fairly insignificant in the scope of things. I don't plan to go for accessivity, but I think when we've had drastic changes to the modeling, and we know that there's still updates coming to that data, I think we need to keep our windows open on what we're able to use to offset any changes that are potentially upcoming.

50:25 >> I think the thing that you have to keep in mind also is that these are changes to what we assume development's going to happen. The range is still there. The capacity for that is still there, because we didn't change what you could do with the property. It's just what we're assuming will develop. So that's not really lost. >> Right, and that actually adds to my point that there needs to be some flexibility in this. because there are so many elements that are developed into the model that are completely uncertain. There's no data to support them at this point, because they're brand new, and we have no way of knowing how that's going to turn out. So at this point, it's really a best guess. >> But we have the flexibility, Council Young. Selecting alternative one does not prevent us from having flexibility and

51:21 ensuring that there is enough housing and enough employment land for this county. We can still continue to build. >> Alternative one ship has sailed. >> Councilors, I agree with the comment from, this is Oliver, I agree with the comment and the response from Jose. I will say that there's certain things we don't know. We make assumptions on density, and as things develop, we look back to see if we are off. And if we are off, what type of adjustments need to be made? It's a forecast, the same is true.

52:18 You come down, whether it's on budget. If you're off, you're off by maybe 0.5%. That is why we have to do the buildable lands report and submit that to the state. And that informs you whether you need to make changes or not going forward. And that's what we have been doing. I don't disagree that this is modeling. We have to do modeling to help inform us in testing what we know that could happen. And I believe that you make the decision,

53:15 not staff, in the case of policy we can only come here asking you or making recommendation or suggestion to you. I believe that yes, alternative one appears to be no action, which folks will say that is unacceptable. But within the existing urban growth boundary, we are supposed to plan for, make sure that there is adequate land to support the growth, in this case, population and housing we are planning for. That's true. In the existing urban growth boundary, there are sufficient land, both for housing and jobs, that will carry the county or

54:08 the cities into the next 10 to 12 years before you begin to consider another update. The council will have to make a decision on whether to expand or not to expand urban growth boundaries. But I believe that there have been some cities that have not yet fully annexed areas that are within their existing urban growth boundary. Richfield is a good example. I don't have anything against Richfield, but that's a good example. With all those areas, if they are annexed, then would they develop in the next ten years? My response would be no. To your question, Councilor, about the population, Jose is correct.

55:04 Some would disagree, but if you were to plug the growth, even when we were growing at 4% annually, no community could sustain that, even at 2%. Now we are, this current population that we are planning for, assume 1.4% annually. Will we see that? I don't know. But had the council chosen the medium, which is where the demographers, experts say is where we will be, or given our historical trend, that's where we will be. I think we would have been planning for much lower population and much lower jobs.

56:03 So your call, the decision on that have already been made. So I'm not going to encourage the council to go over that. There are some cities who have suggested why not you revisit the allocation and the population and go up because we haven't gotten to the OFM high. But we shared with them, and Councilor Young, we have shared with you that alternative two and alternative three will exceed the OFM high numbers. You may disagree with the methodology, but that's the fact. Based on the data and the record that is out there, none of the cities disagreed with that. So that will be just my cautionary note, and I will leave it at that.

57:00 We are here just to help you get to where you want to go. When you get to the TDR question, I will, if permitted, I will say what I think I may suggest what the council might do when it comes to that. If folks are supportive of it, if they're really serious about it, They have to wait and the council has to do it right. >> Just a clarification on that real quick. So your comment about not being within OFM, I sent a question earlier today to staff. Obviously didn't have a chance to respond, but from my understanding, with the new outcomes from the VBLM, we are well within the OFM range. With alternative two. >> Yeah, that's likely.

57:54 >> Chair. >> I would just say, just looking at this chart on capacity for housing, we still, with the adjustments, are 8,700 in excess overall for the county. And while that may seem like a reasonable number, it'll be the growth management hearing board that determines whether or not that is reasonable or not, especially given that we have the capacity without expanding any boundaries, so that's just a commentary. Go ahead. >> Chair, I'll just make one last comment. Like I said, I know where this vote is going, I completely understand it. All I want to say is that we could have made history today, and we could have stopped and

58:49 reversed the reckless policies that councils and commissions before us have perpetuated on our county. Policies that have destroyed our environment, that have encouraged urban sprawl and encroachment into agricultural lands. And they cannot be returned back to what they were. Unfortunately, this is not where this Board of County Counselors is going, to preserve the environment that we currently cherish in this county. We could continue growing if we select preferred alternative one. There is plenty of capacity for employment lands, there's plenty of capacity for housing. However, I understand that there are interest groups out there that may have influenced some of my colleagues. That's all I say. >> Okay. >> Chair, just one last comment, if I may.

59:45 And I'm not saying that your perspective is incorrect. I think your perspective is a very valid one. Where I'm coming from at this point is we have a major housing shortage. And I know we can come back and we can do a review in five years. But I would rather get to that five year mark and say, hey, we're making a good dent in that shortage. I would much rather be in that position than saying we have a worse shortage on our hands now than we did before. And this is where this leads to giving us the opportunity to consider these options when we determine our final selection at the end. Again, as data is refined, as we move forward, the final EIS is done.

1:00:42 And we incorporate some of the data that's changed in the last three years. We'll have some more information to look at. But if we don't include all these options today, they will not be an option later, in case we need them. We had a major housing shortage for quite some time, more than a couple of decades, and prior policies haven't changed that. And in fact, we're here because of those prior policies. This is why we're having this conversation. This is why we're about 20,000 housing units short in this county. >> Okay, let's move things along. We've made a decision on our preferred alternative, so that process can move forward. But there are several items, I think, that people wanted to continue to- >> We haven't voted. >> We haven't voted? We just voted on the- >> On the amendment. >> Okay, I thought I did think that. All right, all right. Okay, thank you for bringing me back.

1:01:40 Okay, well, I think we're ready to vote. >> Chair. >> Yes. >> Just clarity on what we're voting on. This is my motion that was seconded by Belcott. >> That is what we're voting on right now. >> That is what we're voting on. >> Okay. >> Unless there's any other amendments. All right, I think we're ready for the roll call. >> Councillor Young? >> Aye. >> Councillor Belcott? >> Aye. >> Councillor Fuentes? >> No. >> Councillor Little? >> Aye. >> Chair Marshall? >> No. Motion carries. >> Okay, now I think we're ready to talk about some maybe next steps and additional items. You brought up some, and I think the council will have some other- >> There's still one more motion that goes into- >> Well, you have to make it. Okay. >> I'd like to make it. >> Go ahead.

1:02:35 >> Okay, this would be a motion to include in the analysis 3B. And I'd like to discuss a little bit background on that. >> Could you explain what 3B is? >> Yep, and we can pull it up on the screen. I don't know if that's helpful, but I wanted to have a little bit more discussion about this. This is the Nevin property. >> In Camas. This is where I live. I've visited this. I've had a briefing from the city. We have basically two options here with our final decision. As I understand it, this is already parcelized. I have a map here.

1:03:28 It's in 16 different five acre parcels and a larger one. Those five acre parcels we've heard from the land owner that he could have put houses on them and sold them at any time. So we have basically two options in front of us, neither of which are good for farmland. One is we do nothing in our final decision, and we end up with 15 to 17 McMansions out there. Or the Camas's proposal gets approved and we have a grocery store and a new community hub there. Neither, as I said, are good for farmland, and I'm mixed on what is better for our community.

1:04:28 It's a quiet side of our community that is growing very fast. There's no services there, so it could use a hub. Currently, people there have to use a lot of carbon emissions to get to their services, which are either in downtown Camas, Washougal, or they have to drive all the way to 192nd. It is hard to approve new hubs in places that are on the quiet side, but like I said, the alternative is that this will be 15 to 17 houses, and it could have been already at this point. So anyway, my motion is to include this 3B in the preferred alternative, so that it is fully analyzed with an EIS, and that we have all the information in front of us when we make a decision whether to include this or not. And it's going to be our decision. >> I'll second that. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

1:05:27 Let's have some discussion. What is proposed for the larger parcel there? This is entirely agricultural land designated. >> So the land that has the MF18 is the Nevin property, and it was included in alternative three as multifamily 18 dwelling units an acre. >> Was this a site specific request? >> It was, it originated a site specific request and then Camas added it to their alternative three. >> Okay, and when were those five acre parcels created? Do we know that? Or if this was part of a cluster development? >> It doesn't appear that it was part of a cluster development. I'm not sure when the parcelization occurred.

1:06:24 There was a lot of parcelization that happened prior to the 1994 plan in anticipation of up zoning or down zoning. >> Right. Rebecca, I had to ask you to have a couple of pages from the, a couple of maps from the Ag study. One of them was page seven from the Ag study that depicts all of the five acre parcels. Across the landscape in Clark County. I just like people to, as I was startled when I saw this. So these were policy decisions from previous councils that really did parcelize the landscape a good deal. And I would just contend that we've already, with the collective decisions over the years,

1:07:19 seriously undermined the long term economic viability of agriculture in Clark County. So all of the yellow is rural five. And it was thought, I think, at the time that five acres was a good parcel for smaller farms. But it really seriously undermines the ability to farm. So this is rural five, the green is the Ag land. And then there was another page, I can't remember the page number, that just shows the Ag designated land. Or not the designated land, but from the Ag study, all of the land that's suitable or meets the criteria for.

1:08:13 This is NRCS map prime Ag soils and soils of statewide significance. Those were the words I was trying to find. So I think we've already seen a lot of subdivision. And I don't see a justification to bring additional land in ND designated Ag, because I think it just puts down the red carpet for litigation. Other comments? >> Sure. >> Yep. >> Okay, so first of all, I mean, I had short conversation with you on this, Oliver. And I want to make sure that we get this right.

1:09:07 Because when you look at 3B, it says expansion to the east for housing. And so my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the original concept from the city of Camas came to you in the form that it would be multi-family housing. But then later, there was a newer rendition given that showed it as mixed use, as Councilor Little. I've always heard the city of Camas referred to it as mixed use, but I want to be sure what we're dealing with here. >> Hi, this is Oliver again. And I would like Jose to chime in. The submittal from the City of Camas was for residential.

1:10:04 That was what was studied in the DEIS. After the DEIS was published, and everyone, and I've shared this with council in the one-on-one. These cities all saw that in both all two and all three, there is excess capacity that we have to deal with. And then the city of Camas suggested to my staff and to GIS staff, can we run the VBLM showing the Navin property as employment land. And Jose, you can speak to this. We may have run it, but it was not studied as employment land.

1:11:04 >> So then my question would be, can we request that it be study as part of the final EIS, in the sense that their intention to use it is? >> So this falls outside. Their recommendation to have this be mixed use or commercial is outside of what was studied in the DEIS. So I would think you'd have to do a supplemental if you wanted to study that as commercial or mixed use. >> Chair. >> Yes, go ahead. >> So, If this is included, the limits of what can be studied is what the city originally proposed for that area. It can't be with what they vision for it now, which they explained to me would include mixed use,

1:12:01 like a grocery store kind of a commercial use there, that is legally not allowed to be considered. And they would be limited to just providing houses there, no matter, unless you did a supplemental? >> In order for it to be studied, it would require an amendment and that would be a supplemental to the EIS, because that wasn't considered in the initial draft EIS. There was no proposal for this property in alternative two or alternative one. It only appears in alternative three as multifamily residential. >> Okay, well I don't want to propose any additional analysis. I want to keep my motion as considering this under whatever legal requirements it's provided. We'll definitely get more information about this and make a final decision later, but I don't want to trigger an additional analysis. So my motion is the same as I originally recommended it.

1:12:59 >> Go ahead. >> I will be supporting this for the purpose of exactly what I said, keeping all of our options open. But ultimately, if there is not some mechanism to shift this towards job land, I'm highly unlikely to support it in the end.

1:13:32 >> Okay, well it kind of sounds to me like they were looking for a work around when they saw the analysis and decided to switch it to jobs. And I don't know that there's any guarantee going forward, because often we see something is designated for jobs and then gets rezoned to housing. So I feel uncertain about their real intention with this land. That it's zoned agricultural, which will be a hurdle to get around. And according to your recent analysis, I'm just looking at cameras here, if I can follow that along. They exceed their housing under the planning commission's recommendation.

1:14:28 So I think, is that 1,227? Right, right. So I don't think there's a need to bring this in. >> Sure. >> Yes. >> I hear what you're saying, but either way if we decide not to act on this motion, then it is inevitable that there will be 15 to 17 houses that are already allowed on these properties. And that is the alternative to what would be analyzed here as an option besides that. But that is inevitable, the landowner. Multiple reports here have said that they could have already done this. And they've been holding out for this potential of doing something bigger for the community. >> What is the zoning around adjacent to this? And where is the growth boundary? Is that the yellow?

1:15:24 >> So to the west is the urban growth area. And then along to the south, that these parcels are split zone. And the portions abutting the road are zoned community commercial. So that's also part of the urban growth boundary. >> And what color is it? >> This is, these properties are CC commercial. >> CC, okay. >> Community commercial. >> They're not in the city limits. >> No, they're in the UGA, they've not been annexed yet. >> They haven't been annexed? >> No. >> When did, so they came in in 2016? >> No, I think these were 2007. >> 2007, and they haven't annexed them yet. >> Correct. >> Right. >> That would make me question the need. Thank you, go ahead.

1:16:22 >> Mr. Chair, just a question, that actually was an interesting comment to me. Because this is, I think, one of the challenges of the Growth Management Act is then, I don't know what the ultimate numbers are going to be, but the numbers may not justify this as residential land. But I think all of us here at this dais would agree that 16 partial to 5 acres a piece is not what we want, so I don't know what the, I look at this like I would love to see if we could make a change. Is it multi-family that they had? What level of density did they have for this? >> They proposed an MF18, which I think is- >> 18 units per acre? Okay, so that's like medium density,

1:17:19 which is a whole lot better than one McMansion per five acres. I will say though, I mean this, just like all the others, this will have to stand on the merits of any de-designation. Again, I think my initial viewpoint stands. I just, and I would ask staff just to double check and triple check with legal and everything to make sure there's no possible way without doing this, or without having a supplemental EIS. But yeah, this is going to be a, but I do want to study it as a just in case. >> Councilor Young, I have a question. Is it your thought that if we apply all 14 of the criteria, that that will change the outcome of the designations? >> There is no outcome from the study. It does not say what should be designated or what should be de-designated.

1:18:17 >> That wasn't part of their charge, but in terms of validating that it meets the criteria. >> I don't know because- >> Do you think this will change the validating the criteria if we study more for all 14 of those criteria? >> We don't- >> I'm just thinking that we already know it's agricultural land. I don't know what's going to change. Development patterns, proximity to urban building, urban environments. >> So you think if we apply the criteria, a different, it will be deemed less suitable for ag? >> I don't know, we haven't studied that. But I mean, you can't determine if you haven't studied it. >> Sure. >> Well, it has been studied, but not every single criteria. Go ahead. >> Yeah, that won't be the only thing that's studied in EIS, EIS is an environmental impact statement for the public as they probably know.

1:19:15 It's a very detailed analysis of all sorts of factors. This will be one of the things that will be studied and reviewed in more detail so that we have more information to make a decision at the end. So I'm with Councilor Young that it's good to get more information, as I was when I fought for the egg study. >> And just to be clear, it's only going to be studied as is, as is proposed, okay. >> And that is as originally proposed, not what they're currently wanting. >> Correct. >> We have already been studied. >> Right. >> So it's already been studied. >> Yes. >> So how much more detail does the final EIS actually accomplish? >> Well, I mean, the draft has three alternatives that are reviewed. So the preferred will just focus on these areas that are going to be moved forward. And so the analysis will be just on those areas.

1:20:13 >> So it just narrows what's already been studied. >> Correct. So I don't know that there's any additional- >> Additional detail? >> Beyond what's already- >> No additional detail. >> And if I may add, coming back to even if we were to account for growth that have occurred or areas that have developed. I think you heard testimony from, this is going to be council call. You heard testimony from the city of Kamas that they have over capacity. And this, doing this as residential, as was studied in all two, puts them even more hired in terms of what they need. They've been trying to make adjustment since then, so.

1:21:09 But it has already been studied, your call to include it in. It will get to the same question about the designation, but this has already been studied. We know what the outcome is. >> Just one last little question on that. I'm assuming that the VBLM uses the MF18 or whatever it is that they initially, not what they have asked since then, correct, in our modeling? >> Yeah, the only thing would be if they've adjusted what they anticipate in the MF18. >> Okay. >> Then that would be different, but this will add to the excess capacity that's shown for all two. >> Well, right now it's, right, if they've gone from M8-

1:22:04 >> Regardless, because what's in that chart is just alternative two. It doesn't include this. >> So this is all three? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right, thank you. >> Chair. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Once we get to a vote on this one, I would like to go back to what I alluded to before, of what things we would like staff to look at additionally to put more emphasis on in further review. >> Yeah, there'll be a few things. >> That will help find out more about this as well. >> Thank you. >> Chair. >> Yes. >> So I just wanted to clarify that currently, your motion is a direct result of 16 to 17 five-acre parcels. That you want de-designated to potentially change zoning

1:22:57 to break down those parcels into smaller parcels and mixed-use commercial? Is that what? >> I think we can't do mixed-use commercial because that hasn't been studied. >> Okay, so, but according to staff, study has been conducted. If we continue to drill down on this particular area, the outcome will most likely be the same, correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any other questions? If not, do you want to restate your motion? >> The motion is to approve Planning Commission.

1:23:55 To approve on exhibit B, alternative 3B. >> Okay, and this one was not recommended by the Planning Commission. So I guess we'll do a roll call vote if people are ready for that. >> Councillor Young? >> Aye. >> Councillor Belcott? >> Aye. >> Councillor Fuentes? >> No. >> Councillor Little? >> Aye. >> Chair Marshall? >> No. Motion carries. So have we completed our recommendation on the preferred alternative? Can we all agree on that? All right, we've done that. Okay, great. Now I think, Councillor Little, you mentioned some you wanted to chat about TDRs.

1:24:49 I think there's TDRs, there's the EIS, there's housing climate. Some of the things that are going to be coming next that we'll still be looking at. And there was a letter from the Cowlitz tribe that we could touch on. Do you want to start, Councillor Little? >> Sure, TDR wasn't on that list, but yeah, I would- >> I thought it was. >> I would like to include in the further analysis if other Councillors agree to just go have an extra emphasis on information related to climate impacts, including vehicle miles driven, what the impacts of our potential decisions would be on climate. Also, we'd like to drill down a little bit more about our decisions impact on food security in our community,

1:25:48 which is really important to a lot of people here. Also, related to the letter that we received from Cowlitz tribe, I would like to have more information about tribal concerns, including cultural. And then on the data of jobs and housing that our potential decision would impact. I'd like to see the different income level brackets broken down for each jurisdiction. So at least I can see which jurisdiction is providing what types of housing. That's really important, at least for me. And then also, would like to have county review all 14 criteria, in addition to what's already been provided in the egg study, so we can just get more

1:26:46 expert opinion on it when we have to make our own independent decision. >> So some of these things would be part of direction related to the EIS. The income levels, I think we'll be hearing more about that going forward, just as part of the comp plan update. And I'll just ask, do you see any of these recommendations as extending our time to complete the comp plan?

1:27:28 >> I don't think so, this will be, we will ask because the consultant will follow the SEPA process and what is required in the SEPA to be consistent with SEPA. And see where some of this fall into and include that in the final EIS. >> I think I would add one thing related to the expansion that Battleground has proposed towards dollars corner. There have been a lot of issues raised about Mill Creek, presence of salmon, wetlands. And I think one of the questions is whether or not the city of Battleground, if this goes into the city of Battleground, whether they have adequate protections if

1:28:23 development comes along to protect those natural resources that are there. Or whether avoidance, if there's areas that could just be avoided in terms of bringing things into the growth boundary. It's just a little finer detail on that particular area would be helpful. >> Chair. >> Yes. >> Just in addition to that, I've been anecdotally told that environmental protection in the city of Battleground is more stringent in the county. I don't know if that's accurate or not, and perhaps you could look into that. I think that's- >> That's what's my intention, to get more of a sense of that. Might be better protected in the Battleground. >> Counselors, the only thing I will add is we will be

1:29:18 reviewing this requirement with our consultant on the final EIS or environmental review. If they come back with a change in scope or ask for additional change in budget, we will amend the existing contract and have the council approve that. Just want to make that observation. >> Okay, thank you for that, and I think it's our intention that we don't want to cause any delay in getting this completed. So just let us know if we're inadvertently doing that. Okay, and an additional question I had is would there be any public scoping for the final EIS?

1:30:15 Did you hear my question? >> No. >> Okay, would there be any public scoping for the final EIS? Is that only done during the draft EIS? >> Yes, I don't believe there's any. >> No additional, except for the scoping that we've just done. >> Right. >> Okay.

1:30:41 Good, okay. >> I was going to ask for clarification of something. I just wanted to clarify so that you've made recommendations on the planning commission recommendation, but that's with the changes that are reflected in the information we provided you. The sort of the changes we've made to the Vancouver UGA and all the density changes we've received from the cities, is that correct? >> I believe that's correct. Any other comments? Okay, let's see, is there anything else? So we'll be hearing more about, those are elements of the comp plan update, the housing and the climate, so we'll be hearing more about those. As we move forward.

1:31:41 >> Chair? >> Yes, go ahead. >> I have one additional request, and that would be that the VBLM, any changes that we make to inputs, if that could be brought to us, I would appreciate that, an explanation of what the changes are and the reasoning why and how you came to that, whether it was provided by a different jurisdiction or a different view, just so that we can be well aware of any changes that take place. >> Is that changes that I've already done, or future changes, or both? >> I would love to see an ultimate history, but I think at this point I would be asking for any future ones. >> Okay, and then related to TDRs, because I think there's strong interest in the community across the board to see some policy included

1:32:41 in the comp plan update or some solid direction moving forward related to TDRs. And actually other tools that can be used to protect agricultural land, so we don't have a continued diminish of agricultural land. So that would be the three to one or the four to one that some jurisdictions have implemented to swap out agricultural land. Because I think we've all recognized the difficulty as the cities have grown right out and beyond the agricultural resources that we need to figure out a way to identify and protect agriculture in Clark County, given that it's been heavily impacted already. >> Councilors, this is Oliver again. You could direct staff to draft some policies.

1:33:40 There are procedures that the council have already approved and all our local jurisdictions agree to that in terms of process to amend or add or delete county-wide planning policies. So if you direct staff to develop a policy on TDR, we will certainly do so and you can incorporate that as part of the current process. I know that there are small group of county staff and city staff that are working on a potential TDR policy. If there is agreement, my desire is to come to council in a work session to present that and get direction from council whether to include it or amend it and making sure that all our cities are on board.

1:34:40 Because the county-wide planning policy means that those policies have to be agreed to. And have the council, when you adopt the comprehensive plan and everything else, that's what you're going to be adopting. But I need that direction from council to come to work with our local jurisdictions to develop a policy now. You heard testimony from David Toyer, I have a copy and my staff have a copy of he participated in the last small group meeting and submitted that my staff have done the same analysis, looked at all other counties in the state that had TDR policy and all the cities have a copy of that and those that are working in a smaller group also have a copy of that. So that we've took a proactive action to start that process.

1:35:39 And the council give us direction to develop a county-wide planning policy on TDR. >> Sure. >> Yes, go ahead. Thank you, Oliver. >> Yeah, thank you for that. I wouldn't be interested in pursuing any direction on TDRs during this analysis period until a final decision is made. I just don't want anything that we do tied to the comp plan or the EIS. I don't want it to appear that we are doing it to tie it to de-designation. I want it to be done on its own. And so I will be likely planning to offer a motion when we make a final decision that is separate, that outlines a timeline, a process, who can participate. I hope that it is not driven by the county, but it is driven by all of us as a community.

1:36:37 The county, the cities, the stakeholders, all at the table doing kind of an inter-agency process to create a program like that, that is also timely while we're all here. But that's at a later date, I would not want to create any direction today and get it tied up with the comp plan. Because we have the authority and have had the authority under state law to do this for decades, two decades. >> Okay, perhaps it could be something we discuss at a Wednesday meeting just by way of follow up, since I'm looking at the clock and it's 1210. Any other thoughts related to TDRs or ag preservation strategies? I think it would be good to check in with the Ag Commission, because they've made specific recommendations and I think could be a resource to work with. Anything else from anyone?

1:37:32 >> Just when we're on the subject of the Ag Commission again, I feel like we're making the best with what we have. I wish we could have gotten the Ag Commission started when we first talked about if we had, they probably could have had a significant impact and we could have had some policy ready to adopt as part of the comp plan for ag preservation and improving economic conditions for farming in the county. But too late for that, but full steam ahead on that. I'm super excited about the future of working with the Ag Commission on how we can preserve our ag land. >> Well, they did make some good recommendations that we haven't followed, but maybe that's enough for today. Any other comments? I guess hearing none, we've completed our agenda. So without objection, this meeting is adjourned.

1:38:59 [MUSIC]