Observing Government

Post History

Work Session: Site Specific Requests within city UGA proposals.

Matt wants to know more about each site – city plans, wetlands etc. K Otto – City did present their info, which she resent, there was a request for google earth which she has. Not sure county staff can answer all the questions, will follow with cities as needed. Throughout this work session it is clear that Matt and Glen are trying to find a path to de-designation of Ag Land that Camas, La Center, and Ridgefield want to Annex. It is worth nothing that before the owners and their lawyers submitted site-specific requests, those expansions never came up. Also those cities did not argue that the determination that no UGA (Urban Growth Area) expansion was needed for capacity was wrong.

032526-ws_comp-plan-2025-update.pdf

Oliver reminds council this is a work session so is informational, no decisions being made.

Oliver’s Preface: Staff will give council a report before the public hearing on all of the RCWs that apply. There is a requirement to show need if expanding boundaries, and to take reasonable measures to use available space within existing boundaries first. County has lost UGB expansion attempts in the past – didn’t show need.
Reviewed project progress (slide 3)
Talks about the checklist Commerce will use to validate the Comp Plan.
Schedule can’t be updated until a Preferred Alternative is selected, then there is about 6 months of work to finalize the comp plan. Oliver talks about what happens in that timeframe.
Reviewed criteria for De-designation of Ag Land (slide 5) (Oliver gets points for trying to keep the County out of court for non-compliance with the GMA – Growth Management Act)
Link to Ag Study: clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2025-11/final-agricultural-lands-study-technical-report-2025.11.04-1.pdf
When the county first designated Ag Land, it was appealed by landowners and CCCU (clark county citizens united). They lost (county won). See issue paper 1. Issue Paper 1-Overview of Planning under GMA in Clark County 1994-2020.pdf
Prior de-designation the County tried was ruled illegal (including, I think, at least one of the parcels on the list this time around). Some cities quickly annexed those lands before the decision came down, so those couldn’t be un-done. Legislation passed last year closes that loophole – if land is de-designated, it can’t be annexed until any related court cases are resolved and the comp plan is found compliant.
Matt – asks about criteria A. If an acre of hayed land was surrounded by urban area, what do the courts find. Legal Counsel (Chris Cook). It depends. It is the property, not what surrounds it.
The Criteria apply to designation and de-designation.
(Michelle’s camera is off)
Oliver refers to comments by pro-developers that staff is making policy decisions, and reads from code as to why they had to do the ag study. Oliver says that staff did not interfere with their work. The study addresses every criteria in WAC.
It is staff’s responsibility to present information to the council before they make a decision.
Site Specific Requests within the city UGA proposals.
Matt asks why they can’t review parcel by parcel – it refers to designation/de-designation. You have to look at the impact county-wide of any action. Counsel talks about risk. Glen chimes in. The two of them are clearly trying to find wiggle room to approve de-designation. Discussion of what the Ag Study used to do their reports. Staff attempts to explain the criteria. Chris explains that if you de-designate Ag because there is commercial next door that IS the definition of Urban Sprawl that the GMA is intended to prevent.
Sue – we’ve been farming in the county for 66 years. Talks about land use patterns and impact to agriculture. Recommends they read issue paper 1. Rural lands were to be buffers to resource lands. County has done a poor job of protecting Ag by maintaining those buffers.
Matt asks if, when the county designated Ag, did they miss a lot? Yes. There were 2 groups that worked on it. Couldn’t agree on about 35,000 acres – ag or forest. So was designated Ag-Forest. Got sued. Court ruled can’t be hybrid, so they made them R5, R10, R20. So there are lands that could be designated as Ag that are currently rural.
Sue – at this point in the process would need years to do that. Counsel – the Ag study has maps of land that is not Ag that could be. Much of that is the 35K acres mentioned above.
Glen says some criteria have been ignored. Sue calls him on that. Gives a non-answer. Oliver – the owner’s intent is NOT a criteria (reading from WAC).
Sue says she does not see a pathway to using TDRs within this comp plan update.
(Note - the link within the doc requires logon).
La Center: If La Center takes the properties they want, it leaves a 5 acre donut hole (is a utility station so that’s why they didn’t include). Discuss a La Center parcel that was previously rejected by the courts in 2007). Sue, looking at La Center map, notes that they have huge swaths of land in their current boundary available.
Ridgefield: Their request would create another donut hole.
Noted that for “Urban Reserve” there is no related code. So it is in comp plan maps but has no actionable meaning outside of planning consideration.
Battle Ground: the expansion to Dollars Corners includes a lot of wetlands (and Mill Creek). This expansion is part of their master plan for employment. Glen asks if much of that land was identified as potential ag land in the study. Answer – yes, what is outside of Dollars Corners (Rural Center). 300 acres or less, Jose will get info to them. Meadow Glade residents have not been willing to be annexed. Matt asks about impact if county ‘takes Meadow Glade back’. Since it has not been annexed, there is no change. Matt asks about Dollars Corners. What would the county lose or gain? The reason that staff recommended to approve is that it is for employment. Battle Ground has been planning this for a long time. They have adequate space for residential withing the existing city boundaries. Glen talks about wetlands in that area. Asks about development BG is doing in their current boundary. Staff will ask for that information from the city. Some R5 lots to the east the State wanted BG to include (DNR) and another, the city didn’t request. Sue said the county is looking at possible acquisition or trade for the DNR land for parks. A couple parcels to the north of BG, currently R5 but next to Ag.
Camas: Airport (owned and requested by the Port). Also properties to the east that are zoned R10 and Ag. Owner had previously said he’d turn them into McMansions if not included. The 5-acre properties were subdivided in the past, pre-GMA. Camas doesn’t need either employment or housing capacity, so this would be hard to justify.
Matt refers to a BIA (building industry association) funded study that claims the capacity in the county is less than the county’s projection. It only looked at some specific types of housing. Chris Cook brings up the state housing law that requires allowing for more density (allowing ADUs in urban areas, allowing up to 4 homes on R1 lots in urban areas). The BIA study didn’t account for this (old data). Oliver speaks to how the county does planning, and impact of new legislation. They monitor what happens on the ground to adjust the model.
Glen mentions an area in Camas’s existing boundary that remains largely vacant. County doesn’t control what’s in their boundary (supports the idea that they already have excess capacity). Sue asks to look at the airport – all zoned airport. Land nearby is ag and rural.
Sue asks Michelle if she has any questions, no. (video turned back on).

At the meeting they discussed having the Public hearing on the 20^th, with 21^st for holdover. Monday will start at 11 or so, Tuesday will be 6:00 pm. (if needed). They will make a decision on their preferred alternative, which will be analyzed for a final decision at yet a later public hearing.

After the meeting I spoke with a councilor and the 20^th doesn’t work as won’t have all 5 councilors so they are looking for another date(s). Possibly 28^th?

Return to Previous Page