Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. I'd like to call this planning commission work session to order for Thursday, June, 18th, 2026. My name is Carl Johnson and I'm the chairman of the Clark county planning commission. Before we begin tonight, I would like to announce that our planning commission work sessions are hybrid both in person and via Webex for the virtual and in person members of the planning commission and staff. Please ensure that your microphones are turned on. Excuse me, turned off or muted unless you are speaking, there will not be any public comment during this work session, but members of the public can watch and listen written testimony related to this evening's agenda items and other topics considered by the planning commission is encouraged and is accepted at any time this week's this evening's agenda is as follows. Uh, we'll be dealing with the conference of plans and elements, which is the land use the rural natural resource element and the procedural guidelines with that said. Um, Jose Oliver.

Um, good evening chair, Johnston and members of the planning commission for the record, Oliver objective, community planning director. Commissioners, this is our continuation of the work that we have continued to push forward since 2023. And here we are, we have been before you to present to you the Each of the chapters, uh, goals and policies, because that's really the cross of the, uh, plan document. What guys also as we, uh, plan ahead and development of the county as it relates to land use. So, today we are going to go over the, uh. Introduction chapter, the land use rural and natural resource element, and then the procedure chapters or procedure guidelines before that. Uh, let me just quickly. Go over, um, the, uh, overview of, uh, discussion with you this evening and of course, with me is the. Jose Alvarez, the program manager in land use and in community planning. And we have a legal counsel, Ms. Rebecca Ward-Palmerton. And at the end of planning commission members' comments and questions, Rebecca will just provide you a quick update on the status of the appeal to comprehensive plan. So with that, let's go to the next slide. And also with us this evening is Jenna Kay and Susan Ellinger, staff in community planning. Each time I come before the planning commission and council, I want to give them credit for the work that they have been doing to get us to this point. And, uh, they should be taking all the credit along with my, um. Uh, dear friend here was Alvarez. So this is the. General overview of, um. What we will be going to with you this evening. Let us start with the. Progress to date will go over the schedule. But as a reminder, and the overall schedule to get us to land this plan, if I may use that term, and we get into the complaint review chapters, and then your upcoming work sessions. So, let's go to the next slide. Um, of course, I. Didn't mean to forget that Jeff. Who is, uh. really working hard to make sure our record is up to date. So, thank you Jeff. Planning Commission members, this is the general overview of our project timeline. I won't go into detail, but this is the 4 phases to get us to an adoption. All the check marks, um, item here or. Projects that we are supposed to, uh. Be working on to get us to where we are so we are now in phase 3. Um, and the 2nd, uh, block day is where we are, uh, upon your, uh. Recommendation to cancel on the preferred alternative. The council have selected a preferred alternative that is now being studied in the final environmental impact statement and staff are beginning to, uh, work. Um, on that, um, alternative, the necessary things we have to do in terms of analysis, uh, including. Transportation analysis, uh, associated capital facilities plan, including capital facilities, financial plan, which will identify the source for funding or the projects that identify in the, uh, in the plan. Um, when, uh, approved, um. As I mentioned in that block is also the issuance of the final environmental impact statement. I will, uh, share with you when we expect that to be published. And the last, um, bullet in that block is the public review. Of the comprehensive plan text and any associated title 40, uh, update. What I will be saying for those that are online and the public is that. If they go to, uh. The project web page, I would like to see. All the chapters that we have reviewed with the planning commission and council posted there so that the public will have opportunity to begin reviewing them as well. Why they may not. participate or provide comment at our work session. We do provide opportunity and allow for written comments. So we are welcoming any comment from the public. I think you did receive some for this evening work session. So let's go to next slide, please. I think if you can open this up, Jeff, that would be fine. If you click on on the 2025 schedule, you can open it up. If it's not opening, I can okay.

Yeah, let's see here. It's not working. Okay. And we'll get to it too.

Okay. Scroll. Scroll down. Scroll down. Scroll down. Okay. Go to view. See if you can open it up there.

Still not working.

Uh, the, the, the schedule to complete this, uh, periodic update is, um. You will be and Jose will go in depth about works upcoming work session with the planning commission, but just want to okay here. It is when I draw your attention to, uh, the planning commission hearing. Uh. For the entire, uh, uh, document the map and everything associated with the map will be August. 28 in case you're planning for vacation, August 28. And we want your deliberation to a call on September 3rd. I'm anticipating that you will make a recommendation to the Council on that 3rd of September. We will then go to Council work session on September 16th, with the Council hearing occurring on October 6th and the council having hopefully having the final ordinance adoption on October 13th and that becoming effective, I believe 10 days after October 23rd. So that is really, we will be, the 6th floor will be issuing the Notice of adoption, uh, following that. 10 days window after the council approval. And that notice of adoption will kick any, um. Appeal of the plan, but again, I'm not anticipating appeal, but every time we do this, we do get an appeal, but that is. In a nutshell, the highlight of the schedule I wanted to share with you and the public, our goal is to complete this project by. October 23rd is going to be the effective date of adoption and we will. We will be, we will say we're done and it will follow the next. Cycle 10 year. According to the new legislation, let's go to the next slide. Thank you. For sharing that with the council and with the planning commissioners, and this, uh, if you want to see this entire schedule, you can open up this presentation and do switch, you know, you open up. for you to see these dates and the public as well. And they can always get to it from our web page. Next slide. Again, this is pretty much a reminder. We are currently the largest schedule that I showed you. We are in the process of working internally on item number six, which is analyzing the preferred alternative and completion of the final environmental impact statement. And all the items in that block is what staff and outside consultant are working on now. Our goal is to have the final EIS be issued on July 24th. So that will give the public 30 days for review and preparation for your hearing as well as the council hearing. When that is published, Uh, you can see in under B8. Uh, we are beginning the review. Revision of the, uh, chapters, including countywide planning policies and and the rest of the chapter we are doing that now with you. Um, part of the reasoning we started this early is because we now have. The preferred selection alternative to be studied. we don't believe after reviewing that selected alternative that there is any reason to revise or update any of the goals and the policies. The selected alternative is pretty much Not quite different from the all 2 that have already studied in the draft environmental impact statement. So, again, um, we are hoping to all this will say draft. So we are hoping as well to, you can see on this, uh, schedule reminder. Item number, um, 10 on the B. County submitted to commerce draft Clark county code amendment title forty. And, uh, any of the chapters that are available will submit that to to commerce included in that submittal will be the final environmental impact statement. All that this as opposed to a call. On July 24th now, why this may be draft the public. will still have opportunity to be providing us comment. Uh, because we are not at a hearing, like I said, your hearing will start on, I believe I said, September or August August 28 and then you will be deliberating on on the night. So no decision will be made, uh, until your recommendation and then the council hearing. So this will be draft that the public can still comment on. And when commerce received this, this just a fulfillment of our requirement to submit. Our draft to commerce to kick up that 60 day comment review from commerce. Uh, next slide and you can stop me anytime you like. Um, so this will be a review of these 4 chapters, um, for you this evening. Um, if you go to the next slide, um, the reason we are making these changes 1, we are required to submit a checklist what is known as commerce checklist. Um. That we do have prepared submit to commerce for their own review. This is the checklist, which I've shared with you in the past is where we. Go through that checklist is not only required by county. It's also required by all the cities in the county that are supposed to work with us in this periodic update that checklist, uh, do identify new legislations that have passed and, uh, including those that are fully planning under the and those that are partially planning are supposed to update. That checklist and identify where and how they plan to implement any of the new bill that the legislature have passed. The review of the chapter also was done just to provide clarity. Every time you read each of the chapters you find. Um, discussion of what does this mean? So it's a way of providing clarity. Um, and at the same time, given. The legislative body opportunity to, um. interpret the policy more broadly speaking. We also looked at where there may be scrivener errors. We are not perfect. We do make mistakes. So if we identify scrivener errors, we take this opportunity to catch the ones we can. And then some of these chapters, we have reviewed them with various advisory groups and affected departments internally. A good example of advisory groups include, like, the bike bicycle and pedestrian advisory group looked at the transportation chapter. For example, I know that the representative of all the 9 school district. here in Clark County have reviewed the school chapter. Other chapters like the historical have gone through the historical preservation committee. They provided us their input. We have also extended the economic development chapter to CREDC for their own review and input. And, of course, internally, uh, staff have worked with various, uh, department, for example, public works, the parks and recreational, uh, department of division have reviewed the packs element and provided us their comment. Because they're going to update with the parks advisory board too. So we want to make sure that their plan and what is required in our own plan are consistent. So, with that, Jose is going to go in depth to go over the. The changes in the, um. Chapters before you and highlight what may have changed. Like I said earlier, you have seen the goals and the policies you haven't seen really the. The broader context of each chapter, so let me not take anything away from Jose. So take it away.

Okay. Thank you. Again Jose Alvarez with. The project manager community planning, um, the. Introduction land use element. Well, the role natural resource element and the procedural guidelines, um, the entire chapters we've shared with you, um, the. Um, introduction and procedural guidelines don't have any policies, so you haven't seen those previously. Um, and at a high level clip, um, like, as Oliver mentioned the last slide, just clarification. and adding things that we needed to do to any new new legislation for the introduction chapter. I think we added a land acknowledgement related to the tribe and then some clarification of the history of the area. And then in the procedural guidelines, there's some new legislation related to Land swaps that allows you to modify the urban growth area. So we've sort of changed that section to clarify when you can update the urban growth area and the time frames under what different conditions. So, it looks like there's a lot of changes, but it's hopefully it'll just be clarification of areas that are due to the new legislation. And there's a area in there where we identified some. Expansions of urban growth boundaries that we didn't our legal counsel previously suggested were not consistent with so we were proposing removing some of those. Um. So I wanted really to focus on the two chapters that you've seen before, the land use element and the rural natural resource element. Jeff, can you pull those up? The land use element, I think. And What I wanted to focus on with there are some areas that are highlighted in green and those reflect some changes to policies in one point. I think we can start one point one point nine and then I'll come back to. We had begun editing some of the policies to adopt some of the Environmental justice and displacement policies and then we, so we had initially, I think, provided to policies and we. Went back to our city partners, and we had a discussion because the county wide planning policies affect all of the jurisdictions and we all have to buy off on these policies. So, um, went through an iterative process and that's how we. came up with the policies one point one nine through one point two three. And so that's those are the amendments and the new policies that are reflected there. In addition, there were, um, 3 policies in 1.1.141.1.17 and 1.1.24 where there wasn't consensus agreement amongst all of the jurisdictions. Um, 2 of those policies are related to, uh, transfer development rights, uh, that were brought forward by 3 jurisdictions, um, as part of the process, uh, for, uh. Amending these policies jurisdictions can bring forward these policies and we're trying to get to consensus since there is a consensus. Then what we're required to do is provide those proposed changes and a discussion of, um. The proposed changes and sort of what the rationale was for the changes and where there wasn't ability to reach consensus. So we're working on drafting that memo to share with our jurisdictions to make sure we're capturing the discussion correctly. And when we get that, we will share that with the planning commission and council. So, that'll be coming before you and so they'll, you'll see what that looks like for those 3 policies. The other 11.1.4. Is a sort of an existing policy that there was proposed change. We agreed on a partial change in the language, but there was some additional language that 1 of the jurisdictions wanted to see move forward. And so that'll be addressed in the memo as well.

Let's see, yes, Brian here. Are you 1 of the jurisdictions city Vancouver sent that letter? I think just today. And is that what you're referring to when you say that that will be massaged into the language here?

No, the they've specifically requested some additional language amongst the group of different jurisdictions. We couldn't come to consensus on the language that they proposed. So we're going to bring forward the language that they are proposing and so that you can make that determination and see whether you want to include it or not.

Okay, so their, their, their recommendations will be in this memo for us to read.

It will be in the memo for you to consider. Yes. Correct. Thanks. See. So, I'll go to the rural chapter, unless you have any other questions about that.

I do go ahead page 27. 1.1.2 to some new language in green. And it's engaged in partner with communities, disproportionately impacted by planning decisions and practices to inform strategies, actions, regulations and resources, resource allocation decisions that reduce and repair harm to the communities. And I wondered what is an example of that? How does that actually play out in developing a parcel of land?

I know that we have Share this policy, I believe with with the planning commission, excuse me in the past. I believe this came from the.

It didn't come from there. This was no, this was, um, came out of the group, the technical coordinate committee.

Okay.

Yeah, go ahead.

I don't know if Jenna wants to send it. Go ahead.

I don't think that this would necessarily affect a parcel of land, but it talks about strategies and actions that we can take, um. and how these communities have been affected. And so having more consideration when we're looking at planning for specific areas, if we're looking to up zone particular areas and having a sense of looking at if there are displacement risks in those areas. Um, and so those are. Those are some of the considerations that can be taken. And again, this was part of new legislation that requires us to add language to add policies that address these. And this is what the consensus of the cities and jurisdictions came up with. But.

But you're saying there's no real example of what that means to repair harm to these communities.

I don't have, I might chime in for the record. This is Jenna K with community planning. Um, I think 1 of sort of, uh. A common practice in. You know, when you see terms like repair harm is to work with communities to figure out what that would mean. Right? So it's hard for us to come up with a made up scenario and say, this is how we would repair harm without having that engagement. The other thing I would just note is because there is this new. Requirement for the land use element on helping reduce environmental health disparities in our land use planning. We did also add a section in the background. Text it starts on page 17, um, where we. Talk about it a little bit more and give some general examples. You know, there's like classic examples of. You know, think about where your heavy industrial uses are and who lives next to them, you know, as a. Example of a type of. You know, a land use designation that could potentially have impacts on, you know, people living nearby. So there's a little bit more background there to help give give some context to policies like that.

Thanks, John.

Any other questions and use.

Dealing with heavy industrial. The part that was written in on railroad. Industrial lands, sorry, I think page 17 page 17. okay.

13, 13, 17 also has freight rail, dependent use overlays crossed off or deleted.

Yeah. So, I guess this is what I was going to get at in that regard is under what circumstances. Are we applying what we're calling industrial railroad? Heavy industry zoning.

Oh, so there's already, uh. I believe, uh, zoning that allows for heavy industrial railroad, um, which is separate than the freight rail dependent use overlay. They're independent of each other. Right now, I think the way it's structured in our code, there were 2 zone change requests and I believe that those were added to 2 parcels within the urban growth area. The only other. Property that I know of that has that zone is in the bluff. That has to have the industrial. Okay.

If it was just heavy industrial zoning, and they chose to use the railroad. Then they would be able to utilize the railroad if we're creating something adjacent to the railroad. Are we not precluding heavy industrial users from potentially citing their business there? Because they don't use the railroad.

I'm not. No. So you don't need if you if I'm trying to figure out what is your question about the change to the policy.

Okay, so we have it highlighted in yellow as it is a change.

We were, we just moved it from industrial to heavy industrial, right?

But we, but we struck off the specific overlay area.

So there has nothing to do with this.

All right.

So this is going from right now in. In the industrial designated areas, so in. the Vancouver UGA, there is industrial zoning. And right now the heavy industrial would be allowed this industrial railroad, which lines up more clearly with the heavy industrial than just general industrial. And we've seen two instances where there was a zone change Instead of comprehensive plan change to go from. Industrial to railroad industrial, which, if you look at the land use table is almost exactly the same as heavy industrial. And so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a heavy industrial designation and have the industrial railroad. Not under that, but under the more general industrial. That's that's what this change is trying to do. So.

So, just for my clarification, because I'm, I'm not quite getting it is, is there a circumstance? Let's go up to. Is there a circumstance there where somebody would like to cite their business, but it's industrial railroad based zone. Do they have to use the railroad? No, no. Okay. Why would it be given that designation then?

Okay, so right now there's, um. There, I think there are only. 2 properties of the industrial railroad, and they're both within the and that was part of a zone change. So, right now, the only designation. Um, I think that we have that has heavy industrial is outside in the bluff. So. If someone wanted to have a business that was heavy industrial, they could do that. They wouldn't need the industrial railroad overlay. This was created to apply to areas that are not heavy industrial or that are along the railroad to add that heavy industrial overlay. But if you had a use along the railroad that didn't need the heavy industrial zoning, you wouldn't need to change anything.

What are we gaining by having the 2.

What do we gain by having the two? We've had the two, the Planning Commission added it at the request of the railroad operator and that group back when we were updating the plan in 2016.

But at that time we had the overlay as well.

No. The overlay came later. The overlay has nothing to do with this.

You know, the overlay came as a result of the 5517, which passed this is all of which passed in 2017. By the legislature to have the federal dependent use, we completed the plan in 2016. the legislature passed that 5517 in 2017 and we went to work. Um. With the direction of the council to implement that bill. Um, so this. Railroad industrial have been in our books since 2016 passage or update that are called in 2016 Jose is correct that this was done at the request of the railroad operator. What Jose is saying is that when you look at the. Use list allow in the heavy industrial it is identical. To what you allow in the, and I don't know if that's what stuff is showing here. So you can see it is very identical now as Jose was indicating. So, to my knowledge, it's only 2. Properties along the railroad in the urban area that have gone through a zone change. To get this, I are, you will not. approve an IR zoning in the rural area because the underlying zoning now predominantly even along the railroad is either residential or ag. So I'm not sure that the planning commission will approve a plan amendment and a zone change to go from ag. To 5, or 10 to, I are. I don't see that happening if it's an ad. You have to go through the designation to show that that is no longer qualified to be resource for you to then go to this railroad industrial. The only 2 places in the rural centers that I'm aware of that has heavy industrial not. I are is in the. Rural center, and I believe there may be 1 in middle grade. If it's not medical, it could be brush, but. Those are the only 2 places that have every industrial.

Okay. So, I guess, forgive me after the, uh. The law that was passed at the legislature after that got repealed. I thought we had pulled. We pulled the overlay, but we didn't change any of this designation.

Well, we remember that there was no designation. The only designation we removed the overlay. There is no designation for. Federal dependent use all we did was put an overlay.

It's all the industrial.

No, no, it's not. It's on an ad. It's on an ad property owned by Dennis. No, I'm.

Pardon me I'm talking about heavy industrial as it's listed here now is there's 3 elements. There's heavy industrial. There's a railroad designation or there's airports. Yes. So, okay. So airport to me, I understand because there's an airport. Um. The other part about where you cite a heavy industry to me, I didn't understand why we were still tying the word railroad to it when anybody could utilize the land with the same exact uses.

No, I see. Yeah, I take your point. I think the, um. This zoning, when it was created, was never applied to any property. And had been dormant and like I said, there have been 2 because it was under the industrial designation. There were 2 zone changes that were done to change from industrial to industrial railroad because the uses were essentially heavy industrial along the rail line. And what this would do would just, instead of a zone change, this would require a comprehensive plan amendment to make that change in the future.

And if I may add, the council at the time could have allowed the heavy industry to just remain heavy industry without this special call out for railroad industry.

And this is my mistake, I, I thought it had been pulled and then I saw it in here again. So, okay, we can move on. Yep.

We pulled the, uh, did you go over the policies? Not yet not yet in the following the bill. We have pulled the policies that gets you to the federal dependent use.

So, can you pull up chapter 3?

Jose? This is Kyle. I'd like to ask a question before we move on.

Oh, yeah.

Can we go back to the, the language on page 27? Um. Since when we were going through the draft, you know, there, we, we had the discussion on the inclusion of the program for the land. And the council voted to remove that for their. For their final, and then now we're seeing this language and this to me, this reads even more strict, um. That any land brought into the, the urban growth boundary would be subject to a program. So, can you speak to some of the background on this?

So. This proposal was brought forward by, uh, 3 jurisdictions. Um, let's see, that was chemists Ridgefield and the center. And, um, like I explained earlier, um, manager, any jurisdiction can propose a, um. Um, policy amendment, and so we just run that through, um, based on their, um, suggestion to include this and essentially the jurisdictions have, um, for the most part agreed, except for the 1 jurisdiction. So there's not consensus on this language. Um, and so that's why it's, it was brought forward. Because they're county wide planning policies, and all of the jurisdictions have to agree to it.

So, since there's not, I guess I'm a little confused since there's not consensus on it. Why is it included in the, um. The draft language here.

We're required to bring it forward and I said, we're going to bring you a memo that discusses, um, what the issues are. The majority of the group is okay with the language as you see it. The, uh, 1 outlier, um. WE WILL PROVIDE YOU THEIR CONCERNS IN THE MEMO THAT OUTLINES THEIR CONCERNS AND THEN YOU CAN EVALUATE THAT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU. SIMILARLY YOU ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THE HOW THE COUNCIL APPROACHED THIS QUESTION In reviewing your recommendation, um. What they did was to separate my understanding. I may be wrong, but to separate. The and the from the discussion about, uh, urban growth boundary expansion. So, it's not like they've given up. On the 3 cities as Jose indicated have showed. Interest in having the county adopt a county wide planning policy on. Now, adopting a policy. To have a program is. If it's a county wide planning policy, the way this is written, if the county do. If after reviewing the memo that Jose cited, we have a process on how we go about adding a countywide planning policy. In in all our jurisdictions now, where there is disagreement, we don't reach consensus. We will bring the discussion and the thoughts. Regardless of which city in this case, the city of Vancouver is not on board yet. Now, you will see why they said they are not on board. You saw the policy that is in their memo. They want it to be exploratory. Issue not requiring. But if the, the policy reads, if I may. Clark county and participating cities shall work cooperatively to adopt a countywide. TDR program, read the language that the city of Vancouver is is proposing. If that's the language you would like to see replaced here. You make that recommendation. I am planning to take this back to the council in a work session to also begin to discuss with them. What the group have. Are pushing forward where there is agreement. They're also going to see the concern expressed by the city. Nothing is being adopted yet. The council said, and you said don't move it forward.

The end of it, and we'll have a chance to discuss that in the hearing.

Yes, we will come back in a work session with you, uh, review the memo that the city sent to you today or yesterday. And when we come to a hearing, I will, like I said, I will go back to the plan to the council to present that the same information in a work session with them see what direction they provided me. They may tell me also to pull it or they would like to hear. From the various cities, like, listen to reach field, I believe cameras. I don't think there was any objection from the city of woodland. There was no objection from the city of. Or the town of or sugar or battleground. So, we've had a discussion, or even the tribe that we're part of our coordination members. So it's only the city that has concern. We'll have that discussion and I'm sure if we come to a hearing, they will testify before you and the order the public have not had the opportunity to look at this yet. The public may say we want it. You make the, you make your recommendation to cancel. I hope that answers your question. Commissioner, uh, Carl.

Yes, thank you over.

You're welcome.

There any other questions on the land use.

Did you want to talk about the next issue 1?

No, I was going to go to rural. Okay, go ahead. Can you pull up Jeff? Can you pull up the role? Oh, there it is the last I think it's the last page. So, again, and so this is, um. The freight rail dependent use, because of the legislation that was recently passed. Essentially, removing the freight rail dependent use as an option. So we're proposing to remove it from these policies in the rural chapter. I think there are, there may be policies in the transportation policy that when we get to that chapter, you'll see that deleted. And I think in there is a section in the land use chapter that has stricken that freight rail dependent use language as well.

And, uh, Ron, if I made to answer your question more, um, the. The bill that pass now no longer includes like, carry to have a federal dependent use. So, what we had before was just an overlay on that property. That is zone ag. So, the, the designation and the zoning of that property is still agriculture. Now that the, it's kind of like the same way we do surface when in overlay is on a resource. It looks like we have pulled that overlay out. The resource zoning remains now add. So that's the outcome and this policies that we are recommended be deleted. Speak specifically to the federal dependent use. We don't have the opportunity to implement that. If you recall, when I was coming to the planning commission and council, I said, the bill says, may there isn't anything that says you should. Or shall in this case Clark county, but in the repeal of that, uh, bill, Okanagan county is still left out to. To implement that bill, and I have reached out to them. I've said this several times. The Okanagan county has not done anything with that bill since 2017, just consistent with what I've been sharing with, uh, the planning commission and council that. without criticizing the draft that the bill was just poorly written is hard to implement.

You can go back to the presentation now, I think. Go to the next slide.

Okay, so this is the upcoming schedule. For planning commission and hearings, I think we. Oliver talked about this before with our time frame. We are working to get the documents prepared to submit it to commerce by July 24th to have draft sent by that point. Rebecca talk about our hearings board, but we are still under the July 30th completion timeframe that the was imposed on us by the hearings board. We are working to comply. With our schedule as best as we can and provide them updates on a regular basis to show the progress that we've been making. So, um, that that's part of the, the, the schedule online the way it did. But, um, I think that would be a. A milestone for us to complete that and be able to show that we are working towards completion and that would just leave us with the adoption process with the submittal to commerce by the 24th of July. The final action can't be taken for 60 days. So that's part of the. COMMERCE 60 DAY REVIEW AND THAT'S WHY THE HEARINGS WITH THE COUNCIL ARE LATER IN IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER. SO YOU'LL SEE THE SCHEDULE I THINK THERE'S SOME CHANGES TO OUR REGULAR MEETING TIMES AND HEARINGS ON I THINK PARTICULARLY FOR SEPTEMBER THIRD WHICH IS THE FIRST Thursday in September to have a final hearing deliberation and then August 6th, we'll have the work session to. On all of the chapters and see what specifically you may have questions about as we move forward into the hearing. I think that's it if you have any questions or.

Yeah, I do, um, you kind of you didn't go over the procedural guidelines. I had a question on that. And, uh, specifically, there's a lot of there's a lot of yellow in there. Yes. Um. The emergency. Amendments yes, and just if you wouldn't mind speaking to a little more as to why the emergency amendments have been removed. It seems like we, we lose a tool as planners to. Address an issue that would come up that. That otherwise could take many months to get or even longer a year to get through a process. So, uh, paid others on page. Yeah.

Um. The question was about the emergency amendments and why we were removing those. And I think the again, the rationale is that there's no, um. Justification within the growth management act for there, there aren't any emergency amendments. And so that was not consistent with the growth management act. Which 1 is the emergency amendments?

I don't recall that the that we had to follow the every. If it wasn't in the, why do we have to remove it and lose a tool in our county?

I think if we were challenged, we would lose because it's not consistent with. The act, and that's what legal had advised us on previously and. That's that's pretty much the rationale. And I think what are. Some of the, um. Things discussed in there under emergency amendments, we, we kind of already do as part of our docket process once we update the, the plan once a year.

Thanks for saying the, uh, if I may add, when you look at item number 1, um. I, I believe that citing of, uh, essential public facilities, like, uh, waste disposal. Uh, is is, I believe it's allowed in every district, maybe with the exception of a single family district, uh, and. I will see, uh, bought an airport as regional facilities, the, the planning commission, and the council did amend our provision for citing of essential public facilities if you recall. So. That was done to be consistent with the provision that is in that you, you have to abide by those provisions. Similarly, um. In case of responding to, uh, health. Related issue of public health that's already allowed in the provision to response to public health hazard. So, uh, so they indicated. You know, um, correcting for error, uh, we can do that or even once a year considered once a year. We already do that. That is a provision to come before you and I know review and docket process. This is already. What we are doing is consistent with, uh. Can't remember, uh, it says, uh, in work. 365196, and I believe there may be another that what we are doing is consistent with and on page. What will be 1 and 2. We have cited the new, uh, bill talking about, um. The 10 year periodic review and how frequently that is done and then on item number 2 in that row is the, uh, the usually a swamp. And also provided you with, uh. The new, uh, bill that, or our CW, I mean, amendment to our CW that provides, uh, for those provisions. And how often that is done and who can initiate that? I did a county or property owner. So we believe that, um. I don't think you can amend the comprehensive plan to the emergency ordinance. You can amend your title 40.

There is one provision. I think it's on page four. There's a footnote. And that's referencing the emergency amendments and tying it to the RCW so that there are some provisions that allow you to amend your comp plan more than once a year. And we just tied it to the RCW to make sure that we're consistent with that.

Right.

I don't have any further questions on the guidelines.

This is Ron unrelated to the guidelines. I'd like to talk about the upcoming PC work sessions specifically July 16th transportation, financial capital facilities. Um. I'm hoping that staff can kind of bring us up on somewhat of a. A scorecard on how we've been doing with the existing projects tip, filling up our capacity. Uh. shortfalls from the previous building cycles that we've had to try as we go forward to have a clearer understanding about when we look at what's needed for the next round, how well we've done historically, and whether we're actually working out of a deficit or not. Is that possible for us to get something like that at the next work session?

We are really focused on what this plan entails and what these What the cost differential is going to be based on this plan, I can. See, if we can find some comparable, I know that every time we've updated the plan, we've and if you look at our existing plan, it shows the deficit and shortage that was anticipated part of that plan and outline some of the steps that could be taken to reconcile the short shortages. What has been done in, um, in the intervening 10 years to, um. Try to address some of those deficiencies. Um, we may be able to provide some information at a high level, but I don't think there's been, um. How often has the county council taken increases in the road fund off the top of my head? It was 1 of the things that. We can talk about, but. Yeah, I'm not sure.

Okay. So I don't need us to go back 10 years. Uh, you know, let's, let's go back. 2 to fiscal cycles and just say, where are we at now? Where were we expecting grants? Did we get those grants? Yes. No. Where are we at on projects like the 179th street corridor between. Uh, 50th, and the freeway interchange, I think is a really good example. How how built out are we on that? Are we on schedule for that? Are we behind on that? Um, because that's growth that we've already booked. And I, I have a concern. Not being able to drive that corridor on a regular basis for the last couple of years. Um. That we're falling behind. Um, and things are getting more expensive and so I just want us to look at, you know, what we promise compared to how well we have been able to deliver. And make sure that the planning commission has a clear understanding about if there is a gap. Between promise and performance that the planning commission is able to take that into account.

Um, thank you, uh, planning commission around, but, um. I think what what Jose is saying is is is some is on is some point. We will, um, do our best to, uh, share with you. Because what I will add is that you, the planning commission. Do, uh, see the, uh. The tip transportation improvement program, which is the 6 year that public works come and run through you with your approval and that is tied to the council approval of the budget each year. Now that we have gone through yearly, uh, budget cycle rather than 2. and as Jose was indicated earlier. Um, don't want to fault the council, but they have not been taking the 1% prop, you know, road fund, for example. So that will have some. Impact on, um. The public share. Committed to building some of the roles that we identified, uh, as part of the adoption of the plan Jose is correct. Every time we do this is a 20 year. Uh, plan or planning horizon we do, uh. Working with consultant do identify all the projects that needs to come online during the 20 year, uh, timeframe. We have a 20 year project list. We show what the cost. Will be, and then we use the 6 year as a way of phasing out that to get us to to that and. We don't get into 20 year horizon. We start another plan update. So you have in the existing 2015 to 2035, all the project that we identified in that plan that have not yet come online. So, but I hear what you're saying, we will work with public work to the best we can when we take your question to, uh. Uh, transportation stuff to see what we can generate, but we are making incremental, uh, progress using the 6 year tip to get us to, uh, meeting our. You know, sometimes responding to, uh, where the pressure is at in this case. You know, we all agreed, uh, with understanding, I would say my staff that, uh, so we'll say that the opening or the reason of the urban holding in the 179 corridor was premature. Anybody says that I don't think there will be any harm, you know, but that's true. But. You know, we can share whatever we know with you, uh, when that, uh, circulation plan for the 179 was done. I think that came to you here. You approved it and send it to the council, but not all the projects are coming online at the same time. But remember. You cannot deny an application. when you can show that the project identified to make things work is reasonably funded. Now, you may say that word reasonably funded is on paper. Maybe that may be your conclusion. I'm not going to disagree with you, but remember that there is a public share and a private share. We don't collect the traffic impact fees until the time of building application. You go figure. Where's that money going to come from? 2. Some of the funding for this project is also through grants and. I'm not going to educate you on that. You know that both state and federal grants are very difficult to come by now. And the state, this might be editorial on my part, but haven't really invested in transportation for a very long time. 179 interchange, how many times have the state been moving the goalposts? So, uh, that's my, uh, we will come to you with whatever we can provide. I mean. Going back because I was here, my staff was here in 2007. you were here. What was the price tag for the comp plan when we was adopted? Do you remember on transportation?

Plus, plus we know more than 1Billion.

Oh, yeah, 1Billion. Okay. I don't know where the county is going to. We said, so. A staff 1Billion, we came to you. It wasn't hidden. We went to the council. It was provided. Here's the cost. To build all the infrastructure to support that plan. Who has 1Billion? The county?

No. I think you've made my point, Oliver. I was just interested in having the discussion and I think everything you've said is probably part of what we would want to talk about.

Sure. Thank you. Yep. Thank you.

Anything else? Okay, Jose. Yeah, I don't have anything any questions for anybody online. Bob, Kyle.

Okay.

All right.

It's going to be a lot of stuff coming your way.

I was going to say, I'm looking at the dates here. It's there. It's going summer. Rebecca, did you have anything that you wanted to go over?

I don't have anything other than on what then oh, sorry I don't have anything other than what's been discussed other than to kind of, um, update you all on, uh, litigation that that has occurred up to this point. Um, for the record, uh, Rebecca Ward, senior, uh, civil deputy prosecuting attorney. Um, so you all know that, um, the friends of county, um, and, uh, the civil prosecutor's office, uh, argued a motion on that was filed by the friends of county for non compliance. Uh, back in in March of this year, my predecessor was the council who argued on behalf of the county on that. Um, there was a order that came out on April 2nd, which set a date for compliance of July 31st. Um, and then it also, um, set, um. 2 check ins, basically kind of status checks to see where the county was with coming up with their final comprehensive plan. That 1st status check was on May 4th. The 2nd status check was on June. 1st. Um, the, uh, county, uh, buy in through myself as well as outside council, um, filed, um, documentation to, um, update the board on, uh, progress that has been made, um, in that backtracking just a bit in that, uh, April 2nd order. They did find that the county was in non compliance. Um. And that was 1 of the purposes for those status checks. We did myself make a motion for extension or a motion for reconsideration. Um, on back on April 13th, asking that, um, the board reconsider that finding of non compliance and, um, allow us to be in compliance, uh, by, um, October 23rd, which was, uh, is reflected in our current, um, updated schedule that, um. Um, Jose and Oliver have been going over with all of you. Um, the board did deny that motion for reconsideration. And said, no, we are sticking with the compliance date of July 31st and these 2 check in dates, as I have indicated, we have complied with those 2 check in dates. 1 of the indications by the board within that order was that if it became necessary, and there was a showing of good faith compliance and efforts towards compliance during this period of time that we could incrementally make motions for extensions as they became necessary and appropriate.

Um.

So, um, at this point, we are still continuing on with our, uh, draft, uh, updated schedule. Um, the, um. Planning is is certainly looking for any opportunities to condense the schedule and and we'll certainly apply those as needed. Um, in the meantime, um, we are. documenting all efforts that we're making towards bringing the county into compliance. And should it become appropriate and necessary, we'll make motions for extensions of time at that point.

So we are in compliance until 31st. We're out of compliance. I understand that.

We're out of compliance. We continue to be out of compliance again on July 31st.

So, we're out of compliance. I mean, I'm not saying we want to extend this. No, no, no, no, no. We're out of compliance. We're going to do what we have to do, but there's nothing else we can do to get into compliance in the short term. Does that make sense? What I'm asking because going forward with grants and all these other things that that we apparently can't do, that's my concern is. It absolutely we are out of compliance Clark county out of compliance.

We are out of compliance. We. Have that deadline forward for July 31st again, we could make a motion to extend to. Be in compliance up to whatever that extension is. Um, I'm not saying that it's necessarily October at this point because again, we are looking for any opportunities that we can to condense. Um, so, um. But, yes, the end result is that we are in non compliance at this point in time with the hope of making good faith efforts to to change that at the earliest point possible. There was a motion an additional motion filed by friends of Clark county that was filed. Um, at the beginning of May, um, asking for, um, uh, order on to find that, um, our current plan, um, is invalid. Um, and the basis that they, uh, friends of Clark county argued at oral argument before the board was that, um. They allege basically, the council had failed to declare moratorium on development, um, based upon, um, the agricultural resource land study, which, um, showed that there were many parcels or lots. that met the criteria for agricultural designation as specified in the WAC as well as the RCWs, but that we had failed to act and declare those, designate those areas as agricultural. We again argued that motion on July 11th. Um, and we did get an order, um, here fairly recently, um, that found, um. We, of course, argued against that motion for invalidity. The board agreed with us that you can't declare something invalid that isn't finalized yet. And just because these lands met the criteria, it didn't mandate designation at this point. So. Um, at this point, we don't have any, uh, open litigation on this that we have not yet responded to. We continue to move forward, try to do. Everything we can to bring ourselves into compliance at the earliest possible point. Um, and as it becomes appropriate, we, if it becomes appropriate, we will make those motions for extensions. Any questions.

No, thank you.

That's all we have for this evening and we've shared the upcoming schedule. I'm not, I'm just saying this is for your information. I give you, we give you break in December. So I'm asking you to put this in your Put this in your calendars as, uh, Rebecca just stated, we want to move this forward. I just use the phrase we want to land this plan. So we want to finish and come into compliance and we'll see what happens.

Great, thank you. Uh, any other comments online or. Here in the room. All right, we're adjourned. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

What what time did you want to close things down? Yeah.