Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I would like to call this planning commission work session to order for Thursday, July 2nd, 2026. my name is Carl Johnson. 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 off. Or muted unless you're speaking, there will not be any public comment during the work session that members of the public can watch or listen written testimony related to this evening's agenda items or other topics considered by the planning commission is it encouraged and accepted at any times this evening agenda is as follows. Uh, 1st, we'll deal with school, um, district and the associated impact fees and fire district and associated impact fees. Then a comp plan chapter review on housing elements chapter 2 and then, um, finally, we'll, uh, last 1 will be transportation project list and evaluation criteria. So, with that said, we can start off with the school and associated impact fees. Amy.

Thank you for the record. Uh, my name is Amy. I am with community planning. Planner and community planning, I'm joined this evening by Oliver or Jacko, who is a community planning director. We will be briefing you on the hearings that will take place. At your July 16th meeting related to school district capital facilities plan and impact fee updates. Next slide Jeff. There are 5 docket items listed on the slide that all relate to school district capital facilities plans and impact the updates. Each school district's proposal is considered a separate docket item and at your July 16th meeting will be presented to you 1 at a time for separate deliberation and voting tonight. However, I will be providing background information applicable to all of these proposals rather than discussing them individually.

Next slide.

So, why does the county look at school district capital facilities plans and impact the updates chapter 3670 of the revised code of Washington enable school districts to develop capital facilities plans and impact the programs for new residential developments in order to offset the impacts of growth on school facilities. It further requires these plans and programs be reviewed and approved as part of the county and city comprehensive plans in which the school district is located. That is why the county reviews these types of requests for all school districts within Clark county. The minimum requirements of a school district's capital facilities plan are defined in RCW 3670A.0703 and Clark County Code section 40.620.030A. A school district requesting impact fees shall submit to the county and update a plan at least every four years, a capital facilities plan adopted by the school board and consisting of the following elements. A standards of service description, which includes things like the number of students per classroom for different age groups and inventory of existing facilities, a forecast of future needs, proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new facilities, a 6 year financing plan and application of the impact fee for. formula that set out in Clark county code section 462040 school district capital facility plans typically include multiple funding sources, depending on district eligibility districts pay for a portion of the costs of the capital facilities. With funds provided by the state of Washington through the common school construction fund, the remaining capital facilities must be raised locally through the passage of bond levies, which raise the property taxes of all residential property owners within a particular district and or impact fees, which only applied a new residential development. Clark County code section 40.620.040 includes the calculation used for determining the maximum impact fee and school district a school district can request. If any of you want to dig into the details of the calculation, you're welcome to contact me before the hearing and I can walk each of you through that calculation. Next slide please. Right now, though, we're just going to talk about. Um, the cost of public facilities attributed to new growth over the next 6 years per household, this initial part of the calculation considers the number of children per household in the district and uses separate calculations for single family and multi family housing types from this initial cost per household. The formula subtract state match funds expected to be received from the state towards school construction costs. The formula subtracts a tax credit related to existing school district capital facility capital property tax levies, and then the formula subtracts an additional 15%. The calculation based on the codified formula. Determines the maximum impact the amount a school district can request as you review the capital facilities, your hearing materials accompanying each staff report. Um, exhibit a will include a copy of the district's capital facilities plan and includes the map that shows the district's work using the county's impact the formula. Some districts may request the maximum impact the amount allowed under county code. Others may request a lower amount. There will be a representative for the districts at the hearing who can answer questions about why the school district made certain decisions in their facility plans and impact the. REQUEST. SHE'S HERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. LEANNE IS GRACIOUSLY HERE. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YOU KNOW THE TABLE? THANK YOU. THIS TABLE SUMMARIZES THE IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS FOR EACH OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. FOR EACH DISTRICT, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING FEE AND PROPOSED FEE FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS. On the right hand side, you can see the difference and percent change between the current fee and the proposed fee amounts. You may notice a wide range in the proposed fee amounts on this table. Each school district is really different. There are large districts and small districts. Some are primarily rural while others are primarily urban and some are a mix. The main point of each district. Of that is that each district has different facility needs and each district's capital facilities plan provides the background information and context behind these numbers. I will highlight a couple of examples of these differences that may stand out. From this table, there are 2 districts evergreen and wash Google that are requesting an impact fee amount of 0 dollars because they are expecting either a decline in student population growth or very minimal growth. And they have minimal facility needs that they can cover through funding sources. Other than impact fees, the highest proposed impact the amount for single family homes is in Hawkinson followed by woodland. You can view these districts capital facilities plan to get a sense of the student population growth and facility needs that have their financing plans. That the financing plans have included, um, and not only impact the amounts. But also other funding sources, they included in their financing plan to build the needed facilities, the highest proposed impact the amount for multi family homes is in woodland followed by the center. And similarly, the details on the identified needs and financing plans are in the districts. Staff reviews each school district capital facilities plan, and the associated impact fees for consistency with applicable growth management act Clark county comprehensive plan and Clark county code sections staff report for each district walks through the applicable criteria evaluation and findings and staff's review. We found that all 5 of the proposed capital facilities plan updates and impact the requests are consistent with the criteria. We evaluated them against. Next slide this slide is just being shared for reference only so that you have impact the amounts for all the districts in the county. The school district information on this slide is not proposed to be changed. Planning commission members have requested this information in the past to help see the broader landscape. Next slide. Thanks for your time. I'll stop there. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Oliver is also available for questions.

Uh, thank you so much.

Any questions.

Uh, yeah, this commissioner room. Um, so question on a little bit on the calculation, but. So. Typically, and this is kind of what it looks like in Parkinson. They're assuming that the multi family won't have as many. Kids involved versus the single family. As far as their, their impact on their calculation. Is that is that why we're seeing the drop there?

I'm going to let Leanne answer those questions.

Hi, everyone. Leanne Bremer. I'm with Miller Nash and I represent all the Clark County school districts on their capital facilities planning and impact fee calculation. So good question. Hawkinson is primarily a rural district. In fact, there's no cities in Hawkinson school district. So you're right. The, they don't have very many multifamily units and there's not a lot planned in the next 6 years. So. Um, each district is unique in that way, and there's so many variables in the formula. So, when you plug in all the numbers, that's why you get such a wide variety of results. So, yes, they don't have very many apartments in the Hopkinson school, I guess, because the follow up to that is the, the multi family for woodland.

Um, you know, goes 132% up and so I've just seen the disparity between so. The change, and so why are we is do they look demographically at their specific community and how many kids are coming out of exactly out of like, like, maybe in Vancouver, the apartment units don't produce that many kids kind of ever got in trouble with that a few years ago or 3 had to change your calculation. Um.

Is that that what we're seeing or is that yeah, so there's what we call student generation rate or student factor. So that is how many students are typically generated from a single single family home or a single apartment and each we calculate that for each district and remarkably it is so different. district to district. So in Woodland, when the consultants calculated the student generation rate, there were more students coming from apartment units than there were from single family units, which is so there's a higher student generation rate. That's why you see a higher fee for the multifamily unit. And then Hawkinson, of course, I just explained they don't have that many units to have that many students generated from those units.

And then what is the percentage from on the development community that you're looking at per like, is it. They assume we need 40,000 dollars a student and 20,000 needs to come from a developer. Um, or, you know, through, um, or what is what does that look like?

That doesn't really factor in in a precise mathematical way in the formula. The, the law says that impact fees cannot fund 100% of a new new facility. There has to be public money. To also contribute towards that facility. There's no, there's no required. Ratio between private and public funding, but typically you would see. Schools are very expensive as you'll see in the cap facilities plan and and the districts need to pass bonds to build a new school. There's there's no question about that. So, majority of the funding will come from public money. I don't have an exact percentage to give you because it's. It's going to vary district by district.

Is there a range? Cause I know when we had this conversation before it was with the parks department with the city and your, your thing, I think was 92% came from the development side and then 8% came from the, the city side.

I'll see if I can bring that to the hearing in a couple of weeks. That's a really good question. And and just for each of the plans that will be before you see if I can come up with that percentage.

Okay, cool. Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh, this is all of, uh, planning commissioner had in the case of woodland. Um. This will, um, and Liam Bremer attorney representing the school district can, uh, agree with me that. Uh, in woodland, the portion of the woodland school district that is in the county is relatively small. So this impact, if I may say so, will primarily be in Cowles County where majority of the woodland school boundary is. Very little multifamily is in the county that this impact field will apply because the portion of the county that is in woodland school district predominantly Single family, if I may say so, and I think Leah will agree. Uh, I agree with, uh, Leanne, uh, grandma's observation in Hawkinson. Very little, um, apartments, it's all rural, uh, district, uh, uh, Hawkinson school district. Similarly in Barrow Ground, except that Barrow Ground School District, I don't know if we have a map, also include some portion Of the area that, uh, comes closer to. 179, uh. So, uh, is concerned is accurate. Uh, this formula is just based on student rate and typically student. Generating from multi family are much smaller compared to single family district. And when you compare the. Total impact fee that is in the, uh, they said the private. I will be surprised if that number is much smaller, because when you're looking at bond and the construction of a school. You're looking at in the millions, I doubt that the ratio will be, uh, the public share or the private share will be much higher than the, uh, the, uh, the public because you're also looking at state funding. And then the bond, uh, which the resident will approve or not approve. Uh, so that's that's what I wanted to add. I used to. used to review this information in the past and, uh, fully understand what's going on when you look at this capital facilities plan and the associated impact fees and how that is so calculated and the public and private share of that.

Is the county portion just just that horseshoe Lake loop. And so it's just that small little. That small little section that yes, it's all built out right?

Pretty much there's been there's some vacant landing there, but none of that is planned to be multi family. Okay.

Yeah, just seems like a small, a small thing to go after because are they not allowed to charge impact fees in Dallas County?

They're not and but there's a, the city of Woodland obviously will have impact fees. And in fact, the city is considering this the same plan that you are. So that's in process.

All right. Thank you.

Any other questions.

I would like some clarification is when we calculate for the comp plan and we look at population allocation per household, we have a set formula that we use on how many people per multi family dwelling and how many people per residential single family. Did I hear that the school districts have their own formula about how many people go in the dwellings?

Yes, when it comes to, and Leon can verify, when it comes to the number of students being generated from single family and that from multifamily, it's different when the school district do their own population numbers and student generation from various housing type. In the county, you're looking countywide, And what we do is persons per household we use average of, uh, in the past we've looked at, uh, census information and indicating that the average household in Clark County is 2.66. we know that that's average in the rural area is like 3 point something. This is all census information, but no, when we look at the household. Uh, county wide, uh, we rely on either on census information or American community survey. Uh, or we look to the state office of financial management or commerce to see what the, uh, uh, forecasting in the future. That's how we, we looked at that. But in the case of schools, they look at. Uh, student generation from multi family, a single family, because that is how they assess how much to be charged for various, uh, housing type.

So, yeah, so just to build on that, the, so the county for their purposes. Has a number of people per household, we calculate number of students per household, which is obviously going to be less than the number of people. Perhaps so you'll, you'll see in the formula, for instance, odd numbers, like point 3, high school students per single family residents. So it's going to be less than 1 in a lot of cases. So that's that's how to determine how many students come. Are having an impact on, uh, or coming from new housing that has an impact on the schools is to do that. Generation rate.

As far as the quality of data that they have, I'm assuming the schools have some pretty accurate data because they have addresses. That's exactly right. Every student and they can say, these are all apartment complex. These are single family.

Yes, that's how they how that's they do. They hire consultants to help them with that, but they have their, they have their enrollment say, they have 500 students in elementary schools, and they're able to know where these students live. Uh, and then they could just do the math and figure out what's that what's that rate.

So, I guess this kind of begs the question for me if their data is more granular, have we ever spent any time looking at the discrepancy between what the school districts are looking at for population base versus what we're doing as a generalization.

No, that's just the, my simple answer is no, because, um. we are not doing what the city is doing however when we look at okay we are not building only um single family we are building more also multi-family so we take the total There are more looking at. Okay, where are they seeing differences? So, because they charge a different fee for multi family, because of that high student generation rate versus multi family, they make that distinction in the county. We, we're not assessing impact fees. We don't make that distinction. The impact fee we charge is only for parks and transportation. The impact fee for the school is passed through. They use the same formula that is in, uh. Code to differentiate the 2 between multi family and single family, because they have to come up with what is that, uh, fee to be. So, the student generation from those 2, uh, housing type gives them that opportunity to, and they have the formalized set up, give them the opportunity to make that distinction.

Yeah, certainly, um, it's their product and they're trying to understand. who the service is for, I guess I'm just thinking that there's a opportunity for us just to bounce our numbers against that, to have a clarity on whether we are over or underestimating what density of population we're already achieving based on dwelling count.

I wouldn't say that we are because we are giving a population we don't know We're giving a population we don't know the type of folks that we're moving in here. You know, you may be folks with. Children, it may be those that are anticipating to have in the future. We just don't know until. Remember the population that we are giving, we assume some. Natural growth. We assume in migration, but we just have the total. We just don't know what's happening at the granular level. The school district as Leah was explaining, they have their own data on the number of students that are coming from apartment because of address. Um. That doesn't mean that, um. You know, in apartment, you may have. maybe one kid, the same may be true for multifamily, but you don't have multifamily all over your school district. You have more single family and you may see more students coming from the single family just because of the number of single family in that district. This was, uh, apartment where you may have 1 or less kid coming from apartment unit. It doesn't mean that those with kids doesn't live in apartment, but the number is relatively small. They make that distinction. We just assume on a county wide. What is the presence per household and that is how we estimate the number of units we do. Uh, make a distinction on how we zone single family or multi family to accommodate the growth we are planning for. We just don't go back and say, okay, how many folks come from multi family that is left for school district to make to use that information to come up with. Uh, the distinction between how much to charge in single family and multi family.

Any other questions online or.

Okay, let's move on to the next 1. thank you.

I'll see you in a couple of weeks.

Uh, let's go with, uh, fire, uh, district CFP with park.

Good evening everyone this is Bart catching community planning. Um, yeah, you can go the next slide Jeff. Thank you. Apologize if I'm a little clunkier than Amy, my laptop won't connect to the network at the moment. So I have the iPad here in the slide show on my computer. Um. So, this is along the same vein as what we were just talking about with Amy and the school district impact fees. But this is a separate project for the fire districts. I don't know who on the commission. No, Carl was here. No, Brian was here. I'm not sure. Yeah, Jack was here we couple of years ago we did the initial code updates for county code to put the framework in place. So that fire districts. In the county could move forward with impact fees should they want to. They didn't have a code section up until that point. So we, we did that project and and so that's now part of county code and we have a formula and code sections very similar to parks and schools and. To allow the fire districts that want to assess impact fees to move forward with it. However, because it's new. Even though the fire districts themselves have worked up capital facilities plans on their own for their own benefit and to provide as part of the comprehensive plan in the past. They weren't used to calculate impact fees and so we didn't go through this same regular process like schools has done. So now we have. 4 districts that have elected to to request impact fees and therefore we're starting the process with with you all. To look at their capital facilities plans through separate hearings, just like Amy alluded to with the school districts and and then once the capital facilities plans are reviewed and this, this body makes a recommendation to the council. then the council will be able to fold the capital facilities plans into the comp plan update, which is partly why we're doing it now because the comp plan is open, so to speak, while we're doing this. And then they'd go on to a regular update cycle, similar to schools and whatnot. Next slide please, Jeff. So, just a little recap. Uh, why we're talking about this and why we're doing it the way we're doing it. So, um, the fire protection facilities, the actual brick and mortar facilities as well as the durable apparatus, you know, like pump trucks, ladder trucks, um, certain, uh. Pieces of technology that they have, um, are considered, uh, public facilities and can be funded partially, uh, through impact fees, uh, similar rationales as we were just talking about with the, with the school districts. Um. And so, as I just said, we, we moved through the code adoption process in late 23 and early 24. so now we have it as part of our. County code to to be able to bring capital facilities plans to you all and then to the county council, they have the basic. Criteria that they need to contain just like, um. Other capital facilities plans, it's it's a, this is a creature of of state statute, um, the, and the facilities plans that are linked on the project page for those 4 districts. Um, all have all these, uh, all these elements in them, uh, the inventory, the list of the projects that that they have, um. Proposed the, those projects are tied to their forecast of future needs of the district. Then there's a financing plan, which goes into a district specific discussion about where their income streams come from. This is tied to their budgets that all the districts do each year and then. And then there's a procedure for a periodic review and update. So that's on a, a minimum multi year cycle and then they could they can come back as often as 1 every year if situations change. But I doubt that would happen very often. Next slide please. Jeff. Um. So, this again is what I was just talking about that the. The fire districts need to have their capital facilities plans approved before they can go through the process of negotiating an intergovernmental agreement with the county and then having the fees added to the formula for new development. These are the high level sections of of state code and then our. our area of the county code where the the fee language comes from next slide please. This is just using the same type of table that Amy had, although it's much more straightforward because this is brand new. This is information pulled directly from the, um, approved plans that the districts, um, the fire districts have provided to the county. Um, again, uh, you know, the purpose of of this discussion is to, to, to solicit, um. The type of inquiries that you all might have not to. Go through every part of their formula. You can, you can look at the plans linked on the project page and then provide specific questions to me and I will try to answer them. And if I can't, I will for them to the fire district chiefs who are the, the, the ones who I've been dealing with. Uh, I will say that, um, when you look at the, um. The plans that we're bringing to the hearing for the 4 districts, they're all formatted very similarly. That is, um, by design, uh, fire district 3 under the leadership of of now chief. Uh, Chris drone has been spearheading this effort for several years. And he has worked with their attorney to make a plan that they feel is solid and meets meet state statute and local code. And then they have agreed as a group of these 4 to move forward together. I don't want you all to think that. If you have questions about 1 that you're questioning them all, that's not the case. They have just chosen to to come together as a group and have their plans be similar because the fire district 3 did the initial work and they had their attorney look at it. That's my understanding. Um, so these, the way the formula is written for the fire districts is a little bit more straightforward than the schools. It is just based on projected number of units and the, the type of capital facilities that they are projecting that they will need whether it's. 1 building 2 buildings 1 apparatus 3 apparatus. It varies from from district to district and, um. And then it's literally an algebra equation tied to how many types of housing units are projected through the data that that we same data that we use for the comp plan. That's what we gave to them to craft this and. And so the only outlier that you might see there is district 10 is quite a bit more. Then the other ones, and when you look at the small population that district 10 has, and then the very small projected amount of new housing. Tied to them, that's that's what the formula. Spits out, I mean, it's it's. It's not a discretionary thing. It's just you take the project. Projected housing types and and put it in. Um, so with that, um. I didn't didn't have anything else in particular, but I'm, I'm. I am not an accountant. I've never claimed to be 1. I'm here to answer the questions that I can and if I can't, I am a conduit of information to go back to the fire districts. And ask them and make sure that you guys have all the information that you need. At the hearing in 2 weeks questions.

I have a question. Um, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Um, being a retired fire guy. Um, I noticed district 10, there are fees include sprinkled cost. Do you know if the other 3 districts require sprinklers for all. New construction.

My, their, their plans don't make that. Distinction district 10 was the only plan that broke it out more and they also, I didn't bother to make this this particular chart, you know, twice as large, but when you open up the district 10 plan. You'll see that they have non sprinkled costs estimated in there as well. So it's not a requirement. Like, for instance, I guess city of canvas, you know, every everything's required to be sprinkled is my understanding. It's not like that. It's just they're allowed to have. Both both estimates, and they chose to do it. Um, but that is a question that we can bring to the, um, to the hearing and I'll forward on to. Chief drone about whether the other districts. Chose not to do that for some reason I don't know.

Okay, um, in conjunction with, uh, with that, based on your answer, um. Do you happen to know if the fee then for district 10 non sprinkled. Is the same amount it's slightly higher.

And when you go into the project page and look at their plan, there's a. Their their chart shows it. I just thought that was the most. Relevant simple 1 to put into this simple framework that we have. Yeah, yeah, I agree. Okay, thank you. Yes, Jack.

Oh, wrong. Sorry. That's quite all right. Um, so. Working with what Mark started, this is where I was going to go with it as well. Um, I think we need to see the non sprinkled if it is genuinely available. Yeah, because 1 of my concerns is the idea of the, the overall cost of putting a sprinkler system in. Oh, okay. Wade against the idea of not putting it in. It seems to me if the district is really trying to get the standard of sprinkled housing as. Something that they want to make sure that the impact fees reflect an improvement to their financial condition by doing it. Otherwise what you end up seeing is somebody weighing the cost and not sprinkling because it's just. Bottom line cheaper to go in, but for the long run of the district, and for the occupants, it's obviously something that we would like to see continued as a standard.

Yeah, that's an excellent point. And 1 thing that came to mind as you were talking, and I'm thinking about district 10 and boy and Fargo lake, and how rural it is. That they might have included that because of their longer response times, because there's so much more driving involved. Yeah, right.

Yeah, and I think looking at that, because it's a significant amount of money, but the cost of putting a sprinkler system in. Is going to be a very significant impact to the cost of building the home to begin with.

It is and I think that's a conversation that also happens with builders as well, because it can affect insurance and things that aren't the county's purview, but are important. Right? And.

Building off of that, then in district 10, I know that there's not much in the way of commercial out there. Right? But 2 dollars and 49. Since per square foot at. 10,000 square foot place is going to run them.

20,000 dollars 20,000 and again, that's why I would it's not the place of this meeting to. Peel back the hood and do the math on every single 1, but to. To let you guys know what what we're looking at and then you can look at. The, uh, the, the plans on the, the web page, and if you have any questions that we can appropriately forward to the districts before the hearing, and I can get information back to you. Great. Otherwise we can ask those questions because the representatives will be at the hearings.

Yeah, so I guess in that regard, knowing where district 10 is, um, I'm kind of interested on in a zoning aspect, um, you know, under what conditions and where would commercial buildings get built.

In the commercial centers, primarily, which there are the rural centers.

I mean, yeah. So we're talking a few places. Yeah. Yeah. Not much. Yeah.

Okay, um, just just clarify where I want to push back a little bit on you on on he said, um, so this is, this is out of the code of what we're required to review. And, um, and it says, whether the level of service standard, you know, reasonable existence, whether the district appropriate appropriately applied the formula set out in section and it showed and then hyperlink to the section is just like ABC. Right? Um, so fairly simple. Thing, but, um, I would really like to see. I would like to see the detail because I can't appropriately consider like. Like, what they're actually, you know, what they're charging, how much they're charging. Is it reasonable? Um, without actually seeing what they're proposing. Sure. And then what what those costs associated and then percentage that they're trying to recover from development versus the aggregate. Absolutely. Because again, like. You're out in district 10 or something like that and you're building a 10,000 square foot facility, which. Maybe it's more just like a pole barn type scenario, but you have a little off something like that and then it's a 25,000 dollar impact fee. Um. That might be grossly inappropriate, but I don't there's but or maybe completely appropriate. I don't know. That's kind of my.

Right so again, I would encourage all of you to. Look at the plans themselves. They're, they're pretty easy to read. And like I said, at the outset, luckily, they're all formatted the same. So, once you find the information in 1, you can see it's this, they all look the same. So they just have information because they basically used a template. Which which is helpful for reviewing and you can see, right? The exact question you're asking Jack is, is how they've allocated the percentage of new development and their, their fees to it. And it varies between the districts because some of them have more robust levies than others. And so there's, there's different math that goes into each 1 and that's why they are not a cookie cutter.

Is that information on our on our link?

I mean, we have project pages set up, so I don't know how we usually provide that information.

Um, if I believe this is all if I believe that the capital facilities plan already posted on the planning commission. Meeting and material, so if you go there, you will see for July. Uh, 15th and 16th. Yeah, you should be able to see that. Yeah, it's already up there. Yeah, so it's just not it's just not.

Yeah, no, I wish it had been on for tonight, but at least it's there. Yeah.

Yeah, it is there for you to review.

Yeah, thank you. And I am not on vacation next week, please forward any questions you have to me and I will and the chiefs are very responsive. They, they want to work with everybody. So.

Part I have another question. Yes, I think in your presentation, you talked about capital facilities and you mentioned capital equipment mentioned trucks and so forth. Yeah. So. Are we in a situation where impact fees can go for capital equipment and not just facilities? Because I know, and other impact fees are dedicated for. Facilities.

So, the way the state code is written for fire districts, it specifically says apparatus is considered a public facility. Yeah. And so the, the large, expensive, durable 1Million dollar trucks that they have to buy and depreciate over, you know, 20 years or whatever those are. Um, a capital facility, and they can include them in their plan and you'll see that and some of them need a couple and some of them don't need much. It just depends.

Any other questions mine online. Okay, Mark, thanks. Thank you guys. We can.

Yeah. Yeah. And, uh, finally, uh, thank you. But, and, uh, you can, um. This is the 1st time that, uh. The county council is allowing for fire impact fees. As that indicated the amendment to the code. Uh, came to the planning commission for those that were here then and did approve it, uh, assessment of fire impact fees. Not new. I believe the city of battleground do assess fire impact fee as well as maybe what you go and maybe commerce. Uh, this is now giving the fire district the opportunity to assess, uh, if they so choose, uh, as bar indicated majority of these, uh, fire districts, uh, in the rural area, but. They provide a valuable safety and other services to those that live out there. You look at the map, you can see areas where there are no districts, but that is not what is before. You just want to make that observation. We can now go to the next item, which will be. God plan chapter review housing element. That would be you over. Okay, I'll do that. Let's go to the housing chapter. I'll have Amy to go over the housing chapter. Don't want to take anything away from My staff who are working on each of these issues or chapters. Um. But the changes on, you have seen the goals and the policies before, uh, we promised that we will come. After we have the selected preferred plan chosen by Council, we'll go back and look at each of the chapters and see what changes, if any, needs to be made, updates to the tables, but Amy, take it away.

Thank you, Oliver. Again, for the record, Amy Wooten, planner with Community Planning. Jeff, if you could bring up the The housing chapter, perfect. So, tonight, we're just going to review the. The changes that staff is proposing to update the housing chapter with the comprehensive plan update. Many of the changes that you'll see when you review the document, um, our grammar corrections and syntax updates just to kind of approve, improve the readability. We're updating all of the table data. There are 13 tables in the chapter. Those tables contain demographic information, housing statistics relating to population trends. Age ethnicity, the number of households in the county, and the makeup of those households income. Etc in order to update those tables staff use the 2020 United States decennial census and American community surveys, housing market data provided by the University of Washington center for real estate research, Washington, Department of commerce and the office of financial management. Other partners that we engage to update the chapter include the Vancouver housing authority and the Clark county treasurer. They both provided information regarding county funding sources for affordable housing and subsidized housing. Can you go to page 13 for me Jeff? On 13, the section covering county funding for affordable housing has been updated to describe current use of the community development block grant and home funds and the use of the 1% sales tax that will generate approximately 6 and a half million dollars a year. That is slated for affordable housing and mental health programs. And then 18 Jeff. We also based on requirements in the growth management act, added a new section covering racially disparate impacts and displacement. This new section addresses impacts to historically vulnerable persons and provide statistical data based on the county's housing options and study plan that evaluated housing policies and how regulatory barriers affect access to housing for moderate low income and very low income populations. Page 19. No, major changes were made to the summary section. It's just a few. And then on page 28 is where the goals and policy section begins. We presented this section to planning commission on July 10th of 2025 and we are not proposing any new changes. Those are the same changes that we brought before you. Last August to be last July. So, if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.

Questions.

This is Alicia Montgomery. Do we track impacts to folks with disabilities? I saw a section on special needs and I wondered if we also look at disabilities.

I believe that the special needs includes disability. Okay. Thanks.

Brian, do you have a question?

I did. Hey, Amy on starting on page 28. Are the green highlights new? And different from what we saw last July.

The highlights may be different Oliver. Was that a direction to highlight new policies?

Um, it was meant to highlight what, um, for example, um, came out of the climate bill that was not included here. If you see the trip 2.1.8, where it says, uh, race. It's just highlighting that we may have omitted this particular, adding it as resilience policy as a result of the climate bill, things of that nature. And I think that's what these are. And we are required to plan for emergency housing, emergency housing, shelter, permanent supportive housing. Those are some of the things that was omitted when you saw it last time. So we are required to go back and highlight those things.

That's why those are in green. Yeah, I just want to make sure because Amy said nothing had changed, but yet these have these are changes that we want to make sure we address.

Yeah, just highlighting those that are in green. That's the reason. That he was omitted and we just inserted that because we are required to. And as Amy indicated, um, I know the question had been asked before. Not only is the local government doing something about affordable housing, the council took a councilmatic action as a result of the new bill that the legislature passed. Councilmatic action means the council took that action from the dais and county would now be assessing 0.1 sales tax. Going forward, and that's what they indicated will generate about. Um, 6.5 to. Don't want to exaggerate, but 6.5 to maybe 7Million yearly and that will. The council will make decisions when applications are made to support project that gets to. Housing affordability just want to add that on, but that was done doesn't require the vote of the people. The county took that action. Uh, that is why I use the term customer take action, but the legislature provided that opportunity for canceled, uh, local jurisdictions to do so.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I have 1 on page 29. And we did bring this up when we reviewed this last July, but I see that no changes were made by staff. So I just wanted to bring them up again. And, um. And let's see, uh, in in the number. Yeah, I'm going to give you a number here, uh, page 29, um, article 2.1.9. It's talking about housing affordability and reducing the impacts of of costs. Um, it just seems like they've left out a number of areas that could reduce the impact of costs, like reducing impact fees that we are looking at raising here. Um, what have. Helped reduce the cost of a home, reducing the tax burden on those income bands that would allow them more funds to. To buy those homes and. The other 1 I wrote down was curtail the energy code that. The policies of the energy code are also driving up the cost of homes substantially in in and businesses. So, it seems like the 1 thing they did was reduce the parking requirements, which makes our neighborhoods look just like a 3rd row countries with cars parked everywhere. And my neighborhood, I can hardly walk down some of the streets because cars are parked all over the sidewalks and in the streets. But, um, I get why we reduce the parking requirements, but, um, just wanted to throw that 1 out. So, reducing impact fees, reducing tax burdens, curtailing energy code policies or curtail them. And then I have 1 more on 2.1.11. Um, so it says also, um, thank you love inequities and access to home ownership opportunities for communities of color. And when I went through the tables on table 2.13, um, on race and ethnicity. I wondered if the word color would be better replaced with the groups, the black indigenous and people of color groups, because all of those groups were. Substantially below the medium income for the county. Just want to throw that out not just it's not just 1 group, but it's it's a much larger group that should. that have historic inequities at this time.

Sure, we can make that inclusion or more broad if that's the recommendation of the Planning Commission on that particular policy. I think if I'm not mistaken, I don't want to say that that came out of the But the housing and the climate bill at, and that was the recommendation that came out of the work of the advisory group. But if that's the recommendation of the planning commission, we can certainly make that change what I will add. And that's what I've said to. Uh, other department internal department that I've looked at the climate bill and raise some concern. I told them I'm not going to make any changes that the. The group that worked on the climate bill made those have to be done through the hearing process and the council are proven whatever came out of that process, but internally stuff would not be changing what the group recommended.

So, Oliver, just for clarification, then, so if we make a motion that just change the wording of communities of color to the BIPOC community.

You're going to say you can't I will still take your recommendation to counsel. Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Okay. That's perfect. And then page 33, uh, 2.8.1. I struggled with this when we reviewed it last July and still do again. Um. It's it's 2.8.1 and the line, the 4th line down and just housing. Um, excuse me while affordable housing leaves residents more resources to spend on resilience building essentials and and a couple of line a couple of items under the. Um, such as air conditioning, air, purification, food and health care. I just don't see how food and health care is a building essential and I'm just wondering if there shouldn't be a period after essentials and strike the whole line. Air conditioning, air, purification, food and health care, because there's the list could go on. There's a lot of ways to. But build a home. Besides just those 4 items that would save the homeowner money, or give the homeowner more funds to do other upgrades to their home. So, again, maybe that'd be a motion. I might want to bring up at the hearing then.

Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Not good.

And. This commissioner, and I would argue, like, when we were jumping back, like, 2.1.9, we were looking at the. The list, um, I would love to encourage the development of of some kind of mechanism for accountability. Because we have, you know, oh, we should reduce permit timelines, which increase that continually increase every year. And everybody's like, yeah, permitting is a real problem, but there's no, there's been no. there's no teeth in anything. There's no, there's no language. They're just like, it's like, they're trying to like, and they say implement online permitting that doesn't, that is proven not to help anything get faster. So, I don't know. It's like, I think there's some opportunities there. I mean, we're talking about housing affordability and, you know, some of that stuff. I think it, We, there's more cost in just a couple little lines here than I think people than the average public realizes. And, um, you know, um, I have a single family house has cost me 75,000 dollars in wait time.

Um, just on permits for no reason.

So, um. Um, yeah, so I would like to maybe think about some of that stuff and bring some motions to the table.

I will also add a good observation. I will also add that streamlining our permitting process comes up all the time. the legislature have made some changes to our process in time of local government and cities. I will assure you that the county, and you can get that information from community development, there are exceeding That's that required timeline to review and process application. I can assure you that you can get that from public from community development. What is the average time when someone submit application there? Like I said, the state mandated, uh, in some cases, no more than, um, uh, 80 days, 90 days to get an application out or so forth. And they are exceeding that. I give them credit for what they're doing. They provide opportunity for folks to submit online. Um, I can only say, because some of us here used to review, uh, do current planning. If you submit a plan that requires so many red lines, it's gonna come back to you. So we want you to submit something that. You know, miss the code and you just don't trust things over there. I'm not being defensive, but you just don't draw stuff and submit it online. You will engineers will look at it and send it back. So you have to go both ways, but I will assure you that. The timeline that this legislature have put in place are required local government to review and approve application in terms of streamlining our timing process. The Clyde County assists that and we have been giving kudos Uh, community development in particular, not my shop in doing so. So, uh, whatever you like to propose, I will tell you that the county cannot be more restrictive than what the legislature allows.

Oliver, I'm going to part of it because I've been going through a permanent process. Right? So I want to push back a little bit on the. Let's applaud ourselves for beating a state timeline when. When we look at permits for housing, and it creates real costs and real, real significant. Damage to families that aren't able to work. Um, I submit a set of prints to canvas. 2 weeks, I can get a permit center. It's always down to 3 days at 1 point, but now it's like a couple of weeks. Um. The county 4 months, 5 months. So, uh, same set of plants, so I don't, I mean, the whole. We're what what I'm striving for from a community base is let's push the bar of excellence higher and we have jurisdictions that are doing it faster and better. Um. Let's let's, let's start to do that because when we start actually, because we have all these conversations about housing affordability, I mean, only 4 and a half months on a single family house right now with the city of Vancouver. It's not better there. It used to be standard 2 weeks. Like, wrote standard 2 weeks, I could always get a city permit, but they've process of change. They've had more checkbooks or more check marks. So, I don't. I mean, when we talk about this stuff, and these big plans, and these big policies, it matters what we're doing on the back end and how it's affecting housing affordability. And so I. We need to be aware at senior staff level that we're not doing a good job. Just because the bar is set so low from the state. And that's and that's, you know, that's my frustration frustration now, right? Because I have guys that are trying to eat and can't. Um. But, um, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna seriously. Oh, we're doing great. When I don't, I don't think we are.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just making an observation that, um. the timeline that the legislature recently passed and looking back and say, how well is the county meeting or exceeding that timeline that our record shows that the county is exceeding that state Mandated timeline to process, um, application for development. That is the point I'm making that, uh, if you. Because this question comes up often when, uh, April 4th was here and I'll give her credit. She's done, um, excellent job in customer service and. Making sure that we are exceeding that state mandate. That's why I made the comment that we cannot be more restrictive than what the state allows. So, where you are meeting when the state says you have to process an application, let's say within 45 days, and it's taking 50. We are not doing a good job. I agree with you, but when you exceeding that timeline, it has to be recognized that you are exceeding that timeline. That's all I'm saying, because the state agencies do collect information on. How well are we implementing the. Rules put in place in time of how quickly we. Send application or review our application and send it out. I'm not disagreeing with you, but in terms of these policies. Uh, it has been in the books for a long time, but the only way you can implement it is do the best you can to, uh, every, as, you know, uh, uh, planning commissioner had run every. Uh, application is different circumstances are different wetland issues stone water issue. So I don't know what the issues may be on a particular application. more than 10 years since I've done current planning. But having said that, all I'm saying is that when the legislature passed new bill, I think this was maybe a year or two ago, and they put those stipulated timeline to get an application out that they count Clark County, to my knowledge, is exceeding that. It's something we don't have to ignore. But could there be more improvement? Why not we become more efficient than those timeline that the state put out. That's all I'm saying. So I don't disagree with you, but it's good to also recognize when the county is exceeding prescribed timeline. Unless we have to go back to the legislature and say it should be two weeks, it should be three weeks, then we'll see how we can make that work. If it means Um, more resources, more staff, whatever the case may be, that is really my point not to disagree with you.

Chair, yes, go, I'd like to, I guess, take this opportunity then to talk as far as the planning commission itself goes. Uh. From what Brian brought up at 2.1.9, we have the opportunity when we hear this to inject what we believe would be genuine. Actions that could help with the addressing the cost barrier and staff. Is the ones who's got this put in here so I don't think we have an adversarial relationship about wanting to lower the cost of building. But I think it's up to us to be innovative on what we put in on how we choose to try and give. A multitude of ways to accomplish that task. So, um, let's take the next couple of weeks to think about what we want to put in it and spend the time during the hearing and really have a good robust discussion about putting stuff in. And I don't think there's going to be a situation where we can put in too much stuff. I think the situation is when we get too specific that we're going to box ourselves into a corner. So let's come up with some ideas. And I think coming back to what you said, Jack, there's an opportunity to survey the entire county, all the jurisdictions and look at best management practices for the idea of getting permits done and do it in a more collaborative way to try and pick the best that's available. and help everybody get a little bit better on that. But I think, There's plenty of discussion that can happen here, and we can bring a lot of ideas to this just this 1 part of it, and really give a good menu of ways for us to help drive down the cost. Because we already know from Department of commerce, they're already looking for the missing middle. They're looking for entry level housing. There's very little that we can do. That's going to get us further. Uh. In generalized discussion and parking spaces, we're going to have to get more specific, but I don't think what we want to do is give them the entire formula. Otherwise we're boxing people in as not having choices. So that's what I'd like to add.

Thank you on any other questions comments. Okay, with that said, we will move on to our final section, which is a transportation project list with Susan and Harrison.

Thank you, Amy. Okay, I will go ahead and get started.

So, good evening planning commission for the record. My name is Harrison. I'm a transportation planner with community planning, and I'm here today to provide you all with a glimpse of what we will be proposing for the 20 year transportation capital facilities plan. Um, and before I get started, um. With the specifics related to some of the changes that we will kind of go over with you tonight. Um, I did want to just preference our. Uh, presentation with a few important notes. Um, so 1st, um, I will just mention that the contents of this project list, um, is still very much in draft form, uh, due to our timing. It's been prepared using the land use alternative to and the regional travel demand model. Um. Results that were completed in the fall of 2025. so, um, we use the alternative to as a placeholder, uh, to be able to provide, um, you all with some information before our July, uh, 23rd submission date. Um, and because it was the closest alternative to the preferred alternative that was recommended by you all in January 2026. Um, so we've, um, we've, we've since since then, we've received the finished, uh, um, kind of model forecasting results based on the council's preferred, uh, selected in April, 2026, um, about 2 weeks ago. So our consultant is right now working on interpreting those results, um, kind of reconciling them with. Uh, this draft list and, um, making those, uh, necessary changes for our next work session. Um, or we'll have those hopefully by our work next work section, um, on July 16th. Um, and, um, even though we have been, we did use kind of, um, a different land use alternative for these initial findings, um, from what we've been told by our consultants and, um, who. Uh, maintains the, the regional forecasting model, um, the differences that you'll see between, um. Kind of the, the final results from the preferred will be, there'll be very minor minor differences. So, for the most part, um, it'll be remain the same from what you see tonight. Um, and then kind of 2nd, um. Uh, we just kind of want to know, um, you know, while we do call it our 20 year transportation CFP, we are not, um. Kind of required to complete every project on this list within a 20 year timeframe. Um, we use that 20 year because that's that's the 20 year planning horizon that we're really looking at. And, um, really the, the requirements within were required to analyze and assess our transportation system through this process. Uh, for current and future needs, um, we're required to identify those needs and then we're required to identify the specific actions that we'll take to address those needs. So this project list itself fulfills those requirements.

Um.

And then, um. Oh, and then the kind of last note that I'll mention before we can jump in. Um, so there are just a few elements of this list. That's just missing for today. So, uh, we're currently working on, uh, including those in the future draft, but, um, the, the elements that you'll see that are missing are the cost estimates and any type of prioritization. So we'll. Briefly touch on our proposed approach to prioritize the projects towards the end of the presentation, but just to reiterate, we wanted to kind of provide this list today to provide enough lead time and as much time as possible to digest all this information. So, Jeff, if you can go to the next slide. So, as a review, the current adopted transportation CFP was last adopted in 2020 with an amendment in 2022 to adjust the project cost estimates for inflation and update the traffic impact fee rates from the existing CFP project list. We are proposing to remove 3 large capital road projects and 11 intersection projects. Um. The large capital projects are all projects that have been constructed over the last 5 years. Um, and some of the intersection projects, um, have been, um, either, um, constructed or improved, um, somewhere annex. Um, however, I would say for the majority of them, we are no longer seeing the PM peak volumes that would that would suggest the need for signalization or other mitigation. Um, and at that time, Jeff, I might ask you just to toggle over to the PDF that I sent over to you. So we, we didn't provide this in the meeting materials in preparation for tonight, but we did want to. Be able to go over with you all, um, the projects we are recommending to, uh, remove, um, as of right now. Um, and so. Um, as I mentioned, uh, further roadway segment projects, uh, Northeast 99th street, uh, that project was completed in 2024, uh, Northeast 10th Avenue from 149th to 154th. That was completed, um, in the 2022 timeframe. Uh, 119 or. 119th street, uh, Northeast 7th Avenue to Northeast 112th, uh, 112th Avenue was completed in around 2020 and then, um, we won't go over each intersection, but you can kind of just see, we have the reasons why we're recommending to remove them. Um, and as, as I mentioned, the majority of them, we're just no longer seeing the PM, uh, kind of peak volumes, uh, that we, we, we did at 1 time. See, so.

Um, and from that, and Jeff, you had, uh, Harrison, you have 1. Um, project removal again from this is highway 99. Uh. Notice 99 street that was completed in 2021 and then, uh. I believe, uh, 92nd, 239 that is now within the battleground city limits. Yes, and then the other ones were just because we don't no longer meet, uh, uh, what else? Um, so pick out, right? Yep. Okay.

Real quick, could you explain to me what what, um, was determined that pink warrant. Warrant 3 may not be met. What does that mean? So you might you might have said it before, but I just didn't understand.

Yeah. Sorry that, um. So, for what we're kind of seeing is, um, basically the, the, the traffic volumes, or the, the amount of trips, um, at each intersection, um, the warrant 3 is kind of, um, from the traffic manual. There's a number of words that might, um, indicate when you would signalized and unsignalized intersection. So, and I forgot to preference that these are all unsignalized intersections right now. So, like, whenever yeah, basically, um. It's just not moving cars fast enough through the intersection.

That's when you would want to when it says warrant 3, that usually something you signal or you don't signal. So.

In that in that traffic manual, like, is it 12345 or yeah, I think there might be up to either 7 or I think, uh, there's, there are multiple warrants, um, that could maybe signal that you would need signalization at a, at an intersection and warrant 3. Um, is related to peak our, uh, volumes. Um, yeah, sorry, it's very clear.

Um, my non in your summer, so it's so warrant 3, it's operating good. Um, and it doesn't warrant any action.

Sure. Um, warrant 3 is, uh, let's see here. I'm trying to figure out how to say this. Um. So, each warrant is basically saying, like, oh, this criteria has been met and that's when we would, um, consider a signal at each intersection and. Um, the way that's phrased in the traffic manual, uh, warrant 3, or you can just say, like, it's the 3rd criteria. Um. And really, you don't have to meet every single criteria. It's just 1 of the criteria has to be met.

Um.

Yeah, and then for this analysis, that's just the criteria that our consultant looked at to identify intersections. Yeah, and I can make sure to maybe. Provide a, maybe a little bit better, um. Definition in writing and send it out as well.

Yeah.

I'm looking, I'm looking for the elevator conversation to the contractor. Like, it's just kind of like, it's working good. So we're not touching it.

Yeah, we'll make an engine now.

All right, uh, let's see here. Okay, so then we just briefly, uh, touched on some of the changes that you'll see from the existing CFP project list, um, for the proposed CFP, um. For 2025 to 2045, we are, we're recommending to add, uh, 3 large capital projects. Um, and I guess. To that, I'll also just note a caveat. Um, there are some additional potential, large capital projects that are listed in the regional and partnership project section on page 22. Um, and, um. These are again projects where we're seeing some type of need of improvements. However, um, they are dependent on Washington completing, um. 1 of their plan projects, or just projects where, um, we'll have to coordinate with watch that to even see if. A project is even possible, um, so we'll just need permission if we're kind of making any, any, um, uh, changes to basically their facilities. Um, and then we will be, uh, right now we're recommending to add about 20 new intersection projects. So just a little bit of shuffling with the intersections. Um. And, um, the biggest change that you'll see in the proposed CFP project list is the inclusion of standalone active transportation projects. Um, this is this is a result of new requirements that came came out of hospital 1181 back in 2023. um, during I think we've. Our last work session, we kind of went over some of those new requirements, um, which, um, included establishing, um, the multimodal level of service standards with, um, kind of separate. Uh, level of service standards for active transportation facilities. Um, and, um. And then kind of, in addition to that, what we are also recommending to add 8, standalone safety related projects, and these projects were identified through the counties 2025, local road and safety plan. Um, that was developed as part of a process with with. Um, and then, as I kind of alluded to earlier, there's a section. Um, of regional and partnership projects, um, most of. Most of which, if not all are new projects, um. And we'll kind of review that a little bit more in a later slide.

So next slide, please.

See here, uh, so, in addition to kind of the overall changes in the number of projects, we also wanted to briefly touch on some of the overall changes you'll see throughout the CFP. So the, the 1st, major change is, um, we'll be breaking up the different projects into general categories. So we'll have a, um, a large capital project category, which is really your traditional CFP projects that you've seen in the past. And those kind of involve constructing a new road or reconstructing a current 1. Uh, to add vehicle capacity, uh, the active transportation projects highlight, um, kind of just corridors where improvements are needed. Um. Basically, for for for pedestrian and bicyclist, um, and those related facilities, and then the safety projects are are improvements or countermeasures to address existing safety concerns. And the regional, um, and partnership projects are projects that involve close coordination with other jurisdictions, uh, agencies. And, um, for this category, you will see a lot of, um, wash dot projects. So that we have a couple of corridors and a lot of intersections, um, per were required, uh, to document all of our impact or the impact of our growth. Um, and how, um, sorry. Prior to document the impact of our growth on on state facilities. Um, and, um, while we document those impacts to of the state, there isn't necessarily a commitment from wash out to make those improvements. So we have to just continue to coordinate with them. Um, and for them, their, their funding is strictly allocated from the state legislature. So, um, we kind of, we noted that to council yesterday and, um, whenever they kind of, uh. Meet with the Southwest delegation that we just kind of wanted to highlight that for them as well. So, um, and then, um, another major change you'll see kind of is the inclusion of project descriptions throughout. So, if you look at the project list in appendix a, from the 2026, um, capital, uh, plan. It really only includes project locations, project limits, and the cost estimates. Um, and our goal with including these project descriptions, um, and this version of the CFP is to to do clearly document our assumptions. Um, and be more transparent with kind of what type of improvements to expect at each location. Um, and, uh, kind of lastly for this slide, the, uh, for the intersection control types, which you'll see within the large capital project section. Um. We went through the exercise with our public works department, uh, to distinguish, um, where we're likely to consider around about, um, intersection improvement versus a traffic signal. Um, and that's really kind of based off of current conditions in the context of the roadway. Um, and, um. Yeah, and I will say kind of while we're anticipating what type of control type we would construct each intersection really at the project level, they would need to do an independent intersection control evaluation to determine the best type of control. So, um. And we're ready for the next slide.

Harrison, could you clarify on the, the project type is some of them list as existing some are new and some are included in the. Yeah, clarify the existing in the new.

Sure. Um, so the existing 1 are the projects that are currently listed in, um, the transportation. And so, like, the. So, the, the ones that have the 26 to 31 tip, um, those are also in the CFP, but, um, those have been. Um, obligated in the 6 year plan already, so we didn't change the project descriptions for those, uh, the project descriptions for the tip projects. We just kind of carried over, um, unless. Let's see here there were some. That we did modify, like, um. We did modify some project limits, um, for, like, 72nd Avenue and, uh, Northwest Lake shore. And I, I, we did actually change those project descriptions because even though they're in the 6 year tip, um, they're kind of on the back end of it. So they haven't really done. Uh, they might be in preliminary, like, scoping, but, like, the really the project hasn't started too much. So, um. And then, yeah, so the existing, um. Are the ones in the, the current CFP and then. The 3 new ones are the ones that we're proposing as part of this comp plan update.

And then just to clarify for the partnership road projects. So that's not obligating the county really to anything. That's just more identifying. Areas that probably have, like, a level of service fail.

Yeah, so down here, so on this page, if you go to page 22, where that kind of starts. Um, so we, I tried to provide a little bit of a kind of a summary that we're probably, um, a summary on page 21, which kind of goes into describing those those projects. Um, but yeah, it's. That's a really great question. So, like I mentioned, um, requires us to document all of our impacts to state facilities. And I think that really helps them in their planning efforts. Um, because, you know, um. The way that, uh. You know, works, everyone's on a different timeline. So I'm sure that the state's kind of tracking everyone's comp plan and trying to pick up, you know, where they, they might need to start looking for for future improvements. So we, we document it for them. We've had coordination meetings with wash. Um. And yeah, it's not really, it's not committing us to anything at this time. Um. Yeah, and for the state for them to kind of get the directive to work on any of these projects has to come directly from the state legislature. Um, and we can work with them sometimes to get funding through, like, our Southwest Washington, which is our, um, just by, like, coordinating to apply for grants. But, um, beyond that, um, all of their funding comes from the state legislature. Um, and. I think on the there's a, the 6 column, we try to indicate, um, which ones will include in our funding analysis. But if it's if it's no, it really means. Yeah, that funding is going to have to come from somewhere, but we're not, we don't really know where.

Um. Okay.

Okay, so I think we're on the active transportation slide, so. We did want to spend some some additional time just talking about these projects since these are relatively new for the CFP. So these projects reflect corridors that have been identified as needing additional improvements for active transportation users. Um, with the proposed multimodal level of service standards, uh, we are proposing facilities that would be low stress and comfortable for, uh. Comfortable to use for most adults, um, there's a lot of information in this table. Um. Which we are probably going to modify and maybe take some information out. For the, the actual adopted version, but, um, the kind of important columns that we did want to know is the proposed bicycle facility column. Uh, the column that kind of documents the estimated. Um, when your feet of missing sidewalk for each quarter, and then, um, the column that. Provides the count of potential new pedestrian crossings, um, for each corridor and that that is an analysis that we, uh, we did kind of, uh, using the built, like, using a built out scenario of, uh, the, the, uh, the land use map. Um.

And.

Yeah, and I will just note with this slide, um, as we've been, um, going through the process of developing our, our, our transportation CFP, um, we've been working really closely with our, um, bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. So, um, they've been working on a number of recommendations and we'll be working with them to document those and send them, uh, for your considerations, uh, consideration during the adoption process. Um. And we can go on to the next 1.

Harrison, Brian here on the proposed crossing treatment types, their letters, those letters, something that's part of the trip manual too. Or is it a county?

Let me lettering system. Jeff, is it okay if I take over the screen for a little bit? Um, so this comes directly out of our, um, the county has their own. Pedestrian treatment policy, um. Let me just, uh. And it's on our public works websites, let me just try to pull it up really quick.

Um. So that's kind of based off of this selection.

Table, um, and this is the legend for kind of what what what each 1 of those mean. So, um, a is usually is your kind of marked painted crossing and then E, um, would be. Just like your hybrid, um, or kind of signals where you have to go and. Push button and and then the crosswalk works for you. Um, and we can, I can also send out a link to this as well. Um, you would like to, um, have access to this. I don't know if it's necessary.

I was just kind of curious the criteria and if it's already in the county manual. We can go find it.

Okay.

Thanks. I don't think you need to add it. Just more like, I understand now how the. Process works.

Okay.

When I send it back over to you, Jeff. All right, and then sorry. Okay, and then for the last slide for tonight, um, we just wanted to review, um, kind of the approach that we plan to use to prioritize the project list in front of you today. So we've, we've gone through the process of developing, um, an evaluation framework based on, um, the proposed policies that we brought forward. Um, I believe that was, um, probably in October 2025. um, and, um, really the, the framework that we've kind of looked at, um, Will be used to measure how well the investment in each project will help advance the overall goals and policies of the comp plan. Um, and so we provided the proposed, as I mentioned, we provide the proposed goals last last year in October. Um, and kind of after making those proposed changes, we went through an exercise, um, to identify the kind of. Uh, to identify policies and themes kind of within our policies that could that could potentially be measured from those policies and themes. We identified roughly 11 criteria, which are listed in the slide in front of you and the criteria group to the left. Um. You will see they tie directly back to 1 of the transportation elements, um, 10 goals and, um, you'll also find that, um, if you would to reference this proposed goals and policies that the, the language that we use for the criteria. Um, are either very similar or if not word for word from, um, an existing or proposed policy. Um. And kind of once we get our finalized project list, we will use this these criteria, um, to place projects into generalized buckets. So, either a low, medium or high priority. Um, and then that priority scheme. Um, will be meant to guide really the timing of future implementation and, um, when a project might be considered for inclusion in the tip. Um, and we're aiming to have those kind of initial results, um, of the prioritization for you all. Um, I believe at the July 16th, uh, I think you have a hearing, but we're going to do a work session right beforehand to do that.

Yeah.

Okay, how has the bridge replacement impacted the county and what and the work that you're doing here? I don't see it on the list anywhere.

Right, so the, our list only kind of. Comprises of, uh, facilities within the county's jurisdiction. So, um, that that project is is outside of our jurisdiction.

So we don't really look at it. So, so they're not at your door asking for funding or criteria to. Have us work, have a county work with them and.

Uh, this is Oliver, uh, the county have always supported the project, but it's not in our jurisdiction. Um, we are working, uh, with the city to, uh. Uh, and. Talking to, uh. folks in in Congress to help it in the funding. But again, it's not, uh, in our jurisdiction to. To be involved in it, but we are providing support that is the council that represent the county as a whole. So, but, um, again. Primary concern for the county now is just the, uh. improvement that is that been on the books for 179 interchange uh that's a high priority for the council it doesn't mean this the uh replacement of the bridge isn't but we are providing uh from the council uh support to see that be completed

Kind of random question or the, is there a preference now? We see a lot of the roundabouts versus signalized intersections is the roundabout tends to be the preferred alternative. If you can do that versus the signal to that. Is that a cost safety thing or what is the? Yeah.

Yeah, I would say there's, um, we're starting to see the shift towards, um, roundabouts. Um, I think. At the state level, like, watch that. They've even implemented a roundabout 1st policy where they consider roundabouts 1st, before they consider really any other control type. And I think mostly it's the safety components to them. I think when. Um. Um, we can share out more information about it, but there's a lot less, um, opportunities for. Uh, crash types that lead to, like, serious and fatal, uh, crashes. Um, when you have roundabouts versus signals, I think it's that it's really the, the T collisions that have right. Um, and so really. It's it's really the safety benefit benefit and then long term maintenance costs are a lot less than traffic signals as well. So.

There are some studies that have shown that it moves. It moves traffic much better in terms of traffic flow. You don't have to sit and wait for 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or whatever you yield and you, you proceed and it's more efficient. They've been studies, transportation studies that have shown is safety flow of traffic. Uh, that all those that they benefit and, as you mentioned, uh, maintenance. Uh, you've been in a, in a situation where. power goes off and the light just on intersection just start messing up and you can sit there for hours or some that are not timed properly. You can sit there longer wondering when would the light turn green. Yeah, but for the safety and continuation of movement, those are some of the benefits.

And Harrison, I have a question in regard to the list that you provided all of the large capital projects are all of these as a result of alternative to.

So, as we mentioned the. The only ones that we're kind of recommending to add, um. That aren't already on our existing CFP project list would be on page 4. Um, so those are the new projects that we're seeing. Um, so that the 3 road segments, um. But we're, we're seeing the new, we're seeing some new, um, intersections that you can see in the intersection.

Oh, okay. But then I guess what I'm. Clarifying then is a lot of this is rolled over from the previous plan. So this is stuff that didn't get done in the previous 6 years. Yes. How are we prioritizing that stuff?

That's a really great question.

So, right now, um.

A lot of that is done at the 6 year plan, or the 6 year program level. So the secure tip, it has its prioritization scheme within that document. So we can also forward that as well. And, um. So, what what they've done in the past, it's really they've taken all the CFP projects and they, they score it and they determine really what projects get. You know, selected for the 6 year plan, but we just have a lot more projects now to consider. And so we're. We're now recommending that we do, like, a very general prioritization for the 20 year plan that they can use as, like, a, um, as a guide, uh, for the 6 year plan. So my thought process would be, um, they would maybe take our, like, 5 priority bucket and then prioritize those to see which ones end up in the 6 year plan for the most part.

All right, let me let me process that for a 2nd, so we have a list that didn't make the prioritization the last 6 years and now they're going to go into a bucket and they may get prioritized in the next 6 years. But something else isn't. Your recommendation about where it fits in that prioritization. Um. Is there a way for the public to understand that prioritization or the planning commission understand that prioritization? Because I think. Right now, when we look at choices that we make in regard to alternative to, and where we've chosen to go ahead and grow, or where the county has said they want to increase density. It feels like we should have a connection with where these these capital projects are or are not going to happen. And if. Realistically everything that's in this new bucket. Is not by default going to get done. It's going to be some will get done and some don't. I think that's an important component for both the public and us as we deliberate to have a better understanding. So, I don't know whether you have the ability to. Include that prioritization if not. Should at least give us some understanding of how that. Prioritization criteria is laid out. And so we may have some input about what we think should float to the top and what can sink down. But obviously, you've got more in here than we're going to be able to accomplish. I mean, your list of intersections, um. Doesn't even look like a 20 year plan that that is true.

There's always, um. Some of us that do this, I've always argued that. You don't get the 20 year project list completed within the 20 year planning horizon. That's not new and it's not editorial, but. Some have argued that what we have is a rolling 20. You know, and you have these projects. Some of them are not completed. You begin the next plan update. And you still carry some of the project that have not been completed, but they still within the urban growth boundary. What happens is that. When public works, they draw from the 20 year list. To prepare their 6 years. And they come to you and they do their own prioritization. They include safety. They include economic development. They include other criteria in order to drum up and prioritize the six year list. I will also say that in some cases, either due to funding or other costs, some of those don't get constructed in the six years. They roll over in the next one. That's why you see some of those that have been completed Coming online or being checked off slowly because of that cost and because of all the issues. I think last time we were here, I believe it was 1 of my staff that said. Funding well, what the last time that he answered. Uh, property tax for those funds. You're going to hear from public works in the future that the road fund is really going down. So the same is true for state funding, transportation. Planning Commission around you've been here for some time now. You see how the state have moved a timeline for the completion of the 179 interchange. It's not just by design. It's just that the funding is in there. I think my understanding now is like 20, 30. Uh, council is really working with that state legislative representative. Funding of that interchange, because it will go along another project and some comes also, like, stuff indicated. Well, we partner with, uh, to our Disney.

Go after.

You know, grant from the, from the federal government, you know, infrastructure infrastructure. It doesn't happen quickly and the cost continues to go up. So I'm not downplaying what you're saying, but that's just the reality. This. Yeah, public works do. Peel from our 20 year list and sometimes it depends on where growth is occurring and where some of the capacity is in there and they may just direct either widening or making improvement to create some capacity, various roadways. That's that's how they sometimes it's reactive. And sometimes, you know, you get, you know, heavy rain and some road that you doesn't expect to get washed out. You, you, you go fix that quickly. And those are some of the things that are happening. I'm not making an excuse, but it's just reality. But when they come before you. During the team, I'm sure they're going to come before you in October. I believe it's in October that in October.

The, uh, the work session is on September 17th and the hearing is on October 1st.

So you will have opportunity to also ask them out to their prioritize those, uh, list that come off of this affiliate on the 6th year.

Okay, I understand that. I think. The planning commission has basically approved the tip as described by public works season after season. What I don't think is apparent to everybody is that how much doesn't actually end up getting funded and done. Yes. And I think we need to be a lot more clear about what we're asking for versus what we can fund and out of that what actually gets done within the 6 year horizon. There's a public misperception. I think that when we go and we do this comp plan, there's the terminology of concurrency that people think that puts them in a 6 year window for getting those improvements and. They're not getting those improvements.

So you're right. And, you know, we had this conversation with planning commission and our council, for example, I use the example of when we lifted the urban holding for 179. You know, we were saying it was premature, you know, some were saying. That I've been in urban holding for 20 years, but we identified that the infrastructure isn't there. That's why we put it in urban holding and. You know, you can make a case for the law that when he says that the project is reasonably funded. Yeah, you've identified all your sources of how you're going to fund that, including impact fees. Remember. The, uh, the property owners were assessed. A much higher impact fee for the 179. those were how we come up with whether the infrastructure out there is reasonably funded. That's 1. Then we can check off, but it doesn't come in. Because the only time the impact fee or whatever that's so charged, you can collect it is when you come for building permit. So there is a time, like, I agree with you that the public doesn't get that. And when some of us sound the alarm, it's not that you're anti-growth or you don't want to expand the urban growth boundary, but it's just a realization that it comes with some kind of a cost that folks needs to know.

Any other questions?

That's all we have before we go to the next slide. You're done, right? Yeah. Okay.

Okay, any other questions online. Okay, with that said, we have any other comments or the upcoming, uh, you want to go to that Oliver?

Yes.

Okay.

Go to the next slide. So, um. Planning commissioners, this is your upcoming, uh, work session, uh, and hearing schedule, uh, stuff I've indicated will be, uh, having a work session and the hearing, uh, the work session would be on the, uh, finance finance inside of the, uh, transportation. Uh, this hopefully we'll get that from our consultant and share that with you. uh both costs and revenue so you can see that if we are short we'll share that information with you uh we will share with you other capital facilities including the capital facilities financial plan that document is the document that shows how we are going to pay in the first six years various component of the compliance stormwater parks Uh, transportation, uh, county buildings, all those in the 1st, 6 years, that's what we are supposed to show that we have the funding to accommodate. So you will see those plus any of the, uh, I don't know whether other agencies like regional, whether they will be able to submit the CFP to us by, uh, that work session. If not, you will get it before your hearing. Um. On the system as staff indicated, you will be having a hearing on both the school and the fire impact fees. So all the information is now posted on your, uh, Planning Commission website, all the capital facilities plans submitted by the school districts and the fire districts. Um, then on July 38, we'll have another, uh, continuation of, uh, the transportation, uh, financial work assuming we don't have that on the assistant and then any other, uh. Information of the on the capital facilities to support the preferred plan and all the associated appendices to the comp plan and your work session will be. August 6, this will be all the complex, the mapping code changes as proposed to support the plan and then we'll have your hearing on August 20th. Um, the same, uh, information. You know, you've been seeing the chapters in this form. We will get you the overall document. That's why we're coming to you gradually to familiarize you with each chapter. I think now with the addition of the climate bill, we have like 15 or 16 chapters that make up the overall comprehensive plan document. Um, and then you deliberate on on if you don't deliberate on the 20th, we make it available on September 3rd for you to deliberate and make your recommendation to the council. That's why I was saying earlier. Uh, you know, no breaks for you for now.

But I will give you 1 month during December. Can we get this all this information to put on our calendar?

Uh, yes, uh, we can Jeff, you can post this on on planning commission web page. Okay. So that they see this upcoming work session and hearings, but I believe for the system, everything is there now. Um. If you go to our website, you can see all the school impact fees on fire. We will post things as they become available so that you can see them. But this date we will add so the public also know when you have a work session and here it's coming up. So these are the next steps in terms of the upcoming work sessions. We are doing the same thing, if I may add, with council. we've gone to the council beginning June 10th to review the entire chapters as you are. The last time was, was it on Wednesday? We had another work session with council to review various chapters. Same thing we're doing, the same information. So they're seeing it as you are seeing it and as we are preparing it. So they're getting the same information and they're asking us questions and we tell them, it's all draft and you will be the one making recommendation to them hear from the public and we making notes uh you are entitled to make uh recommendation change the language and we'll take that recommendation to council what i was saying earlier is that when a tax force prepares a recommendation Staff don't change it because it then becomes staff driven that I try to avoid and I tell my staff to avoid doing so until it comes to you and the public had opportunity to weigh in as well as those that worked on on the project. You did receive a letter from. The folks that worked on the climate bill. Telling you how it was difficult, but through consensus, they agreed on the language and they send the same letter to our council. So I'll stop there. This will be posted on your web page so that, you know, but bear with me. Um, I have a legal council here. You know that we have been found to be out of compliance, but we are using this because the council approved. Um. What I will call a schedule for us to complete this by October. Our goal is to do our best to come into compliance and at the same time. Sure. Uh, the growth board, the progress we are making, uh, good effort to, uh, come into compliance. If we don't have anything to show, it doesn't we're not making progress. This is this is what we are doing to help them. Give us some break. I'll stop it. Thank you.

Okay. Anything else for the good of the order? Yes.

Uh, so I do have a question for Oliver. I just looking forward to the, the hearing. Um. Can you elaborate what you're kind of looking for? What. Our recommendation is going to look like, are we looking to make a recommendation on the actual or is it. Just the fees, um, the impact fees associated.

Uh, we are looking on the impact fees and for example. Well, I'm looking for a recommendation to cancel to approve because you have reviewed the capital facilities submitted by the school district. They followed the formula and they went through the school board. And the school board was the 1 that made this recommendation. This is how it's been done. They've gone through their own process. They make the recommendation to you and then you review that and I agreed and forward your recommendation to counsel. The same will be true for. All of this capital facilities plan that are coming before you, as I mentioned, um, the same, uh, preferred alternative that the council advanced that is the same information we provided to Clark regional. For example, they will use that to assess. How they're going to, uh, support the preferred plan. So, when you review the, that is based on the preferred, uh, and other various, uh, uh, partners are also reviewing the information and staff are working with various other agencies to. For them to show us how they're going to support the plan that. You know, both you and the council have advanced as they preferred. That is how this is all coming to you. So I'm looking for a recommendation from. The planning commission to cancel 1 area that I know have been an issue and I think planning commissioner touched upon it is. Um, when we're talking about affordable housing and all this impact fees and and so forth, isn't that also contributing to the high cost of housing? Sure. Uh, but. You look at it on the other side, it's only attributed to growth. You know, there's no other way you're going to. You know, uh, the law requires you to none of this fund I used to. Correct previous deficiencies is only attributed to new growth. So that's what I'll be looking forward to. As I said, uh, for the fire districts, this is the 1st time. They're asking the county to allow them to assess, uh, fire impact fee and all of that is, in my opinion, and they, they will let, you know, it's all also attributed to the grow that they see in. Is that an honor? Is there a very, um, good area for folks to move into? So we are seeing growth, you know, so some of this is attributed to and some in some cases, the public saying that. You have the ability to. Using to help you, uh, in your financing of your capital. So, um. Even when we collect the fire impact fee, for example, just like the school, it's a pass through to those district. It doesn't come to the county. The only thing that comes to the county's traffic and parks. That's it in order to build community parks or neighborhood parks, and then make road improvement. Those are the 2 impacts that comes to the carry as part of the private share for school and fire will be directed to those district to help them in dealing with impact to their particular districts.

Okay, thanks Oliver and then I just have 1 more general comment for my fellow commissioners. There was a public comment that came in regarding the school boundaries. I don't know if you guys had a chance to see that. I would, I would recommend you read through it. Um. I think it's a really important issue, especially like, in the 179th area and then East Vancouver as well. Where it kind of talks about because of the way the boundaries are set up right now, the growth is not happening where the schools are creates a lot of extra trips that goes into transportation also fees, everything like that. And so it's worth the read.

Yeah, um, no, thank you. Thank you. Uh, planning commissioner, uh, with when I was doing this, we have. Wanted to make sure that the school district has some of these families. We did. So, you know, but when we tried that. What is successful because it's good. Uh, not bad counties for state. It was the time that. I believe it was the center and, uh, Richfield, if you wanted to adjust the boundary. They couldn't so, but it's a good comment. We, we see that, uh, particularly. The subject function. You can see a lot of 179. In fact, in this, uh. School issues to this as well as. Because that's where you see the. Consultant was to the school district. Before I used to go out and talk to the school district and, you know, and identify what you call hotspots does mean where, uh, How do you plan for this conversation? If I could, it could change.

Thank you any other questions comments. Thank you Oliver.

I have 1. go ahead. We also got a public comment from a Christian Volk regarding zoning of childcare facilities. And he was pushing to have to open up light industrial buildings for childcare, which right now they're excluded along with many other types of occupancies that are that would benefit from being in a light industrial building because they're cheap. That the least expensive of structures you can build and the rents cheap, but, um, you know, we have, why would we have a zoning at all if you could put any product in any building? Um, and so, you know, I don't know what process he, he, he spoke the hearing and then he sent the email out and I don't know what process he needs to go through to even. Consider that, or I suppose staff would consider it, but it just seems like a stretch to let just 1 particular product into a light industrial zone when there's many others that have been pushing to get into that light industrial zone for for as long as I've been in the county 30 years example. Our churches in a lot of areas would like to be in light industrial retail, but while light industrial does allow a certain amount of retail, it doesn't cover. It has to be an accessory use trips parking. There's there's a lot.

in a manner that we may not be able to manage in case of an accident, for example. So those are some of the issues that we consider when we try to provide a list of uses that allow in various districts.

I'd also throw out that right now in our community, and it's been ongoing for some time, light industrial buildings are in high demand from small businesses that Provide employment and yeah, you're right. Daycare and industrial uses aren't a good mix overall. And so I wouldn't recommend that. We look at that any further than, but I did want to make a comment about it.

Thank you any other questions. Comments, thank you for all that showed up and testified and helped us out. That said we're adjourned.

Thank you.