On the agenda: Clark County PC Hearing Minutes of September 3, 2026 — datacenter (Sep 3)

CLARK COUNTY WASHINGTON

clark.wa.gov

Minutes of Public Hearing
Planning Commission Hearing

2025 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Update
Thursday, September 3, 2026, 6:30 P.M.
6th Floor Hearing Room, Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, WA

CALL TO ORDER
JOHNSON: Tonight will be a little bit different. We won't call the meeting to order, we're going to go
into Executive Session, but we're going to do a roll call first. So, we'll come back and the meeting will
be called to order.
Just a mental note, all public comment had been closed from the time before, so if some of you are
waiting to comment that portion's closed, we'll come back and deliberate, but right now what I'm
going to do is call a roll call real quick.
The meeting's not open yet officially, but we will, I'll call a roll call, we'll go into quick Executive Session,
it shouldn't, I don't know how long that will be, it shouldn't be that long, then we'll be back here to
deliberate on the what we've been working on. So, with that said, Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE
HALBERT: HERE
BERGTHOLD: HERE
FADNESS: HERE
BARCA: HERE
HARROUN: HERE
MONTGOMERY: HERE
JOHNSON: HERE
Staff Present: Oliver Orjiako, Community Planning Director; Rebekah Ward-Palmerton, Senior Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney; Jose Alvarez, Program Manager II; Susan Ellinger, Planner III; Harrison Husting,
Planner III; Jenna Kay, Planner III; Michael Sallis, Planner III; Jeffrey Delapena, Program Assistant; Larisa
Sidorov, Office Assistant II; and Cindy Holly, Court Reporter (Virtual).
JOHNSON: So, with that said, where are we going to go, back in the back part -DELAPENA: Down the hall.
JOHNSON: That way. So, we'll go down that way and we'll be back, public please be patient.
For other formats, contact the Clark County ADA Office: 564.397.2322 / 711 or 800.833.6388 / [email protected]

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 2

WARD-PALMERTON: Chair, you do need to say for the record the amount of time. My suggestion at this
point is 30 minutes.
JOHNSON: It says that on here, 30 minutes with no potential action, I'm just reading what was said on
here. Yeah, so we'll just put 30 -HOLLEY: Who was talking?
JOHNSON: Karl is.
HOLLEY: No, before you.
JOHNSON: That was Rebekah Ward-Palmerton, that was our attorney.
HOLLEY: Thank you.
JOHNSON: Okay. Sorry, Cindy. But will 30 minutes, Counsel, 30 minutes, okay. And then we'll just go
down there for no more than 30 minutes. All right. Thank you.
(Pause in proceedings from 6:31 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.)
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
JOHNSON: Okay. Good evening, Planning Commissioners, members of the public and staff members. I
would like to call this hybrid public hearing to order for Thursday, September 3rd, 2026. My name is Karl
Johnson; I'm the Chairman of the Clark County Planning Commission.
The role of the Planning Commission is to review and to analyze comprehensive plan amendments,
zoning changes and other land use related issues. We allow, excuse me, we follow a public process
including holding hearings during which the public has an opportunity to provide additional perspectives
and information.
In legislative matters, the role of the Planning Commission is advisory. The County Council will hold
separate hearings, consider our recommendations and they will make the final decision.
The Planning Commission will conduct the public hearing tonight. We have closed, I'm going to kind of
change this, we have closed the public comments, so this part does not pertain to what's happening
tonight other than if you're speaking about something that is not on the docket and I'll get to that in a
minute. Okay. We will deliberate tonight and make recommendations to the County Council.
For both virtual and in-person members of the Planning Commission and staff, please ensure that your
microphones are muted unless you are speaking. Planning Commissioners, when you make a motion or
a second, please state your name for the court reporter.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 3

Tonight, are there any conflicts of interest from the Planning Commissioners that are here tonight?
Seeing none, we will proceed. Jeff, can we get a roll call just for the record again please.
ROLL CALL VOTE
HALBERT: HERE
BERGTHOLD: HERE
FADNESS: HERE
BARCA: HERE
HARROUN: HERE
MONTGOMERY: HERE
JOHNSON: HERE
GENERAL & NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Agenda for September 3, 2026
JOHNSON: I need a motion for the, and a second for the approval of the agenda for September 3rd,
2026.
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. I move to approve the agenda for September 3rd, 2025.
BERGTHOLD: Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
B. Approval of Minutes for August 20, 2026
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Can I get another motion and second for approval of the minutes for
August 20th, 2026.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 4

BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I'd like to make a motion to accept the minutes as written.
HARROUN: Commissioner Harroun. I second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can you get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: The motion passes. The next section of our hearing tonight are communications from the
public of items that are not on the agenda tonight. So, if you came and you wanted to speak for three
minutes regarding something other than what's on here, you can do that right now. Jeff, do you see
anybody online?
DELAPENA: I'll go ahead and give the instructions first and then we'll do that.
JOHNSON: Great. Thank you.
DELAPENA: For attendees using their computer or Webex application, if you would like to speak,
please use the raised-hand icon. For attendees using the telephone audio only option, press star 3 on
your phone's number panel to raise your hand.
For those in person that would like to provide comment, please raise your hand. Once acknowledged,
you may come to the microphone towards the front of the room. Public comments are limited to
three minutes per person in order to accommodate all speakers.
Again, this portion of tonight's hearing is only for items not listed on tonight's agenda. We will begin
with those in the hearing room who would like to make a general comment. Please raise your hand
and the Chair will call on you to come up front to the microphone. Please provide your first and last
name for the court reporter. I don't see any raised hands in the hearing room.
We will now call on those people on Webex or the phone that have raised their hand. For those
people using the telephone option, press star 6 on your phone's number panel to unmute yourself

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 5

when it is your turn to speak. We do not have anybody online with a raised hand either.
JOHNSON: Okay. Hearing none, we will now move on to the main hearing. Again, I want to thank you
all for waiting while we were in Executive Session and your patience, it will be a long evening, we have
a lot on here to get through.
Our idea tonight is to try to get through this to get it to County in a timely manner, so it is a lot, so
please be patient and just listen away. So right now, we are going to go into deliberation with the
Commissioners regarding the 2025 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Update.
Clark County's updating its Comprehensive Plan to meet the Growth Management Act deadlines are
established in RCW 36.70A. The update process began January 19th, 2023. The County Council
adopted the population job numbers, the 20-year planning horizon that ends in 2045. The Council also
adopted public involvement plan that the County has implemented.
The environmental review process included an analysis of three alternatives and a Final Environmental
Impact Statement on the Preferred Alternate was released on July 24th, 2026.
The purpose of this hearing is for the Planning Commission to take public testimony, we've already
done, but it's to deliberate and make a recommendation to the Council on topics listed below.
Changes to the comprehensive and zoning plan map. Updates to the policy and text in the
comprehensive plan document. Changes to Clark County Code Title 40, the County's Unified
Development Code, to implement the map. Changes to the arterial atlas and update the capital
facilities and capital facilities plans and update the school, fire and traffic impact fees.
That is in a nutshell is what we're going to try to do, we have 104 items of which some we'll be able to
go right through, but what I'm going to do tonight and hopefully staff can challenge me and stop me or
correct me or help me out here, Jose, I'm just going to start from the top with Battle Ground and go
down through these and then if you have something to say, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.
ALVAREZ: So, there's two things I want to bring your attention to. One of the, the arterial atlas was
omitted from the decision matrix, so we want to add that as Number 29A. And then -JOHNSON: That was the arterial atlas.
ALVAREZ: Item 23 is a site-specific request, there's no change to what's on the table, but I just wanted
to disclose that on the map it's showing as R-50 and that's a remnant from Alternative 2, so if you
make the motion to approve it as is written, that will be updated and reflected in what goes to Council.
BERGTHOLD: Chair, this is Commissioner Bergthold.
JOHNSON: Go ahead.
BERGTHOLD: Is it possible to have the maps on display while we're discussing the options.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 6

ALVAREZ: Yeah, we can pull those up for you as-needed.
JOHNSON: As-needed, yeah.
BERGTHOLD: Thank you.
JOHNSON: Any other questions on process from the Commissioners? Okay. So, we will start off with
Battle Ground UGA to expand the UGA towards Dollars Corner for additional employment capacity,
that is the one where we go down 502.
Is there any amendments, discussion regarding our recommendations? If not, on any of these I'm
open to taking a motion and a second as-needed.
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. Regarding kind of starting off here with
the various UGA expansion decisions, our prior, you know, vote regarding which alternative to study as
part of the FEIS and now coming back to us for a final vote.
We recommended Alternative 2 but contingent upon implementation of a TDR program and we had a
lot of discussion about no net loss of agricultural lands and how do we, you know, balance these
competing issues of development and housing and employment capacity with preserving agricultural
lands.
And so, I'd like to either now or at the applicable time, but before we vote on any of the UGA
expansions propose an amendment to Policy 1.1.24 regarding a TDR program for the County to put
forth perhaps a more concrete framework of what that TDR program might look like such that when
we're voting on these UGA amendments each of our Commissioners would kind of know what we
would be voting on in terms of that TDR contingency.
JOHNSON: Yeah, that was 5 through 9 our de-designations of ag, so that's kind of where I was going to
lump them in, so I was hoping I was going, so for example, 1, 2 and 3 here on Battle Ground were not
ag related and so, and there's others obviously, but I was just going to go down those, and then when
we got to 5 through 9 we could put that amendment, maybe you could drop an amendment, then we
can say the amendment once and then drop it on all 9 for efficiency. What do you think?
MONTGOMERY: Sure. I'll come back to that.
JOHNSON: Back to Battle Ground where we take a motion and a second on Battle Ground or is there
any discussion?
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. Can we have the map pulled up, please. I believe it's the far left
that drives out towards Dollars Corners, so...
JOHNSON: Is that the red or the blue I'm looking at?
BARCA: Both.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 7

JOHNSON: Both. Okay. So, we see the expansion there the red and the blue is a part of it.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I believe blue is considered rural land in the zoning designation
and the red/pink color is going to be commercial; is that correct?
ALVAREZ: The blue is proposed to be industrial employment and the red is commercial.
BARCA: So, in its current state are the colors the same amount of commercial land as is out there
because Dollars Corners was a rural center?
ALVAREZ: Yes, that's the current. So, portions of the blue are RC-1, the red is primarily the CR-2 which
is commercial. So, the blue is mostly RC-1 and R-5.
BARCA: All right. This is Commissioner Barca again. So, it has the appearance that mostly the
commercial land is overlaid on what is commercial now with a little bit of changes to it, but the
industrial land goes all the way through the R-1 designation, RC-1? Yeah?
ALVAREZ: Yes.
BARCA: All right. Thanks.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert here. I want to make a motion to accept the Battle Ground UGA as
presented.
JOHNSON: Is there a second?
FADNESS: This is Commissioner Fadness. Would you be able to -- was that just for Item Number 1?
JOHNSON: Yes, for 1.
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second to approve Battle Ground UGA to expand the UGA towards
Dollars Corner. Can we get a roll call, please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 1, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: YES
MONTGOMERY: YES
JOHNSON: YES

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 8

DELAPENA: 6/1.
HOLLEY: I couldn't hear Alicia's vote.
MONTGOMERY: YES
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Map Recommendations Number 2, Battle Ground UGA to expand the UGA
to the north for additional residential capacity. Can we see that on the map, please. Oh, that's that
little sliver right there. Okay.
ALVAREZ: It says the R-3 and R-7.
JOHNSON: Is there any discussion on this? If not, a motion and a second would be appropriate.
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. I would move to approve the expansion of the UGA as presented.
JOHNSON: Is there a second?
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, could we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ALTERNATIVE 2.A (MODIFIED), MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: NO
DELAPENA: 6/1.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. All right. So, we move on now to 2.B the Camas UGA and this is to expand
the Camas UGA to include the Grove Field Airport. Discussion or questions for staff?
FADNESS: This is Commissioner Fadness. I just wanted to kind of express my support for this. I did my
flight training at Grove, and I know that this is kind of a big thing for the Port of Camas and Washougal
in order to be able to kind of expand the services there.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 9

Right now, it's a very small little runway that it's not really usable for much other than some little
Cessnas. So, I would just like to start out and make a motion to include this or to recommend yes on
this item.
BARCA: Ron Barca. I'll second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Clarification, we have a motion
and a second to include the Camas Grove Airfield into the UGA. Do we have any discussion?
MONTGOMERY: Yes. This is Alicia LeDuc Montgomery. I'm just curious if there's thoughts around the
fact that the Alternative 2 would create more surplus because we've been talking about constraints, if
anybody has thoughts on that piece, although I recognize it's an airport.
JOHNSON: It's just an airport; right? It's just the airport; correct?
FADNESS: Yeah. Yeah.
MONTGOMERY: And maybe I'm just -ALVAREZ: Yes, that's correct. Alternative 2 is just the airport.
MONTGOMERY: So maybe I'm not understanding the charts where it's like the land use alternative
comparison and capacity for employment and housing and when I'm looking at Camas under the Alt 2
it seems like it's increasing the surplus compared to Alt 1. Can you just explain that a little bit.
ALVAREZ: Yeah. Right. So, they've made some changes inside their UGA to increase their density in
order to accommodate the less than 80 percent median family income, and then also they're required
by State law to allow for duplexes and I think it's duplex, triplexes under a new bill and so that's
increased their capacity but they're not proposing any expansion to their UGA, so these are changes
internal to them to the existing UGA.
MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank you.
JOHNSON: Any other discussion? Hearing none, Jeff, can we get a roll call, please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 2, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 10

DELAPENA: 6/1.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes to expand the UGA to north for additional residential capacity. Number 3,
Item Number 3, Battle Ground UGA, remove the southwest portion of the UGA from, and this would be
commonly known, correct me if I'm wrong, as the Meadow Glade, this is the Meadow Glade move.
ALVAREZ: That's correct.
JOHNSON: And Council has brought that back and said Battle Ground wants that removed and Council,
correct me if I'm wrong, said they didn't want -ALVAREZ: They agreed with that.
JOHNSON: They agreed with that.
ALVAREZ: To remove it, yes.
JOHNSON: Oh, okay. Just checking. Just checking. Okay. So again, I'll take any discussion or a motion
either way.
BARCA: This is Ron Barca. I think the point for me with all of the Battle Ground votes is the idea of
how Battle Ground is going about doing their long-term planning.
The idea that if even if the Council is okay with just giving back Meadow Glade, I don't believe it's in the
best interest of the County. It doesn't move the agenda forward for the County to take on more of the
urban development and I think it's a mistake on our part even if Council voted 3 to 2 to accept it.
I'm looking at the idea of how difficult it's going to be for the County to make ends meet and the idea
of taking this parcel of land back on I think is just convenient but not thought worthy and it should be
thought worthy.
So, my other two votes were predicated on the same one that Battle Ground isn't looking at long-term
planning, they're looking at immediate gratification through the industrial land and the commercial
land and my position on this is that all three of these parcels needed better inclusion in their long-term
planning.
JOHNSON: Any other discussion?
MONTGOMERY: Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I agree regarding the Meadow Glade expansion,
or I guess giving it back to the County on that point.
FADNESS: This is Commissioner Fadness. I guess just to clarify what you're saying, Commissioner

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 11

Barca, is you keep mentioning that the County would have to take on urban development, but if this
parcel is taken out of the urban growth area I don't believe that that dense urban development that
you're talking will be able to take place.
Jose or Oliver, could you speak to what the zoning would resort to if it's taken out of the UGA and what
could be developed in that area.
ORJIAKO: This is Oliver. Thank you, Planning Commissioner Kyle Fadness. The area if removed from
the Battle Ground UGA as they propose, that area will revert back to rural zoning, predominantly Rural
5, and in some cases two and a half acre lots and five-acre lots, but it's going to be rural.
However, if there are county sheriff called, it would be the responsibility of the sheriff county to
respond but broadly speaking the area will be revert back to rural zoning.
FADNESS: Thank you, Oliver. Yeah, I mean, I just don't really have a concern I guess with bringing this
back to the County because what's the difference of like you say if it's not densely developing and
there's a sheriff's call, there's really not a difference whether it's two miles in the west there or it's just
in this corner here, it's not like we're bringing in a lot of sewer, storm and, or city provided utilities that
the County would have to pay for.
BARCA: Commissioner Barca here. I guess in that regard, first of all, I think it's Meadow Glade is a rural
center and so the zoning is down to one acre, is it not?
ALVAREZ: Yeah. So, if you look at the map of property to the east would be one acre, RC-1, and then
the middle would be RC-2.5 and then on the west would be R-5 and that's what had essentially been
zoned prior to it being incorporated in the Battle Ground UGA.
BARCA: And so, Commissioner Fadness, I think also in the context the State allows with a recent law
change that we have not adopted yet, but I believe that rural lots are going to be able to all have an
ADU that's a detached ADU on them. They can have attached ADUs now.
Realistically we could look at a 20, 25 percent growth increase without doing any kind of rural land
changes at all in there, and should the density get taken in closer than it would be able to go even
higher in that regard.
We did hear from the fire district that serves that now, it's the fire district out by the fairgrounds that's
serving it, not the fire district that serves the City of Battle Ground, the Sheriff's Office.
Even if this is perhaps not the strongest case for it, I think what we're looking at though is the idea that
jurisdictions need to pick up their responsibility, and I don't believe that the City of Battle Ground is so
small now that it can go ahead and just decide that it doesn't want to take in land that it desired
before.
This shows me that there's a lot of land that Battle Ground has not even annexed yet, but they want to
drive out towards the money of the industrial and commercial lands in Dollars Corners.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 12

I'm going to go back to the idea that I don't think the City is doing long-term planning, I think they're
doing immediate gratification, and it serves them best just to get that off their books so they can go
ahead and take the other parcel up to the north and bring that in instead.
FADNESS: I do understand what you're saying, but I will disagree just as, you know, they are
developing where the corridors have been, the roads have been improved and where it makes more
sense to develop and that's kind of my final statement on it. Thank you.
JOHNSON: Any other questions?
MONTGOMERY: Commissioner Leduc Montgomery. And I think just echoing some of what Mr. Barca's
points that if there's multiple requests to expand I think they need to keep what they already have and
take care of it.
If they're wanting to expand they need to already take care of what's in their, you know, jurisdiction to
care for and so that's again what I'm against the removal is in tandem with, well, they want an
expansion and they need to also maintain, care for what they've got.
JOHNSON: I think it's known that Battle Ground, that's why 502 was widened, that's why Battle
Ground needs commercial land, it needs industrial land, and I think like you said I agree with you, Kyle,
that that's where they're going.
I'm not sure where it's at, but if Council is there I'm inclined to say, okay, you know, let's move it back
to the County, that's my place, but I would look at a motion and a second from anybody.
FADNESS: This is Commissioner Fadness. I move to remove the portion of the UGA as presented.
JOHNSON: Do we have a second on that?
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I will second that motion.
JOHNSON: So, we have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 3, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5/2.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 13

PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Now we move on to the Camas UGA to expand, this is just the airport one,
the Grove Airport, which is out north of Camas right there, it's just the airport in that area. Is there any
discussion on this?
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. For staff, the way the map is shown right here is the white
section underneath the airport remaining in the county?
ALVAREZ: This area here?
BARCA: Yeah, that area there.
ALVAREZ: That is correct. The only thing that they're adding to the UGA is the area that's designated
airport and unfortunately I think that's all of it. I know there's a portion that's of airport that's, they're
not proposing to annex, but, yes.
BARCA: Thank you.
JOHNSON: Questions or comments regarding this? I'd take a motion or a second if not.
HALBERT: Yeah, Commissioner Halbert. Just to be clear it is the purple color that is being annexed?
ALVAREZ: Yes, being annexed to the UGA.
HALBERT: Thanks. Then Commissioner Halbert. I'll make a motion that Camas UGA expand to include
the Grove Field Airport.
JOHNSON: We have a motion to expand the Camas UGA at Grove Field. Is there a second, please.
HARROUN: Commissioner Harroun. I second it.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 4, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 14

DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Now we're going to go through 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, each of these are -- include
a de-designation of ag land. So, I know that we had talked about a TDR, if somebody wants to speak to
that now and that maybe we could just get that discussion, I don't want to say out of the way, but we
could just attach it to each of those.
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. And what I have is a proposed policy
language change to Policy 1.1.24 which I think staff had prepared a proposed policy too for a TDR
program and we've had discussion about that and I just wanted to propose amended language that if it
was adopted in my mind would then tie any vote to expand the UGA through de-designation of
agricultural lands, those de-designations would be tied to the implement of, implementation of the
TDR program, so that's where this proposed policy change is coming from.
And so, I can read my proposed language of the policy and then I have a quick statement on why I think
this is more defensible if we are to move to de-designate any agricultural land.
So proposed policy language, 1.1.24, Clark County and participating cities shall cooperatively adopt and
implement a countywide Transfer of Development Rights or TDR program to permanently conserve
agricultural lands while accommodating the urban growth adopted through the 2025 Comprehensive
Plan periodic update.
UGA expansions that include de-designated agricultural lands shall be subject to an urban holding
designation until applicable TDR requirements are satisfied. The County and affected city shall enter
into an Interlocal Agreement establishing TDR requirements, implementation responsibilities,
conservation objectives and timelines. The countywide TDR program shall be fully operational no later
than December 31st, 2027.
The program shall ensure the permanent conservation of at minimum one acre of agricultural land for
each acre of designated agricultural land converted through UGA expansion, while also ensuring no net
loss of agricultural resource lands resulting from adopted UGA acreage or planned housing, population
or employment capacity resulting from implementation of a TDR program.
The program shall include a mechanism for identifying and evaluating rural lands for suitability of
designation or redesignation as agricultural resource lands.
If sufficient TDR credits are unavailable or if the TDR program is not operational by the implementation
deadline, the County and affected city shall use purchase or Transfer of Development Rights,
permanent conservation easements or another mechanism providing substantially equivalent
permanent agricultural conservation. Failure, delay or insufficient participation in the TDR program
shall not result in removal, reduction or reversion of an adopted UGA expansion or a reduction in its
planned urban capacity.
Future UGA expansions involving designated agricultural resource lands shall participate in the TDR

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 15

program and provide permanent agricultural conservation at a minimum one-to-one acreage ratio or
provide an alternative mechanism achieving substantially equivalent permanent agricultural
conservation.
So that is my proposed policy language, and I can talk briefly about where I'm coming from with that.
So, the Alternative 2 UGA expansion involves, you know, de-designation of agricultural lands and we
had talked previously about adopt, tying that to the adoption of a TDR policy and I think that that
policy needs to be meaningful if we're talking about actually de-designating lands especially when the
County's already been sued for noncompliance with the timelines around the Comp Plan, thinking
about defensibility in my mind as an individual commissioner.
The GMA requires us to reconcile two obligations, RCW 36.70A.060 requires the County to assure the
conservation of designated agricultural resource lands while RCW 36.70A.110 requires UGAs to contain
sufficient areas and densities to accommodate projected urban growth.
The Department of Commerce's rules are also relevant. WAC 365-196-310 states that UGAs should not
be expanded into designated agricultural or other resources lands unless no other option is available.
And WAC 365-196-815 explains that conservation means keeping resource lands available for
commercial production and preventing their conversion into incompatible uses.
And then there's been some Washington Supreme Court decisions that reinforce the importance of
taking the agricultural conservation obligation seriously. In the case of King County vs. The Central
Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, the Supreme Court considered uses proposed on
designated agricultural lands and held that the challenged amendments did not comply with the GMA.
The Court was recognizing the Act's agricultural land provisions that protect continued viability of
agricultural resource lands and industries. And the lesson I take from that is that conservation under
the GMA needs to have some sort of substantive meaning, not just calling land agricultural while
adopting policies that undermine continued availability for agricultural production.
And similarly, there was a King County vs. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
case in 1999 where the Supreme Court made clear that an individual UGA designation remains subject
to substantive review for compliance with the Growth Management Act.
So, I think some of these concerns certainly we've heard in our own record throughout the process.
There was the environmental review that identified potential conflicts with Alternative 2's conversion
of ag land and the GMA's requirement governing expansions into designated ag land.
We had our whole, you know, discussion about TDR during our original recommendation about what
to study, there was the Agricultural Advisory Commission that unanimously recommended maintaining
existing ag land, resource ag land.
And we've heard significant and repeated public comment throughout the process about the need or
the desire of the community to conserve agricultural land capacity. And then there's, you know,

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 16

references and feedback in the FEIS, the Vacant Buildable Lands Model and others written testimony
that we've received to this effect.
And so, for me the TDR provides an important, the policy I proposed provides an important means of
reconciling those concerns with the urban growth that's been contemplated in Alternative 2. RCW
43.362.005 and .010 expressly recognize TDRs as a mechanism to permanently protect sending lands
while transferring development opportunity into receiving areas and I think that's along the lines of the
balance we're trying to achieve here or that's been discussed.
And so, my position is that I find the UGA expansions being proposed are substantially more defensible
under the Growth Management Act when there is conver- -- when we're talking about conversion of
agricultural land if it's paired directly with an enforceable commitment to permanently conserve ag
land elsewhere that results in no net loss of agricultural resource land.
So, if there's a de-designation in one area, there would need to be a designation redesignation
protection in another area so that we're not having a net loss when there's potential concern about is
there enough demand for the capacity in the first instance. So that's why I support a no net loss
approach on both sides.
On the one hand one acre of qualifying ag land permanently conserved for every acre designated land
that is converted while preserving the UGA acreage and housing, you know, population and
employment capacity that's being proposed to be adopted through this Comp Plan Update.
I also want to ensure that our TDR proposal includes a date certain and a fallback in case there isn't
something durable so we don't end up in a situation where we vote to agree with certain ag land
de-designation but there's not really an enforceable or durable TDR process, then that TDR process
doesn't come to fruition and so then it's essentially the UGA, you know, is expanded regardless without
that intentionality of the ag conservation goals.
And I think we saw that with our last round where we said, yes, we were voting to approve these
various de-designations of ag land tied to a TDR program and then the Council agreed with the
de-designation but took out our recommendation about tying it to a TDR.
So that's my reasoning for wanting to propose a more specific and hopefully durable connection of
voting to de-designate certain ag lands with on the one hand voting to update this policy saying it's
expressly being subject to a TDR so there's no net loss of ag land. I know that's a lot, but that's, I put
some thought into it.
JOHNSON: So, with that said, let's just we're going to get there, so we're going to start with Number 5,
thank you for that part of that, Commissioner.
So, we're going to start with the Camas UGA which include the de-designation of agricultural resource
land and a UGA, a UGA expansion to the east for housing.
So, with that said, we're going to discuss that one. So, if there's discussion about the TDR and

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 17

whatever, this is where that begins, but we're going to specifically start with each one of these. So,
Commissioner Barca, go ahead.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I'm sorry, Chair, but I think to go forward with Alicia's
recommendation we need to go to Number 33, the Chapter 1 and get that revision at 1.1.24 put in
place before we go forward with any discussion of any de-designated land.
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I agree, I think the fastest approach or a
streamline approach would be we go to that section, I propose this policy and then whether or not it's
adopted we can then quickly vote on the others in light of whatever the outcome is.
JOHNSON: So, let's jump to Page 5 which is Number 33, Chapter 1, Land Use Element. We went
through all these chapters before. So, I would take your amendment, Alicia, however you want to do
that, and we can vote on that up or down and then we can go back. Okay.
HARROUN: Can we discuss?
JOHNSON: Oh, yeah, sure. On we're doing 33 now.
HARROUN: 33, yeah, but discussing the TDR.
JOHNSON: Yes. Correct.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. So, I liked what we passed originally. I would recommend
that we go back and just send back what we passed originally, there was quite a bit of debate and
thought about that.
The no net loss provision is a death nail to the development because in essence what you're saying is
you're going to have to go find some, you're going to have to parcel together, like if you had 100 acres
or 500 acres, you're going to have to go purchase 500 R-5 lots and designate them permanently
agricultural land and it's economically infeasible because all of a sudden your cost per acre goes to an
extraordinary amount, you're $700,000 for a five-acre lot. And so, what happens is it's just a backdoor
way of just killing any, any of the de-designation.
So that's so versus taking large portions of agricultural land in that you can purchase in blocks and
we're talking about the farmers are putting a permanent covenant easement, however that TDR
program works, it makes it more viable for the farmer, and it helps with the existing agriculture and it
ensures that that in perpetuity is going to remain agricultural and productive agricultural land.
The no net loss provision is a poison pill to any development because you cannot functionally purchase
stuff that's zoned for residential and then flip it to agricultural to do that, so...
So, a hundred percent on board for the TDR program, I like it because I think it helps the farmers, I
think we can get larger blocks of land that's more functional and I like what we had passed originally.
But I appreciate the spirit of the no net loss, but I live in a, there's a practicality to it that it needs to be

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 18

functional as well, so that's kind of my, that's my concern, yeah.
JOHNSON: Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Barca.
BARCA: Yeah. So, Commissioner Harroun, I think you're mistaken somewhat in the context of this.
This is the purchase of development rights, not the purchase of the land, this is only the idea of having
the TDR program buy up the development rights of some other parcel for the sake of moving forward
into the de-designation aspect of it.
So, it isn't the full-blown purchase, it's whatever number is an agreeable number for the sake of getting
that purchase of development rights taken off of a new parcel and then added back into the ability to
develop in the ag land that is but come de-designated.
HARROUN: I appreciate your thought process there, but there's kind of a distinction without a
difference in that if you take a parcel that you could build a house on and then make it so you cannot
build a house on it, right, you're not, you're stripping all of the value. So, whether or not you're taking
physical custody of the land, you've stripped the value from the land.
So, it's the same thing in residential building right now, a one-acre parcel, a three-acre parcel and a
five-acre parcel are all pretty much the same price because it's about the authority to be able to build a
single-family house there, so it doesn't matter the parcel size. So is that -- I'm trying to answer your
concern there.
But that's the no, what happens with the no net loss provision if you're just -- if you -- you're stripping
out the ability to make it a viable product. Does that make sense?
BARCA: No, it doesn't make sense to me because in the context what you're doing is you're changing
the hierarchy of what it's used for. So, you're saying in the context that there's the ability to put a
single-family dwelling on it and what we're saying is through the purchase of the development right,
now the highest utilization for it remains in the context of agricultural production over the long-term.
HARROUN: But then you would no longer be able to put a single-family house there.
BARCA: That's right because you purchased that development right.
HARROUN: But it makes the land fairly worthless from a development standpoint.
BARCA: All right. So, I guess we're back to the idea of saying highest and best use. In your estimation
the aspect of highest and best use is only if you build some development on it, a single-family dwelling
or whatever the case is. I think what Alicia pointed to though is there's pretty strong language already
in the State law about needing to preserve and to utilize that.
So, we've already just recently had in the county a particular farm get the purchase of development
rights come off of it from its farmland trust, I think it was Joy Farm, something like that, in that regard
they made a conscious choice, they weren't in the context of making their land less valuable to them,

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 19

what it does is it allows them the ability to get paid upfront for them to be able to do more with it.
So, this is only for people, this is for only people that want to agree to it though, Jack, and I think what
you're doing is you're saying, you're making their decision for them by saying that the only way that
they can make money on that land in your estimation is if they decide to convert it.
HARROUN: No. You're, and this is, and what I'm talking about is the code language specifically, but
what you just referred to of the farmer permanently sold their development rights, okay, that's exactly,
but it was already zoned ag, the land, the farm was already in ag land and what I'm saying is that that's
exactly what the original stuff that we passed allowed to do that we go to that farmer say, hey, you got
this farm, we're going to purchase any future development rights if the zoning changes, this will
permanently be ag and then here's, you know, some financial consideration for that.
What -- so there was -- there wasn't in this case with a no net loss it wouldn't apply, okay,
because -- because what my understanding of the code language now Alicia has proposed we then
have to go find land that is not currently zoned agriculture, purchase those development rights and
turn it into agriculture and so, and that's the concern I have which makes it financially infeasible and
you won't, the program won't work. So, it's the no net loss is what I have real concerns with.
Some of the timeline stuff I think I want to look at the whole clock on the adoption and then how
quickly, you know, it can be implemented, but that's, and that's why I like the original language that we
originally approved.
JOHNSON: Any other discussions on this?
MONTGOMERY: Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I think there's another perspective which is what
we passed or, you know, referred to the Council and then gets passed is also there's already a legal
challenge in court and I think that absent a no net loss provision it's going to be a lot less defensible
before the Hearings Board or any appeal for the county that it's taken this long and then we're still
getting to a place of in Alternative 2 and all this de-designation that isn't really fully supported by the
full record going back through this whole process.
HARROUN: But you understand that it doesn't work, that a TDR with a no net loss does not work.
MONTGOMERY: I don't agree with that.
HARROUN: Well, okay, explain to me how the finances work behind that? It doesn't -- it doesn't work.
This is a really big deal because we have these cities that desperately need this land and then you make
it financially infeasible for it to be developed because they would then have to go find something that's
not resource lands and so we're not helping the existing farmer.
We're finding somebody that has developable land that's or non-resource lands, right, and then asking
them to convert it to undevelopable land or, you know, it would be agricultural land, and then the
finances behind that work because you're saying, hey, can I give you X amount of dollars for you never
to develop here nearly, well, this is what the land is worth so and if you strip those rights away you

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 20

strip all the value away so you would have to remunerate that which then doesn't work from a
development standpoint for the developer.
So, it doesn't work and I want to pass something that actually can work and that actually helps our
current agricultural committee, so that's, it's a big deal, the no net loss thing is a huge deal.
MONTGOMERY: So I guess just to clarify in your mind if somebody had land that was zoned say
residential but they were using a large portion of it for agricultural uses and they were willing to
convert part of their property to the ag resource land or for the purposes of TDR conservation you
think that wouldn't work because that person just wouldn't agree to it?
HARROUN: Right. So, let's say you have 40 acres, right, and it's all zoned residential, it's worth, I don't
know, I want to say right now like $500,000 an acre, right, if it's agricultural land it's probably worth,
call it $30,000 an acre, $20,000 an acre, right. So, there's a $470,000 nexus so that you would have to
then purchase those rights for for it to be even-steven, right, and so -MONTGOMERY: And so correct (inaudible).
HARROUN: -- so what you're, you know, unless they're altruistic and go, well, you know, I'm 80 years
old and I wanted to keep on farming but that's different, I mean I'm just looking at it from an economic
standpoint.
MONTGOMERY: Right. And I'm saying economically some people do actually value agricultural use on
residential property such that they would agree to something like that because they do want to
conserve agricultural uses.
HARROUN: I'm not disagreeing that there is definitely people like that, I'm just saying from a
marketplace standpoint, I mean you're looking for the unicorns versus the, you know what I'm saying,
I've read some articles even with the datacenter people telling them they were offered 20 million but
they took 2 and put it in a permanent conservation, and I applaud them for it, but I'm saying from a
market reality, from a functionally, a function market which is what we're trying to create with a TDR
that doesn't work.
MONTGOMERY: And I would do it with my own land. I currently have residential property in Clark
County, and I use half of it for agricultural purposes, we raise turkeys, we have an orchard, we have
gardens and I would sign up for this program.
HARROUN: I'm not disagreeing with you that there are individuals that value that, but I'm just saying
at scale it falls apart.
MONTGOMERY: I guess I just hear, we've heard so much public comment and participation in this
whole process that it sounds like there is a significant portion of the community that does value the
agricultural aspect of land use in Clark County that there probably would be a market for it and I'm also
concerned about the basis for the UGA expansions absent a no net loss from a legal standpoint when
we're talking about it being challenged and so that's just kind of my final position on it.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 21

I think no net loss is the most legally defensible and it's consistent with a significant amount of public
feedback and the Ag Commission study and the Vacant Buildable Lands Model, to me it's that middle
path that is the most defensible approach to trying to address this issue.
JOHNSON: Any more discussion on this?
BARCA: I do have something in that regard. This is Commissioner Barca. I guess I would look at it right
now is the Planning Commission has a lot of very difficult decisions in regards to the aspect of it's
hardly ever the case where we have a full win/win and everybody's happy what the outcome is.
We are the arbitrators of somebody being disappointed somewhere along the line, but what I see with
this is our opportunity, Jack, is the idea give the people that are interested, whether they're unicorns
or maybe they're much more available in the marketplace than you think, give them an opportunity to
participate in the program and the way that Alicia has put the wording in place is if the program is not
viable in that regard then it collapses back to the idea of the jurisdictions either get a purchase of
development rights on their own that they're able to pull forward or that the land reverts into the UGA
and that's a closed deal and it never happens again.
So, I think the way that Alicia worded it we're putting it into the context of having some belief system
that there is going to be able to be a TDR program with purchase rights that would be viable based on
what the county did and come forward.
If we go back to the aspect of what you're saying is I have the same concern as Alicia already spoke on
the idea that it's much more along the line of the development community will see that there's an
opportunity to go forward, but I don't think we're having the strength of presenting this growth plan to
the State for review and have it holdup in that regard.
So, to me if we don't have a very viable program that we believe that the public is asking for and we're
going forward in that regard, then we're really in a position that says we don't have the foundation for
us to be able to even bring in any of this designated land.
JOHNSON: So, in our, in the Land Use Element, we have a TDR that's in place in it, that's the one you're
looking at right now, correct, 1.1.24 or whatever; is that correct?
So, what seemed to be the disagreement here is it sounds like some of you want, some of us want to
put in something more added to this or we approve the Land Use Element with a TDR already in it.
So, for to get moving on this I can see everybody's position it seems to be, I would like, I would
entertain a motion to either accept the Land Use Element Chapter as-is with the TDR program that
you're looking at on the board or not.
And I want to be very clear, if we make a motion that says I want to add this and then we say no, it's
voted down, we're going to have a land use chapter that's messed up, so my point is be careful on how
we make this motion.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 22

So, whoever makes the motion they make the motion, but the reality is, is there's a TDR right there and
to me it has, I'm reading timelines for full implementation of Transfer of Development Rights, and any
requirements or limitations placed on the expansion area at such time the TDR program is
implemented.
We don't have this until we approve this chapter and we're going to be approving or not approving
de-designations, so these are happening simultaneously. So, I'm looking for a motion that either up or
down on the Land Use Element as-is with the TDR or not.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I move that we accept the TDR as written as in the record
in 1.1.24.
JOHNSON: And can you add and approve Chapter 1, would you, friendly amendment, I mean we're
approving the Land Use Element.
HARROUN: And approving the Land Use Element, yes.
JOHNSON: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. Second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second to approve Chapter 1 of the Land Use Element, I'll ask for
discussion, the Land Use Element with the TDR that is currently written in front of us 1.1.24, okay,
that's the motion and seconded on the table. Discussion.
MONTGOMERY: Thank you. Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I think I've read this provision and I'm
glad that there is a starting point included, but my concerns remain the same that it doesn't have
specific date certain, and it feels a little too nebulous and I'm concerned about durability here.
And so, I propose, you know, some date certain and again the no net loss aspect to me is really
important for a legal defensibility standpoint to be able to feel confident in voting to approve these
multiple agricultural land de-designation, and so that's why I just wasn't fully comfortable going with
the de-designation vote with the current starting point language.
And so, I took that and tried to expand on it to make it a little bit more durable to where I felt
comfortable and so that's why I was wanting to propose the language I read earlier to basically replace
what's in the 1.1.24 in front of us.
JOHNSON: We currently have a motion and a second to accept the Land Use Element with the existing
TDR. So, unless there's a friendly amendment added to that, which probably not, I'm looking for a roll
call, and let's wait. Is there any more discussion? Ron.
HALBERT: Well, I'm concerned --

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 23

BARCA: Who are you?
HALBERT: Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Halbert here. I'm just concerned, I think, Alicia, you
need to make an amendment at this point and then we vote on that amendment to accept your
language changes here or not and then come back and approve the whole chapter.
I have some concerns over your language also and that I'd like to know more about it and the impacts
of it and, you know, Jack's brought some, you know, some valid points up and I'd like to know the, have
some time to figure out the economic impacts of actually implementing a lot of shall's in that shall lose
in that no net loss language and so just I'm struggling with it from that standpoint without having the
chance to absorb it and understand how it actually is implemented and the process here, so... Does
that make sense to make an amendment?
JOHNSON: Yes. The only way I think we can get around that is withdraw the motion and vote on
Alicia's amendment or whatever and then redo that if the motion is willing to be withdrawn.
HARROUN: I would like to vote on the motion.
JOHNSON: Okay. Motion's on the table. Can we get a roll call please, Jeff.
HALBERT: Excuse me, but what -- Commissioner Halbert. What motion, are we just talking about the
one as presented?
JOHNSON: The Land Use Element, yeah, as presented.
HALBERT: Thank you..
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 33, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5/2.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes on Chapter 1. Now we can write that in. Now what we can do is
understanding that the TDR that we approved just now, you're looking at it, would apply, correct me,
right, that's what we're doing putting that TDR over the top of these de-designations; correct, Jose?

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 24

So, when I'm approving or disapproving these de-designations it's with the understanding that the TDR
that is written in the land use 1.1.24 is part of that?
ALVAREZ: That's my understanding of how that would work.
JOHNSON: Okay. Moving ahead then, we're going to start with Number 5, Camas UGA, include the
de-designation of agricultural resource land and UGA. Can we put that map up, I'm assuming that is
the one to the east of between Washougal and Camas. There it is. The big square there.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. On here it says expansion to the east for housing. My
understanding was that Camas had changed that like an original like it was like a mixed use; is that
correct?
ALVAREZ: I believe they after we did the DEIS they proposed a change to nonresidential use and so
nonresidential use was not studied in the DEIS.
JOHNSON: Any discussion on the ag and it also would be a good time also just to reiterate positions on
TDRs too as we go through these for the record.
FADNESS: This is Commissioner Fadness. I just want to make sure, Jose, that doesn't affect, since it
wasn't studied in the DEIS, that does not affect us, you know, in that aspect that it would be zoned
commercial instead of residential?
ALVAREZ: I think -- so the -- at this -- you're not making a motion to change the zoning. If upon
annexation the City decided to change the zoning, this process will have long terminated.
FADNESS: That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure that it didn't affect us.
JOHNSON: Any other discussions on the Camas? Ron.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. Just for the record then based on the vote that we just took on
the land use chapter I don't think any of the de-designated parcels are going to be viable based on
what the County needs to do, so I'll be voting no on all of them.
JOHNSON: Okay.
MONTGOMERY: Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery, and I'm in the same position for the same
reasons. I kind of already discussed I just think from a defensibility standpoint without the no net loss I
don't think things are going to be on a strong position.
JOHNSON: Any other discussions on this?
HARROUN: Just real quick. I just want to reiterate a point that I had brought up a long time ago. The
land is already -- like half of the land that they're asking to bring in is already five-acre parcels, you
know, gentlemen farms and it will get developed as McMansions, ranches and I think having either it's

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 25

housing density or commercial use it's going to be much better use of that property, so I would be
voting to let them bring it in.
JOHNSON: I would take a motion or a second unless there's more discussion.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I move that we approve Number 5 to include the Camas
UGA, the de-designation land.
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. I'll second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we have a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 5, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: NO
DELAPENA: 4/3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: 4 to 3. Passes 4 to 3. Okay. We're moving on to the next one. La Center UGA,
de-designate agricultural resource lands and expand the UGA to the north for additional employment
capacity. Any discussion or a motion and second.
FADNESS: This is Commissioner Fadness. I just couldn't remember when we had done the initial vote
on this one, did we vote to approve?
JOHNSON: Yes.
ALVAREZ: Yes.
ORJIAKO: Yes. This is Oliver. You voted to approve with the tying into the TDR motion as was in your
previous motion and we can pull that up so that you can see that if you like.
FADNESS: That's okay. I just wanted to confirm.
ORJIAKO: Yes.
JOHNSON: Any other discussion? Looking for a motion or a second.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 26

HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I make a motion that we accept La Center UGA Number 6 here to
de-designate agricultural lands.
BERGTHOLD: Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 6, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5/2.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: 5/2 passes. Moving on. La Center UGA, de-designate agricultural resource lands and
expand the UGA to the southwest for additional employment capacity. Discussion or a motion?
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert.
HOLLEY: Karl, can you slow down just a little bit, please.
JOHNSON: Yes, I sure will. No problem. I was just reading, Cindy, sorry. Go ahead.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert here. Hey, on this one I just don't recall again like you were asking,
Kyle, how did we deal with this particular one last time? I couldn't even find that we voted on this one
last time.
JOHNSON: I thought we did.
FADNESS: We did.
FADNESS: Yeah, this is Commissioner Fadness.
JOHNSON: Another doughnut; right?
FADNESS: No. This was the one that goes down to the south on the west side of the highway and I
know that Commissioner Barca had brought up a point I believe of La Center getting hemmed in by the

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 27

Tribe, and correct me if I'm wrong Commissioner, and, you know, this one I -- I had trouble with seeing
bringing this one into the La Center urban growth area, it just, it seems like an expansion like way off
kind of not within the La Center or of the La Center development there. I do understand the concern
of getting hemmed in by the tribal lands expansion, but I do have difficulties with seeing this one come
into the UGA myself.
JOHNSON: I've seen La Center with schools and everything constantly try to go from the town down
the hill and up towards the casino, so I understand that it's out there, but there's a history of La Center
and La Center schools and everybody else trying to get that connection to I-5, so I think this is the
attempt as best I can see, that was just my two cents. So, either way we're still back to where we
were, it's an agricultural de-designation. Again, I'll look for a motion and a second.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I will move that we accept the Number 7, La Center
de-designation of agricultural resource land to the southwest for additional employment capacity.
JOHNSON: We have a motion. Can I get a second, please.
BERGTHOLD: Commissioner Bergthold. I'll make a second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 7, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 4/3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Moving on to Number 8, Ridgefield UGA, this is the first de-designation for Ridgefield
agricultural resource lands and expanding the UGA to the north for additional employment and
housing capacity. Discussion?
HARROUN: Oh, which one was this? This was the little one or the big one?
JOHNSON: Big blue.
HARROUN: Big blue, okay.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 28

JOHNSON: Any discussion? I think Steve did a pretty good job of explaining this I thought, it was really
he was like made a good point. So, a motion.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. On Number 8 I recommend that we approve the
de-designation of agricultural resource lands and expand the UGA to the north for additional
employment and housing capacity.
JOHNSON: We have a motion. Can I get a second, please.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Can we get a vote, Jeff.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 8, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5 or 4/3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Number 9, the second Ridgefield expansion of de-designation of agricultural resource lands
and expand the UGA to the southwest for additional housing capacity. This has been referred as the
Maul property that little piece right there, I believe. Again, discussion or a motion.
HARROUN: Is that the doughnut hole?
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I was going to ask the same question, is that the doughnut hole
property that we talked about?
JOHNSON: I think that's one of the many doughnut holes we've talked about.
ALVAREZ: That's correct. Yes.
JOHNSON: So, any discussion? Motions, seconds, something.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll make a motion that Number 9, Ridgefield UGA to de-designate
agricultural resources lands and expand the UGA to the southwest for additional housing capacity and
that this has been referred to as the Maul property.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 29

JOHNSON: We got a motion. Can I get a second.
BERGTHOLD: Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call, please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 9, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5/2.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. We move now to Number 10, Yacolt UGA, we're expanding the UGA to the
southeast for additional employment capacity to compensate for employment land converted to park
lands. Jose, did anything change on this since we dealt with it before, is this still the same reason and
rationale?
ALVAREZ: That's correct.
JOHNSON: Any discussion on the Yacolt? Motion.
FADNESS: I move to approve Number 10 as presented.
JOHNSON: Can I get a second.
HARROUN: Commissioner Harroun. I'll second it.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Roll call please, Jeff.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 10, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 30

MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.

PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. We are now done with the first page. Cindy, how are you doing?
HOLLEY: I'm fine.
JOHNSON: All right. I'm going to go a little bit longer and we'll give you a little break if you need it,
we're trying to just get going here.
Number 11, the Vancouver UGA, we're going to amend the zoning of the urban medium and urban
high residential districts from five residential and office residential districts to three residential and
office residential districts.
R-12 to R-24; R-18 to R-22 to R-36; R-30 and R-43 to R-50; OR-15 to OR-24; OR-18 and OR-22 to OR-36;
OR-30 and OR-43 to OR-50. There's a lot there. Okay.
So, Jose, can you just give us a little quick on this, this was just, help me out on this one, Vancouver.
ALVAREZ: So currently we, as you've read, we have five different multi-family essentially zones and
there's some overlap between those, we thought it would be best to consolidate that and remove
some of the overlap and the densities between those and this is part of the housing strategies to try to
accommodate more housing and also the affordability with the multi-family zoning and to meet our
requirement to provide housing for at all income levels.
JOHNSON: Okay. Any discussion on the Vancouver?
FADNESS: So, this is Commissioner Fadness. And I've spoke about this before, I have really strong
objections to the minimum housing densities proposed in these. You know, the R-30 upzoning to R-50,
I'm all for the upzoning, I think it's great to give the options, but upzoning R-30 to then have a
minimum of 40 units per acre it's just not feasible by the market.
We're also encouraging because, and DEAB brought this up in their letter that they sent to us, we're
encouraging building studio and one-bedroom apartments because we don't have the density bonuses
proposed, as I understand we don't have the density bonuses proposed like the City of Vancouver does
where you get, sorry, not density, but the unit bonuses where you get a bonus if you build a two, a
three bedroom, and so we're building these apartments and they're not going to be able to serve
families and in -- it's going to be hard to meet these minimum densities.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 31

I really think that we need to take a look at what DEAB had sent over, you know, they're the experts in
this kind of planning and they know what the market can support.
And it almost seems like a lot of these minimum densities were brought in to make the VBLM make
sense and work for not having any UGA expansion, but in real, in the real world just things aren't going
to get built now so now these lands are just going to sit because it's not feasible to build, nobody
wants, there's not going to be people flocking to the fairgrounds area to live in a studio apartment,
there are not going to be developers flocking to build out there and so I think that what we have
proposed here is really flawed and it needs to go back and more time needs to be spent on any of this
before it gets implemented.
JOHNSON: Thank you.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I would agree with that. DEAB sent over a series of
recommended changes that they approved a few hours before our meeting here. I would -- I mean I
would propose accepting their recommendations and then adjusting the proposed land use plan with
the zoning presented accordingly.
That would take a fair amount of work from a -- from this, but I think -- I think that needs to be -- I
would move that we would accept their recommendations and to direct staff to adjust the proposed
land use plan to reflect DEAB's recommendations.
And then -- and then however that either we have to table this section until then and then go to the
next section, but it is really really significant that the difference in how the City of Vancouver
approached the development of high density land was a very stark difference than how the County
approached that where the City came in and said, hey, these are the zoning changes that we need to
do, what development community what do you need from us to make this feasible and it was a very
collaborative process.
The County I, you know, I think either lack of resources or time or vision hasn't done that, and I think
we really do need to listen to DEAB's recommendations.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert here. And I may be wrong, Jack, and correct me if I am, but Number
11 here that we're voting on is the Vancouver UGA changes and DEAB's letter is all about the County
not the City.
FADNESS: DEAB's letter is about the Vancouver UGA in the county. When Jack and I are speaking on
what the City of Vancouver did that's within the city limits of Vancouver.
HALBERT: Okay. Thanks.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. So, understanding what Jack is proposing it feels like once again I
think we rushed into the idea of the city boundaries without going through the chapters where what
could have been in the context of DEAB's recommendations were pulled out one by one and we could
have gone through them.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 32

It's not realistic to get such a lengthy document hours before the hearing and expect us to have an
opportunity to go through it and I'm not going to just accept the DEAB's recommendations cart
blanche and just say that whatever they said should be an accepted practice, but I do think there is an
opportunity you can choose to turn something down and say review the DEAB recommendations
before it goes before County Council, that to me feels like a realistic proposition on how to go forward
if you're not satisfied with that, but this, I don't know, it's got to be close to 20 pages -HARROUN: Well, yeah, 7 or 8 with the recommendation.
BARCA: With the idea that you need to go into each one of those, yeah. I just -- I think we're at this
place right now that we're going to say either we accept it or you're able to pull from the
recommendation specifics or we turn, you turn it down and say there's too much that needs to be
done for us to accept it in its current condition.
HARROUN: Well, I'm going to take a harsh perspective here, staff didn't work with DEAB or didn't
listen to DEAB. Staff has a tendency in my perspective to punch the boxes, hear us and then not take
any of the recommendations because rarely do I see any of our recommendations reflected in the code
before us.
We are consistently having a workshop and then 14 days later have a hearing with no code changes
and then we're told that we have then the opportunity to make any recommendations to their code
changes but it's force fed, completely different than the other planning commission, the city that I was
part of where we would have multiple work sessions, they would answer like any, anything like this
would come before us, we would work together, there would be recommendations, they'd say
Commissioner Harroun you had concerns with this, Commissioner Barca you had some concerns with
this, staff has shown that we can say, hey, could you please go back and work with DEAB and come up
with something better and they won't.
So, it kind of forces your hand here when you have, you have DEAB which is really it's, it is the leaders
of the development community and really the land use planning and extremely technically savvy, you
know, proficient and then this is their formal recommendation and so I'm -- I'm -- I'm very much for
them.
Like I would -- I would lean on them over staff and so that would be my position is I would recommend,
I would recommend that we adopt this.
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I would push back on some of that in that I
do think throughout this process the staff has been on other pieces receptive to our feedback for
example on the TDR program.
I think initially staff was explaining that we've tried this in the past, it hasn't worked and yet when we
passed our recommendation and then it was, you know, we just looked at a proposed multi-paragraph
policy they developed that was just approved.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 33

So I do think that there is, you know, our feedback is heard and policies are developed and I just think
that that same reasoning you propose about why the DEAB memorandum should just be quickly
accepted, adopted because they're the experts in that area, I mean that same rationale could have
been applied to the Agricultural Commission in adopting their recommendations and report regarding
agricultural lands, conservation and no net loss and no de-designation but we didn't really take that
just at face value after a lot of discussion. So, I just -HARROUN: And I appreciate that. I appreciate that. And I'm not saying that staff never, but I'm saying
from my experience with past commissions and that my experience with staff here when we get to
some of this technical stuff it's very, it's very shortsighted and they don't seem to listen and it's really
frustrating, so...
JOHNSON: Okay. Is there any more discussion? Just a mental note, you know, when you do get
something that dense in front of you, no, and I'm as a Chairman I've been here long, Ron's been here a
long time and staff has always responded to me, so I'll just keep that at that and keep my opinion to
myself.
But I -- I don't -- I don't look at this like information is not being put up, I look at it like we're doing the
best we can and it's very unprofessional for DEAB to drop something on us at the last minute, so they
lose credibility through me by that.
So therefore, I would look for a motion to approve the Vancouver UGA, Number 11. Is anybody up for
that and it could have an amendment or not?
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. And I'll approve, make a motion to approve
recommendation on Number 11, the Vancouver UGA.
JOHNSON: Do we have a second?
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll second that motion.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 11, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: NO
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: YES
DELAPENA: 3 to 4.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 34

PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion fails 3 to 4. Moving on to Vancouver UGA amend Number 12, oh, sorry.
FADNESS: Just I guess a point of order is so since we vote no on this as approved, do we have an
opportunity to recommend something else to Council whether it's what like Jack was saying, whether
it's accepting the DEAB as written or whether it is exploring, you know, maybe some of the code
changes that DEAB had presented here?
JOHNSON: My hope is from a practical standpoint that they listen to our testimony because I wrote,
you know, that was what I was kind of looking for was a DEAB recommendation, but we got a straight
up or down vote on it.
So hopefully they listen to this and say, okay, look, look at the DEAB, they'll have time and my hope is
that they'll say, okay, wait, let's try to, let's implement some of those. So, I know we're rushing
through these, I'm not trying to.
What I'm trying to do is encourage if we're going to put an amendment in, stick an amendment in and
we'll vote it up or down and in this case hopefully they listen to our testimony. Does that answer your
question?
FADNESS: Yeah. Yeah, I do agree. I don't think that a motion straight across to accept would pass
anyway, so...
JOHNSON: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
BARCA: Okay. I did -- this is Ron Barca. I did want to just make sure that Kyle's question was answered
in what I thought was the appropriate fashion. If you wanted to put an alternative motion forward,
you are able to do that whether it would be seconded, whether it would be accepted, we don't know
the outcome, but in the alternative if you had wanted to put something forward after that failed you
are able to do that.
FADNESS: Yep. No, I appreciate that. Thank you.
ALVAREZ: Can I -JOHNSON: Is there any more discussion on that?
ALVAREZ: Can I just clarify. So, I did read the DEAB letter. I think what their recommendation was to
change the zoning, the code, these are map changes to make the map to add these zones. Their
recommendation would change the densities in the new zones, not to go back to the existing zones if
you'll read the letter. I don't think they were proposing to not have these zones.
What you guys are talking about are code specific things that we have other sections in Title 40 that
deal with those code specific things, this is just changing the zoning on the maps and to consolidate

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 35

from five to three different zones.
FADNESS: Could you reference where in the code changes those are then, which item number that is?
ALVAREZ: I think in their letter they specified the last e-mail from Mr. Golemo this afternoon.
HARROUN: The code changes, I mean one of the -- it's -- it's keeping the minimums and then
increasing the maximums, so they were, they were all for increasing the maximums but keeping the
minimums.
ALVAREZ: To what zones?
HARROUN: And then these were, and I'll have to get back to that in a minute, you know, like we're
going to R-12 to an R-24, the opposition isn't, isn't the upzone, it's the bringing up, it's the minimums,
so that would be the thing.
I think from a functionality standpoint getting through the Vancouver thing, you know, I'm happy to
make a, you know, a motion to recommend to County Council to take a strong look at the DEAB
recommendations for specific stuff and they can direct staff however, but, yeah.
JOHNSON: Wait. So why don't you clarify that. So, you have a motion what now? Regarding Number
11, I mean let's get some clarity on it. 11-A maybe you want to call it.
HARROUN: So, this is Commissioner Harroun. I recommend that we recommend to County Council to
look at the DEAB's proposed code language changes more thoroughly with staff.
JOHNSON: As it pertains to -HARROUN: As it pertains to -JOHNSON: -- Number 11.
HARROUN: -- Number 11 and any of the land use zoning.
JOHNSON: Do we have a second?
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll second that motion.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second.
WARD-PALMERTON: Just to I believe that Commissioner Harroun made a recommendation but there
wasn't a formal motion.
JOHNSON: Say it again.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 36

HARROUN: Perfect, it's important. This is Commissioner Harroun. I move that we recommend to the
County Council to take a serious look at the DEAB's recommendations as it pertains to the land use
planning and their recommended changes.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. Second that motion.
JOHNSON: We have a motion on the table and a second to ask or to recommend that County Council
look at the DEAB recommendations regarding the Vancouver, specifically the Vancouver UGA and
other map changes. Can I get a roll call, Jeff.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 11 (AMENDMENT), MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: Point of clarification, we're actually we're doing a motion to instruct the County Council to do
something?
JOHNSON: No, we're asking. I said recommend, but we're asking.
BARCA: Okay. We're recommending that the County Council do something.
JOHNSON: I said, that's exactly what I said.
BARCA: I'm not in favor of giving any instruction to the County Council. NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5/2.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Amendment passes.
ORJIAKO: Mr. Chairman.
JOHNSON: Yes, sir.
ORJIAKO: This is Oliver Orjiako. I have been sitting here listening quietly. I take issue with
Commissioner Jack Harroun. Why? I cannot sit here silently and take the criticism of my staff, and I
want to put that into the record.
Why? DEAB members have served on the HOSAP study from the beginning until now, you served on it.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 37

They have served on the housing forum members of DEAB. We have gone to them multiple times in a
work session, in their meetings, we have a housing consultant who is listening online.
For you Jack Harroun Planning Commissioner to insult my staff is not acceptable. It's not acceptable
and I will not accept that. DEAB is appointed by the Council, not even required by RCW. They don't
build, they are not non, not for profit builders. You should be consulting VHA, you should be consulting
those that provide affordable housing.
So, my point into the record is do not, do not, I know it's your opinion, but do not insult my staff, this
should be your last insulting my staff, don't do that, it's unprofessional and I have to put it into the
record.
JOHNSON: So, stated. Yes, you may.
HARROUN: Okay. So, my apologies if you felt your staff was insulted, that is never my intention. I -- I
understand that that is not my intention. There -- I have certainly had frustrations with feeling not
listened to, that my process was rushed for multiple years and so, you know, and when I look at, you
know, maybe it's the best you can do, but I've been frustrated with some of the work that I've seen, it's
appropriate for me to say so. It's not insulting.
I don't mean to be insulting and I'm not trying to take personal shots at anyone. So, for what it's
worth, my sincere apologies because I do not intend to insult anyone, but this is an important public
process and I'm trying to get it right for the community.
JOHNSON: Okay. Let's move on if we can, please.
FADNESS: Chair, I'm sorry, just going back to, I'm not against upzoning and so I would like to revisit this
with Jose's clarification that he had there and so going to my issue with the minimum density
requirements which outlined in the DEAB memo are in code change 40.200.040 which is Number 63 on
our, on our list.
And then I also have issues with Number 65 which is also called out in the letter, but which is, which
specifically goes into the minimum units per acre and so I'd like to revisit.
I would be comfortable going back and approving the upzoning if we cannot recommend the code
changes in those two sections that I just outlined and so I would like to make a motion -JOHNSON: I was just starting to say, I don't think you have to make a motion, just ask can we move to.
FADNESS: Okay. I would like to move to recommend no on Number 63 and 65 of the, in our
recommendation.
JOHNSON: So, we have a motion. All right. So, this is where it gets messy.
FADNESS: I know.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 38

JOHNSON: If we could -- hold on. Hold on. What I'd like to do is make a motion and then vote
accordingly on that motion. So, if you are wanting us to move to Number 63, we're on Page 6 if
anybody's lost, 40.200.040, minimum and maximum calculations.
So, if we want to make a motion to approve that and then vote accordingly, that's easier than saying
no. Do you understand what I'm saying? In other words, we're doing it backwards. You can do it
either way you want. I vote to not approve it, but everybody needs to understand that what we're
doing is to we're voting to vote that -FADNESS: To vote it down, yes. Correct. And I'm not going to make a motion to approve it.
JOHNSON: So do we have -- let me start off. Do we have a motion to approve minimum and maximum
calculations on Number 63?
FADNESS: I guess point of order. I just made a motion I will withdraw, and I'll make a new motion. So,
I make a motion to recommend no on Number 63 as presented.
JOHNSON: So, we are voting, if you vote yes on this motion -- well, do we have a second? So, we don't
have a second.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I'll second it.
JOHNSON: Okay. We have a motion to vote no on the minimum, to not approve the minimum and
maximum calculations and what we're saying is if you vote yes, you're voting this one down. I know
that's confusing already.
So, what I'd like to do is get a roll call. For Number 63 the motion is that we are voting on to vote
down the minimum and maximum calculations.
BARCA: Point of clarification. So, we are saying that all of the wording that's in 63 is going to be void?
FADNESS: That I do not recommend it to Council.
JOHNSON: That's the motion.
BARCA: Okay. 100 percent, everything in it. All right.
JOHNSON: Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 63, MOTION TO DENY
HALBERT: NO
BERGTHOLD: NO
FADNESS: AYE

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 39

BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: NO
JOHNSON: Jeff, so that motion fails -DELAPENA: 3 to 4.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: -- 3 to 4. So, we move on to, did you want to do 65, Kyle, do you have a motion for 65?
FADNESS: I feel like we're getting -JOHNSON: Residential and office residential districts.
FADNESS: Yeah. So, 65 pertains to the minimum densities that we talked about, minimum density
requirements in the multi-family housing changes, and so I make a motion to not recommend Number
65 as presented.
JOHNSON: We have a motion to not recommend residential and office residential districts Number 65.
Do we have a second?
HARROUN: Commissioner Harroun. I'll second it.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
DELAPENA: A quick point of clarification on the previous vote Number 63, I incorrectly counted that, it
was actually 2 to 5.
JOHNSON: 2 to 5. Thank you, Jeff. Let's go back down to 65, can we get a roll call, please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 65, MOTION TO DENY
HALBERT: NO
BERGTHOLD: NO
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: NO
DELAPENA: 2 to 5.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 40

PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: 2 to 5 motion fails. And now we're going to go back over to our maps again. Go back
around. We're getting through it. We're doing it.
MONTGOMERY: A quick I guess point of order question. Since what we just voted was like no on
rejecting them, do we then need to revote on are we accepting them?
JOHNSON: I might just do that for clarification as we go through those, so just so it's not messy, either
way I'm not trying to do anything, but I'll just -- I'll come back to that when I get to that.
So, we are now on Number 12. Actually, I'm going to let's give a little break here. I know we've got so
much to do, but we're just going to die here on the vine and how about we get back here at about
9:00. Is that okay, Oliver, you guys good?
ORJIAKO: That's fine.
JOHNSON: All right. We're not done, so.
(Pause in proceedings.)
HOLLEY: If you're talking, I can't hear you.
JOHNSON: Sorry about that, you were muted. Our fault, my fault. All right. Vancouver, Number 15,
include the capacity of residential development in the Highway 99 sub-plan area underlying
commercial zoning and treat as mixed use for estimating capacity in the VBLM.
16, amend comprehensive land use zoning on Parcel No. 117896271, in the Salmon Creek Fire Station
to PF from IL, CC to PF and remove the split zoning.
17, amend the comprehensive plan use zoning, Parcel No. 185957000 to UM R-24 from UL R-10. I'll
just take those right now, I'll group them in two groups.
So, I'm looking at for a motion for 12 to 15 on the proposed on the map changes. Do I have a motion
or is there any discussion?
FADNESS: This is Commissioner Fadness. I move to approve Numbers 12 through 17 as presented.
JOHNSON: As presented. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll second that motion.
JOHNSON: Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 41

ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NOS. 12 THROUGH 17, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes on all of those. Okay. So now we move to our last page of maps, 18. You
guys can see these as we go, I'll just, Vancouver UGA SSR, 19, that was the, those lots and parcels, the
two parcels you see there the numbers.
19, amend the comprehensive plan use zoning on parcels, there are one, two, three, four there from
UL R1-10 to community commercial. Amend the comp, on Number 20, amend the comprehensive land
use planning and zoning on parcels, the three there, one, two, three, from CC to UM R-36.
21, to amend the comprehensive land use plan and zoning on Parcel No. 986041825 from MX to UM
R-36. 22, amend the comprehensive land use for these two parcels from MX to UM R-36.
23, amend the comprehensive land use plan and zoning on Parcel 182138000 from MX to UM R-24.
And, finally, Vancouver UGA, amend the comprehensive plan use for zoning on Parcel 181200000 from
OR-22 to OR-24.
What I'm looking for is either discussion or a motion on Numbers 18 through 24 as read.
BARCA: Chair.
JOHNSON: Yes.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I have a question for staff. Weren't some of these items brought
up by the City of Vancouver in the context of changing the zoning they were putting in the letter
specifically about the idea of trying to have more commercial activity and so I think it was the MX
parcels they had a concern about?
I tried to go back and find the Vancouver letter while Karl was going through them, but I am unable to
find it at this moment, but I was under the belief that it was conversion of the MX to the UM
designation that they had a concern with. If you can find the letter that would be great.
ALVAREZ: I think what they were wanting us to do was to look at allowing more commercial uses and

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 42

having more commercial uses allowed when, where there is a sea of residential.
So, Hazel Dell area, east of Hazel Dell Avenue to look for opportunities to find land that could be
designated commercial so it would be easier for people to have commercial next to them and they had
provided some specific parcels that they wanted us to look at, but those are not included in any of
these.
BARCA: Those -- okay. So, these are not those parcels, but the letter did get brought up and so it's
talking in more generalization -ALVAREZ: Yes.
BARCA: -- but without -- so it was asking for action, but the County didn't act specifically on the
request?
ALVAREZ: Correct. We -- they had given us a bunch of parcels to look at for some of that and for some
upzoning and we looked at that for some of the areas that we looked to upzone and incorporated
some of those recommendations through that for some of the commercial areas.
A lot of the areas either were could have been churches or existing buildings that wouldn't have
yielded any capacity in the Vacant Buildable Lands Model, nor did we think that they would be viable
given the proximity in that area to large commercial along Hazel Dell Avenue and Highway 99, and so
we didn't pursue those.
BARCA: Thank you for the clarification.
JOHNSON: Any other discussion or I would entertain a motion 18 through 24.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll make a motion, vote or recommend for approval Items 18
through 24.
JOHNSON: Do I have a second?
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can I get a roll call.
BARCA: Chair.
JOHNSON: Yes.
BARCA: Can I make a friendly amendment request -JOHNSON: Yeah, go ahead.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 43

BARCA: -- that pulling out Item 20 which is looking at community commercial specifically and voting on
that one separately.
JOHNSON: Yep, we can do that if that's okay with your -HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. Let me amend my motion to include Numbers 18, 19, 21 through
24, leaving out 20 for this vote.
JOHNSON: Can we get a second on that motion, please.
BERGTHOLD: Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second that again.
JOHNSON: Motion's amended. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NOS. 18, 19, & 21 THROUGH 24, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Okay. Motion passes. Now we will go back to Number 20, this is Vancouver UGA SSR to
amend the comprehensive land use plan and zoning on Parcel 986042747, Parcel 200147000, Parcel
200200000 from CC to UM R-36. Discussion.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I'll just make a motion to go ahead and deny Number 20 as staff
recommends it.
JOHNSON: Can you tell me why or just an explanation.
BARCA: I'm trying to keep the commercial land commercial.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion to deny the zoning, or excuse me, approval of Number 20, so make sure
you reverse your vote. With that said, we have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call.
FADNESS: Can we have some discussion.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 44

JOHNSON: Oh, sorry, yeah.
FADNESS: Yeah, could we pull this up on the map because I guess I'm just not familiar with what I'm
voting on right now.
ALVAREZ: So, this is property just south of 119th along 503. I believe the issue is the proximity to the
intersection where they've had difficulty getting access for commercial from the State at this location,
and so the proposal would be to change it to multi-family, I believe there's access, there's alternative
access through the back which wouldn't have the same implication as it would for commercial
development.
HALBERT: Jose, which parcel was that?
ALVAREZ: And this is a request from the property owner, or, yes, the property owner.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. What parcel was that on the map here is, and there's three parcel
numbers?
ALVAREZ: Right. They're all together in this, yes, so this is all of the parcels are in that orange area.
HALBERT: Thanks.
HARROUN: And the surrounding purple zoning or whatever color it is?
ALVAREZ: That's community commercial.
HARROUN: That's community commercial. Okay. The purple - this is Commissioner Harroun - the
purple is community commercial and then is it the orange one that we're looking at, is that the -ALVAREZ: Yes, that's the proposed change.
HARROUN: Is everything else around it though is community commercial -ALVAREZ: Yeah.
HARROUN: -- except for the -- and he's asking for that to -ALVAREZ: Right.
HARROUN: -- on community commercial?
ALVAREZ: Yes.
HARROUN: Okay. Got it. I think we're good.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 45

JOHNSON: All right. Any other discussion? I would entertain a motion, remember, oh, there is a
motion on the table. Did we have a second? Yes. So therefore, any more discussion then? Therefore,
can we get a vote. This is a vote to disapprove this.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 20, MOTION TO DENY
HALBERT: (No audio)
BERGTHOLD: (No audio)
HOLLEY: I can't hear you guys. I didn't hear Bryan.
HALBERT: I'm sorry. Bryan is a NO
BERGTHOLD: Mark is a YES
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: NO
DELAPENA: 5/2.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: 5/2. Yeah, 5/2 to disapprove. Okay. Thank you. So, we are now through the proposed,
the maps. We now go to Page 4, and we'll group a couple of these, but basically we got to go through
them.
So, the first one on the table is the Freight Rail Dependent Use Overlay and this is, Jose, can you just
give us a quick blurb on this just so we don't have to read all those numbers.
ALVAREZ: So, this is as a result of action that the legislature took that initially allowed freight rail
dependent use as a use in two jurisdictions, Okanogan County and Clark County, the legislature took an
action to rescind that and only allow that to occur in Okanogan County, so it's no longer applicable in
Clark County so we're making the changes to remove this overlay and in the Comp Plan we're removing
the language related to the freight rail dependent use.
JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion on this? I remember when this one came up, yeah,
before. No discussion? I'd take a motion.
FADNESS: This is Commissioner Fadness. I move to approve 25 as presented.
HARROUN: Commission Harroun. I second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 46

ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 25, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Moving on to Number 26, Battle Ground UGA, expand the UGA to include
35-acre property owned by the City of Battle Ground containing water reservoirs. This was previously
included in Alt 3 and was included in the DEIS.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I move that we approve Item Number 26.
JOHNSON: Do we have a second?
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I second that motion.
JOHNSON: Motion and a second. Jeff, could we get a roll call please. Any discussion? Excuse me, I'm
sorry. Any discussion? I'm fine.
HALBERT: Discussion. I appreciate Sam Crummett's explanation of why we need to bring this or why
they asked to bring this in and so it was really helpful to hear them. Thanks. I'll be an AYE.
BARCA: Chair.
JOHNSON: Yes.
BARCA: I just want us to be really clear that we are bringing in an island.
JOHNSON: Yes, for some specific reasons.
BARCA: Okay. I mean, once again, we're looking at the aspect of we're not being contiguous in the
thought process about how we're expanding the city boundaries.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I completely appreciate your point, and I would be more
with you except this is their water reservoir and they're just trying to bring it in within their city
boundary so they can do the permit so, I get it, yeah.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 47

BARCA: Yeah. Okay. Jack, under those circumstances what prevents them from making it contiguous
and bringing in their water reservoir? Nada.
JOHNSON: Any other discussion? We have a motion and a second, could we get a roll call, please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 26, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: Reluctantly AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Number 27, the Battle Ground UGA to expand to include three properties
totaling 17 acres for urban low density residential land. This was previously included in Alt 3 and was
included in the DEIS. Can you give us a little bit on this one, Jose, I can't remember. I know you talked
about this.
ALVAREZ: I think this is the City had identified there was a road I think that straddles the boundary and
so they wanted to bring that in to complete the road and include the properties to the north to allow
that to develop.
JOHNSON: Okay. That's right. Okay. Is there any discussion on this? I'll take a motion or a second.
No motion? There are no motion.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll make a motion that we, let's see, make a motion that we vote on
27 as presented.
JOHNSON: I have a motion. Can we have a second, please.
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 27, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 48

FADNESS: NO
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 4 to 3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Passes. Number 27, La Center UGA to de-designate agricultural resources land and expand
the UGA to include the five-acre parcel owned by the Clark County Public Utilities. Would make
expansion request to the north described above contiguous on all sides. This was not included in the
DEIS. Jose, can you give us a quick update on that one.
WARD-PALMERTON: Commissioner, just a point of clarification, you listed that as Line 27, it's actually
Line 28.
JOHNSON: Sorry, Line 28. I just did 27, excuse me, thank you. You'll be seeing more of those -HARROUN: As we get later.
ALVAREZ: So, this is a parcel that's, there's one in the center here, yes, in here where the City realized
late that they omitted this from their expansion, and I believe it's one of the utilities that owns the
property. It was late and it wasn't included in the EIS.
JOHNSON: Okay. Great. Any discussion on this?
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I just want to make sure that I'm clarifying for the record because
it's surrounded by urban development by itself is not reason enough for me to bring a piece of
agricultural land in, but its current use is the reason why I'm going to go ahead and vote for this. It has
no reflection on any of the other de-designations of agricultural land that we have been discussing this
evening.
JOHNSON: Any other discussions?
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I echo what you just said, Mr. Barca. I'm
also concerned that it wasn't studied in the DEIS, but given the parcel size and, you know, the utility
use, I think again I would treat it differently than some of the other de-designation requests.
JOHNSON: Any other discussions or motions?
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I'll make a motion to bring in its Line 28 -JOHNSON: Yes, Line 28.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 49

BARCA: -- as written and by staff for de-designation.
JOHNSON: Do we have a second?
HARROUN: Commissioner Harroun. I'll second it.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second on Line 28 as written. Jeff, can we get a roll call.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 28, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. The final one here in the purple on Page 5 will be Number 29.
ALVAREZ: Second to last.
JOHNSON: Second to last. And this is the mobile home park overlay to create a mobile home park
overlay on the existing mobile home parks within the unincorporated Vancouver UGA that would be
subject to new development regulations, those are all the parcels that we're talking about and any
discussion.
I know we had a lot of people here earlier and they're probably still here from the mobile home parks,
but I'm sorry that we got going so far down.
FADNESS: Yes, this is Commissioner Fadness. And I want to commend the, I know the three that are
out in the audience are supporters of the overlay, so I commend you for sticking through this for three
hours. I'd like to make a motion to approve Number 29 as presented.
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. And I'll make a second to that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
HALBERT: Yeah, Commissioner Halbert here. I, you know, appreciate the language that is intended
here so intended to preserve the existing manufactured home parks and protect long-term

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 50

affordability, prevent the displacement of existing residents.
And the district promotes community stability by limiting redevelopment of manufactured home parks
while allowing the continued repair, replacement and expansion of manufactured homes in
accordance with the standards of this title, that will be Title 40.250.250 (sic).
So, I think I, maybe it doesn't prevent everything or protect them from everything that could happen in
the future, but it's certainly a step in the right direction and, yeah, if it wasn't for so many of the
residents that were here two weeks ago, I don't think we would have looked into it as diligently as we
did, so thanks.
HARROUN: Great job guys.
JOHNSON: So, we have a motion and a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 29, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Now -HARROUN: Chair.
JOHNSON: Yes.
HARROUN: A quick question. There was a 29-A.
JOHNSON: I read that, yeah. So, Jose, we're on 29-A which is the Arterial Atlas. Can we get an
explanation when you get a chance.
ALVAREZ: So, this is the -- an appendix of the comp plan, but it identifies all of the roads in the county
road system. There were a series of changes that were made, we discussed that with you at a work
session.
There was some feedback we got from the community in terms of when a development happens, a

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 51

road on the network and identifies the location may not always stay the same when development
comes and so there are some things that are lines on the arterial atlas that no longer warrant because
the development's happened.
So, we're going through a series of changes that were being made to clean-up a lot of those types of
mistakes and then there was, we're showing all of the new, any new proposed roads that are part of
the Comp Plan Update and so that's the gist of the arterial atlas, it's just the mapping of the road
network that the development community relies on and that we look to enforce.
HARROUN: Do we have any documentation on the arterial atlas, like was there a map or anything that
that was -- I mean, just for the record, I mean I think it's fine, but, you know.
ORJIAKO: They need to take a revote on this because this is an overlay, overlay map to put this on the
comp plan, it's an overlay. What he read was something from the code was from 68, that is the -HUSTING: Sorry. For the record, my name is Harrison Husting, I'm a Transportation Planner with
Community Planning. So this document right here this is linked in the meeting materials and it's about
95 pages and each page is basically a section of the road atlas and there are sections here that just kind
of display, well, it displays the whole county, but once you get into the unincorporated parts it does
show the comp plan designation for roadways in the unincorporated areas and so these kind of tie
back to, you know, we have comp plan designations for different roadway types and then these
designations tie back to kind of the standards that they're built out to in the future.
So, the arterial atlas really depicts the future, what the future of the roadway really looks like and it's
really the main implementation tool of our CFP and kind of other transportation related documents.
And so, you can kind of go through all these, this is kind of the static map of the arterial atlas.
And then I'm just going to kind of jump to the back of the arterial atlas, and it will take a long time to
load. I apologize; I'm trying to figure out how far I need to go. But I guess my main point in the back of
the arterial atlas we do have kind of listed any circulation studies that have been previously adopted by
Council.
So, as you can see this is kind of the outline of the county and how it's broken up by page and then we
kind of have conceptual levels of our different cross sections for the different types of roadway and
then these are codified basically in Title 40 with the exact dimensions for every aspect of the roadway,
but these are just kind of the conceptual, you know, high level understanding of these roadways.
And then in the back we do have our circulation studies that have been previously adopted. So, there
are a number of these circulation studies, so I think Exhibit 63, Exhibit 64 and then I think this would be
Exhibit 65, these have all been adopted since our last 2016 update, so these were new circulation
studies that we added to the document in the back.
HARROUN: Thank you.
JOHNSON: Thank you. Any other questions regarding the arterial atlas updates, changes? Okay. With

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 52

that said, could I get a motion and a second.
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. I'll make a motion to accept Item 29-A, the arterial atlas
updates.
JOHNSON: Do we have a second, please.
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. Second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Jeff, could we get a roll call. Oh, any discussion?
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I just think in the context of the same reason like getting the
DEAB's letter this is the same kind of scenario, I don't doubt the work, I haven't had a chance to go
through it in any fashion. I will let County Council go through it, and they can make their
determination about what they want to do with it.
Looking at our capital facilities plan I'm not quite sure how much the arterial atlas is going to weigh in
on the final discussion about what gets built or doesn't get built, so I'm not too worried about it. So, I
just wanted to have a clarification why I'm going to be voting the way I'm going to be voting.
JOHNSON: Any other discussions? Okay. We have a motion and a second on the table. Jeff, can we
get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 29A, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5/2.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Okay. Now we will move on to the proposed comprehensive plans and
chapters. So, Jose, on things like Table of Contents, Introduction, is that just going to be like do we
group those together or are those something we vote on?
ALVAREZ: I think it might make sense to see if anybody has anything that they object to.
JOHNSON: I'll just go like that. Okay. All right.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 53

ALVAREZ: And just ask your fellow councilors.
JOHNSON: So, 31 and 32, is there anybody that has any objections to grouping those together, it has
Table of Contents, Introduction and Community Framework Plan?
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. The only chapter I did have proposed
changes or discussion on was Chapter 1, and just for purposes of voting I will be fine with putting all of
them in, of all of the proposed comp plan chapters, I don't know that everybody feels that way, I'm just
saying.
JOHNSON: Does anybody have any more that they want to pull out of the Chapters 1 through 15?
HALBERT: Yeah, Commissioner Halbert.
JOHNSON: We'll pull out, we'll revote on 1 just because to make it clear.
HALBERT: I'm with Alicia on 33 and I'd like to amend or propose an amendment for 40, 33 and 40.
JOHNSON: Okay. So, we'll, I propose we vote on everything unless there's others except for 33 and 40.
Is that all right? Do you have anything?
BARCA: Yes. This is Commissioner Barca. I have some wording changes I'd like to see in Number 34,
Chapter 2, Housing Element. I have some discussion I'd like to do concerning Number 38, Chapter 6,
capital facilities planning and there was one more. Where did he stop on our discussion? Oh, all the
way.
JOHNSON: I'm just going through 6- -- I'm looking through 61 right now. I'm trying to just take care of
the -BARCA: Then it would be Number 46, the climate element as well.
JOHNSON: Are there any others that need to be pulled out? With that said, what I would like to do is
lump 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and then the rest of those with all the appendixes.
Is there anybody opposed to us grouping those together and making a singular motion to pass those
chapters?
Hearing none, may I get a motion, and you can either say them or, you know, basically what I'm looking
at, I can -- I can tell you which ones they are, but to make reference to them again. Ready. 30, 31, 32,
35, 36 and 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and then 48 through 61 which is just all the extra, the
appendixes, okay. So can I get a motion for that unless there's discussion.
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I'll move to approve those items.
JOHNSON: As stated.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 54

MONTGOMERY: As stated.
JOHNSON: Okay. Is there a second to that?
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. I will second to that.
JOHNSON: Okay. We have a second for the approval of stated chapters in the proposed and
appendices too in the comprehensive plan. Is there any discussion on those? Hearing none, Jeff, can
we get a vote on that.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NOS. 30-32, 35-37, 39, 41-45, & 47-61, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. So now we will go back to the ones that we want to pull out starting with
Number 33 and it sounds like we wanted to get some clarity on that, this is the Land Use Element. So,
discussion on that.
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. And I just want to clarify; did we already
approve this chapter like can we revote it?
JOHNSON: Well, we voted it down, so I don't know. I was going to vote it like do we pass or not, but
it's been voted down so I guess we don't have to, right.
MONTGOMERY: I thought it was voted to approve it as written and proposed by staff, but my
proposed change to it was not accepted.
WARD-PALMERTON: You already voted on 33.
JOHNSON: Okay. So, 33, thank you for the clarity. 33 is already voted on, so now we go to 34. Ron,
was that yours, Housing Element?
BARCA: Yes.
JOHNSON: Okay. Can you, discussion on Chapter 2, Housing Element.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 55

BARCA: Give me a moment, I'm looking for my notes right here.
WARD-PALMERTON: Just for point of clarification before we move on, on 33 the council or
Commission voted to pass as-is but if Commissioner Montgomery wanted to make a motion with
respect to -ORJIAKO: That particular policy.
WARD-PALMERTON: -- that particular policy she certainly could do so.
MONTGOMERY: Thank you. I'll do that for record.
HOLLEY: Is that Ms. Ward-Palmerton speaking?
WARD-PALMERTON: Yes, I'm sorry.
JOHNSON: Yes, that was, yeah, Ms. Palmerton, yes, Ward-Palmerton. So, we'll go back to 33 and clean
that one up. Alicia, did you want to do something there?
MONTGOMERY: Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. And I would move to amend
Item 33, Chapter 1, to include replace the currently approved policy language in 1.1.24 and instead
replace it with the following, 1.1.24, Clark County and participating cities shall cooperatively adopt and
implement a countywide Transfer of Development Rights, parenthesis, TDR, program to permanently
conserve agricultural lands while accommodating the urban growth adopted through the 2025
comprehensive plan periodic update.
UGA expansions that include de-designated agricultural lands shall be subject to an urban holding
designation until applicable TDR requirements are satisfied. The County and affected city shall enter
into an Interlocal Agreement establishing TDR requirements, implementation responsibilities,
conservation objectives and timelines.
The countywide TDR program shall be fully operational no later than December 31, 2027.
The program shall ensure the permanent conservation of that minimum one acre of agricultural land
for each acre of designated agricultural land converted through UGA expansion, while also ensuring no
net loss of agricultural resource lands resulting from adopted UGA acreage or planned housing,
population or employment capacity resulting from implementation of the TDR program. The program
shall include a mechanism for identifying and evaluating rural lands for suitability of designation or
redesignation as agricultural resource lands.
If sufficient TDR credits are unavailable or if a TDR program is not operational by the implementation
deadline, the County and affected city shall use purchase or Transfer of Development Rights,
permanent conservation easements or another mechanism providing substantially equivalent
permanent agricultural conservation. Failure, delay or insufficient participation in the TDR program
shall not result in removal, reduction or reversion of an adopted UGA expansion or reduction in its

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 56

planned urban capacity.
Future UGA expansions involving designated agricultural resource lands shall participate in the TDR
program and provide permanent agricultural conservation at a minimum one-to-one acreage ratio or
provide an alternative mechanism achieving substantially equivalent permanent agricultural
conservation.
JOHNSON: Can we get that submitted no matter what happens for the record so at least the County,
because it's on your computer, right, does the County have that or does the Councilors have that?
MONTGOMERY: I can provide a copy of it, yeah.
JOHNSON: Yeah, I just thought it would be nice that they because there's a lot there whether you
agree with it or not, all I'm saying is, is it appropriate to go here Councilors maybe you ought to just
look at what she's writing because -WARD-PALMERTON: The text on what was voted on can certainly be provided.
JOHNSON: Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that's it. So, we have a motion adding state, what was stated, LeDuc
Montgomery, her -- what she said. Do we have a second?
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I'll second it.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second for an amendment on Chapter 1, Land Use Element, to
update the TDR section, and I can't remember the numbers, but 1.1.24 I believe. So, can we -- is there
any discussion on that? I know we did a lot already, but...
HARROUN: Yeah, this is Commissioner Harroun. Just reiterating that, that, a, there's a lot there to
unpack. B, it blows up a TDR program and makes it nonfunctional, and we can't do that to our cities.
So that's the, I'm going to appreciate so much which is why I'm for the TDR and preserving farmlands,
but so I'll be voting no.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. Just as a opposing thought process on that, every one of the cities
came forward and asked for a TDR program, every single city that was getting de-designated land came
forward and said they were for having the TDR program. So, when you say it blows up what the cities
want to do, I don't think we have -- is it data?
HARROUN: It's the no net loss provision, that's the issue.
BARCA: That this is our professional disagreement, but it isn't what the cities asked for.
HARROUN: The cities never asked for no net loss.
JOHNSON: So, this is it's good debate. In the spirit of keeping it moving, is there any other discussion
on this?

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 57

I just want to say one thing that I want this for the record that the TDR is in there and I was concerned
with why wasn't the TDR, like why did that get removed when we did push that forward, it wasn't staff,
it was the Councilors said, no, they don't want that, but I think the devil's in the details. I think it's
somewhere in the middle.
I think it's mostly about, hey, you can't just be doing this and not -- and tell us you're going to have a
TDR, but I agree with the spirit of what you're doing. I too think it's -- we really start to hem it in but let
that be. I want it for the record to go whatever we're doing with the TDRs, it's obviously we've done
this before, I mean we've talked about it till we're blue in the face, but the reality is is that I want
Council to hear it from the Commission that, look, all of us agree that TDRs need to be there, staff did a
great job of presenting what this is.
I think now the question becomes they've got to work out what it is and my voting for it is not saying
no because I kind of like what you got there but some of that stuff I really feel like maybe we're there.
So, I don't want to debate it and be mean, but I'm just saying I think there's something there. Is there
any other discussion on this?
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. And agree, I appreciate that we've been
able to take the TDR point this far by generally consensus and a lot of these finer points I've been
putting on it are for my particular concerns about legal defensibility in terms of the legal challenge as
well as a lot of the community feedback, and so I appreciate this, you know, agree to disagree positions
been presented, but I am glad we've been making some progress at least.
JOHNSON: We just, we do need a mechanism, and I think we're all working for it. With that said, if
there's no more discussion, I have a motion and a second. Can I get a roll call, Jeff.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 33 (AMENDMENT), MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: NO
BERGTHOLD: NO
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: NO
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: As my friend -- oh, I'm sorry. As my friend Ron Barca says it's hard but I'm going to vote NO
but reluctantly, Ron.
DELAPENA: 2 to 5.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Okay. We are off of Number 33, excuse me, yeah. 34, who had 34? Ron, was that you
again? Yeah, you were working on it. Let's go to 34.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 58

BARCA: Yeah. So, Chapter 2 I want to I think present this in the context that there's a lot in Chapter 2
but what I want to work on specifically was there's a component of it that talks about ideas for
reducing cost of development and I want to make sure that we're targeting specific areas and the
homeownership aspect, 80 percent to 100 percent AMI because our limited funding I think is not going
to be able to go across the board.
We in the county have a one percent tax now that's specifically for what I believe is 60 percent AMI
and below but there's nothing that covers the 80 percent to 100 percent nor is there anything
specifically around a mechanism to help homeownership.
So, what I'd like to do is propose a few things that I believe we could add that would genuinely reduce
cost. One is waive permit fees for qualified buyers that hold the house for a period of time, I can
suggest five years, but perhaps there's a different time frame that makes sense to people, but I would
look at the aspect of qualified buyers in the 80 to 100 percent AMI, they're not going to flip the house,
they're going to live in it for at least five years.
We could use a portfolio of pre-approved plans where we know that staff would be able to have that at
their disposal and if the developers come in with a specifically already pre-approved plan that should
get them to the top of the list and help move them through.
I believe that we could look at the aspect of implementing outcome-based approval for site
development and not get into the aspects of following the code as written. Now I think there's an
opportunity for us to modify code much more for outcome-based procedure, and that would give any
of the developers more opportunity to do it in different ways rather than the prescribed way that a
specific planned examiner expects it to be done.
I also believe that we need to have interagency agreements to lower these barriers just as we're asking
County Planning to do, I think the utilities and Department of Health need to come forward with the
same kind of program for the 80 percent to 100 percent AMI ownership opportunity.
And the last thing I've got I think I wrote down at 2.3.8 we use the word encourage and I think we need
to work that out into some very firm incentives. And the last thing is what we don't have in our
Housing Element right now is specific metrics that are going to be measured and reported out on with
the idea that adjustments would be made within the time frame of the comp plan so we have some
targets about how many houses we want to build, but we don't have mechanisms that says what do
we do if we're not getting there and how are we measuring whether we're getting there or not.
So, I know that's a lot. I can try and put it into more specific words for incentives and go back over it as
a motion, but I wanted to kind of lay that out on the table to see how people were thinking about it,
and I believe my fellow Commissioner Bryan Halbert had some additions that he wanted to put in on
the same element.
JOHNSON: Bryan.
HALBERT: Yeah. Thanks. Commissioner Halbert here. And, yeah, Ron, I like what you're saying and as

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 59

you were talking I was putting those notes under 2.1.9, it seemed like that was the place for -BARCA: Yep.
HALBERT: Is that where you were talking about?
BARCA: Yep.
HALBERT: And then before I go into some of my other ones, there is a housing planning tool that was
part of the appendixes that seemed like that was a tool to track how we were doing. Did you have a
comment on that, or did you see that as a tool that would -BARCA: I didn't see it as a firm requirement.
HALBERT: Okay. Yeah, I don't know if it was a you shall do this or just a tool that could be used to
show the how the process is. Maybe Jose could help us out with that one.
ALVAREZ: So, the appendix that -HALBERT: Appendix J, the Housing for All Planning Tool.
ALVAREZ: Okay. So, the legislature essentially we have to have a requirement to plan for by income
bands, I think there's a check-in at the five-year mark where we're supposed to report out how we're
doing and sort of address some of those concerns of why, why we have or haven't met our targets and
what our plans are to achieve those goals and to come into compliance with that.
HALBERT: Correct. My 2.1.9 suggestions really were covered even better by what you said, Ron. I
was, you know, saying let's reduce impact fees and tax burdens on all Clark County people to make
housing more affordable but your suggestion about permit waiver fees for a five-year ownership is an
awesome incentive for a buyer and then the pre-approved plans also should, you know, help a
developer move quicker.
JOHNSON: Paradise, the fire, where the fire was, they have like, that's what they do, they're all
predawn so people don't, you can go build your house back up, but you could also go in there and just,
here it is, you can submit a plan, so there's no fee for that, so I think that's a different thing, but it's
very effective that preset plans.
I don't know, we might be getting too far in the weeds with this, but I get what you're saying,
affordability I think is the big premiere. Is there any other discussions on this as Ron has crafted the
amendment?
HALBERT: Yep. I got one other one. On Policy 2.1.11 and just a language change, I have it written out
or I think or handed out, it's about promoting homeownership opportunities for low income and
moderate-income families and individuals while recognizing historic inadequacies and access to
homeownership opportunities for communities of color, and I want to strike "of color."

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 60

When we saw this back in July of 2025 the CAG recommended this, the community group that wrote
these policies, and it wasn't until July of 2026 that we saw an update on Chapter 2, the Housing
Element Code changes, and in 26, Chapter 2, talks about racially disparate impacts and displacement,
so Table 2.13 use the words, "and households of black indigenous and people of color, so BIPOC
groups," as those were all the groups that were, had that were substantially under the income ability
to purchase homes.
So, I want to just strike the words "of color" and add in "and households of black indigenous and
people of color, the BIPOC groups" in that language because it wasn't just one group, there was five
groups in there that were, that did not meet the income standards. And if it helps I'll hand it out, take
one and pass it down.
And then I'm handing out the language written out and then also Table 2.1, 2.13, here's one for
everybody, I'll keep that. And in 2.13 the table based on race and ethnicity just shows the percentage
of median income of these different groups and uses the words that, yeah, BIPOC, yeah, households of
black, indigenous and people of color. Okay. That's my amendment for -JOHNSON: Okay. Is there any other discussion on that?
BARCA: Chair, before I go ahead and make a recommendation for wording, I want to make sure that
the Commission understands my focus is specifically homeownership towards the 80 to 100 percent
AMI for the aspect of coming up with ways to go ahead and lower the cost of housing from what is
capable within the county looking at the idea that the income bands below that for affordable housing
are going to be handled within the tax structure that has already been passed by County Council for 60
percent and below.
If that's agreeable then that would be when I put the wording in and that's what you would be voting
for, and if there is some disagreement with that, I'm open to understanding your point of view before I
do the wording in case we wanted to modify it in any fashion.
JOHNSON: So my understanding is basically where you're going is you support what's there, but what
you're really looking for is affordability targeted towards changing the threshold just a little bit, but
basically you're just looking at affordability, you still are in support of on the basis of the work done,
the chapter done on this one, add a little bit of clarity to it and I'm kind of asking both of you, that's
what I kind of got out of it.
HALBERT: Yeah.
JOHNSON: Yeah. And I don't know, if it's me I'm inclined to say, yeah, that doesn't sound, but you got
to craft the -BARCA: Yeah. So, in generalization the answer's yes. I'm just trying to be a bit more focused on who
we're able to actually help in some fashion. There's limited resources and we're going to be in a
position of having to pick and choose where those resources go and so if we're strongly of the belief

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 61

that homeownership is better and supporting that middle class, that 80 to 100 AMI is important for us,
then that's my direction.
JOHNSON: Any responses? It's yours to go if you want to make a motion, Ron.
BARCA: All right. Thank you, Chair. So, this is Commissioner Barca. So, my recommendation in
Chapter 2, 2.1.9, we're looking at homeownership in the 80 percent to 100 percent AMI, waive the
permit fees for qualifying buyers that hold the house for a five-year period. Use pre-approved plans to
lower the approval time. Implement outcome-based approval for site development. Craft interagency
agreements to lower the barriers as stated above.
And then at 2.1.1 incorporate Commissioner Halbert's request to change the wording to include BIPOC.
In 2.3.8 remove encourage and come up with some firm incentives that I don't have enumerated. And
the last item was in the appendix where we were talking about metrics and tracking, I'm interested in
staff flushing that out to talk about what they're going to do with the information since most of it was
considered encourage and propose or promote, so I'm looking for the metrics being able to actually
have some levers that would say we would go back and do something different if we're not hitting our
targets.
JOHNSON: Discussion? We have a motion. Do we have a second for that?
MONTGOMERY: This is Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I'll second.
JOHNSON: Okay. Here's what we have, we have a motion regarding approving Chapter 2, right, which
is -- which is Chapter 2 which is the Housing Element with the amendment as stated. Now, is there any
discussion on what Commissioner Barca just advanced?
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I'm not opposed to it, but the what we're voting on got
kind of askew at the end there because it was all in the, when you starting directing to staff. So, the
first couple I'm like tracking. The last section I got a little bit confused on what you are asking for us to
approve. So maybe, maybe we just do bump bump bump and then kind of cleanup the last one but
that's kind of my -BARCA: I'm open to a friendly amendment to pull the aspect of the metrics that were in the appendix.
HARROUN: I would make that friendly amendment.
JOHNSON: Okay. We have a motion on the table. Any discussion with the friendly amendment? I
know this is dense.
MONTGOMERY: Second as stated.
JOHNSON: Oh, there's a second. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, let's get a roll call on
approving Chapter 2 on housing, Line-Item Number 34 with Commissioner Barca's amendment.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 62

ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 34 WITH AMENDMENT, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. We now move to number 30- -- let's see, you were on was it, Ron, did you
want 38 or 37? 38, Capital Facilities Plan. So, we are looking to approve, I'll either take discussion or a
motion on Capital Facilities Plan Element, Chapter 6, Number 38.
BARCA: So I want to just to bring this one up from the standpoint I don't have a specific amendment to
bring forward, I wanted to clarify my vote and that is based on the testimony that has been put into
the record over the last couple of months it has the appearance that many of our projects from our
previous comp plan have been stacked on to the concurrency on this comp plan, the half a billion
dollar transportation package I don't believe is realistic and it has the appearance that Public Works
has been approving projects that would not be passing in the context of the test of concurrency.
So, from the funding aspect I don't believe the capital facilities plan is well-developed or realistic for
the funding that's available within the County and I'll be voting no on the capital facilities aspect.
JOHNSON: Any other discussion on Line Item 38, Capital Facilities Plan? If not, I would hear a motion
or -- go ahead.
MONTGOMERY: Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. And I would say just I share some of the same
concerns in re-reviewing some of the public comment today to prepare. I mean, there was a lot of
testimony from folks about concerns of new development where the existing infrastructure, you know,
wasn't going to be able to be service it from their perspective and then as we had heard in prior
meetings there's a very long list and it seems like a lot is getting added to it and so I would like to be
able to come forward with a solution to the problem but I am just concerned about adding more in if
we're not able to keep up with that type of development, so...
JOHNSON: Okay. Any other discussions on that? If not, I would hear a motion for Chapter 6, Capital
Facilities Plan Element.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I'd like to make a motion to deny the capital facilities plan as
written.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 63

JOHNSON: Do we have a second?
MONTGOMERY: Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I'll second.
JOHNSON: Okay. So, we have a motion to deny the Capital Facilities Plan Element, Chapter 6. Any, is
there any discussion? No discussion. Jeff, could we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 38, MOTION TO DENY
HALBERT: NO
BERGTHOLD: NO
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: NO
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: NO
DELAPENA: 2 to 5.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: 2 to 5. So, in this case Council, this I don't -- it passes then; correct? So, it doesn't -WARD-PALMERTON: But you need a motion to deny it as written so you'll need to -HARROUN: Motion to approve this, right.
JOHNSON: Okay. So, let me, so we need to do another one then.
WARD-PALMERTON: You do need to do another one.
JOHNSON: Okay. So can we get a motion to approve Chapter 6, Capital Facilities Plan Element.
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. I move to approve Chapter 6 as presented.
JOHNSON: Do we have a second?
HARROUN: Commissioner Harroun. I second.
JOHNSON: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, can we get a roll call please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 38, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 64

BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: NO
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5 to 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Now we go, Commissioner Barca, to Number 40, Chapter 8, Historical,
Archeological and Cultural Preservation Element. What do you got?
BARCA: I don't have anything on that one.
JOHNSON: Oh, I thought you did. We didn't vote on that one.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I had just one word amendment on it I think it's (inaudible)
HOLLEY: I can't -- I can't understand you, Bryan.
HALBERT: Is it my mic or is it (inaudible).
JOHNSON: I think it's your mic. Just lean forward, pull it closer to you.
HALBERT: I'll try again and if not I'll use my neighbor's mic. I think I'll just try my neighbor's mic. Okay.
So, Policy 8.1.3 says, "Facilitate nomination of historic and cultural resources" but I believe that the
heading is "Historical, Archeological and Cultural Preservation Element," so I think it should have the
word "Archeological" in there, "Facilitate nomination of historic, archeological and cultural resources,"
that's my proposed amendment.
JOHNSON: Okay. So, we have amendment to Chapter 8 changing and making sure we're adding the
word "archeological." Is there any discussion on that? If not, can we get a motion.
HARROUN: This is commissioner Harroun. I move to -JOHNSON: Approve it.
HARROUN: -- approve adding the word "archeological" to 8.1.3 and accept the chapter as a whole or
the which number is it, in Number 40.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I second it.
JOHNSON: So, we have a -- is there any discussion? We have a motion and a second. Seeing no

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 65

discussion, Jeff, could we get a roll call.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 40 WITH AMENDMENT, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Moving finally to Chapter 14, the Climate Element. There was some, Ron,
was that you?
BARCA: Yeah. So, Commissioners, I initially was going to add language about the no net loss in ag land
for the current use taxation policy to promote local food production, but I already understand the
winds that are blowing here about no net loss, so I'm going to withdraw that.
I want to go to 14.20 which has to do with solid waste and I would like to make an amendment that
solid waste system becomes owned by the County and then we can use that aspect of solid waste
collection system for the aspect of being able to help facilitate our climate element requirement by
having direct control over the solid waste system as opposed to having to contractually request
changes to the policies that the solid waste operator uses now.
So, the amendment would be for the County to pursue ownership of the solid waste system in Clark
County.
JOHNSON: Any discussion?
HARROUN: Is there a second?
JOHNSON: Oh, do we have a second? I'm sorry. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion, that
amendment to that the climate?
HALBERT: Yeah, I'll second that amendment.
JOHNSON: Okay. So, we have a second now. Is there any discussion?
HARROUN: So, this is Commissioner Harroun. So just to clarify, we're directing the County to pursue
or to look into purchasing or developing the waste program, not we're not directing them to take it

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 66

over, but we're directing them to, you're asking to take a look at taking it over, is that -BARCA: I believe we're in contract negotiations now and there's an opportunity to buy the facilities at
might be a dollar, but the cost comes in the aspect of operations.
The opportunity as I see it comes in the idea of helping protect the County in the context of the climate
model where you could use the TIP fee for promoting behaviors that are beneficial in the county
whereas right now once you lease it out you are unable to affect the TIP fee and how it is handled.
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. I guess I would be hesitant to support such an amendment until I
saw what the operating cost differences and the rate differences might be with the County operating
the solid waste versus contracting it out.
So, I'm not -- I don't really think I can support this just because, you know, I think there's a lot that goes
into this that we're not considering.
JOHNSON: Any more discussion? Okay. So -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. You know, Ron, you mentioned that the County's in negotiations
now, I think I read that they're looking at purchasing the waste transfer stations, not the waste
handling necessarily of it. Is that how you saw it?
BARCA: Yeah, this is Commissioner Barca. Yeah, that's how I saw it was taking over the transfer
stations for handling the vast majority of the solid waste that comes in and out of the county or comes
out of the county.
HALBERT: So, they're already in that process. How would we word that in this policy then or the goal,
it's a goal?
BARCA: I would put it into the context of adding it to the policy.
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I appreciate the goal but there's a lot to unpack here and
so I'm hesitant to just throw something at this late hour that's substantially different than what's there.
JOHNSON: So, we -- oh, go ahead.
HALBERT: Okay. I also wanted to propose a potential amendment to this chapter and then we can
come back and maybe lump them together for a vote.
JOHNSON: Well, let's right now we have one amendment right now and we'll come back and we can
try another one. So, what I'd like to do if there's no discussion on this motion, which is acceptance of
Chapter 14 with the proposed amendment that Commissioner Barca put forward. Is there any
discussion on that? Seeing none, can we get a vote on this, Jeff.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 46 WITH AMENDMENT, MOTION TO APPROVE

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 67

HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: NO
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: NO
DELAPENA: 4 to 3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: It passes, correct. So that amendment passes. Okay. So now we move forward adding an
amendment, and by the way that was with Chapter 14 passes with the amendment put forward by
Commissioner Barca. Now -HARROUN: That was just the amendment because wasn't there another Chapter 14 amendment?
JOHNSON: Yeah, I but the way I worded that was this is acceptance of the chapter with his
amendment. So therefore, now we can make another amendment to the chapter which is now go
forward now. Yeah.
HALBERT: Sure. One of CAG members, Don Steinke, put together a climate element e-mail to us
regarding scale, grid scale batteries, something that wasn't even in the language two years ago when
CAG made all their recommendations and just as a goal or a part of a policy is for the County to work
with the PUD and the fire department to develop regulations that welcome grid scale batteries in as
many places as possible while protecting public safety and establish an emissions reduction goal.
So, we know like grid scale batteries can help reduce energy, greenhouse gases and it was something
that wasn't even considered a couple of years ago. So, I would say we add it to Chapter 14.15.5 as a -HARROUN: That's your motion?
HALBERT: Sorry. This is my motion to -HARROUN: Could you read the specific motion because I would like to be clear on that.
HALBERT: Let me write that out. Okay. Commissioner Halbert. I'd like to make a motion that we add
to Chapter 14.15.5 that we work with the PUD and the fire department to develop regulations that
welcome grade scale batteries in as many places as possible while protecting public safety and
establish an emissions reduction goal.
JOHNSON: So, we have a motion for an amendment to Chapter 14. Do we have a second?

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 68

BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
HARROUN: This is Commissioner Harroun. I would like to potentially change the language of that, that
work with the PUD and the fire department to develop regulations to allow for grid scale batteries and
just to make it real clean versus the to welcome grid scale batteries in as many as possible while
protecting public safety, I mean just to me for code language it doesn't -BARCA: Is that a friendly amendment?
HARROUN: -- you know, that makes more sense to me.
BARCA: Is that a friendly amendment?
HARROUN: That would be a friendly amendment.
JOHNSON: So, what was the word you wanted to change there?
HARROUN: I would say work with, work with the PUD and the fire department to develop regulations
that allow for grid scale batteries.
JOHNSON: Allow for. Would you accept that, is that something you're -HALBERT: Yeah, Commissioner Halbert. I'd accept that friendly amendment.
JOHNSON: So, we have an amendment and the only thing we're doing with that is we're changing
welcome to allow for to his amendment. Okay.
WARD-PALMERTON: You would need a motion on that.
JOHNSON: On that. Okay. I got a motion on a motion here, so... So, let's deal with this first motion
first. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second on just this, we'll get to yours in a minute, and so is
there any discussion -HARROUN: No. Friendly amendment changes it, the original.
WARD-PALMERTON: Correct. But I didn't hear a motion on your original.
HALBERT: Well, okay. I did. I thought I did. So, Commissioner Halbert. I'll make a motion that we add
to Chapter 14.15.5 that work with the PUD and fire department to develop regulations that welcome
grid scale batteries, period.
JOHNSON: Is there a second?

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 69

BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I second.
JOHNSON: Okay. Is there any discussion on that amendment? All right. We have a motion on the
floor with a second. Jeff, can we get a roll call.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 46 (AMENDMENT), MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Okay. So that passes. So now we're going to want to go back to you, Jack, and you want to
make a friendly amendment or just -HARROUN: We're close enough. We're close enough.
JOHNSON: Okay. All right. So now we are done, am I right, yeah, because that was climate change.
So, we have completed all of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Chapters and Appendices. Right on.
Okay.
So, let's go down now, these are the code changes. So, I'm going to do the same thing and I'm going to
ask you, and I know we've got a couple in here that we try to do things with, but I want to go through
these, are there any from 62 to 91, is there any of those that need discussion? I know we've dealt with
the other ones; we'll revote it to pass it, but for now it's that.
FADNESS: Yeah, I'll say I'd like to pull out obviously 63, 65 and 67.
JOHNSON: So, we're going to pull out 63, 65 and 67. Are there any more?
BARCA: Chair, I have some wording changes that I was looking for on the manufacturing home park,
but I'm concerned that I needed to actually have done that earlier. I don't -- with -- yeah. 40.250.120.
Well, let's roll with it, manufacturing home park overlay.
JOHNSON: So, you want to pull that one out?
BARCA: Yeah.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 70

JOHNSON: So, I'm pulling out 63, 65, 67 and 74. So here we go, we're going to vote on this page
right -- oh, sorry.
HALBERT: 68. You said overlay.
JOHNSON: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just get this right. 63, right, 65, 67, he wants 67. Hold
on. And, Ron, did you want 74 or 68?
HALBERT: 74 is Standards and Requirements.
BARCA: I stand corrected it looks like I want 74.
JOHNSON: That's what I thought you said. So, I have four of these that we're pulling out. Once again,
63, 65, 67 and 74. Correct? Okay.
So, we're going to just go right now and block these out, so we got definitions. I'm going to go 62, 66,
68, 69 and 70. So I'm looking at, and 64, yes, sorry. Thank you. So, 62, 64, 66, 68, 69 and 70, I'd like to
block those together. So, I would take a motion to pass just on this page so I can move to the next
page and see what I'm looking at.
BERGTHOLD: All the way to 90.
JOHNSON: What's that? No. No, I'll go to that page next, I just want to make sure we're looking at
every one of these. Go ahead.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll make a motion that we vote on the numbers that you've listed.
JOHNSON: Thank you. All right. Could we have a second?
BERGTHOLD: Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second.
JOHNSON: Okay. We have a second and we are voting on Definitions, Low Density Residential
Districts, Commercial Districts, Manufactured Home Park Overlay, Ambulance Dispatch Facility and
Co-Living Housing. Is there any discussion?
FADNESS: Yeah, this is Commissioner Fadness. I just want to point out that, Bryan, you said that we
vote on you didn't say approve.
HALBERT: Change my motion to approve the numbers that you've listed, Karl.
JOHNSON: Okay. And a second on that again, please.
BERGTHOLD: Second. Commissioner Bergthold.
JOHNSON: Okay. So, we have the proper motion and the second. Jeff, could we get a roll call on that

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 71

please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NOS. 62, 64, 66, 68, & 70, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Moving to the next page for now, we'll come back to those ones. So now
we're going to do all, we're going to group 71, 72 and 73, Community Buildings, Social Halls, Lodges,
Fraternal Organizations, Clubs, Public and Private Schools, Private Recreational Facilities, we're going to
do Compact Lot Developments.
73 is Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, Permanent Supportive Housing.
75 is Multifamily Residential Amenity Area Standards. 76 is Nursery Schools, Preschools,
Kindergartens, Child Day Care Centers, Family Day Care Centers. 77 is Zero Lot Line Development. 78,
Sign Standards. 79, Landscaping and Screening on Private Property. 80, Parking and Loading
Standards. 81, Street and Road Standards. 82, Uses Subject to Review and Approval. 83, Planned Unit
Development.
And the Appendixes, Definitions, Traffic Impact Fee Formula, Impact Fee Revisions, Impact Fee
Schedule, Collection of Impact Fees, and Impact Fee Credits. So, I'm going basically with the exception
of 74, I'm going from 71 to 91. Is there any discussion on that or a motion?
MONTGOMERY: Commissioner LeDuc Montgomery. I move to approve 71 through 73 and 75 through
91 as stated.
JOHNSON: Awesome. Thank you. Can we get a second, please.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second as stated. Is there any discussion? Okay. Jeff.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NOS. 71-73 & 75-91, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 72

FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: That was quick. Okay. We go through this. Now we're going to go back to the page
before, we're going to come back to 63. We're going to have to -- Minimum and Maximum
Calculations. Kyle, that was your first one; correct?
FADNESS: Yeah, that's correct. I'll just I'll go back to that I believe that the minimum density
requirements are flawed as presented. I think they need to have another look taken at them.
Obviously my motion didn't pass last time so I will let somebody else make a motion.
JOHNSON: Is that the same or is that the same discussion like on 65 too?
FADNESS: That's for 63 and 65, yes. 67 just relates to some of the mixed use.
JOHNSON: All right. We'll pull out Number 67. So, I'd like to start with 63, Minimum and Maximum
Calculations. Is there any discussion, any more discussion or motions? This is to pass not the one we
had before. Anything?
DELAPENA: Chair.
WARD-PALMERTON: Previously just because it looks like Commissioner Barca had a question Item 63
and 65, there was a motion to recommended not passing, so this would be -JOHNSON: This is what I'm saying, yeah, this would be the opposite of that.
WARD-PALMERTON: -- appears to be a question. So, I apologize.
JOHNSON: I'm sorry. No, that's okay because I'm getting loopy, so...
WARD-PALMERTON: So, this would be to vote in the affirmative to pass these.
JOHNSON: So, do we have a motion?
DELAPENA: Chair, we have our housing development, Elizabeth Decker, who has her hand raised.
JOHNSON: Okay. No, wait. We -- have we --

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 73

HARROUN: You shouldn't take testimony.
JOHNSON: No, she's not, she's staff, right, she's staff, yeah. Yeah.
DECKER: Good evening. I just wanted to offer - Elizabeth Decker, JET Planning, consultant for the
County working on these housing code updates and I just wanted to offer one clarification.
Item 63, the Minimum and Maximum Calculations is only about methodology, it is not the actual
minimums and maximums proposed for each of the districts which is included in Item 65.
FADNESS: Thanks, Elizabeth. Part of my reason for including Item 63 is that the family size unit credit
calculation would have been included in that discussing, back to my discussion of as currently written,
the proposed changes they, they lead developers towards having to build studio and one-bedroom
apartments versus getting that, that credit for building two, three and four-bedroom apartments that
would help support families.
DECKER: Absolutely, Commissioner. I just wanted to offer that clarification that despite the name of
Item 63 a lot of what you've been discussing is also in 65, but, thanks.
JOHNSON: Great. Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you. So, did we get a motion, do we have a motion for
approval for Minimum and Maximum Calculations?
HALBERT: Yeah, Commissioner Halbert. I'll make a motion that we approve Item 63.
JOHNSON: We have a motion. Do we have a second to approve Item 63?
BERGTHOLD: Commissioner Bergthold. I'll second that.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? No discussion noted. Can we get
a roll call, Jeff, please.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 63, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: NO
HARROUN: NO
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 4 to 3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 74

JOHNSON: That passes 4 to 3. We go down to 65, the same thing. Commissioner Fadness, I'm
assuming that was the same thing that you're talking about.
FADNESS: That's correct. This is the zoning.
JOHNSON: Okay. Yeah. So Residential and Office Residential Districts. Is there any discussion on that
one? Hearing none, can we get a motion, please.
BARCA: Chair, I'll make a motion to accept Item 65 as presented by staff.
JOHNSON: We have a motion. Could we get a second.
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll second the motion.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing no discussion, Jeff, can
we get a roll call please. Thank you.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 65, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: (NO AUDIO)
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: NO
HOLLEY: Hold on. I cannot -- you need to start over, Jeff. I can't hear Bryan and I can't hear Alicia. You
guys are mute on my end.
JOHNSON: Okay. We're working with microphones. We'll get you straightened out. Can we go
through the roll call again please, Jeff. Thank you.
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
BARCA: NO. What happened to Kyle?
DELAPENA: Sorry.
FADNESS: NO
HARROUN: NO
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 4 to 3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 75

JOHNSON: Passes 4 to 3. Okay. So now 67, we go down to Mixed Use District, that was a different
thing we were talking about; correct?
FADNESS: Yeah, that's correct. And I'm not going to fight with this one, I don't think I'm going to win, I
just don't agree with some of the changes that are made and so I wanted a chance to vote no on it.
JOHNSON: Okay. That's great. Can we get a motion to approve Number 67, Mixed Use District.
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. I'll make a motion to approve Item 67 as written by
staff.
JOHNSON: We have a motion. Can we get a second, please.
BARCA: This is Commissioner Barca. I'll make a second if I can understand what Kyle's concern is.
JOHNSON: Discussion, please. We have a second. We got a second. We have a second. We can do
discussion.
FADNESS: So, some of the changes were removing housing options in the mixed use. I did like that
some of the suggestions that DEAB had provided allowing some detached dwellings with a limit there.
I know that it's probably not the most, it may not be the best use of a mixed development completely,
but to have to include the detached, but I just don't want to get rid of the options of housing and so I'm
just a fan of less restrictive zoning and so overall that's why I just really don't want to vote yes to
restrict where housing can be built.
HARROUN: So, for clarity, is this where they banned homeownership of townhomes, they made them
all apartments, from a lower, is that the, is this the chapter or was it the other?
FADNESS: I believe that was included in 40.220.020, but staff may correct me.
HARROUN: Residential.
JOHNSON: Residential and Office Residential Districts, that's 65.
HARROUN: But then it went corporations and not individuals owning the houses.
JOHNSON: So, we have a motion and a second. Is there any more discussion?
BARCA: Yes, Chair. This is Ron Barca. I do want to ask staff in regard to that, there was the aspect of
townhomes being removed in the MX design standards and the other part of it I was trying to have an
understanding, what's our trigger point when residential is built, can we build residential without any
commercial development in an MX zone?
ALVAREZ: So mixed use currently requires 20 percent. Oh, one way or the other, a minimum of 20
percent, so you could do 80 percent commercial, 20 percent residential or vice-a-versa. The -- one of

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 76

the proposals is to change that to a 90/10 split.
BARCA: 90 percent meaning 90 percent residential?
ALVAREZ: The same either way, it could be -BARCA: Either way.
ALVAREZ: -- 90 percent commercial or 90 percent residential, mostly what we get is majority
residential.
BARCA: So, can you maximize your residential without any of the commercial being built?
ALVAREZ: I don't believe that's a provision that's in the code that's allowed currently or proposed.
BARCA: So just for my understanding then, do they have to be built simultaneously even though you
have this stated?
ALVAREZ: No. We have a couple of the site-specific requests that you approved were mixed use
designations where the residential had been built and the commercial hadn't come online and so the
proposal was to change that from commercial to residential.
Those were some of the site-specific requests that you approved earlier today, they were mixed use,
they were going to residential because the commercial component wasn't built.
BARCA: All right. So, for me to understand about how this fills out, if we end up with land that's
designated MX, somebody comes forward with a proposal to build out the residential side with no
proposal to do the commercial aspect, do we go forward?
ALVAREZ: We have -- we would -- we approve the development with the anticipation that the
commercial would come subsequent, so the residential would be built and then the commercial there's
a, it's platted out and sometimes it doesn't get built or it takes a long time and so, yes, the residential
can happen.
BARCA: Okay. So, it takes a long time is okay, not desirable, but it's okay. Okay. All right. And then
the discussion about taking townhomes out, what was the rationale behind that?
ALVAREZ: To be consistent with what we've done for the R and OR zones to make a more of a focus on
the multi-family.
BARCA: Okay. Thank you.
JOHNSON: Okay. With that said, is there any more discussion on Item Number 67? I'll take a motion.
Do we have a motion? I thought do we have a motion already? I said I just said that do we have a
motion.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 77

WARD-PALMERTON: There is a motion to approve and then it proceeded to discussion.
JOHNSON: Sounds good. So, we have a -- okay. So, we have a motion and a second, we just discussed,
let's vote on it. I'm sorry. I'm getting tired.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 67, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: NO
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 5 to 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: Passes 5 to 2. Okay. We now go to Commissioner Barca, Number 74, Manufactured Home
Parks and Standards. Ron, what do you got?
BARCA: Okay. Commission, there was a couple of items in the wording I wanted to be clarified so I'm
going to bring this to staff. In A.2, it says recreational vehicles are allowed, specifically I believe that
means coaches and then it has no park models, there's no reference of tiny homes, and I'm wondering
why we're making that particular distinction. So, I would like some clarification on that from the
existing manufacturing home park.
JOHNSON: They got wheels, right, or they got axles.
BARCA: Well, so does a park model but park model is not included any longer.
DELAPENA: We have Elizabeth Decker who has her hand raised.
JOHNSON: Elizabeth, go ahead.
DECKER: Yes, good evening. Thank you for the question, Commissioner Barca. And the answer, I'm
sorry, at this hour I cannot quote RCW's, but there is a State law that requires RVs to be permitted in
certain configurations within manufactured home parks and that's why that particular use is permitted.
I have not looked into whether that definition of RVs includes park models or not, that's something I
could continue to look at, but tiny homes don't fit under the RCW definition of RVs in most cases so
that's why they're not included.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 78

BARCA: Okay. So, I think in the context that tiny homes are approved by L&I it feels like they get a
sticker just like any other item on wheels and I would see our ability on existing mobile home parks to
be able to include the aspect of park models and tiny homes meeting the criteria. I have no opposition
to the idea that RVs are included, so that's one item that I'll be putting forward in a motion.
And the other item that I'm wondering about for new manufacturing home parks is why aren't we just
adopting the cottage development requirements in a mobile home park overlay rather than have a
whole different set of criteria?
It feels like cottage development goes up to 1800-square feet and it feels like since it's a new
development we could be handling it with the same criteria and not have to have a whole set of
development regulations that's exclusive to a mobile home park that hasn't been built yet.
Is there anything from staff that you would like to talk about in that supposition on my part?
DELAPENA: Elizabeth, go ahead.
DECKER: Yeah, thanks. Elizabeth Decker, JET Planning. What obviously we want the code to cover as
many eventualities as possible, but for consideration the County has not seen an application for a new
manufactured home park since the '90s, so it just hasn't, you know, standards for new parks are not
necessarily ones that get exercised frequently.
So, if that influences your decisions, that's sort of why we propose to just maintain the existing
standards for new parks rather than spending a lot of time revising those and throwing them out or
aligning with cottage housing or any other standards.
BARCA: All right. Thank you for the clarification. So, this is Commissioner Barca. I'd like to make a
motion to amend the mobile home park regulations for Item A.2 to include park models and tiny
homes that have been approved by L&I, State of Washington.
And then in Item C and D I would just look at the aspect of including cottage development
requirements and not have a separate set of development standards.
JOHNSON: Can I just get a clarification. You started out by saying an amendment, are you putting
forward that acceptance of Number 74 with an amendment?
BARCA: With, yes, an acceptance with the amendment.
JOHNSON: So, we are voting on acceptance of Number 74, Manufactured Home Park Standards, with
amendment the two, the amendments with the two items that Commissioner Barca added. Do I have
a second to that?
HALBERT: Commissioner Halbert. I'll second that motion.
JOHNSON: Great. So, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none,

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 79

Jeff, could we get a vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 74 WITH AMENDMENT, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: NO
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: ABSTAIN
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 4, or I'm sorry, 5 to 1 with 1 abstention.
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS
JOHNSON: 5/1 to 1, okay, so that passes. Okay. So that completes that section. We now go to
Proposed Impact Fees of which we have done all the schools, the fire.
We have one, 101 which is Transportation of Impact Fees - See page 46 in Appendix A. What am I
looking at here, Jose, 46? Can you give me some clarification on that one, 46 in Appendix A. Where's
46? 32. 46 in Appendix A, Transportation Capital Facilities. They're already done. So, every, check me
if I'm wrong on this, 92 through 100 are already approved.
ORJIAKO: Right.
JOHNSON: So, all we have left the last one is 101, it says Transportation Impact Fees - 46 in Appendix
A. So, I go to 46 and look at Appendix A, what is this? I don't -- are we approving traffic impact fees
again or -- oh, there you are. Sorry. Maybe I should look. Okay.
So, for clarification we are talking about the Proposed Base Rates as you see on the table in front of us
for the TIF districts, oh, yeah, I remember this now. Hazel Dell, Mt. Vista, Orchards, Rural and 179th
with the surcharge on there too. I remember this now. Thank you. All right.
So, is there any questions on this? I think staff brought this to us in a work session. They did have it, it
was before and after too somewhere, I remember.
HARROUN: Yeah. Do we have the before and after?
ORJIAKO: Yes.
JOHNSON: Do we have it? Do we have it now or no? Oh, sorry.
ALVAREZ: I'll pull it up.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 80

JOHNSON: I'm on 101, man. We're almost there. I see the end. I see the end of the tunnel. Oh,
thanks, Ron. Do you want to pass it down. It smells like candy. There we go. I guess not. There we
go. Okay. It looks like we have something there, ladies and gentlemen, here. So, these are the ones
before and the proposed now; correct?
ORJIAKO: Yes.
JOHNSON: Red being what it was. Okay. With that said, is there any discussion on 101? Sorry. 101
which is, I keep messing it up, so this is the Appendix A for Traffic Impact Fees. Any discussion?
FADNESS: So, I just wanted to ask I noticed that in the updated fees that they are adjusted for
inflation, has that always been the case?
HUSTING: Do you want me to answer it? For the record my name is Harrison Husting, I'm a
Transportation Planner. So, kind of right now within the code and in the proposed code changes that
you approved earlier there's a process that's spelled out about annual adjustments to inflation, so
these are really the base fees that we would set any inflation adjustments in the future off of.
So in that formula it asks for a base year and this is kind of that the base year which would really be I
think we set it at 2025, so I think if I, I'm sharing, if I go up a little bit more there is a methodology
that's kind of laid out right here, so 17 through 24, and really what we do is we measure that base year,
we measure kind of the base year and the construction cost index and then any changes in that index
we basically adjust the base rate of that index.
FADNESS: Yeah. My question was, and it looks like this is all in yellow, the formula didn't exist before,
so before the rates were just set, what, ten years ago or so and then haven't been updated since, I'm
just asking because the rates are now doubling now, right, and then we're adjusting for inflation so
that's why if they haven't been adjusted and now you're catching up for not, that's my question.
JOHNSON: I think that's what we talked about before (inaudible).
HUSTING: Right. Like the rates, yeah, rates have been frozen since I think 2022 they haven't been
adjusted.
JOHNSON: So, we knew this day was coming up.
HOLLEY: I'm sorry, what was your name one more time?
HUSTING: Sorry, Harrison Husting.
JOHNSON: Okay. Is there any more discussion on Number 101, Transportation Impact Fees - Appendix
A? Hearing none, I would sure entertain a motion and second.
BERGTHOLD: This is Commissioner Bergthold. I will make a motion to approve Number 101,
Transportation Impact Fees, as presented.

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 81

JOHNSON: Can I get a second.
FADNESS: Commissioner Fadness. Second.
JOHNSON: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Green lights on. Okay. No discussion.
Jeff, last time, can we get –
ROLL CALL VOTE – ITEM NO. 101, MOTION TO APPROVE
HALBERT: AYE
BERGTHOLD: AYE
FADNESS: AYE
BARCA: AYE
HARROUN: AYE
MONTGOMERY: AYE
JOHNSON: AYE
DELAPENA: 7/0.
JOHNSON: Motion passes. Ladies and gentlemen we just went through since 2013, right. Is there
anything else, Oliver?
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
ORJIAKO: Yes. This is Oliver. I want to thank the Planning Commission, this is a very tedious work, and
I also want to extend sincere thanks to my staff and all the local jurisdictions we've been working with.
I will also add all the consultants that have been working with us, Elizabeth is here tonight, others, this
is not their issue like environmental and those that worked on the ag study, they're done, so I want to
sincerely thank everyone.
We will take your recommendation to Council on September 16 and you're welcome to attend that
work session or you are welcome to attend their hearing. Their hearing, the Council hearing will start
October 1st which is a Thursday at 4:00 p.m. and then they may continue that to the 2nd which is a
Friday at 10:00 a.m. and then to the 5th if needed. Our goal is to complete the process at least by
October 13th so that we can respond to the Growth Board and find a way to come into compliance.
If the plan is appealed, we'll start dealing with that, but I want to really commend all of you. I may
have busted, you know, temp, you know, temperament or whatever earlier, but I it's my responsibility
to defend my staff because I have worked with them for over 36 years and know what they can do and

Joint Hearing Minutes
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Page 82

I trust them, and if I leave this post, they're very resilience, they can handle any future work.
I would, Jack Harroun, I accept your apology, but publicly I do not want anyone to disparage my staff
and I stand by that. Thank you all.
JOHNSON: Thank you, Jose, special thank you, every time I look over there to where I'm at to our new
counsel, thank you. I love looking over -- okay, it is what it is. This is -- they're messy, we've been, you
know, thank you guys, I know you're working hard, I know it's late, you got kids and family and it's
tough and again thank you to everybody here.
Is there anything else from the Planning Commission that is of relevance?
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOHNSON: So, coming up I'm sure you'll have a schedule for us, Jeff, but don't worry about it now, but
I'm just saying we'll have something, but it won't be this grueling, so... Thank you for staying late. And
if there's no more questions or comments this meeting is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
The record of tonight’s hearing, as well as the supporting documents and presentations can be viewed
on the Clark County Web Page at:
https://clark.wa.gov/community-planning/planning-commission-hearings-and-meeting-notes
Television proceedings can be viewed on CVTV on the following Web Page at:
https://www.cvtv.org/program/clark-county-planning-commission
Minutes Transcribed by:
Cindy Holley, Court Reporter – Holley Court Reporting
Jeffrey Delapena, Program Assistant – Clark County Community Planning