Nearly four months after the Clark County council moved its Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update along for environmental review, the draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the plan was released Wednesday.
The 164-page environmental impact statement on land-use planning doesn’t make for light reading, but the subject matter is among the most important things county government does. The update and its four proposed alternatives will guide 20 years of land-use policy — including where homes, jobs and other resources will go — as Clark County’s population continues to grow.
“You’ve got to show how big you’re going to grow,” deputy community planner Gordy Euler said.
The results of the draft impact statement echo what planners have been saying for months. The potential of more lots in rural areas of Clark County — proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4 — than allowed by current zoning may mean that additional road improvements, emergency services and school bus routes would be needed, Euler said.
The proposals
The county is considering four alternatives to its Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update, all of which have the potential to increase the number of available lots:
o Alternative 1, which would make no changes to current zoning, has the potential to create 7,073 lots in unincorporated Clark County.
o Alternative 2 would correct zoning inconsistencies throughout the county and reduce minimum lot sizes for properties zoned for forest and agriculture. Alternative 2 has the potential to create 8,220 new lots.
o Alternative 3 expands the urban growth boundaries of the cities of Battle Ground, La Center, Ridgefield and Washougal. It has the potential to create 7,043 new lots.
o Alternative 4 would reduce minimum lot sizes for properties zoned rural, forest and agriculture. Alternative 4 has the potential to create 12,401 new lots.
This year’s comprehensive plan update has been mired in controversy since the Clark County council requested — and Councilor David Madore developed — the fourth growth alternative. Proponents of the plan say it will give rural landowners more freedom to subdivide and profit from their land. Opponents say it runs the risk reducing land available for jobs, farms and habitat.
The draft impact statement, however, does not classify alternatives as being good or bad, nor does it specify the costs associated with each alternative. The county council will select a preferred alternative, which could use any combination of components from some or all of the four proposals, and the Community Planning Department will determine the cost, Euler said.
Environmental impacts
It should come as no surprise that Alternative 4, based on the number of lot sizes, has the greatest environmental impact, particularly in the areas of transportation, emergency services and school bus routes.
“With the potential to create over 12,000 new lots over the majority of the county, it could significantly change transportation facilities and services in the rural county areas,” according to the draft impact statement, prepared by Seattle-based Environmental Science Associates. “This amount of development would create a need for expanded transportation facilities in all areas of the county.”
It’s a logical progression, Euler said. If more people live in rural areas, they’ll need more ways to get into urban centers for services. School buses will need to drive farther to reach students. Sheriff’s deputies and firefighters will need to drive more to reach emergencies.
“For us (the cost is) going to be primarily roads,” Euler said.
Most of that new development would require road improvements and additional bus routes, according to the draft impact statement. Clark County and C-Tran have not budgeted for such improvements yet.
In addition, most of the unincorporated areas targeted by Alternative 4 are not served by public utilities and services.
“The infrastructure needed, such as power lines, schools and other support services would also change the character of rural Clark County,” according to the report.
Those changes won’t happen quickly, according to the draft impact statement, but the cost to improve roads and C-Tran bus lines could be prohibitive.
Alternative 2 poses the same risks to a lesser extent, while Alternatives 1 and 3 pose a low risk for impacts to infrastructure and services, according to the report.
Next steps
To read and comment on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement, visit clark.wa.gov/planning. Comments can be submitted online or emailed to comp.plan@clark.wa.gov.
Comments also can be mailed to Clark County Community Planning, Attn: 2016 Comp Plan Record, P.O. Box 9810, Vancouver, WA 98666-9810.
There will be two joint public hearings between the Clark County councilors and the Clark County Planning Commission on the draft impact statement at 6 p.m. Sept. 1 and 6 p.m. Sept. 3 at the Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin St., in downtown Vancouver.
The Planning Commission will make its recommendations on a preferred alternative at its regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 17. A Clark County council board hearing has tentatively been scheduled for 10 a.m. Oct. 20. After that hearing, a final supplemental environmental impact statement will be prepared on the preferred alternative.
