To those who sat through Tuesday’s six-hour Clark County council meeting, the outcome may have seemed written before it began. The Clark County council approved sweeping changes to the framework of its 20-year growth plan and adopted zoning policies that included the reduction of rural parcel sizes.
Councilors David Madore and Tom Mielke voted in favor of new planning assumptions for the Clark County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update that will consider fewer lots buildable than under previously adopted planning policies.
Both Republicans also voted in favor of a preferred alternative that included all of Alternative 4, which shrinks the minimum allowed parcel size of some rural, forest and agriculture lots across Clark County. Councilor Jeanne Stewart, also a Republican, voted against both proposals.
Both components of the growth plan were authored by Madore, who for the last nine months has taken the county’s 2016 update into his own hands on behalf of rural residents who claim their property rights were stolen from them with the adoption of the county’s first growth plan in 1994.
In recent weeks, Madore developed the new planning assumptions and his own version of the preferred alternative. That version of the preferred alternative was posted on the council website, The Grid, on Monday afternoon.
“So much of what has been offered has been offered by one councilor and offered within the last two or three weeks,” Stewart said. “That is an issue because that does not represent collaborative working with the planning commission, other councilors and the planning staff. We need more time to work this out.”
The decision disregarded the recommendations made twice by the Clark County Planning Commission, which most recently voted not to support Alternative 4 or the new assumptions Thursday.
When asked what is next for the plan update, Community Planning Deputy Director Gordy Euler said simply, “I don’t have a clue.”
Public comment
Tuesday’s lengthy public comment period followed a similar formula to those before it, as dozens of familiar names and faces voiced their support for or concerns over Madore’s Alternative 4.
Susan Rasmussen and Carol Levanen, president and executive secretary, respectively, of rural landowners’ group Clark County Citizens United, spoke as they have dozens of times before in favor of Alternative 4.
Rasmussen criticized the draft environmental report prepared by Seattle-based Environmental Science Associates, saying it does not reflect the realities of existing development. The report said Alternative 4 could have the greatest environmental impacts of any of the proposed zoning plans.
“The real story here is the apparent fact that the draft (environmental report) has incomplete information that degrades and disregards rural concerns,” Rasmussen said.
Jim Malinowski, also a frequent and vocal supporter of Alternative 4, disputed claims that Alternative 4 might violate the Growth Management Act by creating sprawl, and said, “I strongly believe that the vast majority of rural citizens” support the zoning plan.
“Honor the letter and intent of the (Growth Management Act),” Malinowski urged the council.
City officials, meanwhile, were among those critical of Alternative 4.
“The City of Vancouver urges the county to stop ignoring the findings of its own studies,” Vancouver Planning Manager Sandra Town said.
Clark County Planning Commissioner Ron Barca also testified, encouraging the county to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendations. To do otherwise could risk going to and possibly failing in court if the growth plan update is challenged.
“If a business was to radically change their business model, they would run a risk assessment,” Barca said. “That’s what the Planning Commission did for you.”
But in the end, the county council chose a plan that mirrored the one posted on the county website Monday afternoon: A preferred alternative that clarifies details on the county map, incorporates requests made by the cities of Washougal, Ridgefield, La Center and Battle Ground, and includes all of Madore’s Alternative 4.
Next steps
The council — also by a vote of 2 to 1 with Stewart dissenting — approved a slew of new policies dictating the growth plan process moving forward.
They include granting the council the authority to select an alternative consultant if ESA is unable to produce the final supplemental environmental report within the budget and time constraints; requiring that all materials supplied for the environmental report be “wholly consistent” and “fully supportive” of the board’s policies; and prohibiting documents not published by the county council or county staff from being posted as reports on the growth plan on the county website.
The council will further discuss its deadline for adopting the final environmental impact statement at its 6 p.m. meeting on Tuesday. The council also is slated to adopt its supplemental 2016 budget at that meeting.
Planning staff have previously suggested that adopting new planning assumptions and an updated Alternative 4 could trigger a new draft environmental impact statement.
In addition to approving its final environmental report, the county also must develop and approve a capital facilities plan outlining how the county will pay for its proposed growth.
The final plan must be completed and accepted by the state Department of Commerce by June 30. County planning staff have said the county’s work must be completed sometime in April in order to meet that deadline.
