Clark County residents, city officials, agricultural advocates and development representatives offered competing visions for the county’s future during a public hearing spanning two separate meetings on Thursday, Oct. 1, and Friday, Oct. 2, on the county’s long-awaited comprehensive plan update.
At the center of the hearing was a fundamental question: How should Clark County accommodate projected growth while protecting agricultural land, addressing housing affordability and limiting the costs and environmental effects of development?
Much of the testimony focused on whether the county needs to expand its urban growth areas at all.
Opponents argued the county has enough developable land within existing urban areas and should instead pursue greater housing density, stronger affordable-housing requirements and additional protections for agricultural land.
Supporters of the proposed expansions said additional land is needed for housing, employment and economic development, particularly in areas where infrastructure already exists or where properties have become surrounded by urban development.
Representatives from Battle Ground, Ridgefield and La Center urged the Clark County Council to support their requested urban growth area expansions.
Sam Crummett, planning supervisor for Battle Ground, said the city’s primary request involves about 450 acres near Dollars Corner intended primarily for employment uses, with commercial zoning along state Route 503.
Battle Ground’s proposal followed years of planning and efforts to determine whether the city could accommodate growth within its existing boundaries.
“A key data point was we had only 80 acres of vacant industrial land to develop, falling way short of where we need to accommodate our mandate from the state for jobs,” Crummett said.
Ridgefield City Manager Steve Stewart said the city has already worked to increase development capacity within its existing boundaries but will still need targeted expansion to meet housing and employment requirements.
“That vision starts with maintaining the integrity of our existing neighborhoods, while focusing density in areas that can support it, areas that have the infrastructure, the services and the amenities,” Stewart said.
La Center City Planner Angie Merrill also supported expansion around the Interstate 5 interchange and casino area, where she said transportation and infrastructure could support future commercial and industrial development.
“This is more than adding land. It's about creating family wage jobs, building a strong local economy so our residents have the opportunity to work in their own community,” Merrill said.
Merrill said La Center also supports creating a countywide transfer of development rights program, which could allow development rights from agricultural properties to be transferred to areas more suitable for growth.
That proposal emerged as one potential middle ground in the broader debate.
Farmland at center of debate
Agricultural preservation was one of the strongest themes among opponents of urban growth area expansion.
Isaiah Irish, speaking on behalf of the Clark County Agricultural Advisory Commission, said the commission unanimously voted Sept. 23 to recommend that the council not designate any agricultural land for development during the comprehensive plan update.
Irish cited U.S. Department of Agriculture data showing the county experienced a 38% reduction in total farmland from 2017 to 2022.
“The Agricultural Advisory Commission believes that protecting agricultural land during this comprehensive plan update is a fiscally responsible choice, providing a perpetual economic return and contributing to long term food security,” Irish said.
The commission also recommended an agricultural 40-acre designation, additional programs to preserve farmland and efforts to make farmland more affordable for agricultural use.
Anne Shaw similarly argued the county has enough buildable land and should not expand urban growth areas at the expense of agricultural lands.
“There are surpluses of buildable land. Expanding urban growth areas is not necessary,” Shaw said.
Janet Hedgepath questioned whether the proposed growth strategy would produce the affordable housing promised by supporters while creating additional costs for taxpayers.
“However you want to spin it, the reality is that if you continue to insist upon this alternative, the county will be sued,” Hedgepath said. “We will lose state grants, and I and other taxpayers here will foot the bill money that should go to take care of failing roads and stormwater systems, and making the county more resilient for the future will go to trying to defend a poor, probably illegal decision.”
Some testimony also focused on individual properties proposed for inclusion in urban growth areas.
Jim Maul, who said he and his brother own property proposed for inclusion in the Ridgefield urban growth area, argued the land should not be considered a conventional expansion.
“Our property is now an island. It's a donut hole surrounded by the city and urban development,” Maul said.
Housing affordability
Affordable housing was another major concern raised during the hearing.
Donna Sinclair asked the council to include measurable affordable-housing goals in the comprehensive plan and track whether those goals are being met.
“I'm here to talk about affordable housing, which we all know is one of the most pressing challenges that we have here in Clark County,” Sinclair said. “We have to be serious about addressing the shortage.”
Sinclair urged the county to establish clear goals, measure progress and adjust strategies when the data show the county is not meeting its targets.
Vancouver City Councilor Erik Paulsen offered a different approach to the housing question, arguing the county should make greater use of land already inside existing urban growth areas.
Paulsen said county materials show enough buildable land to accommodate the selected growth forecasts, but much of that land is zoned for lower-density residential development.
He urged the county not to significantly reduce proposed minimum housing densities before the new plan has had an opportunity to work.
Paulsen also asked the county to consider additional commercial and employment zoning in portions of the Vancouver urban growth area.
Calls for denser development
Several residents argued the county should build “in” rather than “out.”
Matthew Barnett, a Vancouver resident who previously lived in Los Angeles, said he was concerned Clark County could repeat the urban-planning mistakes he associates with that region.
“I see the current comprehensive plan from the county kind of moving in that direction. And that worries me a lot,” Barnett said.
Barnett asked the county to limit urban growth boundary expansion, increase density within existing urban areas and apply Vancouver’s environmental standards throughout the county.
Brandi Cole, speaking on behalf of a coalition of 61 individuals and 17 organizations, also urged the county to pursue greater density while limiting expansion.
“Our coalition strongly urges you to adopt greenhouse gas emission reduction targets aligned with the City of Vancouver's targets,” Cole said, “and to do a draft supplemental EIS that creates a viable alternative through appropriate upzoning that limits urban growth, boundary expansion and protects agricultural resource lands.”
The coalition included environmental, agricultural, equity and community organizations.
Development interests push back
Development representatives offered a different assessment of the county’s land supply and the role of density.
Eric Golemo, speaking on behalf of the Development Engineering Advisory Board, said the county needs a balanced approach that accommodates growth while protecting the community’s quality of life.
“DBH supports increasing housing capacity and density where appropriate, but density cannot be the only tool the plan relies heavily on,” Golemo said.
The board supported realistic density assumptions, targeted urban growth area expansions and maintaining a range of housing types, including owner-occupied housing.
Phil Wuest of Ginn Group also supported the preferred alternative and the cities’ requested expansions.
Wuest questioned the county’s vacant buildable lands analysis and argued the plan relies too heavily on the assumption that increased housing density will automatically result in affordable housing.
“There are some pretty heroic assumptions within the plan about how high density housing equates to affordable housing,” Wuest said.
The competing testimony reflected the broader challenge facing the council as it prepares to finalize the comprehensive plan.
The hearing also brought attention to the financial consequences of growth, including infrastructure and transportation costs.
