A yearslong project to update Clark County’s master land use planning document is moving along through the first steps of the process, with a public participation plan on track for approval next month.
During a Feb. 22 work session, the Clark County Council heard from county community planning staff about the county’s periodic Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. Originally adopted in 1994, the plan was last updated in 2016. Per state law, another update must happen no later than June 30, 2025.
The comprehensive plan is a long-range guide to land use policy with a 20-year timeframe, community planning director Oliver Orjiako told the council. The periodic updates incorporate changes in state law and actual land use, as well as changes to population, employment and housing projections since the last update was made.
Public participation
One of the first efforts for the update is approving a public participation plan intended to get feedback on potential changes. Chief goals for that plan are to have accessible, inclusive and meaningful participation, as well as transparency and accountability, county community planner Jacqui Kamp said at the council workshop.
Inclusive participation would include community members historically left out of the planning process. Kamp gave examples of renters, people with disabilities, immigrants and people of color.
She said meaningful participation means providing enough information about the project so the public is knowledgeable on the county’s processes and regulations.
Part of the plan includes a preliminary timeline, divided into four phases, Kamp said. Through 2023, staff will establish a scope of work, look at state law and planning requirements. The county will also coordinate with municipalities, tribes and public agencies on population, housing and employment projections.
Subsequent phases will involve collecting individual property owner’s proposals for plan amendments, conducting an environmental review and proposed changes, a review by the Washington State Department of Commerce, and final looks by the Clark County Planning Commission and the county council before adoption.
For the public participation plan, county staff will review comments collected about the draft plan ahead of a March 21 hearing where the council will approve it, Kamp said.
Having public participation highlighted an issue councilor Gary Medvigy identified with the county’s procedures.
“One of the real big challenges we have is communication with the public,” Medvigy said.
He pointed specifically to individual property owners who might not know how to navigate land use processes.
Among other efforts for better communication with the public, Orjiako mentioned a potential code change for the automatic notification about potential land use changes to more than a few hundred feet from a property, which is currently the case.
“If the council wants to change that, that will be your call,” Orjiako said.
Councilor Sue Marshall noted the effects of the comprehensive plan are wide-ranging, even for residents who are not interested in development themselves.
“Whether or not they have a sidewalk, whether there’s a nearby grocery store, the condition of the roads, there’s just a lot of day-to-day (aspects),” Marshall said.
Marshall also suggested bringing in a mediator, as oftentimes parties with different interests dig their heels in as they argue for changes they would like to see.
“With land use, it’s all about conflict, and if we can break out of some of that conflict, that would be a wonderful thing to do,” Marshall said.
Council chair Karen Bowerman noted juggling different interests is one of the harder things councilors must do.
“One of the things as a councilor that I find really very challenging is in reading input from the public (and) integrating it effectively when it is from so many points of view … that really don’t agree with each other,” Bowerman said.
“We just hope that the public is understanding why it doesn’t mean that every input will be incorporated ultimately,” Bowerman added later. “Unfortunately, perhaps, but that’s the way it has to be.”
Council anticipations
Outside of public participation, the council talked about the plan update itself. Medvigy asked if the plan could be “nimble” to adjust to realities on the ground.
“We’ve had commercial zoning in place and never attracted any commercial activity,” Medvigy said.
Orjiako said the council needs to have “patience” with the plan, noting it is based on a 20-year outlook.
“Where we see the need for a change, we will come before you and support that change,” Orjiako said.
He added development is reliant on the needed infrastructure to be in place, which takes time.
Marshall said looking at a land use map is “disheartening” because of the loss of agricultural land in the county. She said it would be valuable for the public to be aware of why that land use has diminished.
As the operator of a fourth-generation farm, “it becomes an existential question” in the comprehensive plan update on what tools would be put in place if agriculture is to remain viable in the county, Marshall said.
Orjiako said the conversation around agriculture would be an important part of the update process.
“You listen to some folks, they will tell you that (agriculture) is no longer viable. You listen to those that are farming, they will tell you that it is. All they need is the county support,” Orjiako said.
Councilor Glen Yung reflected on the gravity of the plan update.
“I feel like this probably is likely the single-most important thing that all of us will be doing in the next four years,” Yung said. “We get one shot at this and we need to do our very best so that we get this right.”
