Clark County Comprehensive Plan Update: The Latest Developments
Background
In our last update, the Clark County Council had adopted the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) alternatives for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Alternatives are options for the Comp Plan that the cities and county put forward to be studied for environmental impacts in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which requires that governments consider the environmental consequences of their actions.
The previous Council had voted to include review of ALL site specific requests (SSRs), including more than 20 surface mining overlay (SMO) requests over 3,000 acres of forest land from an out-of-state corporation that owns the mineral rights (but not the land), as well as a full, countywide resource lands study that could allow for the de-designation of forest and agricultural lands.
Turnaround in March
In March, County staff presented about the legal risks associated with the direction Council had given them on the scope of work for the DEIS regarding the hasty resource lands study and the site specific requests (SSRs).
During the discussion, Manager Kathleen Otto shared that, “Doing this intensive work [resource lands study] in a short amount of time does give me pause in opening us up to being [legally] challenged.”
Based on this information, the Clark County Council decided to:
- Not to pursue any SMOs in the Comp Plan. These can still be submitted individually per the normal process, where the requester pays for the work to process. Note that given the decision on the Chelatchie SMO, these requests will likely require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to be done at the time of the SMO request.
- Backed away from doing the resource lands study. This would have meant that all SSRs that would de-designate agricultural or forest lands would not be evaluated for inclusion in the Comp Plan. It was not possible that a quality study could be done in the time available, so this was the wise decision to make. They agreed to pursue the resource lands study after the Comp Plan is complete.
The Amended Resolution
Although the Council had given unanimous direction in March, direction from Council must always be translated into a resolution and a vote. We knew that private industry interests would be working around the clock to turn up the pressure on the County to change course and act against its own interests until the Amended Resolution to the Comp Plan DEIS came back—and we were right, the developers didn’t give up.
The developers, the landowners, and the cities of Ridgefield and La Center pushed HARD on the Council to do the resource lands study, which is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) in order to de-designate agricultural land and open it up for annexation and development. (Note that there is no guarantee that a study would result in de-designation, staff made it clear that the short time frame could not accommodate the requirements of such a study, and one can probably assume that de-designation, especially using such a hastily-done study, would result in a lawsuit).
To avoid the risks of a hasty resource lands study and missing the Comp Plan deadline, at the April 9th Clark County Council meeting 3 Councilors voted to ask the state legislature for an extension of the Comp Plan deadline (from 12/2025 to 12/2026) so that a proper study could be completed. They had wanted to tack this onto SB 5558, but that got passed before they could get to it, so they are now trying to get it into the budget. Typically, policy changes aren’t included in budget bills so it is unlikely, but not impossible, that it will be added.
With the prospects of an extension looking bleak, at the April 15th County Council meeting the same 3 (Yung, Little, and Belkot) voted to modify the Amended Resolution to do a limited study of agriculture only (no mining, forest, etc.), and put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to complete it by September. Furthermore, despite repeated corrections on the facts from staff about the grave implications of not meeting the Comp Plan deadline and coming (once again) out of compliance with state law (which would render ALL of the cities also out of compliance) 2 Councilors in particular openly indicated their willingness to thwart the Comp Plan deadline, risk grants and low-cost loans from the state to the county and all of its cities, and sacrifice ag land to serve just 2 cities, a handful of landowners, and developers. It is worth noting that the VBLM (Vacant Buildable Lands Model) that was approved by the Council and not contested by the cities shows clearly that the projected population growth can be accommodated by the existing boundaries, so this expansion is not needed. It is also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the multitude of public comments that came in were in support of the Councilors sticking with their original track.
However, if there is one piece of silver lining, it is that the Council officially voted to keep SSRs for mining out of the Comp Plan DEIS, taking 3,000 acres of forest land off of the chopping block for this update, although we will need to continue to look out for mining that gets proposed through the normal process.
Given the scope changes, the previously reviewed project calendar will likely need to be adjusted (link here).
What’s Next and Our Position
Meanwhile, the cities are hard at work on their pieces of the Comp Plan. The decision to complete a limited resource lands study will impact those that had included ag lands in their proposed urban growth boundaries (UGBs) – Ridgefield and La Center, as they won’t know if they can include those areas until that study is complete and the County Council has made a decision (and whatever litigation ensues is wrapped up). FOCC agrees with staff direction and believes the data supports little or no UGA growth, as the population and jobs growth can be accomplished within current boundaries. If you are within, or very near, any of the cities then you can find their Comp Plan activities on the various city web pages.
FOCC fully supports a comprehensive analysis of Clark County resource lands (agriculture, forest and mineral lands) as a critical piece of a successful land-use plan. However, this limited study in an impossible time frame that the Council is pursuing is not sound planning. Going forward for the sole purpose of allowing La Center and Ridgefield to annex farmland is a reckless waste of taxpayer money, and puts the entire Comprehensive Plan in jeopardy. It is also an insult to those cities who are following the law in their planning, but who nonetheless will be negatively impacted by the County’s poor decisions.