Development community disappointed with delay and urban holding, looks forward to ‘appeal-proof’ growth management plan
If all had gone according to plan, the end of 2006 would have brought the completion of a countywide growth management plan update. But the Clark County Board of Commissioners has pushed its final adoption to spring pending the completion of several key components.
The update could add more than 19 square miles to urban growth boundaries to prepare for an estimated population increase from about 400,000 to 584,300 in 2024.
The delay has not come as a surprise to local builders or others who have a stake in the game, but most said they would rather have the process done right rather than having it done right now.
Involving the Planning Commission
Before adoption can take place, the commissioners must approve a final environmental impact statement, which is not yet complete, and six- and 20-year capital facilities plans. Part of that work includes reviewing the alternatives laid out in a draft environmental impact statement, released last summer, said Community Planning Director Marty Snell.
He added that the Clark County Planning Commission hasn’t been involved much in the process, and that’s not the way it should be. The planning commission needs to review the preferred alternative map as well as the major policies that are affected by the map.
In addition, the BOCC must determine what policies it would like to review.
And it all needs to be done in enough time for public comment, Snell said.
"We’ve done a lot of public outreach on the preferred alternative map but not the capital facilities plan or policies that would be changing," he said. "We have to have the EIS, capital facilities plan and public involvement. If we don’t have it, we’re at risk of appeal."
Hold up for builders
For developers and builders, delays like these mean even longer wait times and more money to break ground on projects in high-demand areas.
Ron Lauser, owner of Vancouver-based Wedgewood Homes Inc., said the current commissioners are walking a tight line, likely undoing what past county commissioners have done wrong.
"When you take the state of the economy into consideration, (outside of) property owners out there anxious to get transactions made, it’s probably better to do it right than the way it was done in the past," he said. "The commissioners know what they’re doing. They probably would have liked to have had it done six months ago, too."
Snell said had the county been able to use the environmental impact statement work that was used for the 2004 plan, the process would have gone more quickly. But because the commission is using a different growth rate this time around, the EIS work had to be completely redone.
The county’s decision affects the amount of land available for developers to build on. "Because the land-development process is so lengthy, we have to try and secure inventory many years in advance," said Matt Lewis, acquisition and forward planning manager at Vancouver-based Pacific Lifestyle Homes. "We want to stay in Clark County, and as we’re looking for developable land, some of it is in the expanded urban growth boundaries. Being in this state of limbo makes business planning difficult."
And, he pointed out, the lack of decision especially affects area property owners.
"While we’re trying to do business planning, they’re trying to do life planning," Lewis said. "Many of the offers to purchase are based on UGB events, and it can jeopardize sales."
Developers and landowners may be leery of having set expectations about what will be included in urban boundaries because of the last go-around the county had with the growth plan, said Terry Wollam, a Re/Max Equity Group real estate agent and chairman of government affairs for the Clark County Association of Realtors.
At the last minute with the 2004 decision, several square miles were severed from urban expansion areas.
"We were told the 2006 urban growth boundary expansion was going to happen quickly, and it didn’t," Wollam said. "So until something is adopted in, there are no expectations. If you have expectations, you’re going to be disappointed."
Wollam said the greater issue is the land that was brought into the 2004 urban growth boundaries that remains locked in urban holding.
Avoiding litigation
James Howsley, a land use attorney with Miller Nash, said making sure the process is done correctly at this point is crucial.
"While we recognize there was a commitment made to finalize the plan, having been involved, we recognize it’s better to make sure the county has completed the necessary steps before moving forward," he said. "For our clients, it’s essential to make sure that if there are appeals, the county has done the required analysis and can demonstrate their preferred alternative is supportable."
"It’s disappointing but not unexpected," said Lewis, of the delay. "I’d rather see the commission take its time and do it correctly, being mindful of potential legal challenges and adopting a plan that’s appeal-proof rather than hurriedly adopt one that could end up in court for years."
This comprehensive growth plan review came on the heels of the controversial 2004 growth plan that several business leaders, environmental groups and property owners felt inadequately accounted for population increases and the level of facilities available.
"I wish the county would have been aware of how long it was going to take earlier, but I’d rather have a six-month delay now than one that lasts three years," he said.
Lewis acknowledged that whatever the outcome, the county’s decision will likely be appealed.
But if the county does its job correctly, the difference will be between a frivolous lawsuit wrapped up in six months and a more substantive one that could be challenged up to the state Supreme Court.
Howsley added the commissioners have done an extraordinary job despite the minor delay.
"We’re going to come to the aid of the county in any lawsuit, so we’d rather them have it right," he said. "They’re doing an excellent job, faced with almost unrealistic deadlines, but they’re keeping things moving forward."
What is urban holding?
Urban holding is a zoning tool applied to land within urban growth areas to assure development does not take place there until there are adequate services for the area, such as water, sewer, schools, roads and drainage.
By annexation or the Board of Commissioners. The commissioners must approve documentation that demonstrates the ability to provide urban services to the area using existing providers or through private investment in infrastructure and services.
It was introduced in Clark County in 1994, applied on a limited area basis in specific areas where a single and specific urban service did not exist.
In 2004, former commissioners expanded urban growth areas within the county again, and applied urban holding to all of the expansion areas to allow urban development to be phased in. Much of the urban holding for the county’s smaller cities has been lifted through annexation, but remains in Vancouver and some areas of Battle Ground.
