Options and impacts (Alternatives)

The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was released on Wednesday, April 27, 2016.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

By chapter:

 

Project Summary

The Board of County Councilors held a public hearing on Feb. 23 and developed a new preferred alternative for the next growth management plan. Elements of the preferred alternative are indicated in the document and map below. 

 

Maps Online

The Preferred Alternative comprehensive and zoning maps can be viewed by accessing Maps Online. Maps Online allows users to look up specific properties and see the Preferred Alternative comprehensive plan designation and zoning for that property. Directions on how to access the zoning map and look up a property via Maps Online is detailed below.

Maps Online: Steps to look up a property and its Preferred Alternative zoning:

  1. Click on Maps Online
  2. At the top of the page in the orange banner, click 'Find Parcel'.
  3. Enter property information. Map will zoom to selected property.
  4. On left side of screen, click on 'Layers'.
  5. Click on the 'i' (turns black) next to 'Proposed Preferred-Zoning'.
  6. Click on the selected property (blue outline) on the map.
  7. Proposed zoning information will display on the left side.

 

The county will continue working on completing the environmental review process to move the comprehensive plan update project forward. The below graphic illustrates the remaining major milestones.

​​​The following is a list of recent actions:

  • On Sept. 17, 2015, the Planning Commission voted on a preferred alternative to forward to the BOCC for their Oct. 20, 2015 hearing.
  • On Oct. 20, 2015, the BOCC elected to continue that hearing and expand the scope to include revisions to the planning assumptions, VBLM methodology, population projections, urban/rural split ratio, corrections to the SEIS, revised maps, documents to be included or excluded from the comprehensive plan, and the definition of a preferred alternative.
  • On Nov. 9, 2015 at a joint BOCC/Planning Commission work session, Alternative 4 was revised by the Board. It is posted online at www.clark.wa.gov/thegrid/.
  • On Nov. 16 and Nov. 17, 2015, public meetings were held at Hockinson and Ridgefield High Schools to present the revised Alternative 4 and proposed new planning assumptions to the public for review and comment.
  • On Nov. 19, 2015, the Planning Commission voted to forward their same Sept. 17 recommendation on a preferred alternative to the BOCC.
  • On Nov. 24, 2015, the BOCC voted on a Preferred Alternative
  • On Dec. 1, 2015, the BOCC voted to approve a professional services contract with a consultant to discuss a path forward
  • On Jan. 13, 2016, the BOCC held a work session on the 2016 update to brief the new councilors and review the Thorpe report
  • On Feb. 16, 2016, the BOCC held a hearing to reconsider the Nov. 24 Preferred Alternative. Public testimony closed and the hearing was continued to Feb. 23, 2016 for deliberations.
  • On Feb. 23, 2016, the BOCC developed and voted on a new Preferred Alternative.
Meeting and hearing information

Feb. 23, 2016 BOCC Hearing: Preferred Alternative (continued from Feb. 16)

Feb. 16, 2016 BOCC Hearing: Preferred Alternative

 

Dec. 1, 2015 BOCC Hearing

Nov. 24, 2015 BOCC Hearing

Nov. 19, 2015 Planning Commission Hearing

Nov. 16 - Nov. 17, 2015 Public meetings at Hockinson High School and Ridgefield High School on revised Alternative 4 and planning assumptions:

Nov. 9 Joint BOCC/PC Work Session:

Oct. 20, 2015 BOCC hearing documents and maps:

Maps

 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Download the DSEIS

Ways to comment on the DSEIS:

The Planning Commission will make its recommendations on a preferred alternative at a 6:30 p.m. public hearing on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2015. A board hearing on the preferred alternative has been tentatively scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015. After the hearing, a final SEIS (FSEIS) will be prepared on the preferred alternative.

The DSEIS was prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and discusses the potential environmental impacts under each proposed growth alternatives. The DSEIS supplements information presented in the final environmental impact statement (2007 FEIS) prepared for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan update. About 12,000 acres (19 square miles) were added to urban growth areas in 2007. Most of that land has remained undeveloped because of the economic downturn that hit in 2008. The 2007 FEIS can be accessed by the link below.

Alternatives studied in the 2016 DSEIS:

Alternative 1: No action. Alternative 1: No action. The county would adopt the map as it is with no new changes. (Same information that was presented at the October 2014 Open Houses.)

Alternative 2: Rural and Urban Changes. The new planning assumptions, policy direction, changes in land use/zoning and principles and values defined by the councilors were used in this alternative. The option supports job and population growth, acknowledges development trends, updates zoning and makes changes to some comprehensive plan designations. (Same information that was presented at the October 2014 Open Houses.)

Alternative 3.1: Battle Ground, La Center, Ridgefield, and Washougal. The cities of Battle Ground, La Center, Ridgefield and Washougal are considering expanding their urban growth areas to support job and residential growth.

Alternative 4: Rural and Resource lands changes.

Please check out Maps Online to view properties via interactive maps for each Alternative.

Clark County Maps Online

 

MARCH 25 and APRIL 1 OPEN HOUSES
FOUR ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW

Two open houses were held to present the four alternatives for the Environmental Review process.

Open house materials:

Alternative 1: No action. The county adopts the map as it is with no new changes. (Same information as was presented at the October 2014 Open Houses)

Alternative 2: Rural and Urban Changes. The new planning assumptions, policy direction, changes in land use/zoning, and principles and values defined by the commissioners were used in this alternative. This option supports job and population growth, acknowledges development trends, updates zoning and makes changes to some comprehensive plan designations. (Same information as was presented at the October 2014 Open Houses)

Alternative 3.1 (updated): Battle Ground, La Center, Ridgefield, and Washougal. The cities of Battle Ground, La Center, Ridgefield and Washougal are considering expanding their urban growth areas to support job and residential growth. (Please note that this alternative has changed since the October 2014 open houses. To view the original Alternative 3, scroll down to the information under "October 2014".)

Alternative 4: Rural and Resource lands changes.

Additional Information:

January-March 2015
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES

The Board of County Councilors (Board) held a work session on January 21, 2015, the purpose of which was an update on the progress of the comprehensive plan and the SEPA process. The Board expressed interest in developing a fourth alternative for the SEPA process, and directed that work on the draft SEIS stop until the alternative is developed.

The Board discussed a fourth alternative (Rural options) at a work session on February 18. On March 11, the Board again discussed Alternative 4 and an updated Alternative 3 (Alternative 3.1). Alternative 3.1 reflects additional requests from the cities of La Center, Ridgefield and Washougal for urban growth area expansions.

Below is the information presented at the two work sessions (February 18 and March 11).

Information on the 3 Alternatives that were presented to the public in October can be found below under "October 2014".

October 2014
THREE ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW

Three alternatives represent the range of options currently being considered for the distribution of population, employment and development in the County over the next 20 years (2015-2035). The impacts of these alternatives will be studied and compared during the environmental review process required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

Alternative 1: No action. The county adopts the map as it is with no new changes.

Alternative 2: Rural and Urban Changes. The new planning assumptions, policy direction, changes in land use/zoning, and principles and values defined by the commissioners were used in this alternative. This option supports job and population growth, acknowledges development trends and cleans up map inconsistencies.

Alternative 3: Battle Ground and La Center. The cities of Battle Ground and La Center are considering expanding their urban growth areas to support job growth.

Open House materials: Information on Alternatives

Additional information:

August 2014
Environmental Impact Statement ~ Scoping Open Houses

Clark County received input on the possible scope of the supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS). The scope is the range and types of issues to be studied for the EIS. The comment period for the scoping process ran from July 30-September 1, 2014. However, comments on the comprehensive plan in general can be submitted up until the plan is adopted in June 2016.

Four open houses were held to provide the public with opportunities to comment on the scope of the three suggested land use and growth alternatives to study under SEPA. Participants had the opportunity to learn about the three suggested alternatives and provide comments.

A Scoping Report which provides information on the comments received from the public has been completed. Please see the report below.

Information and materials presented at the open houses:

2016 Comprehensive Plan update SEPA process

Because growth in Clark County had lagged since the growth plan was last updated in 2007, the county intends to rely on the final environmental impact statement written for that update. However, the county will supplement that final EIS with new environmental analysis, as needed.

When the EIS of the newest suggested alternatives is completed, it will be sent to the Board of Clark County Commissioners, which will select one alternative in spring 2015. The chosen alternative then will undergo an even deeper analysis, which will result in a final environmental impact statement.

What is SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act)?

SEPA, enacted in 1984, requires local jurisdictions to evaluate potential environmental impacts of actions they approve or undertake. The most common evaluation looks at potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, such as a big box store, or a large non-project action, such as adoption of a new urban growth boundary. A SEPA checklist prescribes elements to be evaluated, and the completed checklist is shared with federal, state and local agencies, tribes, neighborhood organizations and interested residents. People can comment on the alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts or other relevant topics.