Clark County officials have adopted a comprehensive plan that will guide development, housing, transportation and infrastructure decisions through 2045, concluding more than three years of work on a document that drew competing visions for the county’s future throughout the entire process.
The Clark County Council adopted Ordinance 2026-10-01 on Tuesday, Oct. 13, approving the final update to the county’s 2025 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. The more than 400-page plan now goes to the Washington State Department of Commerce.
The county plans to issue a notice of adoption on Thursday, Oct. 23, beginning a 60-day appeal period. Appeals will be submitted to the state Growth Management Hearings Board, according to a news release by the county.
The plan establishes a framework for accommodating projected population and employment growth while addressing housing needs, transportation, public facilities and environmental considerations. It covers the 20-year period ending in 2045, when Clark County’s population is projected to reach 718,154, an increase from approximately 577,431 currently. The county also anticipates 73,500 additional jobs beyond the approximately 180,900 it has today, the news release stated.
Among the plan’s major components are a new Climate Element, multimodal transportation standards, updated housing policies and zoning regulations emphasizing housing at all income levels, changes to comprehensive plan and zoning maps, and revisions to the county’s unified development code.
The update also includes changes to the Arterial Atlas, revised capital facilities and financial plans, updated school and transportation impact fees, and new fire impact fees.
Under Washington’s Growth Management Act, comprehensive plans must identify the public facilities needed to support anticipated growth and explain how those facilities will be financed. The law also requires local governments to identify and protect critical areas and natural resource lands, designate urban growth areas, and implement adopted plans through capital investments and development regulations.
The council’s adoption follows public hearings on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2 that exposed deep disagreements over how Clark County should accommodate future growth while protecting agricultural land, providing affordable housing and managing the costs of development.
Urban growth areas drew competing arguments
One of the most contentious issues during the hearings was whether the county should expand urban growth areas around Battle Ground, Ridgefield and La Center.
Representatives from all three cities supported requested expansions, arguing that additional land would be necessary to accommodate housing, employment and economic development. Opponents argued the county should prioritize denser development within existing urban boundaries rather than converting agricultural land to urban uses.
Sam Crummett, planning supervisor for Battle Ground, said the city’s primary request involved approximately 450 acres near Dollars Corner intended primarily for employment uses, with commercial zoning along state Route 502.
Crummett said the city had spent years evaluating its ability to 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 Stuart said the city had worked to increase development capacity within its existing boundaries but still needed 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,” Stuart said.
La Center City Planner Angie Merrill also supported expansion around the Interstate 5 interchange and casino area, citing existing transportation and infrastructure as potential advantages for 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 also supported a countywide transfer of development rights program, which could allow development rights from agricultural properties to be transferred to areas better suited for growth.
Farmland and housing affordability were citizens’ focal point
Agricultural preservation was a major point of opposition to urban growth area expansions during the hearings.
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 between 2017 and 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 farmland preservation programs and measures to make agricultural land more affordable for farming.
Housing affordability was another central concern. Donna Sinclair urged the council to establish measurable affordable-housing goals and track whether the county is meeting them.
“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.”
Other residents argued the county should increase housing density within existing urban growth areas rather than expand outward.
Matthew Barnett, a Vancouver resident who previously lived in Los Angeles, warned against planning decisions that could contribute to sprawling development.
“I see the current comprehensive plan from the county kind of moving in that direction. And that worries me a lot,” Barnett said.
Brandi Cole, speaking on behalf of a coalition of 61 individuals and 17 organizations, also urged the county to prioritize density and environmental protections.
“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.”
Development representatives, meanwhile, cautioned against relying too heavily on density to meet the county’s housing needs.
Phil Wuest of Ginn Group supported the preferred alternative and the cities’ requested expansions, questioning the county’s vacant buildable lands analysis and its assumptions about housing affordability.
“There are some pretty heroic assumptions within the plan about how high density housing equates to affordable housing,” Wuest said.
