Last week, Clark County Airpark district residents mobilized against Senate Bill 5723, a proposed law that would have allowed city-owned properties to bypass private community restrictions.
The bill was ultimately pulled from consideration on Monday, Feb. 17, as the Senate Local Government Committee prioritized other legislation.
Community opposition and zoning concerns
SB 5723 sought to exempt city-owned properties from adhering to the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) of airparks if those restrictions were stricter than city zoning ordinances.
Kathy McAleer, a homeowner in Battle Ground’s airpark district containing Cedars North Airport, described the scramble to organize opposition after discovering the bill only days before its scheduled hearing.
“It all happened so fast,” McAleer said. “We had no notification. We just stumbled upon it.”
Despite the time constraints, residents mounted a rapid campaign. McAleer claims more than 800 Washington residents were rallied to write emails opposing the bill.
“There’s a big-picture concern here,” she said. “CC&Rs are legal, deeded documents that come with a property. To have a city say they can ignore them is concerning.”
McAleer was particularly alarmed given Battle Ground’s history of zoning disputes involving the airpark, especially fears of residential zoning changes. Last year, a developer representing the Lawson family sought to ease development restrictions in the airpark district, requesting an increase in housing density from 2.5 to 3 units per acre in their 27-acre section. In May 2024, the city’s Planning Commission recommended this change. However, during a June 17 City Council meeting, dozens of local residents, pilots and aviation advocates strongly opposed the proposal, arguing that higher-density housing would be incompatible with airport operations and could lead to calls for airport closure due to noise and safety concerns.
A May 17 letter from the Washington state Department of Transportation (WSDOT) warned that rezoning the district might not comply with state law requiring protection of general-use airports. When the City Council revisited the issue in August, it ultimately maintained the airpark’s zoning and directed local landowners, including the Lawson family, to propose development options that would align with airport operations. McAleer believes SB 5723 could have reopened the door to similar unwanted changes.
“If they passed this bill, the city could just change the zoning ordinance to something incompatible and say our CC&Rs don’t apply,” she explained. “It’s a step toward closing the airport.”
State Sen. Adrian Cortes, of District 18, who sponsored SB 5723, argued that the bill aimed to enhance economic viability for the airpark district without compromising existing airports. Having served as a Battle Ground city council member during last year’s zoning debate, Cortes maintained that the bill intended to provide cities and developers with greater flexibility for responsible development.
“The people who gave testimony really emphasized that it would be great if we could actually improve the airpark to stimulate more economic development,” Cortes said. “Several proposals given during public testimony included building hangars for planes to park, adding refueling stations and establishing an aircraft mechanic and much more. The airpark is underdeveloped and hasn’t had the resources to engage in these opportunities. So I thought, how could I move something forward that could create that economic development zone?”
While Cortes acknowledged the bill needed adjustments, he stressed that it focused on lifting restrictive CC&Rs to promote aviation-related development. Increased housing density, he noted, would require a complete rezoning change, which he believes is not appropriate for the airpark district.
“This bill would allow for things like air hangars, aircraft mechanics, and refueling stations to be developed in the airpark,” Cortes said. “Obviously, housing is not going to be a solution that truly engages and promotes economic development in this specific area.”
Continued concerns over SB 5719
Although SB 5723 was withdrawn, residents remain wary of SB 5719, co-sponsored by Cortes, which would require local governments to adopt a hearing examiner system for land use decisions.
Helen Lehner, a Clark County airpark resident near Parkside Airport in north Clark County, traveled to Olympia to oppose SB 5719, arguing that it would reduce local government control over land-use decisions. Unlike SB 5723, SB 5719 did pass its first hearing and will now move to another committee for further consideration.
“This astonishingly broad amendment removes control from the locally elected bodies and professional planning staff and mandates the use of an unelected hearing examiner who is not accountable to the taxpayer,” Lehner said.
The Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA), the world’s largest aviation membership organization, also opposed SB 5719, arguing that it appeared to be a “near hand-in-glove companion” to SB 5723. In its letter to the committee, AOPA stated that the bill would override local decision-making processes by requiring hearing examiners as the sole means for issuing land-use decisions.
“Shouldn’t Washington state political subdivisions be allowed to continue deciding what method to use for plat approvals rather than having the state government tell them what method to use?” Schuster wrote, urging lawmakers to reject the bill.
Additionally, in a letter to the Senate Committee on Local Government, AOPA emphasized the importance of CC&Rs in protecting both airpark owners and surrounding communities.
“Make no mistake, this legislation is designed to reduce protections for airparks/airports and surrounding communities and in the strongest terms. We implore this committee to issue a do-not-pass recommendation for WA S5723,” Brad Schuster, AOPA’s Northwest Mountain Region manager, wrote.
Cortes, however, denied coordination between the two bills and emphasized that SB 5719 simply aimed to standardize the land-use approval process. He stated the bill, which he co-signed, originally came from state Sen. Jesse Salomon.
“In Washington, cities and counties are permitted, but they’re not necessarily required, to use a hearing examiner for reviewing things like preliminary plat approvals or planned unit developments, etc. Currently, the use of hearing examiners, it really varies widely among jurisdictions. It creates a lot of inconsistencies in the land use approval process,” Cortes said.
McAleer voiced frustration over the lack of public notification about bills that could significantly impact their communities. Cortes stated airpark district residents would have been notified of the bill for public input had it passed its first hearing.
