La Center planning commission reviews draft ‘minor elements’ of comprehensive plan; staff seeks feedback on economic, historic and notice policies

La Center planning staff presented a first draft of the comprehensive plan’s nonrequired “minor elements” at the December 10 planning commission meeting, asking commissioners for feedback on updated job and commuting statistics, recognition of historic sites, coordination with the Cowlitz Tribe and revisions to the city code’s noticing and Type 4 review procedures.

Alec, planning staff, told commissioners the packet summarized updates to the economic development element, the historic/archaeological/cultural preservation element, the urban growth and annexation element, the government/participation element and procedural code changes to chapter 18.30. “These minor elements are the non required elements of the Growth Management Act, but they’re currently elements in our current comprehensive plan,” Alec said, noting staff had provided commissioners a 14‑day courtesy review before the meeting.

Why it matters: the minor elements set local priorities and help guide development review and code updates even though state law does not require them. Commissioners’ comments will be recorded in a comment matrix and used to revise a second draft for review in January, with a goal of forwarding recommendations to the city council in February.

Key points from the staff presentation

- Economic development: Staff updated job counts and an inflow/outflow map (U.S. Census, 2021). The draft shows 739 people commuting into the city to work, 61 people who both live and work in the center, and about 1,300 people who live in the center but work elsewhere as of 2021. The draft adds the downtown and two subareas as strategies to attract commercial investment and proposes reducing some design and development regulations in the Junction Plan to incentivize development.

- Historic, archaeological and cultural preservation: Staff updated the list of locally significant sites using the Clark County Register of Historic Places and the Clark County Heritage roster and asked commissioners to identify additional locally important sites. Commissioners suggested items such as the mayor’s house, an old church, pilings from the original Lisonbee bridge, a former steamboat dock and older homes near the church and Podduck Pizza (as noted in the packet).

- Urban growth and annexation: The draft adds climate resiliency language to align this element with the city’s climate element and updates policy language to accommodate 20‑year allocations for population, jobs and housing inside the established Urban Growth Area (UGA).

- Government and noticing/code changes: Staff proposed updating chapter 18.30 of the city code to add Type 4 review procedures (technical completeness, hearing notice and scheduling, notice distribution and appeals) and to standardize staffing titles (for example, “planning official” in places where the code previously used “city clerk”). Staff also proposed explicit notice lists that link the policy groups (tribes, schools, public water systems, vulnerable/overburdened groups) to the code’s preapplication and final‑decision noticing requirements.

Commissioner questions and discussion

Commissioners asked whether work‑from‑home employees should be counted differently in the economic data. “How does the work from home workforce impact us? That’s just considered as working outside of the center, I’m assuming,” Commissioner McLean asked. Alec replied that the Census does collect work‑from‑home statistics and staff could add that information for context, but the inflow/outflow map is focused on jobs physically located in the city.

Commissioner Smith asked how the city might coordinate economic development outreach with the Cowlitz Tribe and proposed using city signage and events to increase participation: “I’d love to see some participation, a relationship where that maybe, you know, city events would be interesting,” Smith said. Commissioners and staff discussed an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) the city recently signed with the tribe and noted the tribe’s sovereign authority over land placed into trust; staff said the city does not control tribal decisions on trust land but does receive economic benefits when tribal or tribe‑owned businesses operate in the area.

On historic resources, commissioners proposed additional candidate properties and discussed starting a local heritage committee to identify and recognize locally important places. Staff noted that inclusion on the city’s list does not automatically create state or federal protections; a county or national register nomination would follow different procedures.

Next steps and schedule

Staff will compile a comment matrix showing how each commissioner comment will be addressed in a second draft, present that second draft in January and, if recommended by the planning commission, forward the elements to the city council for consideration in February. Staff also noted a public open house tied to subarea planning (Timbers Landing and downtown) and urged commissioners to attend planned outreach events.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to excuse Commissioner Hill from the meeting: motion carried (mover/second not specified in the record).

- Motion to excuse Commissioner Clark from the meeting: motion carried (mover/second not specified in the record).

- Motion to close the meeting: motion carried (mover/second not specified in the record).

What the record does not show

The draft policies use both “shall consider” for items staff intends as future work and stronger language where state requirements apply; staff and commissioners discussed how “encourage,” “consider” and “shall” create different expectations for projects and developers. Staff said compliance and enforcement would be addressed in the development code and code‑enforcement process when applicable.

Where to find more information

Staff said they will distribute the second draft and the comment matrix before the commission’s January meeting and that the packet materials and meeting recordings are posted on the City of La Center planning page.

Ending note

Commissioners and staff agreed to continue the review at the next meeting; staff reiterated that the comment matrix will show how each point raised at the December 10 meeting is resolved in the next draft.