Clark County planning staff outline multifamily code changes to meet state housing targets; EIS released for comment

Clark County planning staff on Oct. 2 presented draft multifamily code changes intended to increase housing capacity in the Vancouver urban growth area and align county rules with recent state laws.

Elizabeth Decker, a consultant with JET Planning, told the planning commission the proposed changes are part of phase 2 of the county's Housing Options Study and Action Plan and the 2025 comprehensive plan update. "Nothing is proposed for adoption, at this time," Decker said, describing the package as a work-in-progress intended to prioritize multifamily development in medium- and high-density residential zones.

The package presented to the commission focuses on six principal changes: concentrating permitted uses in the higher-density R zones on multifamily housing; raising minimum densities and adjusting maximums to encourage apartment-scale development; simplifying dimensional standards such as lot sizes and setbacks; clarifying and consolidating landscaping and open-space rules to favor usable resident amenities; aligning off-street parking minimums with recent state guidance; and refining mixed-use zone rules to allow a larger residential share.

Why it matters: county staff said current zoned capacity in the Vancouver UGA is about 8,000 units while the county's target for the next 20 years exceeds 25,000 units, requiring both more high-density capacity and regulatory changes to make multifamily projects feasible. Decker said the county must "prioritize multifamily opportunities" to close that gap and to meet state requirements under recent legislation including HB 1220. Jose Alvarez, community planning staff, summed up the regulatory goal this way: "it's not as much the density as the, income bands where we have a need for most half of our housing in the next 20 years at sub 80%."

Key regulatory specifics discussed - Zone consolidation: staff proposed simplifying five existing R zones (and paired office-residential zones on paper) into three new urban zones to reduce fine-grained differences and better target multifamily forms. - Minimum and maximum densities: staff propose higher minimum densities in the R zones (examples referenced include R24, R36, R50 as new layerings) so land zoned medium/high yields multifamily capacity rather than lower-scale single-family products. - Parking: staff said the county will align minimums with statewide reforms (citing recent direction) and noted a draft approach of 1 space per single-family unit, 0.5 space per multifamily unit as a county minimum, and no county minimum for units under 1,200 sq. ft. or for regulated affordable or senior housing. - Landscaping/open space: staff proposed clarifying how on-site open space and landscaping are counted so required green areas are usable for residents rather than fragmented buffers. - Mixed-use zones: staff proposed increasing the allowable residential share on some mixed-use sites from 80% to 90% and removing permitted single-family detached houses and townhouses from those more active zones to better encourage multifamily.

Staff emphasized the package is still a draft and that several details remain under discussion. "We are still workshopping" parts of the code, Decker said; Oliver Ojeko, planning staff, said the team will continue to refine the draft in response to legal rulings and council direction.

Commission discussion and concerns Commissioners pressed staff on several implementation and neighborhood impacts. Commissioner Baker asked how minimum densities account for unbuildable areas such as wetlands; Decker responded that minimum densities are measured on net acres with unbuildable areas subtracted.

Members also raised questions about whether developers will build multifamily if market demand favors single-family products, and whether raising minimum densities could make some parcels harder to develop. Jose Alvarez said the county's principal concern is matching housing capacity to income bands: much of the projected need is for lower-income households that are more likely to be served by multifamily apartment development.

Commissioner Berthold asked whether the fire marshal had been consulted about proposed reduced rear setbacks for buildings under 35 feet; staff said they had not yet asked the fire marshal and would do so.

Maps and capacity trade-offs Staff showed mapping of roughly 1,000 acres that would be added to the county's urban medium/high designations (staff said the existing urban medium/high area is about 2,100 acres), and described that even with added acreage the medium/high-designated land would remain a limited share of the county's total buildable land. Commissioners noted how replacing lower-density allowances on parcels currently containing single-family homes could change neighborhood character and property owners' options when redevelopment occurs.

Housing types and market signals Decker described the multifamily types the code aims to support: "garden" apartments typically at 20—2 units per acre, "low-rise" apartments at 40—50 per acre (she used 40—0 as a working range), and townhouse-like multifamily products that can count as multifamily if developed as a single site under shared ownership or lease. Commissioners asked whether projects would more often be rental apartments or condominiums; staff said the code is agnostic and both ownership and rental products are allowed, though financing and market factors often determine the product type developers choose.

Official announcements Oliver Ojeko told the commission the county released a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on Oct. 1 and opened a 60-day public comment period running through Nov. 30. "The draft environmental impact statement is now out," Ojeko said, and staff will hold available-hours sessions beginning Oct. 16 and running through Nov. 20 on Thursdays from 4 to 6 p.m. at the County Building to answer questions.

Next steps Staff said they will continue refining code language with input from the planning commission, the county council and technical stakeholders, review comments on the draft EIS, consult additional reviewers (including the fire marshal), and return with more detailed code text as the package moves toward formal adoption processes. Decker reiterated that the material is a draft for discussion: "we wanted to have this opportunity to talk about it with you and work session, make sure that we got feedback at this stage."

Ending note No formal votes or adoption actions were taken at the Oct. 2 work session; staff framed the presentation as an opportunity to collect commission feedback before drafting final amendments for later public hearings and council consideration.