Clark County council faces divide over countywide agricultural‑land study as staff warns comp‑plan deadline will be missed

Clark County Council — May 7, 2025 — The Clark County Council heard more than three hours of public comment on a proposed countywide agricultural‑land (resource land) study and the county’s comprehensive‑plan update, as council staff said the addition of such a study would mean the county is unlikely to meet the state deadline for submitting its plan.

“the takeaway is that we are not going to meet our statutory deadline of on or before December 2025,” county planning program manager Oliver Ojiacan told the council after summarizing a revised project schedule that assumes issuing a draft EIS in August and a final EIS in mid‑November, with adoption slipping into early 2026 if the study proceeds on the timetable presented.

Why it matters: The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires timely adoption of comprehensive plans; falling out of compliance can make jurisdictions ineligible for certain state grants and low‑interest loans. Speakers on both sides of the question told the council the outcome will determine whether local cities can expand urban growth areas for jobs and housing or whether agricultural lands will be preserved for climate resilience and local food production.

Most important facts

- County staff said the RFP for the countywide resource land study will go out this week, with a roughly three‑week solicitation period. The draft schedule presented by staff assumes a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) could be issued Aug. 1 and a final EIS by Nov. 14, but staff also said those dates depend on timely delivery of required technical inputs and public review periods.

- Cities including La Center and Ridgefield urged the council to complete the countywide study so those cities can pursue de‑designation and expand their urban growth areas for job and housing allocations. La Center land use planner Angie Merrill and council members from La Center said lands near I‑5 Exit 16 are suitable for jobs and industrial uses and argued the countywide study is required by state law to permit de‑designation.

- Opponents — including farmers, Sierra Club representatives, environmental justice advocates and other residents — said adding the study now would delay adoption of critical housing and climate policies, risk millions in state funding (including funds associated with the Climate Commitment Act) and encourage sprawl. LULAC and other community groups emphasized equity and timely adoption of climate and housing elements.

Selected public comments

- Robert Nevin, describing a family property near Camas and a request tied to a UGA extension, said the parcels are “ideally situated for Camas' long term vision” but noted they lack water rights and have not been actively farmed for decades.

- Janet Hedgepath told the council, “I just don't understand how this ag study ... has become such a difficult thing to decide,” and argued staff modeling shows cities can accommodate projected growth within current boundaries and that adding the study could imperil the county’s ability to meet the GMA deadline.

- Hector Nohosa, reading a statement for two LULAC councils, said, “If we do not submit the comprehensive plan on time, we're risk losing millions from the Climate Commitment Act.”

Staff timeline and process details

County staff walked the council through an optimistic schedule that assumes rapid delivery from consultants and cooperative timing of technical inputs (notably traffic modeling from RTC). Key dates staff cited on the draft schedule: public open houses May 28–29 and June 2; staff update to council June 26; planned consultant delivery of a countywide study by Sept. 1 (per council direction); DEIS issuance targeted Aug. 1 (draft); 30‑day DEIS review through Aug. 31; selection of a preferred alternative by early October; final EIS by Nov. 14; and adoption hearings through January 2026. Staff cautioned that any extension of the public review period for the DEIS or late technical inputs would push those dates further into 2026.

What the study would do

The countywide resource land study is defined by state guidance to examine agricultural and other resource land on a countywide basis and cannot — under the consultants’ expected scope — be limited to a handful of individual parcels. Staff and the county attorney’s office warned that piecemeal or partial studies have been a source of legal challenge in prior cycles.

Council action and next steps

- The council approved the minutes for the April 30, 2025 meeting by voice vote (motion moved and seconded; outcome approved by voice).

- Multiple council members and several city officials proposed a work session with cities to discuss the comprehensive‑plan process and the study’s scope. Several councilors said they would invite all Clark County cities to propose agenda topics for any joint session.

- Councilor discussion produced a motion by one councilor to delay the agricultural resource study until after the December 31, 2025 GMA deadline, but the transcript shows extended debate and no formal roll‑call adoption of that motion during the meeting.

Context and background

- Several cities (La Center, Ridgefield, Camas) have asked the county to conduct the study to support modest urban growth boundary expansions intended for employment lands and mixed‑use development. City officials said those expansions have been publicly vetted in their jurisdictions.

- Opponents repeatedly pointed to Clark County’s prior experience with lost grant funding when planning processes missed statutory expectations and urged the council to prioritize completing the comp plan by the state deadline.

- The debate reflected a long‑running tension in Clark County planning: whether to preserve agricultural and resource lands for climate resilience, local food production and open space, or to allow limited, strategically located expansions of urban growth areas to meet employment and housing allocations.

Ending

County staff said they will proceed with the RFP and return to the council with a recommended consultant and formal scope. Council members asked staff to coordinate possible joint briefings with cities and to share the study scope and schedule with the public. No final change to the council’s prior direction on the study was recorded on the transcript of the May 7 meeting; the council left the matter open for further consideration and follow‑up in the coming weeks.