Carl Johnson, chairman of the Clark County Planning Commission, opened the hybrid work session Thursday, Nov. 6, 2025, and said the session would review the comprehensive plan update, the draft environmental impact statement and the Housing for All Planning Tool analysis.

Oliver Ojeko, community planning director, and Jose Alvarez, land use program manager, told commissioners the county is planning to 2045 using council‑adopted forecasts and that the DEIS review period and public comment window are active. "This is a refresher, but also, to begin to prepare you for conversation that will lead to the selection of the preferred land use alternative," Ojeko said.

The presentation quantified future needs and constraints. Staff cited a countywide 2045 housing‑unit estimate of roughly 309,711 units and said the 2020 housing stock was about 194,000 units, producing a 20‑year need on the order of 115,000 units before accounting for units added since 2020; staff then reported subtracting about 12,000 units built between 2020 and 2023 to reach an adjusted need figure (reported in the presentation) of approximately 103,000 units. Jose Alvarez said the Department of Commerce tool (HAPT) produces that need by five income bands (0–30%, 30–50%, 50–80%, 80–120%, and >120% of area median income) and that roughly 52% of the needed housing falls below 80% AMI.

Alvarez noted Clark County’s AMI is tied to the Portland metro area, which affects the distribution across income bands. He explained the county worked with jurisdictions to allocate the 12,000 recently built units across income bands rather than subtracting them all from the highest band.

Commissioners and staff discussed financing limits for producing deeply affordable units. Alvarez described a state‑enabled local option: "that will be 0.1% sales tax, and that will be diverted to affordable housing. That action could raise close to $6,400,000," he said, adding that the city of Vancouver had adopted a similar measure. Staff also noted the legislature required the University of Washington real estate division to collect implementation data from jurisdictions, a move that could prompt additional state funding or policy changes.

On land use, Alvarez said the county’s vacant buildable lands model and city submissions yielded mixed results: some mixed‑use parcels historically produced about an 80/20 residential/commercial outcome rather than the 60/40 assumed when capacity was modeled. "We had a couple of requests where developments have happened, the mixed use development, the housing's gone. Nothing's happened with the commercial," he said, explaining that shifting those mixed‑use parcels toward higher‑density residential reduced employment capacity and prompted proposed employment expansions (north of 179th/199th and west of WSU) to meet job forecasts.

Staff described proposed multifamily zoning consolidations (examples cited: R24, R36, R50 replacing a broader set of multifamily designations) and noted one site‑specific request to go to R45. They also described updates to the Highway 99 corridor to reflect parcels now more likely to redevelop for residential and smaller lot single‑family infill allowances tied to recent code changes.

Alvarez said draft alternatives show excess residential capacity that will need reconciliation as staff prepares a preferred alternative: "we have excess capacity... that's gonna have to be reconciled." He also summarized assumptions used in employment allocation (about 88,000 new jobs countywide, most in the UGA; a conservative 4% work‑from‑home assumption; and 5% rural employment share in modeling).

The work session closed with scheduling and engagement details: the agricultural land study was posted Nov. 4 and will be circulated to commissioners; council work sessions are scheduled Nov. 12 and the agricultural advisory commission will review the ag study Nov. 19; DEIS comments are due by 5 p.m. Nov. 30; and staff said responses to comments will be packaged in the final EIS that starts the formal adoption process.

What commissioners asked for and staff will provide: a direct link to the GIS maps used in the presentation and an emailed copy of the agricultural land study. Staff emphasized that meeting the state’s new "planned for" requirements will require both land‑use changes (zoning/availability of land) and identifiable funding or incentive sources if the county’s housing policy calls for subsidies.

Next steps: staff will present follow‑up materials to the council at the Nov. 12 work session and return to commission review as the county reconciles capacity differences among DEIS alternatives and prepares the preferred alternative for the final EIS.