Council reviews site-specific urban growth requests: La Center, Ridgefield, Dollar's Corner, Camas and tribal land notes
Loading...
Summary
County staff displayed updated aerial maps and walked council through city requests to expand urban growth areas in La Center/Lehi, Ridgefield, Battle Ground (Dollar's Corner/Meadowglade), and Camas (Navin property). Staff flagged recent tribal purchases and noted some lands are in trust or pending trust; the council asked for more detail ahead of a scheduled public hearing on the preferred alternative.
County planning staff guided the council through four clusters of site-specific urban growth area (UGA) expansion requests and accompanying aerial photography, answering council questions about parcels, prior appeals and the ag study.
La Center/Lehi: Staff showed a preferred alternative (consistent with planning commission alternative 2) including a northern commercial area (C1) and southern industrial area; they noted several black-dotted site-specific requests and that some parcels were sold to a tribe in December 2025 but not yet taken into trust. "That property was sold to the tribe December 2025," staff said, adding that lands already taken into trust are shown separately on staff maps and will not be displayed as agricultural in the comp plan moving forward. Councilors asked whether the tribes purchases change the citiesassumptions about jobs and housing; staff said cities must still be asked directly and that the county does not yet know any intent to take parcels into trust.
Richfield and Ridgefield: Staff reviewed areas that were part of the 2007 UGA expansion and later lost under appeal, noting leftover donut holes where ag parcels remain surrounded by development. For Ridgefield, staff pointed out a mall property already inside the UGA and questioned whether access and existing master plans influenced the proposals.
Battle Ground and Dollar's Corner (Meadowglade): Staff explained the citys master planning for Dollar's Corner and said the city's request prioritized employment land rather than additional residential land; staff recommended the swap to meet the citys employment allocation. Councilors requested additional information on wetlands, annexation intent and acreage the ag study identified as potentially qualifying as agricultural land.
Camas (Navin property): Staff described the parcel as a mix of mostly 5-acre lots (pre-GMA splits) and discussed options such as lot reconfiguration (reverse clustering) to preserve agricultural remainder while allowing some development. The planning commission did not recommend including the Navin parcels in the preferred alternative; staff said justification on a needs basis would be difficult to sustain.
Next steps: Staff told councilors the public hearing to select the preferred alternative was planned for the 20th with a possible holdover or continuation on the 21st; the council asked staff to request more detailed maps, annexation status and acreage breakdowns from the cities before that hearing.
Why it matters: Several of these site-specific requests intersect with designated agricultural land and past appeal history. Tribal land purchases and pending trust status complicate jurisdiction and future development potential; councilors asked staff to clarify what parcels are in trust and what remains subject to county designation.
