Camas OKs controversial land annexation

Camas city officials this week formally approved an annexation request that caused divisions among neighbors in Camas’ North Shore area.

On Monday, Dec. 18, a majority of Camas City Council members formally approved a property owner-drive request to annex 40 rural acres within the City’s urban growth boundary off Northeast 232nd Avenue and Northeast Weakley Road, near Lacamas Lake Elementary School.

Council members Tim Hein and Leslie Lewallen voted against the annexation approval.

According to Camas Planning Manager Robert Maul, the 40-acre block of land, valued at $4.33 million, includes eight parcels as well as a 9-acre Bonneville Power Administration power line right-of-way, and has been in the city of Camas’ urban growth boundary since 2008.

“It has been intended to be a part of Camas in the future … and was just a matter of timing and availability of utilities,” Maul told Council members during a Dec. 4 public hearing on the annexation request.

The City has already invested in utilities running to the North Shore area located north of Lacamas Lake, including a new sewer line.

Maul told Council members earlier this month that seven property owners had signed on to the request for annexation, representing 90% ($3.9 million) of the land’s valuation.

“The area in question was also part of the North Shore Subarea plan that was adopted in November 2022,” Maul stated in his staff report. “The comprehensive plan designations have changed in that area (and now) include North Shore mixed-use, North Shore low-density residential and North Shore high-density residential.”

City staff recommended Council approve the annexation and include all of the properties in the area and the Bonneville right-of-way on the north end of the property, “to create a solid 40-acre block.”

Nearly two dozen citizens weighed in on the annexation during the Council’s Dec. 4 public hearing. Many pleaded with Camas officials to hold off on making a decision, and several Clark County property owners living near the property in question said they worried the annexation — and future residential or mixed-use developments — would change the peaceful, rural character of the area.

“I’m asking you to vote ‘no,’” said Katie Real, a Weakley Road resident. “My husband and I invested everything we had into (our) acreage and wanted to get away from city crowds and live in a rural environment surrounded by family farms just like ours. This annexation will take that away from my family.”

Another neighbor, Cindy Hammond, said she had moved to her property 15 years ago and wanted to live in a rural area away from light pollution.

“It’s going to be like a neon light in our part of the country, Hammond said. “I feel like, in my mind, if you want what are, in my mind, city things, then you don’t move out there.”

She urged the Council to deny the annexation, saying: “It’s definitely going to change (the area). My night sky will never be the same.”

Another neighbor, Nicole Swendsen, said future development on the property would “have a huge impact” on her life.

“I’ve been following this in Council meetings and, the last I checked, we were still 10 years away from something like this,” she said. “It’s scary to think that, at the end of my road, there could be 150 to 200 other residents. We have deer, bobcats, bald eagles, coyotes (out there). … Why do we need to annex another 40 acres? We have plenty of room. … I strongly encourage a no (vote).”

Some of the people who spoke against the annexation last week said they believed some property owners may have not known what they were signing up for when they signed on to the annexation request — or had possibly changed their minds.

Councilwoman Marilyn Boerke asked Maul about this during the Council’s deliberations, but Maul said the petitions had specific information regarding the annexation and had already passed Clark County’s examination.

“The Council assessor’s office verifies the signatures. They’ve done so, and, as far as the City is concerned, it’s legal,” Maul said.

Camas’ attorney, Shawn MacPherson, agreed, saying: “We have to presume the signatures are valid unless there is a withdrawal filed with the county. In the absence of evidence that that occurred, we have to presume the signatures are valid.”

Maul said property owners who asked to be annexed into the City represented 90% of the property’s total valuation, well above the 60% required by state law.

Maul had requested that City officials pause the annexation request in 2021, when the property owners first approached the City with their request, due to the ongoing North Shore subarea planning that created unique zoning and design standards for the North Shore area.

“It made sense to make sure we weren’t doing something twice,” Maul said.

Speaking to the neighbors’ concerns about the impact on their rural properties, Maul said the property in question has been in the City’s urban growth boundary for 15 years.

“We’re in this location that is great because you’re next to all these urban amenities but just a few miles out, you have this country feel,” Maul said. “But, growth does occur. I would refute that this has been a hasty process. This has been in the urban growth boundary for 15 years. … it has met all the statutory requirements and has been well thought-out and planned.”

Maul added that any development on the property would need to meet the City’s requirements for critical areas, wetlands, shorelines and stormwater and would not block access to anyone’s property.

“Whatever gets developed out there has to respect the legality of (the private road leading to other properties),” Maul said. “There are standards that have to be met with the city code for curbs, street width, street tree, etcetera. Nobody is taking anybody’s access away.”

Some Council members wondered if the City should hold off on the annexation until officials had a better handle on what a new piece of state legislation known as House Bill 1110, which will provide more affordable “middle housing” by allowing things like accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and duplexes in single-family residential zones.

“My concerns on this do relate to House Bill 1110,” said Councilman Tim Hein. “I know it’s not enforced until 2025, but in the meantime there is ambiguity on what could be built on (the) land.”

MacPherson cautioned City officials against using the middle-housing bill as a reason for denying an annexation that had gone through the proper legal channels and met the City’s and state’s requirements.

“You’re going to have (state legislators who) come and go, adopt this and that,” MacPherson said. “But you have a stand-alone annexation request that took a number of years with planning and input. If you’re not going to consider any annexations (because of House Bill 1110), that may warrant … a little more consideration. What you have before you does meet the requirements. To Council concerns and some neighbors’ concerns about what it’s going to look like … that will be decided another day and will be development-driven. It will be a process that takes a number of years. You will need additional hearings, planning. This is more of a 10,000-foot level. The development scenarios (are) for another day.”

On Dec. 4, the Council voted to move forward with the annexation agreement and have the city attorney draft an ordinance.

Two weeks later, during the Council’s Dec. 18 meeting, property owners again urged the Council to vote against formally approving the annexation ordinance.

Katie Fielding, whose property was included in the 40-acre annexation despite her objections to being annexed into the city of Camas, told the Council this week she “wanted to stay out of Camas as long as she could” to maintain her family farm.

On Dec. 4, Fielding said she has always been opposed to the annexation.

“I do not (believe it) is in the best interest of myself, my neighbors or the City,” Fielding said Dec. 4, of the annexation. “I am more comfortable with a natural progression of six to 12 years than being ripped into the City next month.”

Another speaker, Rachel Wilmoth, told the Council this week tFat she believes officials should have postponed the annexation.

“What is the rush to annex this area right now?” Wilmoth asked Council members Monday. “Why don’t we wait until the next comprehensive plan (update) and see if this still needs to be high-density and mixed-use?”

Wilmoth noted that the annexation area is “surrounded by farms” and said she knew property owners in the area who objected to the annexation.

“There’s a lot of community opposition to this,” Wilmoth said. “The ones who want to be annexed have (rights) … but this annexation is still going to impact our community. And it feels like those voices (who oppose the annexation) are being disregarded and not accounted for.”

Wilmoth said she wished the Council had waited until they had “more community buy-in.”

Maul said he has experienced similar opposition to annexations in other parts of Clark County.

“The process was set up by the state and (this) has met all the standards as required,” he said. “Not everybody is happy with the annexation, but nobody is losing their property rights coming into the City.”