2010 City of Ridgefield Comprehensive PlanIs
pl-
CR-ILDGEFIELD
RIDGEFIELD ��� 0 U P 1e
Comprehensive Plan
�-i, DoI AR TREE STORES
1
Acknowledgements
2005 Work Team
City Council
Gladys Doriot, Mayor
Gary Adkins
Scott Hanson
Gary Holmberg
David Standal
Planning Commission
John Dingethal, Chair
Karen Beall
Gary Bock
Fran Kemper
Chad Sessions
Jon Studeny
Cyrus Yamin
City of Ridgefield Staff
George Fox, JD, CPA, City Manager
Kevin Snyder, AICP, Community
Development Director
Justin Clary, PE, Public Works Director
Consultant Team
Parametrix
Jason Franklin, AICP
Nathan Banks
Derek Chisholm, AICP
Jamie Fleek
Colin McConnaha
David Stocker, AICP
Kay Wiggins
Gray and Osborne
Mike Johnson, PE
Parsons Brinkerhoff
Charles Green, PE
Mark Garrity, AICP
2008 Work Team
City Council
Ron Onslow, Mayor
Matt Swindell
David Taylor
Lee Wells
Darren Wertz
Planning Commission
John Dingethal, Chair
Gary Bock
Cyrus Yamin
Jerry Bush
Richard Hanford
Celia Antonini
Jeff Carlson
City of Ridgefield Staff
Justin Clary, PE
City Manager
Kent W. Anderson, AICP
Community Development Director
Steve Wall, PE
Public Works Director
Steven Hale, PE
City Engineer
Dale Schulze, AICP
Senior Planner
Consultant Team
Planning Commission
Parametrix
Jerry Bush, Chair
Derek Chisholm, AICP
Gary Bock, Position 2
Lauren Golden
Jeff Carlsen, Position 3
Megan Taylor
Randy Mueller, Position 4
Craig Hainey
John Main, Position 5
Karen Martinek
Jim Hall, Position 6
Gray and Osborne
City of Ridgefield Staff
Mike Johnson, PE
Parsons Brinkerhoff
Justin Clary. P.E., City Manager
Charles Green, PE
Steve Hall, P.E. Public Works Director
Japji Chahal-Virk
Consultant Team
Gray and Osborne
2010 Work Team
Mike Johnson, PE
Joseph Plahuta
City Council
Parsons Brinkerhoff
Ron Onslow, Mayor
Charles Green, PE
David Taylor, Position 2
Abby Caringula
Lee Wells, Position 3
Sine Adams
Dan Stose, Position 4
Scott Noel
Darren Wertz, Position 5
E2 Land Use Planning, LLC
Eric Eisemann, J.D.
Elizabeth Decker
Updates
The City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan, adopted on December 16,
2010, updates the 2008 and 2004 Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan.
go
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction...................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 VISION.............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.......................................................................................1-2
1.3 LOCAL AND STATE PLANS AND LAWS..................................................................1-2
1.4 PLANS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE ............................. .....1-4
.......................................
2. Land Use........................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 RIDGEFIELD'S LAND USE IN 2010.......................................................................2-1
2.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE.............................................................................2-1
2.2.1 A Balanced Community................................................................................2-2
2.2.2 Ridgefield Urban growth Area.......................................................................2-3
2.2.3 Community Design......................................................................................2-3
2.2.4 Land Use Designations.................................................................................2-4
2.3 LAND USE POLICIES..........................................................................................2-7
3. Historic Preservation........................................................................3-1
3.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS......................................................................................3-1
3.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE.............................................................................3-2
3.3 POLICIES.........................................................................................................3-2
4. Economic Development.....................................................................4-1
4.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS......................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Regional Conditions.....................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Local Conditions..........................................................................................4-1
4.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE.............................................................................4-2
4.2.1 Balanced Job Growth...................................................................................4-2
4.2.2 Partnerships...............................................................................................4-2
4.2.3 Healthy Downtown......................................................................................4-3
4.2.4 Regional Employment Center.......................................................................4-3
4.3 POLICIES..........................................................................................................4-3
S. Housing.............................................................................................5-1
5.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS......................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Population..................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Households................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 Housing Types............................................................................................5-1
5.1.4 Housing Affordability...................................................................................5-2
5.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................ ......5-2
5.3 HOUSING POLICIES...........................................................................................5-3
6. Environment..................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS......................................................................................6-1
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate i
6.1.1 The Land...................................................................................................6-1
6.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat...............................................................................6-1
6.1.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................6-2
6.1.4 Air Quality ............................................................................. ..6-2
...................
6.1.5 Hazard Areas..............................................................................................6-2
6.1.6 Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge................................................................6-3
6.1.7 State and Federal Environmental Regulations................................................6-3
6.1.8 Local Environmental Regulations...................................................................6-3
6.3 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE.............................................................................6-3
6.4 POLICIES..........................................................................................................6-5
7. Public Facilities................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS...................................................................... 7-1
.............. .
7.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE.............................................................................7-1
7.3 POLICIES..........................................................................................................7-2
7.4 WATER RESOURCES...........................................................................................7-3
7.4.1 Current Conditions......................................................................................7-3
7.4.2 Fire Flows...................................................................................................7-4
7.4.3 Direction for the Future................................................................................7-4
7.4.4 Policies.......................................................................................................7-6
7.5 SANITARY SEWER..............................................................................................7-6
7.5.1 Current Conditions......................................................................................7-7
7.5.2 Direction for the Future...............................................................................7-7
7.5.3 Policies.......................................................................................................7-8
7.6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT............................................................................7-10
7.6.1 Current Conditions.................................................................................... 7-10
7.6.2 Direction for the Future.............................................................................. 7-10
7.6.3 Policies.....................................................................................................7-10
7.7 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.....................................................................7-11
7.7.1 Current Conditions.................................................................................... 7-11
7.7.2 Direction for the Future.............................................................................. 7-11
7.7.3 Policy.......................................................................................................7-11
7.8 LAW ENFORCEMENT.........................................................................................7-11
7.8.1 Current Conditions....................................................................................7-11
7.8.2 Direction for the Future.............................................................................. 7-12
7.8.3 Policy.......................................................................................................7-12
7.9 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES AND SERVICES..........................................................7-12
7.9.1 Current Conditions.................................................................................... 7-12
7.9.2 Direction for the Future.............................................................................. 7-13
7.9.3 Policy.......................................................................................................7-13
7.10 EDUCATION...................................................................................................7-13
64
ii City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
In
7.10.1 Current Conditions..................................................................................7-13
7.10.2 Direction for the Future............................................................................7-14
7.10.3 Policies...................................................................................................7-15
7.11 LIBRARY SERVICES........................................................................................7-15
7.11.1 Current Conditions..................................................................................7-15
7.11.2 Direction for the Future............................................................................7-16
7.11.3 Policy.....................................................................................................7-16
7.12 PRIVATE UTILITIES........................................................................................7-16
7.12.1 Electricity............................................................................... .........7-16
7.12.2 Natural Gas...........................................................................................7-17
7.12.3 Telecommunications...............................................................................7-17
7.12.4 Policy.....................................................................................................7-17
7.13 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES....................................................................... 7-17
7.13.1 Current Conditions..................................................................................7-17
7.13.2 Direction for the Future............................................................................ 7-17
7.13.3 Policy.....................................................................................................7-18
S. Transportation....................................................................................8-1
8.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS......................................................................................8-1
8.1.1 Roadway Functional Classification.................................................................8-1
8.1.2 Roadway Inventory .....................................................................................8-2
8.1.3 Traffic Capacity...........................................................................................8-6
8.1.4 Level -of -Service Standards...........................................................................8-6
8.1.5 Accident History ..........................................................................................8-7
8.1.6 Transit.......................................................................................................8-8
8.1.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities....................................................................8-8
8.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE.............................................................................8-9
8.2.1 Trip Generation...........................................................................................8-9
8.2.2 Required Transportation Facilities................................................................ 8-11
8.2.3 Capital Cost and Projected Revenue............................................................ 8-11
8.3 KEY CHANGES FROM THE 2005 TRANSPORTATION PLAN ..................................... 8-13
8.4 POLICIES........................................................................................................8-14
9. Parks and Recreation........................................................................ 9-1
9.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS......................................................................................9-1
9.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE.............................................................................9-1
9.3 POLICIES..........................................................................................................9-2
10. Annexation..................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS..................................................................................10-1
10.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE.......................................................................... 10-1
10.3 ANNEXATION POLICIES.................................................................................. 10-1
KeyTerms and Acronyms........................................................................A-1
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1-1. Vicinity Map............................................................................................1-3
Figure 2-1. Comprehensive Plan Map.........................................................................2-4
Figure2-2. Zoning Map............................................................................................2-5
Figure 7-1. Proposed Water Distribution System.........................................................7-5
Figure 7-2. Proposed Wastewater Collection System....................................................7-9
Figure 8-1. Existing Functional Classifications.............................................................8-3
Figure 8-2. Existing Roadway Characteristics..............................................................8-4
Figure 8-3. Existing Traffic Volumes...........................................................................8-5
Figure 8-4. Proposed Roadway Functional Classifications............................................8-10
Figure 8-5. 2024 Traffic Volumes.............................................................................8-12
Figure 9-1. Parks and Trails......................................................................................9-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Ridgefield Overall Density, 2004.................................................................2-2
Table 2-2. Ridgefield Land Consumption by Use, 2010 .................................................2-2
Table 2-3. Comparative Residential Densities for New Construction, 2000-2004 ..............2-3
Table 2-4. Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementing Zones ..........................2-9
Table 4-1. Clark County Employment.........................................................................4-1
Table 4-2. Ridgefield Economic Development in 1st Half of 2005 ...................................4-1
Table 4-3. Significant Employers in Ridgefield.............................................................4-2
Table 5-1. Population of Ridgefield, 1980 to 2024 ........................................................5 -1
Table 5-2. Households in Ridgefield, 1990 to 2005 ......................................................5-1
Table 5-3. Housing Types in Ridgefield, 1990 to 2000 ..................................................5-1
Table 5-4. 2000 Median Housing Costs.......................................................................5-2
Table 5-5. Housing Densities and Lot Sizes.................................................................5-3
Table 7-1. Ridgefield Facilities/Service Providers..........................................................7-2
Table 7-2. Summary of Ridgefield Water Service Capital Facilities Plans for 2010-2016 ...7-6
Table 7-3. Summary of Ridgefield Wastewater Service Capital Facilities Plans
for2010-2016.........................................................................................7-7
Table 7-4. Ridgefield Schools...............................................................:..................7-13
Table 7-5. Non -instructional Facilities.......................................................................7-13
Table 8-1. Level -of -service (LOS) Categories..............................................................8-7
Table 8-2. Selected Intersection LOS Summary (PM Peak)...........................................8-7
Table 8-3. Accident Summary ...................................................................................8-8
Table 8-4. Urban Growth Area Plan Designations.........................................................8-9
Table 9-1. Ridgefield Existing Parks and Open Space (2005) .........................................9-1
iv City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
L�
1. INTRODUCTION
Ridgefield's origins can be traced back more
than 1,000 years to early Native American
settlements that prospered in the area now
designated as the Ridgefield National Wild-
life Refuge. After the Civil War, this area
was known as Union Ridge and grew rapidly
through the second half of the nineteenth
century. The town of Ridgefield was incorpo-
rated in 1909.
Located 10 miles north of Vancouver, Wash-
ington and 20 miles north of Portland, Oregon,
Ridgefield has easy access to metropolitan
amenities yet enough distance to maintain a
small-town atmosphere (Figure 1-1). The ad-
jacent Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge and
a direct connection to Interstate 5 provide
the city the opportunity to grow but remain
a distinctive community. This document, the
Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
2004-2024 (RUACP), outlines the City's vision
for accommodating expected growth through
2024.
The 2005 RUACP is an update to the City's
previous Comprehensive Plan approved on
December 16, 2004 and August 14, 2008.
This update addresses minor comprehensive
map and text amendments initiated by West-
ern Washington Growth Management Hear-
ings Board action and by private property
owner request. The 2005 update, which was
completed in September 2008, addressed re-
vised growth estimates for Clark County and
Ridgefield by providing accommodations for
an increased rate of growth. The jurisdic-
tion of the Ridgefield Urban Area Compre-
hensive Plan 2004-2024 includes the land
within Ridgefield's city limits as well as unin-
corporated areas within the Ridgefield Urban
Growth Area (RUGA). These unincorporated
areas are anticipated to be annexed by the
City during the 20 -year planning period and
will be subject to the Comprehensive Plan if
and when this annexation occurs. This plan
is intended to enhance community livability,
coordinate development, and to smooth the
transition of services between the incorpo-
rated and unincorporated urban areas as an-
nexation occurs.
1.1 VISION
The RUACP is guided by a vision for how Ridge-
field and the surrounding area will grow and
develop during the next twenty years. This
vision is best described by four principles:
Regional Employment Center
The first principle of the RUACP is that Ridge-
field will become a regional employment
center for Clark County and Southwest Wash-
ington. Rather than become a "bedroom
community," Ridgefield will continue to build
a robust economy that provides a wealth of
living wage employment opportunities for
residents. Development of the Pioneer Street
interchange around Interstate 5 will play an
important role in achieving this goal, attract-
ing employers who provide additional high
quality jobs. The Discovery Corridor (see the
Economic Development section) will also play
an important role in developing Ridgefield
as a regional employment center. The City's
Capital Facilities Plans for sanitary sewer,
water and transportation reflect the commu-
nity's desire to provide urban services to sup-
port economic development and long term
stability.
Quality Neighborhoods
The second principle of the RUACP is main-
tenance of Ridgefield's quality residen-
tial neighborhoods and the creation of new
neighborhoods which reflect these qualities.
Desirable pedestrian environments and con-
nectivity, access to schools and parks, and
high-quality design are neighborhood charac-
teristics that the City seeks to enhance. The
City's Development Code will require adher-
ence to performance standards while allow-
ing the design flexibility necessary for a mix
of high quality neighborhoods; cul-de-sacs,
gated communities and homogeneity sub-
division layout and design will be discouraged
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 1-1
and avoided. However, the RUACP recognizes
that Ridgefield has an obligation to provide
housing opportunities for all its citizens, by
allowing for well-designed multiple family
development along transit corridors, in the
Downtown area and other parts of the city.
Protection of Critical Areas
The third principle of the RUACP is the protec-
tion of critical environmental resources areas
within the growth demands. The diverse to-
pography and abundance of natural amenities
are important aspects of Ridgefield's com-
munity identity and play an important role in
attracting economic growth. The RUACP rec-
ognizes the Ridgefield National Wildlife Ref-
uge as both an economic and an aesthetic
asset, which is directly affected by develop-
ment along Ridgefield's streams and canyons.
Conscientious promotion and management of
these assets will help Ridgefield to maintain
its character.
Managed Growth
The fourth principle of the RUACP is careful
management of growth. This principle rec-
ognizes that the City is the logical provider
of key urban services, and that development
shall assist in the necessary plan review and
infrastructure development costs. Ridgefield
has adopted a "pay as you go" philosophy to
ensure that urban -level services are provided
concurrently with new development. Ridge-
field is committed to providing sewer, water,
transportation and storm drainage services
throughout its urban area.
As annexation occurs and existing develop-
ment is brought into the City, services must
be provided in a timely manner. Annexation
to the City must be assured as a condition of
connecting to City services. The City's Capi-
tal Facilities Plan (CFP) includes detailed pro-
grams explaining how growth is supported
and paid for.
1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The RUACP was developed with extensive help
1-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
from the public and can only be implemented
by continued support from the community.
The City will continue to work with citizens,
stakeholder groups and other government
agencies to ensure this plan represents the
community's priorities and vision.
Five open houses were held during the 2005
Comprehensive Plan development process as
well as the 2008 and 2010 updates to pro-
vide an opportunity for City staff to discuss
the RUACP with the public. Three addition-
al open houses were held; one in 2007 and
two in 2008. Staff showed large-scale maps
and illustrations of important elements of the
RUACP to explain the proposed plans and
policies. In turn, interested citizens provided
valuable opinions and advice that were incor-
porated into the RUACP.
The Ridgefield Planning Commission con-
ducted two public hearings in the fall of 2010.
In addition, the Ridgefield City Council held
a work session and two public hearings on
the 2010 update of the plan. Public testimony
was recorded and considered as the Coun-
cil deliberated and voted to adopt and later
amend the RUACP.
1.3 LOCAL AND STATE PLANS AND
LAWS
Growth Management Act (GMA)
The Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan is consistent with the requirements of the
GMA, adopted in 1990 and since amended.
The GMA requires counties and cities meet-
ing certain population and growth criteria to
adopt and maintain Comprehensive Plans.
Among other requirements, plans must en-
sure that projected growth in urban areas be
accommodated through a range of urban den-
sities, that capital facilities keep pace with the
growth, and that critical environmental areas
be protected.
Community Framework Plan
The Community Framework Plan, adopted by
Clark County and its cities in 1993, updated
W
a
a
0
M
d
co
O
O
N
N
E
0
Q
N
O_
O
V
O
O
N
T
O
c
CD
N
m
in 2000 and 2001, and readopted in 2004
and 2007 provides guidance to local jurisdic-
tions on regional land use and service issues.
The Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan is consistent with the concepts put for-
ward in the Community Framework Plan: that
development will occur at varying densities
throughout the region, and that more inten-
sive development will occur at various cen-
ters or nodes.
Ridgefield Development Code
Under state law, the direction set by Ridge -
field's Comprehensive Plan must be imple-
mented in related City standards contained
in the Ridgefield Municipal Code. Title 18 of
the Ridgefield Municipal Code contains the
Ridgefield Development Code, and is periodi-
cally amended to ensure consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
1.4 PLANS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE
The following plans are adopted with this
Comprehensive Plan, by reference:
• Ridgefield Capital Facilities Plan, including
specific plans for
— transportation
— sewer service
— water provision
— parks and recreation
— general facilities
• Stormwater Management Comprehensive Plan
• Clark County Community Framework Plan
• Fort Vancouver Regional Library System Plan
• Fire District 12 Capital Facilities Plan
• Metropolitan Transportation Plan
• Port of Ridgefield Comprehensive Scheme of
Harbor Improvements
• Ridgefield School District Capital Facilities Plan
1-4 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 141
pro
--e"f- jq _.
.,
IML
��� - ' t�1��•
-_ •��ya;.��v1- �* �_;`'tea :>.
,
.\�
tL
n
a
0
a
2. LAND USE
2.1 RIDGEFIELD'S LAND USE IN 2010
Ridgefield is a rapidly growing city in north
Clark County, with a long history that exem-
plifies the historical development pattern for
many small communities in the Pacific North-
west. Early settlers built a vibrant agricultur-
al and forestry -based economy, followed by
growth in the industrial and shipping sectors
with the creation of the Interstate 5 junction
and the expansion of the Port of Ridgefield.
Ridgefield has also been discovered as a de-
sirable residential community for families who
participate in the broader regional economy.
Historically and currently, State Route 501,
also known as Pioneer Street, has acted as
the primary transportation corridor connect-
ing downtown and the Interstate 5 junction.
Land uses along this corridor reflect the spec-
trum of development types in Ridgefield, with
a combination of industrial, residential and
commercial development. This stretch of Pio-
neer Street is clearly an attractive area for
development, which is demonstrated by ex-
tensive new residential subdivisions that are
currently under development. Main Avenue
and 9th Street/Hillhurst Road are north -south
connectors that are near or traverse down-
town. These roads are the heart of Ridgefield's
existing residential neighborhoods. This area
reflects over 100 years of settlement, with a
mix of old historic residential structures in-
terspersed with modern subdivisions and infill
housing. In the past five years, considerable
development has occurred in the City, includ-
ing residential development north of Pioneer
Street and along Hillhurst Road, as well as
on both sides of I-5 at the Ridgefield inter-
change.
The area near the Interstate 5/Pioneer Street
junction, otherwise known as the Ridgefield
Interchange, has experienced and is planned
to see significant commercial and industrial
development. The completion of the major
improvements to the Ridgefield interchange
will facilitate extensive employment growth in
the immediate vicinity and land to the north
and south of the interchange. The industrial
and transportation sectors have already dis-
covered this area as evidenced by the re-
cent development of major warehousing and
shipment facilities serving the entire Pacific
Northwest.
Ridgefield is a community of families, with a
high proportion of population under 18 years
old and between 18 and 64 years old. Table
2-1 compares land consumption and density
data for the City of Ridgefield and the unin-
corporated UGA (for 2004). Table 2-2 com-
pares land consumption by use for the City of
Ridgefield and the unicorporated UGA. Table
2-3 compares recent residential densities
among local jurisdictions. It indicates that
Ridgefield has developed less densely than
other cities in Clark County, in part due to the
fact that the city has grown at a slower rate,
although the city entered a period of high res-
idential and non-residential growth from 2004
to 2008. Although the City expects density to
increase rapidly, the long-term effects of the
2008-2009 recession are unknown.
2.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
Ridgefield's population is anticipated to grow
from approximately 4,215 people in 2009 to
over 24,706 people in 2024. The explosive
rate of settlement between 2000 and 2008,
unparalleled in the history of Ridgefield, was
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 2-1
driven by convenient highway access, attrac-
tive residential living opportunities, and an
expanding regional economy.' The dramatic
nationwide falloff in new homebuilding, begin-
ning in 2008, is slow to bounce back. Future
comprehensive plan revisions will evaluate
the impact of economic upsurge and decline
more carefully. This section outlines strate-
gies that Ridgefield will implement during the
next 20 years to enhance the city's livability,
economy, efficiency, and environment as it
grows into a mid-sized city.
2.2.1 A Balanced Community
The City of Ridgefield will guide development
within the UGA to improve the balance of
residential, commercial, industrial, and public
land uses. As Ridgefield is transformed from a
small city to a mid-sized city, a complete com-
munity will begin to take shape that affords
a diversity of residential and non-residential
options strategically located throughout the
community, with centralized nodes of activity.
The Land Use element provides for adequate
residential and employment land to accom-
plish this strategy in tandem with the policies
identified in the Housing and Economic De-
velopment elements. This development strat-
egy will result in a strengthened community
identity, a greater "sense of place," improved
economic opportunities, increased park and
school options, an expanded tax base, and
opportunities to reduce the per capita de-
mand for automobile travel. Ridgefield will
also pursue development of a mix of housing
products, including multi -family and single-
family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan
Map shows the locations and intensities of
planned land uses within the Ridgefield Urban
Growth Area (see Figure 2-1 and Table 2-4).
Table 2-1. Ridgefield Overall Density, 2004
Unincorporated
Category City of Urban
Ridgefield Growth Area
Size
City of Ridgefield
Population
2,602
1036
Jobs
1,300
Data
Acres vacant and
Land use
unavailable
Pop. Density
0.74 people/
0.21 people/
Urban Low Density
acre
acre
Sources: Clark County, City of Ridgefield
Table 2-2. Ridgefield Land Consumption by Use, 2010
s
is
s
City of Ridgefield
Ridgefield UGA
Acres vacant and
Acres vacant and
Land use
Total Acres zoned
underutilized
Total Acres zoned
underutilized
Urban Low Density
2,089.02
1,465.44
800.40
732.87
Residential
Urban Medium/
317.26
248.11
247.39
241.63
High Density
Residential
Commercial
360.28
276.37
24.81
21.06
Mixed Use
47.11
n/a
0.00
0
Office Park
477.83
396.98
155.61
86.51
Industrial
908.30
610.91
17.36
11.70
Parks/Open Space
135.86
n/a
98.72
n/a
Public Facilities
202.40
n/a
0.00
n/a
Water
71.32
n/a
73.19
n/a
Total
4,609.37
2,997.80
1,417.47
1,093.77
Source: Clark County GIS
2-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
1. In 2000 the Ridgefield population was under 2,000 persons.
s
is
s
in
149
is
0
Table 2-3. Comparative Residential Densities for New Construction, 2000 — 2004
New units per net
City/area
New units
residential acre
Single-family units
Multi -family units
City of Ridgefield
132
4.0
97%
3%
Vancouver
6,431
5.0
99%
<1%
Battle Ground
1,331
5.7
99%
<1%
Camas
1,085
4.6
99%
1%
Washougal
692
4.1
96%
4%
Sources: Clark County Plan Monitoring Report Update (2000 — 2004)
The City of Ridgefield provides flexible zoning
regulations that creatively maintain quality
neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan des-
ignations dictate the basic land uses and in-
tensities. The Zoning districts, which typically
provide very prescriptive limitations on the
types of development, will also consider the
impacts and forms of development. This will
allow for individual neighborhoods to develop
a unique sense of place. Commercial develop-
ment will be different in Downtown and at the
waterfront than at the Ridgefield interchange.
Likewise residential development will have to
meet different standards along Pioneer Street
than in the South Gee Creek area.
2.2.2 Ridgefield Urban Growth Area
(RUGA)
One of the main tools for managing growth
under Washington's Growth Management Act
is establishing an Urban Growth Area. Land
outside Ridgefield's UGA is rural or resource
land. Land inside the RUGA is reserved for
urban uses, based on the need for housing,
employment, public facilities and open space
over a twenty (20) year period. Ridgefield's
intent is to provide urban services and annex
land within the UGA in concert with its abil-
ity to provide these services. Table 2-2 shows
the acreage dedicated to different land uses
in the Ridgefield Urban Growth Area. This
data is based on Comprehensive Plan desig-
nations. The actual development pattern will
differ. For example, neighborhood commercial
uses are allowed under certain circumstance
in residential areas.
2.2.3 Community Design
Good community design is an important el-
ement in creating high quality and livable
neighborhoods. Most home buyers are at-
tracted not only to their personal dwelling,
but to the character of the street, neighbor-
hood, and community in which it is located.
The main ingredients of good design include
development that is acceptable to public per-
ception and comprehension in terms of the
size, height, bulk, and/or massing of buildings
or other features of the built environment.
Further, new subdivisions will be designed to
provide attractive areas for pedestrians. De-
sign elements that contribute to a sense of
place include structures which are built near-
er to the street, front porches, landscaping,
convenient walkways, narrower streets, and
parking on the street and behind the struc-
tures. The City of Ridgefield will continue
to explore opportunities for improving and
enhancing community design through de-
velopment regulations and encouraging site
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 2-3
LL
cRR ••
CL •v � � � E � _ � _ r 3 .R U (�_�,�
e D z 0 u c = z z c c v o°n
1
, E
Rc
V"VHIJI�N 3��b N1SHS 3�b N10L 3N
NE TIN�F c
C
c 1 1
1
{ t
IT
N
�a
x
old
3nb H15e N _
♦ — �I 3�tl 1S tE MN
o�
e�
1 [
1 i v eN
e �I � � • � �■
AVNI-NS
P 1 T
1 $
1
1 e e
2 1 `
d a 1 a m i
1 � �
a 1♦ � Q
-y ■
a
N
N
L
_,NE TIMMEN R� c
r X f 5 e : c =
cz 3`0 - - - - S. - - atE
rt
m 1
1
s ' gg
. a� 1 - • i m
- 3Atl N10! 3N
� 1 �
d 1
3Ab N111 MN
3/
1
Im O
= Q
3nvts�e MN 3nv vilsr�
3nv vis s m ¢
� 3nv •sie xw
F71
1
1 m
1
Z i1
1
1 P
� 1 e
1 � I
a 1 ♦,
R
0
master planning that incorporates the design
elements identified above.
Ridgefield will work to maintain and improve
the quality of existing residential neighbor-
hoods, while encouraging the development
of new residential neighborhoods that have
distinctive and individual character. The RU -
ACP acknowledges that walkability is a vi-
tal component of livable neighborhoods. As
such, pedestrian -friendly amenities such as
connectivity, well maintained sidewalks, and
convenient access to schools, grocery stores
and parks are encouraged. Flexible develop-
ment regulations will allow developers to in-
tegrate these features into new and existing
neighborhoods. Allowing construction of the
"corner market" within neighborhoods is fos-
tering healthy communities. Increasing con-
nectivity and allowing alternative modes of
transportation should be viewed as both a
transportation issue and an important factor
for positive community development.
Shopping and employment centers in Ridge-
field will be developed under an innovative
hybrid zoning code that incorporates ele-
ments of form -based and performance-based
zoning. Performance-based zoning sets stan-
dards for impacts of land uses such as noise,
vibration, air pollution, post -development
stormwater runoff, and solar access. It focus-
es on land use impacts, not the uses them-
selves. Form -based zoning (like that outlined
in the "14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown
Ridgefield" developed by UrbsWorks Inc.) is
closely related to performance zoning, and
may be integrated into the code. The form -
based regulations will guide the development
of the built environment in Ridgefield, so
that new development helps to frame public
spaces, fit into the existing communities, and
form distinct neighborhoods.
2.2.4 Land Use Designations
Within the UGA, land will be classified accord-
ing to the following land use designations and
overlays, to implement the RUACP planning
priorities. See Figure 2-1 for the Comprehen-
2-6 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
sive Plan Map. The plan designations will be
implemented by the corresponding zones list-
ed in Table 2-4. The designations and over-
lays are intended to achieve the following
objectives:
Urban Low Density Residential
Provide predominately single family, detached
residential opportunities at low densities.
Urban Medium Density Residential
Provide for a mix of residential opportunities
at higher densities.
City Center (C)
Protect and enhance the small-scale, com-
pact and mixed character of the City's older
central core.
General Commercial (GC)
Provide for business and commercial activi-
ties to meet local and regional demand.
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Create opportunities for low -intensity busi-
ness and service uses to serve proximate
residential neighborhoods.
Mixed Use
Facilitate a mix of residential and commer-
cial uses to create compact development
patterns.
Office Park/Business Park (OP)
Provide for business and office uses serving
regional market areas with significant em-
ployment opportunities supported by limited
commercial uses.
Light Industrial (ML)
Provide for industrial and manufacturing uses
that create significant regional employment
opportunities.
Employment Center (EC)
Provide for a mix of private business and
office uses, and essential public uses that
generate employment opportunities.
71
a
�A
a
's
4B
Public Facilities (PF)
Provide for essential public uses such as ed-
ucation, medical and infrastructure facilities
necessary to serve City or regional residents.
Park/Open Space
Preserve open land for recreational use and
environmental protection.
Special Overlay Districts
Lake River View Protection (LRVP)
Preserve and capitalize upon the views from
the downtown heights over the waterfront
area and onto the wildlife refuge.
Urban Holding (UH -10)
Limit development until the area can be ad-
equately served by public infrastructure.
Employment Mixed Use Overlay (EMUO)
Provide for a mix of compatible light industri-
al, service, office, retail and residential uses.
2.3 LAND USE POLICIES
LU -1 Citywide land supplies
Establish land supplies and density allowances
that are sufficient but not excessive to accom-
modate adopted long-term City of Ridgefield
population, public facilities and employment
forecast allocations.
LU -2 Efficient development patterns
Encourage efficient development through-
out Ridgefield. Encourage higher density and
more intense development in areas that are
more extensively served by facilities, partic-
ularly by public schools, transportation and
transit services.
LU -3 Infill and redevelopment
Where compatible with surrounding uses, ef-
ficiently use urban land by facilitating infill of
smaller undeveloped properties, and redevel-
opment of existing developed properties. Al-
low for conversion of single- to multi -family
housing where designed to be compatible
with surrounding uses.
LU -5 Mixed-use development
Facilitate development that combines multiple
uses in single buildings or integrated sites.
Target areas for mixed use development in-
clude the Lake River waterfront and the cen-
tral city core.
LU -6 Neighborhood livability
Maintain and facilitate development of stable,
multi -use neighborhoods that contain a com-
patible mix of housing, jobs, stores, public
schools and open and public spaces in a well-
planned, safe pedestrian environment.
LU -7 Human scale and accessible
development
Facilitate development that is human scale
and encourages interaction. Elements of hu-
man scale include pedestrian access, street
front commercial activity, low to mid-range
building elevation, and architectural variety
at the street level.
LU -8 Design Guidelines
Utilize the report titled 14 Essential Guide-
lines for Downtown Ridgefield, by adopting
it and integrating it with development review
and strategic planning.
LU -9 Subdivision design
Facilitate development and develop design
standards to address the following:
• Increased street front use, visual interest, and
integration with adjacent buildings
• Improved pedestrian connections and proximity
of uses within developments
• Enhanced sense of identity in neighborhoods
LU -10 Downtown design
Ensure that the existing strengths of Down-
town Ridgefield and the Waterfront areas are
maintained by:
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 2-7
• Integrating the findings and recommendations
of the 2010 Integrated Planning Grant into
downtown and waterfront zones
• Orientating buildings toward the Lake River
shoreline
• Maintaining the comfortable, "Main Street"
feeling which includes pedestrian scale, ground
floor commercial uses, a flexible approach
towards intermingling of residential and small
scale commercial and office uses
• Encourage pedestrian, bicycle and bus access
throughout the downtown and waterfront areas
LU -11 Compatible uses
Facilitate development that minimizes ad-
verse impacts to adjacent areas.
LU -12 Complementary uses
Locate complementary land uses near to one
another to maximize opportunities for people
to work or shop nearer to where they live.
LU -13 Property rights
Ensure that property owners within the
Ridgefield Urban Growth Area (RUGA) enjoy
the right to use their property in ways consis-
tent with public policy. City land use decisions
shall not deny an owner of all reasonable in-
vestment backed expectations in their prop-
erty resulting in an unconstitutional taking'
of private property for public use. Critical ar-
eas regulations shall ensure an owner of a
reasonable use of their property.
LU -14 Commercial development
Provide incentives and establish regulations
that facilitate revitalization of the Downtown
and Waterfront and appropriately planned
commercial development at the Pioneer
Street and Interstate 5 interchange.
2-8 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
LU -15 Development code
Adopt clear and objective zoning, environ-
mental and land division standards and regu-
lations that ensure development consistent
with the goals and policies of this plan. City,
County and special district regulations shall
be consistent with and adequate to carry out
the provisions of the Ridgefield Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive
land use designations and implementing zon-
ing districts are listed in Table 2-4.
LU -16 City center
To facilitate the orderly growth of the down-
town core expand the range of uses allowed
in the central residential to allow limited
commercial activity in existing buildings on
lots platted 10,000 square foot or less.
LU -17 Districts
Form neighborhood districts to help guide de-
velopment of unique and distinctive neighbor-
hoods. Development in districts would reflect
their topographic, historical, economic, and
natural features. Districts may be formed to
relate to key amenities, such as parks, natural
resources, schools, or commercial activities.
LU -18 Land use reassessment
Assure consistency of overall land use and
capital facilities plans by reevaluating Ridge -
field's land use plan when necessary to en-
sure adequate funding to provide necessary
public facilities and services to implement
the plan.
LU -19 Public participation
The city shall adopt procedures and regula-
tions to ensure that the public has a right to
participate in the adoption or amendment of
land use plans, policies and regulations in a
meaningful way.
*I
k 4
Table 2-4. Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementing Zones
Plan Designation
Zoning
Residential Urban Low (UL)
Residential Low Density
(RLD-4, RLD-6, RLD-8)
Residential Urban Medium (UM)
Residential Medium Density (RMD-16)
City Center (C)
Central Mixed Use (CMU)
General Commercial (GC)
Community Business (CCB)
Regional Business (CRB)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Neighborhood Business (CNB)
Mixed Use (MU)
Waterfront Mixed Use (WMU)
Waterfront Low Scale (WLS)
Office Park/Business Park (OP)
Office (OFF)
Light Industrial (ML)
Industrial (IND)
Employment Center (EC)
Office (OFF), Public Facilities (PF)
Public Facilities (PF)
Public Facilities (PF)
Park/Open Space (P/OS)
Public Park/Open Space (P/OS)
Special Overlay Districts
Lake River View Protection (LRVP)
same
Urban Holding (UH -10)
same
Employment Mixed Use Overlay (EMUO)
same
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 2-9
ib -
add
�_f
�7
� /, � �J•� §
<�
• �;�/�� -
.
�
�
§.
� r
:
.
°\.t
-
. `\�.
�
�,■ a
�
ib -
add
�_f
is
149
3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION
3.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Historic and cultural resources in Ridgefield
are rooted in a rich and colorful history that
dates back thousands of years. The historical
record of the county includes the formation
of the region's unique landscape, settlement
of the region by Native American groups, ex-
ploration by European nations, location as
headquarters for the Hudson's Bay Company
Columbia District trade networks, destination
for thousands who took the Oregon Trail, and
location as an industrial center (first for pulp
and paper, then aluminum and shipbuilding,
and now high-tech industries).
After the Civil War, the Ridgefield area built
up rapidly, and was known as Union Ridge.
In 1909, the town of Ridgefield was incorpo-
rated. Ridgefield is a community whose heri-
tage is deeply connected to the water and the
land. As the gateway to the Ridgefield Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge and a key entry point
to the Columbia River, Ridgefield offers un-
paralleled access to prime examples of the
Pacific Northwest way of life. Knowledge of
Ridgefield's history can provide a context in
which to understand current growth and de-
velopment trends, and to affirm a sense of
continuity and community.
The National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 authorized the creation of the Nation-
al Register of Historic Places as a means of
recognizing sites and structures associated
with significant people or events in our na-
tion's history. Ridgefield also participates in
the Clark County Historic preservation pro-
gram and, with it, the Clark County Heritage
Register. Both the National and the local his-
toric registers provide protections for historic
properties and valuable assistance for their
rehabilitation.
The Washington State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation (OAHP) perform the
functions of the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) which were established by
the National Historic Preservation Act. OAHP
maintains records of all historic resource in-
ventories and sites and acts as liaison between
local agencies and the federal government.
OAHP is also responsible for reviewing pro-
posed federal projects for their potential im-
pact on historic and archaeological resource.
There are a number of other groups and or-
ganizations that participate in the preserva-
tion of historic, archaeological and cultural
resources at specific sites, for designated ar-
eas or for the entire county.
Cathlapotle Plankhouse
When the Corps of Discovery stopped in
Ridgefield in November of 1805, they found a
prosperous village called by fur traders "Cath-
lapotle." The village consisted of what is now
the Ridgefield National Wildlife Reserve. "I
counted 14 houses," Clark wrote in his diary.
There were nearly one thousand native Ameri-
cans living in the village, with nearly twenty
thousand people in southwest Washington.
Lewis and Clark returned to the village in
March 1806. Volunteers have worked tireless-
ly to reconstruct the Cathlapotle Plankhouse.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 3-1
Cathlapotle is one of the few archaeological
sites on the Lower Columbia River that has
withstood the ravages of flooding, looting,
and development. A decade of archaeologi-
cal research -the result of a partnership be-
tween the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Chinook Tribe, and Portland State University -
has produced a wealth of information about
the Chinookan people who lived on the river
long before Lewis and Clark first observed
Cathlapotle in 1805. The cedar plankhouse
on the Refuge will serve as an outdoor class-
room for interpreting the rich natural and
cultural heritage preserved on the Ridgefield
National Wildlife Refuge through the site of
Cathlapotle. The addition of the plankhouse
to the refuge will be a significant attraction
for residents and tourists alike. This will con-
tribute to economic development activities at
the Ridgefield Interstate 5 interchange and
the downtown.
3.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
Ridgefield has unequalled assets in its down-
town. No other place in north Clark County
has such a diverse array of historic buildings.
Additionally, the community character of the
downtown has been very well preserved. It
is vitally important to the future of Ridgefield
that the downtown maintains its historic sense
of place. This can be achieved by appropriate
rehabilitation of the vintage buildings and by
mindful development of vacant sites. The re-
port, 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown
Ridgefield, will be studied and applied during
the development review of new construction,
street design, etc.
Ridgefield has joined with Clark County and
the State of Washington to administer a his-
toric preservation program. This program can
provide design assistance to property owners,
as well as an understanding of the significant
tax benefits of historic preservation. Ridge-
field has the opportunity to leverage County
and State resources to its own benefit.
3-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
3.3 POLICIES
HP -1 Partnerships for historic
preservation
Partner with Clark County to provide a strong
historic and archeological preservation pro-
gram.
HP -2 Identify and protect resources
Identify and encourage the preservation of
lands, sites, and structures that have histori-
cal or archaeological significance.
HP -3 Education programs
Raise public awareness of cultural resourc-
es by creating educational and interpretive
projects that highlight sites included on the
county inventory or those eligible for inclu-
sion in local or state heritage registers, or the
National Register of Historic Places.
HP -4 Rehabilitate historic structures
Provide assistance to developers, landowners,
and the construction trade regarding appropri-
ate re -use and rehabilitation of identified his-
toric sites and buildings. Provide assistance to
developers, landowners and others interested
in obtaining grants and receiving available
tax incentives for re -use and rehabilitation of
identified historic sites and buildings.
HP -5 Downtown historic district
Explore the benefits of a downtown historic
district. Benefits will include flexible building
codes, reduced assessments, and more.
HP -6 History tours
Develop guided and self -guided tours which
highlight cultural and historic resources in
Ridgefield.
AI
91
*I
0
�
4d
4A
�\ \
.
0
�
4d
Is
V]
�6
E
4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Economic development is essential to Ridge -
field's ability to sustain itself. Economic de-
velopment helps to establish a balance of
residential and employment opportunities,
the basic elements of a complete community.
A strong and diverse economy provides em-
ployment and a tax base that supports public
services and a livable community. The City
also recognizes that the provision of a quality
public education enhances economic devel-
opment. Although most economic activity is
in the private sector, the City of Ridgefield's
role is to establish parameters that help pri-
vate markets flourish, provide support, and
encourage beneficial economic development
projects.
4.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
4.1.1 Regional Conditions
The City of Ridgefield's economic vitality is
coupled with the broader regional economy
for Clark County and the Portland metropoli-
tan area. Many of Ridgefield's workers cur-
rently commute to workplaces located in
other jurisdictions, and many Ridgefield jobs
are filled by workers living in other cities. In
April 2003 there were an estimated 123,900
jobs in Clark County.
Ridgefield's economy is diversified, with con-
centrations in services, retail trade, manufac-
turing, government, and construction. Over
the past decade, the economic base of the
region has shifted from manufacturing to
services, retail trade, and transportation and
utilities (Source: Washington Employment
Security Department).
Of the ten largest employers in Clark County
in 2002, half were public agencies. However,
firms new to the region, not the growth of
existing large businesses, have largely driven
the economic expansion in the region during
the 1990s.
The vast majority of Clark County workers are
employed by small to mid-sized firms.
Table 4-1 shows the breakdown of firm size
for Clark County based on number of employ-
ees. This data demonstrates how important
small- and mid-sized firms are to the overall
economic vitality of the region. It is expected
that much of the region's economic growth
will be driven by small- to mid-sized firms
that, for a variety of reasons, tend to better
circulate wealth within the local economy and
grow in-place.
Table 4-1. Clark Countv EmDlovment
Firm Size (number
Percentage of Total
of employees)
Employment
0-19
87.8%
20-49
7.7%
50-99
2.7%
100-499
1.7%
500-999
0.1%
1000+
0.1%
Sources: US Census 2000, 2001 County Business Patterns
Industrial development was a major thrust of
regional economic development strategies dur-
ing the 1990s. According to the Regional Indus-
trial Lands Study (Metro, 2002), Clark County
has the largest inventory of industrial lands in
the six county Portland -Ridgefield Metropolitan
Statistical Area; a substantial amount of that
inventory is in the Ridgefield area.
4.1.2 Local Conditions
Over the past decade, the economic base of
the city has expanded to include transporta-
tion and distribution sectors that benefit from
superb interstate access (Table 4-2). Ridge-
field is estimated to currently support 1,300
Table 4-2. Ridgefield Economic
Development in 1st Half of 2005
Approved Industrial 175,000sq. ft
Approved 36,000 sq. ft.
Commercial
Proposed 67,000 sq. ft.
Commercial
Source: Clark County GIS
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 41
Table 4-3. Sianificant Emnlovers in Ridaefield
Sources: 2005 CREDC, Clark County Economic Data Profile
jobs within the existing city limits. Industri-
al activity in Ridgefield is supported by the
Port of Ridgefield, which established indus-
trial lands around the I-5 junction during the
1980s and through waterfront lands prior to
that. The Port of Ridgefield district includes
35,480 acres of land, including sensitive ar-
eas, open space, and industrial lands. Nearly
one thousand people are employed at busi-
nesses on Port related properties, both at the
river and at the Pioneer Street and Interstate
5 interchange.
Recent economic development investments
have significantly expanded Ridgefield's em-
ployment base (Table 4-3). These efforts
have been facilitated by recent Urban Growth
Boundary expansions, annexations, acceler-
ated provision of public services, and a dedi-
cation to timely permit processing.
4.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
This plan is intended to increase jobs, par-
ticularly family -wage jobs that provide an
adequate income to live decently and raise
� I
l .- ♦ 1. �,. Yom.
r-
42 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
families in Ridgefield. This requires a wage
and benefits package that takes into account
the area -specific cost of living, as well as
the basic expenses involved in supporting a
family. The Economic Development Element
is also intended to reduce the number of resi-
dents who commute long distances to work.
A sound economy will also provide revenues
for the City to support facilities and services
desired by residents (parks, trails, police pro-
tection, fire protection, public schools, etc.)
4.2.1 Balanced Job Growth
The City is pursuing a ratio of at least one lo-
cal job for every 1.20 people. This equates to
over one local job per household. Providing
land and public services that are adequate for
job growth are important parts of this strat-
egy. The City must be a good steward of land
designated for job growth, which includes us-
ing the land efficiently and limiting conversion
to non -employment uses. The City must also
ensure the timely permitting of businesses
that support family -wage jobs and other pri-
ority economic development projects. Further,
special attention will be paid to attracting and
retaining small- to mid-sized businesses with
high growth potential.
4.2.2 Partnerships
Ridgefield's contribution to economic de-
velopment extends beyond the policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. The City has staff
and elected officials dedicated to economic
G
l_ J
0
NAICS
Estimated
Company
Product/Service
2 digit
Employees
Ridgefield School District
Education
61
153
Corwin Beverage
Pepsi Bottling Facility
31
105
Dollar Tree
Distribution center
23
100
Bonar Plastics
Bonar Plastics Injection Molding
32
150
U.S. Foodservice
Warehouse Distribution
48
120
Total
628
Sources: 2005 CREDC, Clark County Economic Data Profile
jobs within the existing city limits. Industri-
al activity in Ridgefield is supported by the
Port of Ridgefield, which established indus-
trial lands around the I-5 junction during the
1980s and through waterfront lands prior to
that. The Port of Ridgefield district includes
35,480 acres of land, including sensitive ar-
eas, open space, and industrial lands. Nearly
one thousand people are employed at busi-
nesses on Port related properties, both at the
river and at the Pioneer Street and Interstate
5 interchange.
Recent economic development investments
have significantly expanded Ridgefield's em-
ployment base (Table 4-3). These efforts
have been facilitated by recent Urban Growth
Boundary expansions, annexations, acceler-
ated provision of public services, and a dedi-
cation to timely permit processing.
4.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
This plan is intended to increase jobs, par-
ticularly family -wage jobs that provide an
adequate income to live decently and raise
� I
l .- ♦ 1. �,. Yom.
r-
42 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
families in Ridgefield. This requires a wage
and benefits package that takes into account
the area -specific cost of living, as well as
the basic expenses involved in supporting a
family. The Economic Development Element
is also intended to reduce the number of resi-
dents who commute long distances to work.
A sound economy will also provide revenues
for the City to support facilities and services
desired by residents (parks, trails, police pro-
tection, fire protection, public schools, etc.)
4.2.1 Balanced Job Growth
The City is pursuing a ratio of at least one lo-
cal job for every 1.20 people. This equates to
over one local job per household. Providing
land and public services that are adequate for
job growth are important parts of this strat-
egy. The City must be a good steward of land
designated for job growth, which includes us-
ing the land efficiently and limiting conversion
to non -employment uses. The City must also
ensure the timely permitting of businesses
that support family -wage jobs and other pri-
ority economic development projects. Further,
special attention will be paid to attracting and
retaining small- to mid-sized businesses with
high growth potential.
4.2.2 Partnerships
Ridgefield's contribution to economic de-
velopment extends beyond the policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. The City has staff
and elected officials dedicated to economic
G
l_ J
0
development. The City works with groups
such as the Ridgefield Business Association,
the Ridgefield Junction Association, and the
Port of Ridgefield.
4.2.3 Healthy Downtown
A healthy downtown that provides a setting
for mutually supportive businesses and com-
munity events is essential to a livable com-
munity. In addition to efforts to revitalize
downtown, the City will continue to work with
developers to create efficient and attractive
development in all areas of the city. Ridgefield
will support existing businesses and encour-
age them to expand by providing information
resources and completing economic develop-
ment oriented public projects.
4.2.4 Regional Employment Center
Ridgefield will participate in the creation of
a regional employment center at the Pioneer
Street and Interstate 5 interchange as part of
the Discovery Corridor. The Discovery Corridor
is an economic development initiative that the
Port of Ridgefield has developed and that the
Port and the City of Ridgefield have advanced
in partnership with other Clark County agen-
cies and organizations. It is envisioned that
the Discovery Corridor will be developed to
establish a vibrant industrial base in central
Clark County.
4.3 POLICIES
EC -1 Discovery Corridor
Implement the Discovery Corridor concept
along both sides of Interstate 5.
EC -2 Downtown
Support continued renaissance of Ridgefield's
downtown.
EC -3 Neighborhood Retail
Promote development of service-oriented
businesses to serve residents and reduce the
needs to travel out of the community.
I*
EC -4 Public revenue enhancement
Promote development that encourages rev-
enue generation for public services.
EC -5 Employment Capacity
Restrict zone changes or legislative approv-
als which lessen long term capacity for high
wage employment unless accompanied by
other changes within the same annual review
cycle which would compensate for the lost ca-
pacity, or unless the proposed change would
promote the long term economic health of
the city.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 43
HOUSING
is
r-
� •,�' _ Vis_
is
11
5. HOUSING
Adequate, safe, affordable and diverse hous-
ing options for all residents are essential
to the health of a community. This element
presents an evaluation of the current housing
needs for Ridgefield and an estimate of what
will be needed over the next 20 years, based
on projected growth.
5.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
5.1.1 Population
In 2010 there were 4,215 people living within
Ridgefield's city limits. Ridgefield grew slowly
until 2004 and experienced a period of rapid
growth from 2004 - 2008. Population growth
estimates will be re-evaluated after release of
the 2010 U.S. Census, Table 5-1 shows popu-
lation trends and estimates for Ridgefield.
5.1.2 Households
A household is defined as the person or group
of persons who live in one housing unit,
whether related or not. A single person living
in an apartment and a family living in a house
are both considered households. Table 5-2
shows the number of households in Ridgefield
and the average household size from 1980 to
2005 (estimated).
5.1.3 Housing Types
It is important to provide a variety of hous-
ing types to accommodate the community's
diverse needs. Younger people often rent
apartments, families generally desire homes,
and retirees increasingly prefer to move into
condominiums or apartments. As the 'Baby
Boom" generation ages during the next 20
years, there is likely to be a greater need and
demand for smaller units, retirement homes,
and assisted living.
The predominant type of housing in Ridge-
field is single-family dwellings (88 percent in
2000). However, different types of housing
have been built to meet the diverse needs of
Ridgefield's residents (Table 5-3).
Table 5-1. Population of Ridgefield, 1980 to 2024
1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2024
Ridgefield 1,062 1,332 2,147 2,602 4,215 24,706
Clark County 192,227 238,053 345,238 413,273 432,002 621,763
Sources: US Census 2000, Clark County Vacant and Buildable Lands Model
Table 5-2. Households in Ridgefield, 1990 to 2005
1990 2000 2005
Total Households 450 777 847
Occupied Households 435 739 807
Avg. People/Household 2.9 2.82 2.79
Sources: US Census 2000, Claritas
Table 5-3. Housing Types in Ridgefield, 1990 to 2000
Type
1990
2000
Single-family
363
704
Multi -family
54
55
Mobile -home
38
35
Total
455
797
Source: US Census 2000
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 5-1
5.1.4 Housing Affordability
Table 5-4 shows that Ridgefield's housing
costs were similar to those in the broader
housing market in Clark County in 2000. Bat-
tle Ground, Washougal and Yacolt had lower
median home values, while Camas and La
Center were generally more expensive. How-
ever, recent growth in Ridgefield has outpaced
the rest of the county. 2005 estimates place
the average home price in Ridgefield close to
$286,000.
One of the US Department of Housing and Ur-
ban Development's (HUD) guidelines is that
if people purchase a home worth more than
three times the household's annual income,
they will have to sacrifice something (for ex-
ample, health care, transportation, food).
The median home value reported by home-
owners in Ridgefield in the 2000 US Census
was $157,800. According to the 2000 Cen-
sus, the median household income for Ridge-
field residents was $46,012. This means that
in 2000, more than half the households in
Ridgefield could not afford the median value
home of $157,800. The median monthly rent
reported in Ridgefield in the 2000 US Census
was $611. Using the same guidelines, people
with annual household incomes of less than
$21,996 could not afford the median annual
rent in 2000.
People choose to rent or buy for different
reasons. Some moderate- and high-income
households (particularly retirees) choose to
rent a home or apartment even though they
can afford to buy a home. Young adults of-
ten rent as an interim step before buying a
home. For many low and moderate -income
households, renting is the only financially
feasible choice because of the higher initial
cost (down payment, closing costs, etc.) of
purchasing and the ongoing expense of main-
taining a home. However, home ownership
creates wealth for those who can afford it.
Rising rents have the greatest effect on the
most vulnerable of the city's population. If
rents are too high, low-income residents are
forced to double up with others, seek housing
farther from their workplaces and friends, or
accept substandard accommodations.
5.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
Consistent with adopted Clark County policy,
the City shall ensure through its development
regulations that no more than seventy five
percent (75%) of all housing units shall be
of a single type, e.g. single-family detached
housing. Some vacant land zoned residen-
tial will be encouraged to be developed with
multi -family units in order to achieve this de-
sired mix. Past growth in Ridgefield has been
primarily driven by new single-family homes.
While it is anticipated that single family dwell-
ings will constitute the majority of new con-
struction, the City will encourage construction
of multi -family dwellings to accommodate
much of the anticipated population growth.
The RUACP designates 564.65 acres of Resi-
dential Medium Density zones that will allow
up to sixteen (16) units per acre, and be lo-
cated along transportation corridors such as
Pioneer Street. 2,889.423 acres of Residen-
tial Low Density zones will allow up to eight
(8) units per acre. An analysis of the acreage
Table 5-4.2000 Median Housing Costs
Battle
Ridgefield Ground Camas La Center Vancouver Washougal Yacolt Clark County
Median
House $157,800 $136,700 $193,500 $179,200 $142,900 $134,900 $111,500 $156,600
Value
Median
Monthly $611 $635 $575 $619 $598 $539 $625 $606
Rent
Source: US Census 2000
5-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
61
0
0
zoned for multiple family and single family
zoned built out at average densities shows
the Ridgefield will not only achieve its Goals
for housing density and a mix of uses, it will
bring the UGA-wide average up to meet these
goals.
5.3 HOUSING POLICIES
HO -1: Accommodate Growth
Provide for an adequate supply of housing to
meet the City's anticipated population growth.
The City shall adopt policies and regulations
to meet the following objectives:
• New overall density target of six (6) units per net
acre
• No more than seventy five percent (75%) of new
houses shall be of a single housing type
• A minimum density of four (4) units per net acre
(10,890 sq. ft. average lot size) for single family
dwellings in any single development
HO -2: Multi -family Development
Encourage multi -family residential develop-
ment in designated Medium Density Residen-
tial (MDR) areas. Designated MDR areas shall
be located within one-half mile of commercial
or employment centers, and along existing or
planned transit corridors.
HO -3: Affordability
Encourage innovative housing policies, reg-
ulations and practices to provide affordable
housing. Provide secure funding mechanisms
and programs for housing targeted at house-
holds below the median area income.
HO -4: Housing options
Maintain a continuous and adequate supply
of residential land to meet long-range multi-
ple -family and single-family housing needs,
as well as all economic segments, within the
RUGA. Urban residential development shall
be preceded by annexation. No single type
of housing should comprise over 75% of new
development.
HO -5: Housing for special needs
Encourage self-determination and indepen-
dence among individuals with special needs.
City development regulations shall treat
households with special needs equivalent to
the general population and shall not discrimi-
nate against these households. Land use reg-
ulations shall address only land use impacts
(traffic, noise, appearance, etc.) of housing
for people with special needs, without consid-
eration for the special circumstances of special
needs households.
HO -6: Residential Development Density
Encourage a mix of single family and multiple
family housing that achieves an overall goal
of 6 units per net acre. 6 units per acre is
approximately 6000 square foot lots. How-
ever, the goal is to have a variety of housing
options so that more dense development of
townhomes and the like balances with some
large lot single family residences.
Table 5-5. Housing Densities and Lot Sizes
Gross Units Net Units Lot Sizes Zoning
per Acre per Acre (sq ft) District
Minimum
Density 5.0 4 8,712 RLD 4
Average Between
Density 7.5 6 5,808 RLD
6 and
RLD 8
HO -7: Infill
Actively support residential rehabilitation and
infill. Incentives such as reduction of System
Development Charges (SDC) and traffic im-
pact fees for infill projects can ease the fi-
nancial burden of such developments enough
to make these profitable and attractive for
developers. The City can also actively seek
grants and funding from State and Federal
sources to partially subsidize development or
redevelopment of infill lots.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 5-3
ENVIRONMENT
i9
a
a
6. ENVIRONMENT
People have long been attracted to the Ridge-
field area because of its high quality natural
environment. The City of Ridgefield recogniz-
es the importance of the natural environment
in contributing to economic development,
community livability, and quality of life. This
element describes many of the functions and
values of Ridgefield's natural environment.
Most importantly, it establishes policies that
protect and enhance the environment for
present and future generations while sup-
porting economic development.
The natural environment consists of many in-
terrelated components:
• geological resources (earth, soil, minerals, etc.)
• biological (living things, plants, animals,
microorganisms, people, etc)
• hydrological resources (groundwater, surface
water, streams, etc.)
• atmospheric resources (air)
The quality of the environment is determined
by the individual integrity of these compo-
nents and how well they interact with each
other. In turn, the quality of life that Ridge-
field offers is affected greatly by the health
of its natural environment. Human activities
are the primary cause of environmental deg-
radation to environmental resources, which
contributes to serious long-term economic
and social problems. The City of Ridgefield is
committed to avoiding, minimizing, and miti-
gating harmful environmental impacts to the
greatest practicable extent while supporting
the City's land use and economic develop-
ment policies.
6.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
6.1.1 The Land
Ridgefield enjoys gently rolling topography
(landform). The Columbia River has sculpted
much of Ridgefield's western topography by
depositing clay, silt, sand, and gravel onto its
banks over tens of thousands of years, creat-
ing a fairly flat terrain. Some steep slopes are
found along portions of the Columbia River
and Lake River.
6.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Although it is a thriving small city, Ridgefield
still has abundant habitat for fish and wildlife.
In fact, the annual Bird Fest draws visitors
from many states and foreign countries.
The Columbia River, Lake River, and smaller
creeks are home to salmon and trout. The
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) has classified certain important fish
and wildlife habitats and species as "prior-
ity habitats" and "priority species" to ensure
they are considered in land use planning and
management. Many of the priority habitats in
the Ridgefield area are wetlands and ripar-
ian areas (areas adjacent to streams, rivers
and lakes). There are many threatened and
endangered plant and animal species in Clark
County. The Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife maintains an updated list of these
species.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits
harming threatened and endangered species
or their habitats. The threatened and endan-
gered salmon species that occur in the Co-
lumbia Basin above migrate along Ridgefield's
shore, up the Columbia River as adults, and
down the river as juveniles.
Trees contribute to air and water quality, con-
serve energy by providing shade, contribute
to the aesthetic environment, and provide
habitat for many species. Ridgefield's land-
scape is a reflection of the City's effort to pre-
serve existing trees and other vegetation and
to add new vegetation.
The UGA contains Oak woodlands which are
designated as priority habitats by the Wash-
ington Department of Fish and Wildlife. There
is also bountiful Douglas Fir forestland, which
is not designated as priority habitat but does
support sensitive native species. Protection of
these native landscapes is important.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 6-1
6.1.3 Water Quality
An inevitable part of urbanization is the re-
placement of some portions of the forests,
grasslands and wetlands with impervious
surfaces (roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and
roofs). Increasing the amount of impervious
surface increases potential flooding and im-
pacts groundwater recharge. Urban stormwa-
ter also carries toxic substances and bacteria,
which can damage groundwater, lakes, rivers,
and streams if not properly managed. Soil
from erosion and fertilizers contribute phos-
phorus and nitrogen, both of which cause
excess growth of plants and microscopic ani-
mals. The organisms use oxygen from the wa-
ter, reducing the amount available for salmon
and other native animals. Toxic metals from
street runoff cling to soil particles that can
be carried into the water bodies. Other pol-
lutants, such as motor oil, are undoubtedly
transported by stormwater.
The City of Ridgefield works to limit adverse
impacts caused by urban stormwater run-
off. The City has adopted engineering stan-
6-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
dards that are consistent with the 1992 Puget
Sound Water Quality Manual and implements
industry standards relying on the authority of
engineering best management practices.
6.1.4 Air Quality
An airshed is defined as "a body of air bounded
by topographical and/or meteorological fea-
tures in which a contaminant, once emitted,
is contained." Ridgefield is within the airshed
bounded on the south by Eugene, Oregon,
on the north by Chehalis, Washington, on the
west by the Coast Range, and on the east
by the Cascade Mountains. Air quality in the
airshed is generally good. Motor vehicles are
the largest producer of air pollution, but other
combustion engines, such as lawn mowers and
those associated with industry, all contribute.
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (2002)
requires that pollution from motor vehicles
must be reduced to conform with the feder-
al and state Clean Air Acts. The Southwest
Washington Clean Air Agency (SWCAA) moni-
tors air quality for ozone, carbon monoxide
and fine particulates and enforces regulations
requiring industries to reduce emissions. The
region has an excellent record of compliance
with SWCAA.
6.1.5 Hazard Areas
Hazard areas in Ridgefield that have the po-
tential to threaten public health and safety
are floodplains, steep and unstable slopes,
and unconsolidated soils (topsoil and other
loose material). The Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency (FEMA) has mapped the
floodplains for the Columbia River, and pro-
vides guidelines to ensure that development
in or near these areas does not pose a risk
to upstream or downstream neighbors or to
important natural functions. The Washing-
ton State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) has mapped areas with steep and un-
stable slopes, which pose potential landslide
hazards, and areas with potential for earth-
quakes. Steep slopes occur along parts of the
Columbia River, Gee Creek, Lake River, and
other creek basins. Areas with unconsolidat-
W
a.
s
a
ed soils, the most likely to be damaged by
earthquakes, are found in the floodplains and
in lowlands.
6.1.6 Ridgefield National
Wildlife Refuge
The Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
is comprised of five management units that
total 5,148 acres of pristine marshes, grass-
lands and wildlife habitat. Preservation of the
natural Columbia River floodplain is a manage-
ment objective of the Carty, Roth and Ridge -
port Dairy units. The River "S" and Bachelor
Island units are managed to maximize habitat
for waterfowl and other wetland wildlife. San-
dhill cranes, shorebirds and a wide variety of
songbirds stop on the refuge during spring and
fall migrations. Visitors to this area have nu-
merous opportunities for wildlife observation.
6.1.7 State and Federal
Environmental Regulations
Many of Ridgefield's environmental decisions
are influenced by state and federal regulations,
including the State of Washington's Growth
Management Act of 1990 (GMA), the state
Shoreline Management Act (1971), the federal
Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) and the state
Water Pollution Control Act (1973), the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and
the federal (1990) and state (1991) Clean Air
Acts (CAA). The City has adopted State En-
vironmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules that are
implemented through the City's Development
code. ESA prohibits harm, including habitat
degradation, to threatened and endangered
species. The Clean Air Acts (CAA) regulate air
quality at the regional level.
The GMA requires the City to designate and
protect critical areas such as wetlands, fish
and wildlife habitat, aquifers (groundwater),
and geologically hazardous areas such as
steep slopes and areas that flood frequent-
ly. The GMA also requires the City to protect
the functions of these areas that are benefi-
cial to the environment and to public health
and safety. The Shoreline Management Act
(SMA) requires local governments to protect
shoreline functions, including environmental
functions such as fish and wildlife habitat,
by adoption of a Shoreline Management Pro-
gram. The City has adopted Clark County's
shoreline management program, through the
chapter of the development code addressing
regulations and permitting processes. The
CWA requires that pollution of lakes, streams
and rivers be controlled so these bodies of
water are safe for swimming and fishing.
6.1.8 Local Environmental
Regulations
In addition to the protection provided by the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the
City adopted a Critical Areas Ordinance,
consistent with Best Available Science, to
protect wetlands and shorelines, water bod-
ies, groundwater and surface water, fish and
wildlife habitats, and trees and other vegeta-
tion. The regulations include a requirement
that floodplains and steep terrain be evalu-
ated for potential hazards. Implementation of
the regulations includes development review,
inspection, enforcement and education.
6.3 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
By integrating the natural and built environ-
ments, Ridgefield will create a sustainable
urban environment with clean air and water,
habitat for fish and wildlife, and comfortable
and secure places for people to live and work.
Ridgefield is committed to protecting and en-
hancing the environment as the City meets
its other community, economic development,
and housing and infrastructure goals.
Ridgefield will seek to balance various goals,
not just make tradeoffs, and identify ways to
meet multiple objectives. The goals are to
preserve healthy ecological communities with
rich biodiversity and to protect public health
and safety. The following discussion sets the
framework for the policies at the end of the
element.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 6-3
Wildlife Habitats
Ridgefield will protect priority habitats, lo-
cally important habitats, and priority species.
Ridgefield will work with others in the region
to develop and implement recovery plans for
threatened salmon species.
Endangered Species
Ridgefield will avoid harming ESA listed spe-
cies and their habitats. The City will work with
local, county, state and federal jurisdictions
to plan and implement region -wide actions.
Shoreline Management
Ridgefield will continue to implement its
Shoreline Management Program to protect
shoreline resources, the environment, water -
dependent and water -related economic de-
velopment, and public access and recreation.
Ridgefield will update the Shoreline Manage-
ment Program by working with the County,
State, and other regional partners based on
guidelines established by the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Public Health and Safety
Ridgefield will help protect public health and
safety from flooding, landslides, and earth-
quakes. Maintaining clean groundwater and
improving the quality of surface water will
also protect public health and safety. Manag-
ing development in geologically hazardous ar-
eas and floodplains will protect public health
and safety. Ridgefield will work with state and
federal regulatory agencies to achieve com-
pliance in a way that is resource -wise, both
in terms of financial and environmental re-
sources.
Sustainability
Ridgefield will provide for the needs of its res-
idents without sacrificing the needs of future
generations. The City will consider econom-
ics and the environment as it manages water,
energy, land and natural resources. Ridgefield
will promote sustainable public and private
development practices and patterns, building
design, water -use reduction, and waste re-
6 -4 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
duction. The City will incorporate green build-
ing (environmentally friendly) principles and
practices into the design, construction, and
operation of City facilities, City -funded proj-
ects, and infrastructure to the fullest extent
possible, consistent with wise management
of scarce public financial resources.
Coordination
Other agencies, the private sector, and citi-
zens, and each City department will coordi-
nate with one another and with others to be
efficient and consistent.
Implementation
Environmental protection and enhancement,
based on the 'Best Available Science" (as de-
fined in the GMA), will be important factors
in Ridgefield's land use planning, zoning and
development regulations. Development that
cannot reasonably avoid critical areas will in -
clude mitigation of potential impacts to pre-
vent material loss of environmental function.
The GMA requires critical area regulations to
be updated as necessary to maintain consis-
tency with state law. As part of that review,
the City will strive to make environmental reg-
ulations clear and understandable to provide
consistent environmental protection and to
streamline the development review process.
Incentives, education, acquisition, and res-
toration are also important tools in achiev-
ing environmental quality. Ridgefield will seek
ways to provide incentives for protecting and
enhancing the environment. The City will con-
tinue to protect and restore sensitive areas.
The City's own operations will reflect environ-
mental stewardship.
Protecting air and water quality and vegeta-
tion will help protect habitats for fish, wildlife,
and people. Transportation choices will help
protect air quality. Source control (keeping
pollutants out of the environment) and wa-
ter treatment (removing pollutants from the
water) will protect groundwater and surface
water quality. Water conservation and innova-
tive substitutions for impervious surfaces will
protect the quantity of groundwater. Surface
water management will help reduce the im-
pacts of development on surface water quality
and quantity. Preserving and planting native
plants and removing invasive plant species
will help protect and enhance vegetation.
6.4 POLICIES
EN -1 Environmental protection
Protect, sustain, and provide for healthy and
diverse ecosystems.
EN -2 Stewardship
Demonstrate and promote environmental
stewardship and education.
EN -3 Restoration and enhancement
Promote and facilitate ecosystem restoration
and enhancement.
EN -4 Environmental coordination
Coordinate environmental policies and pro-
grams. Explore opportunities to consolidate
environmental regulations.
EN -5 Habitat
Protect riparian areas, wetlands, and other
fish and wildlife habitat. Link fish and wildlife
habitat areas to form contiguous networks.
Support sustainable fish and wildlife popula-
tions.
EN -6 Endangered species
Protect habitat for listed species and facilitate
recovery. Encourage and support actions that
protect other species from becoming listed.
EN -7 Water quality and quantity
Protect and enhance surface, stormwater, and
groundwater quality. Ensure adequate water
supplies and promote wise use and conserva-
tion of water resources.
EN -8 Flooding
Maintain consistency with Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines when
adopting or implementing policies or regu-
lations that relate to flooding, groundwater
recharge, wetlands, waters of the state or
waters of the US.
EN -9 Trees and other vegetation
Conserve tree and plant cover, particularly
native species, throughout Ridgefield. Pro-
mote planting using native vegetation.
EN -10 Air quality
Protect and enhance air quality, in coordina-
tion with local and regional agencies and or-
ganizations.
EN -11 Hazard areas
Manage development in geologically hazard-
ous areas and floodplains to protect public
health and safety.
EN -12 Density transfers
Encourage the use of density transfers from
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 65
Open Space (OS) lands to contiguous Low
Density or MDR properties, anywhere with-
in the RUGA. Encourage residential density
transfers to preserve wetland resource areas.
EN -13 Sustainability
Facilitate use of water, energy, land, and nat-
ural resources to provide for current needs
without sacrificing the needs of future gener-
ations. Incorporate green building principles
and practices into the design construction,
and operation of all City facilities, City -fund-
ed projects, and infrastructure to the fullest
extent possible, consistent with wise man-
agement of scarce public financial resourc-
es, using a building life -cycle cost approach.
Consider implementation of an sustainability
initiative to review City's operations with a
focus on purchasing, energy efficiency, recy-
cling, and other practices.
EN -14 Building Practices
Encourage the use of green building principles
and practices for private development. Pro-
mote sustainable public and private develop-
ment practices and patterns, building design,
water -use reduction, and waste reduction.
Develop a system of incentives to encourage
green building, perhaps tying LEEDtm certi-
fication with reduced fees, streamlined per-
mitting, and more.
6-6 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
a
Clark county
12
Fir. Metrict
ri
�.
ri
7. PUBLIC FACILITIES
7.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Urban communities must be supported by
a range of public services and facilities, in-
cluding transportation, water, sanitary sewer,
stormwater, parks, fire and emergency, po-
lice, solid waste, schools, libraries, electric-
ity, and telecommunications. This element
describes the current status of Ridgefield's
public facilities and services and how they will
be expanded to accommodate growth that is
projected to occur over the next 20 years. The
information in this element is closely linked to
the Ridgefield Capital Facilities Plans, a sepa-
rately bound and frequently updated list of
capital facilities projects that will be needed
in the next six years.
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA)
requires growth to occur first in developed
areas already served by public services and
utilities, and second in undeveloped areas
needing new services. Public services must
be provided in a timely and efficient manner
to support planned growth and existing us-
ers. Extension of urban services must be co-
ordinated with adopted land use and growth
plans, and capital facility investments should
be targeted and cost-effective.
This element focuses on infrastructure provi-
sion within city limits and areas in the un-
incorporated RUGA planned for services by
City providers, such as sewer, water, and fire
services. As required by GMA, this element
includes a policy requiring that land use plans
be revisited if probable funding falls short of
meeting those needs. The analyses in this el-
ement focus on the first six years of the plan-
ning period. Infrastructure and service needs
for the 20 -year planning period are more
speculative, so the review is more general-
ized. The review is limited to capital facilities
and major physical infrastructure related to
growth, not all government services. The in-
formation in this element is drawn from spe-
cific service area plans, such as the service
provider capital plans and budgets. For more
detail, please consult these plans and the
Ridgefield Capital Facilities Plan.
Services are provided by the City of Ridge-
field, Clark County, and private utilities or
service districts. Some providers serve ar-
eas within the city limits, while others have
larger, regional service areas. The City co-
ordinates with providers and considers how
service area boundaries may change (for ex-
ample, through annexation). Local capital fa-
cilities projects are financed and constructed
through a variety of local, state and, in some
cases, federal sources.
7.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
Providing adequate services to accommodate
increasing service demands with limited fund-
ing sources is one of the central challenges
facing the City as it implements the Ridgefield
Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The City and
all of its partners are committed to providing
robust services to Ridgefield's residents and
businesses. This will help to ensure a high
quality of life and sustainable growth. Refer
to the specific sections of this Public Facilities
Element for visions and policies associated
with each service.
The GMA requires that communities "ensure
that facilities and services necessary to sup-
port development shall be adequate to serve
the development at the time the development
is available for occupancy and use without de-
creasing current service levels below locally
established standards" (RCW 36.70A.020.12).
This concept is identified as "concurrency" and
requires local governments to adopt level -of -
service (LOS) standards and to test individual
land use proposals to ensure they will not
exceed those standards. Proposed develop-
ments that would cause these standards to
be exceeded cannot be approved unless nec-
essary mitigation is provided. For example,
the established level -of -service standard for
sanitary sewer is 355 gallons per day for resi-
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-1
Table 7-1. Ridgefield Facilities/Service Providers
Facility/Service Provider(s)
Transportation City of Ridgefield (incorporated areas)
Clark County (unincorporated area)
Washington Department of Transportation
Port of Ridgefield
Burlington Northern Railroad
Water City of Ridgefield (incorporated areas)
Clark Public Utilities (unincorporated areas))
Sanitary Sewer City of Ridgefield
Stormwater Management City of Ridgefield
Parks and Recreation City of Ridgefield
Clark County
Various wireless and fiber optic provider
dential units. If sewer transmission and treat-
ment capacity is not available, the unit will
not be occupied.
7.3 POLICIES
The City of Ridgefield adopts the following
overarching public facilities policies in order to
provide adequate transportation, sewer, wa-
ter, and other capital facilities, public schools
and public services in a cost-effective man-
ner. These policies are consistent with and
implement policy sections 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0
of the Community Framework Plan, adopted
7-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
by Clark County and local jurisdictions, and
planning policies 36.70.A.020(3), (9), and
(12) of the Washington Growth Management
Act. Refer to the specific sections of this Pub-
lic Facilities Chapter for visions and policies
regarding each service.
PF -1 Provide service
Consider water, sewer, police, transportation,
fire, schools, stormwater management, parks
and trails as necessary public facilities and
services. Ensure that facilities are sufficient
to support planned development.
Washington State
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ridgefield School District
Emergency Services
City of Ridgefield Police Department
Clark County Sheriff
Washington State Highway Patrol
Fire District 12
Private ambulance services
Solid Waste
Waste Connections, Inc.
Columbia Resource Company
Education
Ridgefield School District
Library
Fort Vancouver Regional Library System
Natural Gas
Northwest Natural
Electrical Power
Clark Public Utilities
Telecommunications
AT&T Broadband
Qwest Communications
Various wireless and fiber optic provider
dential units. If sewer transmission and treat-
ment capacity is not available, the unit will
not be occupied.
7.3 POLICIES
The City of Ridgefield adopts the following
overarching public facilities policies in order to
provide adequate transportation, sewer, wa-
ter, and other capital facilities, public schools
and public services in a cost-effective man-
ner. These policies are consistent with and
implement policy sections 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0
of the Community Framework Plan, adopted
7-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
by Clark County and local jurisdictions, and
planning policies 36.70.A.020(3), (9), and
(12) of the Washington Growth Management
Act. Refer to the specific sections of this Pub-
lic Facilities Chapter for visions and policies
regarding each service.
PF -1 Provide service
Consider water, sewer, police, transportation,
fire, schools, stormwater management, parks
and trails as necessary public facilities and
services. Ensure that facilities are sufficient
to support planned development.
PF -2 Service standards
Establish service standards or planning as-
sumptions for estimating needed public facili-
ties, based on service capabilities, local land
use designations and nationally recognized
standards. Use LOS standards to encourage
growth in designated centers and corridors.
PF -3: Impact fees and system
development charges.
Maintain and amend as necessary traffic,
park, and school impact fees, to ensure that
new development pays a reasonable, propor-
tionate share of the new public infrastructure
costs.
PF -4 Essential public facilities.
Ridgefield will adopt policies and regulations,
to identify future needs for regional and state-
wide facilities, such as airports, state educa-
tion facilities, state or regional transportation
facilities, state and local correctional facilities,
solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient
facilities including substance abuse facilities,
mental health facilities, group homes, trans-
portation facilities of state-wide significance
defined according to RCW 47.06.140, and se-
cure community transition facilities. No other
Comprehensive Plan policy may preclude the
siting of essential public facilities
The following Services will be reviewed in de-
tail herein.
• Water
• Sewer
• Stormwater
• Parks/Trails
• Fire and Emergency Services
• Law enforcement
• Solid Waste
• Education
• Libraries
• General Government
• Private Utilities
• Transportation
• Siting of Essential Public Facilities
For more detail, please refer to the Ridge-
field Capital Facilities Plan which is adopted
by reference as Volume II of the RUACP. The
Ridgefield Urban Area Capital Facilities Plan
will include a full list of existing facilities,
their locations, and all other -data that meets
the requirements of the County -Wide Plan-
ning Policies, RCW 36.70A.070(3), and WAC
365-195-315. Additionally, some services
are planned by other agencies, including the
Ridgefield School District, Fire District #12,
etc. Each of their respective plans is also ad-
opted by reference.
PF -5 Budget Conformity
The City shall ensure that all budget decisions
relating to public facilities are made in con-
formance with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
PF -6 Reassessment of Assumptions
In the event that budget projections for capi-
tal expenditures fail to meet the forecasted
demand the City shall demonstrate compli-
ance with Policy PF -5 by reassessing the land
use element of the plan, the population and
employment projections, the CFP level of ser-
vice standards, or a combination thereof.
7.4 WATER RESOURCES
7.4.1 Current Conditions
Ridgefield, and the rest of Clark County, re-
lies almost entirely on groundwater aquifers
for public and private water use. In the past,
the location and development of productive
groundwater sources has been a significant
problem for county water purveyors. As a re-
sult, numerous studies have been completed
by county water purveyors to address the
need for an adequate water supply to meet
the county's projected growth. Washington
State law also requires all water service pro-
viders to work with the Department of Ecology
before constructing a well or withdrawing any
groundwater from a well and to obtain a water
rights permit. Unfortunately, the issuance of
new water rights permits has been extremely
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-3
limited since 1991. Water service purveyors
have undertaken extensive planning efforts
to ensure that groundwater use is consistent
with region -wide watershed management
programs and salmon recovery efforts. It is
hoped that through sharing of groundwater
resources, a sufficient groundwater supply
can be sustained for the expected growth in
demand while continuing to reduce impacts
to watersheds considered essential to endan-
gered salmon species.
The City of Ridgefield has four (4) wells with
a total pumping capacity of 1,165 gallons per
minute (gpm) plus an intertie agreement with
Clark Public Utilities. The intertie provides ad-
ditional water resources from outside of the
area, during times of peak demand. The City
currently has water rights for 1,875 gpm in-
stantaneous withdrawal and 962 acre-feet
annual withdrawal. There are three (3) wa-
ter reservoirs in Ridgefield with a total stor-
age capacity of 1.1 million gallons. Water is
brought from these sources to residences and
businesses via approximately 210,600 feet of
water mains.
7.4.2 Fire Flows
A water system is required to have a sup-
ply, storage, and distribution system grid
with sufficient capacity to provide firefighting
needs while maintaining maximum daily flows
to residential and commercial customers. Be-
cause fire fighting requires a large amount of
water in a short time, fire flow requirements
typically determine the minimum size of wa-
ter lines needed to serve an area, as well as
the amount of storage needed. The City of
Ridgefield's water delivery system provides
fire hydrants and water distribution mains in
neighborhoods and business areas through-
out the water service area. Development ap-
proval requires new water mains and hydrants
to serve new buildings, per the latest adopted
version of the International Fire Code and the
Ridgefield Municipal Code.
7-4 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
7.4.3 Direction for the Future
The City of Ridgefield and Clark Public Utilities
have completed a 20 -year Water System Plan
which identifies existing inventory, forecasts
future water supply needs, and provides rev-
enue sources to fund capital improvements
to meet the requirements of the GMA RCW
36.70A.070(3)(a)(b). These Water System
Plans outline the strategy for serving antici-
pated population growth with a clean, reli-
able, and adequate water supply.
Clark County has established a Water Util-
ity Coordinating Committee (WUCC) as a
standing committee made up of representa-
tives from each water purveyor, fire protec-
tion agencies, and the Department of Health
(DOH). The WUCC updates water utility de-
sign standards, establishes procedures for
resolving conflicts between water purveyors,
and updates the Coordinated Water System
Plan (CWSP). The City of Ridgefield and Clark
Public Utilities will continue to collaborate
with other regional water providers to ensure
that service plans and use of scarce water re-
sources are coordinated.
The CWSP fulfills the regulatory requirements
as prescribed in WAC 248-56, Public Water
System Coordination Act. The CWSP serves as
the Regional Supplement for State -approved
Clark County water purveyors' individual wa-
ter system plans, which are on file at WDOE,
and together with the petition for Reserva-
tion of Public Waters, fulfill the requirements
under WAC 173-590 relating to the reserva-
tion of water for future public water supply.
The City of Ridgefield and Clark Public Utilities
will implement the CWSP through their Water
System Plans.
The City of Ridgefield's 2005 Water System Plan
Update evaluated the City's projected future
water demands based on projected growth in
population and employment. The Plan evalu-
ated the city's existing water system facilities
and identified needed improvements to provide
*i
01
a
Irrk
p_
a'a
� fn
m � L
�
d c 3 .`y- m c¢ 3¢ A d.m 'ro
m
-0 O
J y m> m m m C b 'WO
_
w Z d W W Z Z_ Q C Q Q H
m
~r
W l l m�0-
�o-
o
0
LL
a_
wee-�i
_
N
t7
R
'
iIlk
I
ir
a'a
' f!
water service to the Ridgefield Urban Growth
Area for the six-year and 20 -year planning ho-
rizons. Proposed improvements include source
improvements (new wells, water rights and
treatment systems), improvements to existing
booster stations, new water storage facilities,
and pipeline extensions and upgrades.
Continued growth in the water system will
require the City of Ridgefield to develop ad-
ditional water resources or work with Clark
Public Utilities on the development of regional
water resources (Figure 7-1). There are also
jurisdictional issues which need to be ad-
dressed as Ridgefield annexes into area cur-
rently served by Clark Public Facilities. The
City has developed water infrastructure im-
provement plans, revenue estimates, and
costs estimates for a six-year and a 20 -year
planning horizon. A detailed description of
planned capital improvement projects is pro-
vided in the updated Water Chapter of The
Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
Capital Facilties Plan. Table 7-2 summarizes
the estimated cost of planned projects and
projected revenues during the next six years
needed to maintain or improve the levei-of-
service for Ridgefield water customers.
7.4.4 Policies
PF -W-1 Provide water
Provide safe, clean, quality drinking water to
every Ridgefield home, business, public facil-
ity and industry. Discourage development and
use of private drinking water wells. Provide
water pressures and volumes necessary to
support fire suppression hydrants and sprin-
kler systems. Ensure that the infrastructure
to support water service is in place prior to
development.
PF -W-2 Water service Area
Restrict provision of urban services outside
the RUGA. The City will work with property
owners to annex properties requiring City
services in the near term (i.e. within 6 years),
in accordance with the City's Capital Facilities
Plan. Therefore, all utilities within Ridgefield's
Urban Growth Area shall be designed to City
Standards, and provisions shall be made for
the eventual integration of facilities into City
systems.
PF -W-3 Responsibility for system
Maintain sole responsibility for provision of
water within the RUGA.
PF -W-4 Private systems
Work with Clark County to eliminate private
water systems within the RUGA over time.
The city will additionally coordinate with Clark
County and the Washington State Depart-
ment of Health to ensure that existing wells
are properly decommissioned when they are
taken out of service.
PF -W-5 Water and sewer connection
required
Connect all new construction within the RUGA
to the City's water and sewer systems con-
current or subsequent to annexation, except
Table 7-2. Summary of Ridgefield Water Service Capital Facilities Plans for 2010 - 2016
Cost (Millions, in
Capital Facility Project Type Number of Projects 2010 dollars) Revenue Sources
Reservoirs and 1 $1.82
Booster Stations
Distribution and 8 $1.84
Transmission
Source of Supply 4 $6.76
TOTAL 13 $10.42 Water rates,
connection fees
7-6 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
it
is
for single-family residences on lots existing at
the time of adoption of the Ridgefield Urban
Area Comprehensive Plan that cannot reason-
ably hook up to the City water system.
PF -W-6 Protect groundwater
Coordinate with Clark County to develop
ground water protection mechanisms which
protect well heads, reduce the risk of acci-
dental groundwater contamination and en-
courage the conservation of groundwater.
7.5 SANITARY SEWER
7.5.1 Current Conditions
Sanitary sewer systems consist of neighbor-
hood sewer lines that take waste from pipes
serving individual properties, trunk lines that
collect waste from these lines within individual
drainage basins, and interceptors that receive
flow from several drainage basins and route
it to treatment facilities. Pump stations and
force mains augment the system. The City
currently owns and maintains approximately
230,000 linear feet of sewer collection sys-
tem including gravity sewers and force mains.
The City also owns and maintains twelve (12)
sewer lift stations. The existing City of Ridge-
field sewer system meets all federal and state
standards and has adequate capacity for ex-
isting and future demand. The sanitary sew-
er system is monitored by instrumentation,
computer modeling, and tracking develop-
ment trends so that sewer projects can be
implemented before the mains reach capac-
ity. Preventive maintenance keeps problem
areas clean to minimize blockages.
Wastewater is currently treated at the City
of Ridgefield's Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP). The WWTP provides physical and
biological treatment of wastewater prior to
discharge to an outfall in Lake River. Biosol-
ids generated from the wastewater treatment
process are currently hauled to Clark County's
Salmon Creek WWTP for further treatment
and disposal. The City's existing WWTP has a
design capacity of 0.7 million gallons per day
(MGD). The City is waiting final approval of
authorization to discharge 0.7 MGD.
There are numerous onsite sewage treatment
or septic systems in the Ridgefield sewer ser-
vice. Because many of the systems are more
than 24 years old and reaching the end of
their expected life spans, failures are increas-
ing. Septic system failures may go undetect-
ed, allowing contamination of nearby streams,
lakes, or shallow drinking water wells. Septic
systems can also cause an increase in nitrates
in groundwater. The City of Ridgefield sup-
ports elimination of septic tanks in the RUGA,
and seeks to help homeowners eliminate un-
reliable septic systems.
7.5.2 Direction for the Future
Planning for adequate sewage treatment ca-
pacity is very important to Ridgefield. It is
critical to water quality as well as economic de-
velopment. While new construction will always
provide its own service lines, and sometimes
Table 7-3. Summary of Ridgefield Wastewater Service Capital Facilities Plans for 2010 — 2016
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-7
Cost (in millions of
Project Type
Number of Projects
2010 dollars) Funding Sources
Lift Stations and
5
$3.82
Forcemains
Sewer Trunk Mains
13
$3.03
Wastewater Treatment
3
$30.00
Improvements
TOTAL
22
$36.85 Sewer rates,
connection fees
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-7
provides pump stations, it is the responsibility
of the City to plan trunk lines and adequate
treatment plant capacity. The City also seeks
to coordinate sewer projects with other proj-
ects so that, for example, utilities in new road-
ways are placed during construction.
The Ridgefield General Sewer and Wastewa-
ter Facility Plan was developed in 2005 and
has been updated in 2007. This Plan was de-
veloped to ensure that the network of pipes,
manholes, pumps, and other physical facili-
ties are adequate to service the 20 years of
growth in the RUGA. The City has developed
infrastructure improvement plans, revenue
estimates, and costs for the six-year and
20 -year planning horizons (Figure 7-2). A
detailed description of current wastewater
capital improvement projects is provided in
the updated Ridgefield Urban Area Compre-
hensive Plan Capital Facilities Plan. Table 7-3
summarizes estimated costs and revenues for
planned projects during 2005 - 2011 to main-
tain or improve levels of service to Ridgefield
sewer customers.
To accommodate planned growth in popula-
tion and wastewater flows, the City of Ridge-
field has also been pursuing and evaluating
regional wastewater treatment and disposal
alternatives. The City is currently working
with a coalition consisting of City, Clark Re-
gional Wastewater District, Clark County, and
the City of Battleground to develop a regional
sewer framework. Current on-going projects
include development of a Regional Sewer
Business Plan to determine a potential gov-
ernance and financial structure for a regional
sewer utility and preliminary engineering de-
sign of a regional pump station and pipeline
to convey wastewater from Ridgefield to the
Salmon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
7.5.3 Policies
PF -S-1 Provide sewer service
Provide sewers and sewer service to every
Ridgefield home, business, public facility and
7-8 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
industry. Encourage existing development us-
ing septic systems to connect to public sewer
as soon as available. Ensure that the infra-
structure to support sewer service is in place
prior to development.
PF -S-2 Sewer Service Area
Restrict provision of urban services outside
the RUGA. The City will work with property
owners to annex properties requiring City ser-
vices in the near term (i.e., within 6 years),
in accordance with the City's Capital Facilities
Plan. Therefore, all utilities within Ridgefield's
Urban Growth Area shall be designed to City
standards, and provisions shall be made for
the eventual integration of facilities into City
systems. Urban services shall not be provided
outside the RUGA.
PF -S-3 Responsibility for system
Maintain sole responsibility for provision of
sanitary sewer within the RUGA.
PF -S-4 Private systems
Work with Clark County to eliminate private
sewer systems within the RUGA.
PF -S-5 New construction
All new construction within the RUGA shall
be required to connect to the City's sanitary
sewer system, except for single-family resi-
dences on lots existing at the time of adoption
of the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan that cannot reasonably hook up to the
City sewer system.
PF -S-6 Efficiency
To control power and maintenance costs, the
City is committed to minimizing the number
of pump stations and force mains in the col-
lection system. To that end, the City is com-
mitted to developing a more efficient gravity
flow sewer system in the long-term to serve
the entire Urban Growth Area. Therefore,
lift stations, force mains or individual home
pumps will only be allowed within the RUGA
where topography makes the use of gravity
sewer systems impractical.
61
Ia
PF -S-6 Protect groundwater
The City will coordinate with Clark County and
the Washington State Department of Health
to ensure that existing septic systems do not
contaminate ground or surface water.
7.6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
7.6.1 Current Conditions
Mismanaged stormwater runoff from streets
and buildings can pollute lakes, streams, riv-
ers and groundwater and may cause erosion,
flooding and other safety hazards. Because it
picks up nutrients, metals, oil and grease and
other forms of pollution, untreated stormwa-
ter can threaten drinking water, plants and
animals that live in surface waters, and wa-
ter -related recreation.
The City of Ridgefield's goal is to maintain
or improve surface and groundwater quality.
Increased urbanization can make this goal
difficult to meet. An increase in the amount
of impervious surfaces (roadways, parking
lots, driveways, and sidewalks) increases the
amount of runoff, and the potential for it to
carry pollutants from erosion or chemical con-
tamination to surface waters. Before it was
fully understood how rainfall can replenish
the supply of groundwater, stormwater runoff
in most cities was collected in storm drainage
pipes and sent to sewage treatment plants or
large water bodies. Most of the older neigh-
borhoods in Ridgefield dispose of stormwa-
ter this way. Ridgefield's current approach to
stormwater management is to require prop-
erty owners to retain stormwater on site and
treat it, usually by running it through vege-
tated areas where plants filter out and absorb
pollutants prior to its release into the ground
or nearby surface water. This approach also
reduces the risk of flooding along streams by
regulating flow into streams during storms.
7.6.2 Direction for the Future
Ridgefield's stormwater management goal is
to safely pass floodwaters and drainage in a
7-10 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
manner that improves water quality, provides
fish passage and habitat, promotes recre-
ation opportunities, and enhances community
aesthetics. The objectives of the program and
associated regulations are to:
• Protect surface and groundwater from
contamination
• Protect people and property from flood damage.
• Protect aquatic life
• Provide recreation opportunities, community
aesthetics, and good neighbor facilities
• Protect and enhance riparian and habitat areas
Ridgefield will work with private property
owners to enhance the functioning of flood -
plains and riparian areas throughout the City
and RUGA. Increased planting of native veg-
etation and removal of impervious surfaces
will also enhance stormwater management.
7.6.3 Policies
PF -ST -1 Stormwater management
Manage storm water to safely pass floodwa-
ters, maintain and improve water quality of
receiving streams, lakes, and wetlands, pro-
tect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat,
promote recreational opportunities, and en-
hance community aesthetics.
PF -ST -2 New construction
All new development shall be designed con-
sistent with the City's long-range stormwater
management plans and programs, and shall
only occur consistent with the following provi-
sions:
• Off-site water quality and quantity impacts shall
be controlled through appropriate design
• The use of source control and treatment best
management practices shall be required
• The use of infiltration, with appropriate
water quality precautions, shall be the first
consideration in stormwater management
• Stream channels and wetlands shall be protected
• Erosion and sediment controls for excavation,
new development and redevelopment projects
shall be required
21
is
PF -S-3 Regional Consistency
Implement the provisions of the policy above
(PF -S-2) in accordance with the Stormwater
Management Manual for the Puget Sound Ba-
sin, Clark County's stormwater ordinance, or
equally effective standards approved by the
City Engineer.
PF -S-4 Groundwater protection
Develop ground water protection mechanisms
which protect well heads, reduce the risk of
accidental groundwater contamination and
encourage the conservation of groundwater.
7.7 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
7.7.1 Current Conditions
Clark County Fire and Rescue provides fire
protection and emergency services within the
Ridgefield Urban Growth Area. Clark County
Fire and Rescue also serves the unincorpo-
rated area within the Ridgefield UGA. The
insurance industry uses a rating system to
determine premiums. On a scale of 1 to 10,
with 1 being the best, Ridgefield scores a 5.
The unincorporated areas around Ridgefield
are scored a 6. Factors contributing to the
level of emergency services include water
availability and water flow, and the number
of emergency, traffic congestion and traffic
calming devices.
7.7.2 Direction for the Future
The number and type of calls received from a
specific area is influenced by several factors:
increases in population and density, number
of aging structures that have not had ongoing
maintenance, lower income levels that restrict
the ability of residents and owners to maintain
and repair their homes and businesses, num-
ber of senior, nursing and skilled care facili-
ties, and increasing age of the baby boomer
generation. The need for additional response
units (engines, trucks, etc.) is based on the
many of these factors and on the number of
emergency calls per response.
In 2006, Clark County Fire and Rescue opened
a new 17,500 square foot station located
along Northwest 65th Avenue. In the 2004
Comprehensive Plan update, the Fire Dis-
trict identified the need for an expanded re-
placement to their main station, and a ladder
truck at a cost of $5,700,000. Also, the City
of Ridgefield is developing a second intertie
with Clark Public Utilities for water. This new
intertie will be on 65th Street and will provide
double redundancy for many areas. Refer to
the water section of this element for further
information.
7.7.3 Policy
PF -F-1 Fire protection
Provide for a high quality fire and emergency
services. These services rely heavily upon
staffing and other operational expenses.
Therefore, this capital facilities element does
not attempt to capture all of the policies re-
lated to fire and emergency services in Ridge-
field. While the City has no direct authority
over policy setting for Clark County Fire and
Rescue, the two organizations will work to-
gether cooperatively.
7.8 LAW ENFORCEMENT
7.8.1 Current Conditions
The Ridgefield Police Department (RPD) pro-
vides police protection and other law enforce-
ment services within Ridgefield's city limits.
The RPD provides a range of services includ-
ing:
• emergency response
• 24-hour patrol
• traffic enforcement
• criminal investigations including arson
• forensics
• traffic collision investigations
• special response units such as the new canine
officers
In cooperation with other local agencies,
RPD also provides police services related to
child abuse, domestic violence, and drug en -
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-11
forcement and investigation. Clark Regional
Emergency Services Agency (CRESA) pro-
cesses 911 calls, radio dispatch, and County
jail and criminal records. Through interlocal
agreements, all jurisdictions in Clark County
provide backup to each other in emergen-
cies. The Washington State Patrol has police
jurisdiction on state routes in the county, is
largely responsible for state facilities, and
provides backup for the Clark County Sheriff's
Department and local jurisdictions. Regional
or shared law-enforcement and correctional
facilities include the county jail, a leased of-
fice for the inter -jurisdictional Clark-Skama-
nia Narcotics Task Force, the Child Abuse
Intervention Center, and the Clark Regional
Emergency Services Agency (CRESA), which
directs 911 calls to the appropriate agency.
CRESA also coordinates emergency manage-
ment, provides oversight of ambulance con-
tracts, and operates and maintains regional
radio services. Responsibility for law enforce-
ment in the formerly unincorporated areas
will transfer from the Clark County Sheriff's
Department to the RPD.
7.8.2 Direction for the Future
Law-enforcement staffing is usually based
on population and average response time to
emergency calls. Ridgefield's population since
2000 has greatly increased. Service stan-
dards demand for law-enforcement services
are related directly to population and employ-
ment. Crime rates are also closely related to
population, age distribution, and economic
conditions. Additional staffing, equipment,
and facilities are needed as the population
continues to grow and land is annexed. Plans
are based on current activity statistics, cen-
sus demographic data, and other information.
The City's current goal is provide municipal
police officers at a 1.2 to 1000 ratio. The cur-
rent staffing levels exceed this goal. Howev-
er additional resources will be needed in the
future. In addition to staffing and resource
needs, the City of Ridgefield has planned a
new facility for police services.
7-12 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
7.8.3 Policy
PF -F-2 Police protection
Provide for police protection that creates a
safe environment to residents and visitors
alike. However, law enforcement is not a capi-
tal facility. It relies, instead upon staffing and
other operational expenses. Therefore, this
capital facilities element does not attempt
to capture all of the policies related to police
protection and law enforcement services in
Ridgefield.
7.9 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES AND
SERVICES
7.9.1 Current Conditions
All cities and towns in Clark County have del-
egated responsibility for solid waste transfer
and disposal planning to the County through
2011. The adopted Clark County Solid Waste
Management Plan (CSWMP) of 2000 is updat-
ed regularly and reviewed by the County Solid
Waste Advisory Commission. Agreements be-
tween Clark County and its cities commit each
to the plan and to the plan's waste disposal
system. Counties and cities in the State of
Washington are required by RCW 70.95 to:
• Prepare and maintain coordinated
comprehensive solid waste management plans
• Determine the nature and extent of various solid
waste streams (for example, from households,
industries, offices, etc.)
• Establish management strategies for the
handling, utilization, and disposal of solid waste
• Identify waste reduction, source -separated
recycling, and waste separation programs as
priority management tools
Waste Connections Inc. is responsible for
managing collection services within the
Ridgefield boundaries. Clark County and the
City of Ridgefield entered into a 20 -year con-
tract with Columbia Resource Company (CRC)
in1992 to recycle solid -waste materials col-
lected and delivered to transfer and recycling
stations, with the remaining non -recycled
01
is
a
Ll
wastes transported for final disposal to CRC's
Finley Buttes Landfill 180. Waste is compact-
ed into intermodal containers and transported
upriver by private barge, then trucked to the
landfill. In 2002, the two facilities handled ap-
proximately 225,000 tons of waste. Original
design capacities for the two transfer stations
indicated they could handle up to 438,000
tons per year of solid waste.
7.9.2 Direction for the Future
Since 1994, daily waste generation per per-
son in Clark County has risen from 2.35 to
2.62 pounds (about 1/2 ton/person/year).
Ongoing efforts to educate the public about
reducing waste may help minimize the rate
of waste generation, but nationally the per
capita rate is steadily increasing. Current per
capita waste generation nationally is about 1
ton per person per year (including residen-
tial, commercial, and industrial waste that is
disposed and recycled). It is difficult to deter-
mine Clark County's overall waste generation
rate because of the proximity to the Portland
metro area and its disposal facilities and re-
cycling plants.
7.9.3 Policy
PF -SW -1 Waste management
Implement the Clark County Solid and Mod-
erate Risk Waste Management Plan. Reduce
the production of waste, recycle waste that
is produced, and properly manage and dis-
pose of waste that is not recycled. Provide
education and outreach to businesses and the
public on benefits and opportunities for waste
reduction and recycling.
7.10 EDUCATION
7.10.1 Current Conditions
Schools
The Ridgefield School District serves the City
of Ridgefield and a large portion of the unin-
corporated area of Clark County. It spans I-5
and extends from the northern edge of Van-
couver to the Lewis River. Ridgefield is expe-
riencing rapid growth, and will likely continue
to do so. The School district annually reas-
sesses its needs in response to this growth.
The following findings are derived from the
Table 7-4. Ridgefield Schools
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-13
Building October 2004
Capacity
Portables
School Type
Location
Sq. Ft. Enrollment
South Ridge Elementary
502 NW
40,172 491
450
2
199th
Union Ridge Elementary
330 N 5th
43,925 475
400
4
View Ridge Middle
5th and
44,079 301
297
1
School
Pioneer
Ridgefield High School
2630S
83,418 622
487
4
High School
Hillhurst
Total
211,594 1,889
1,634
13
Table 7-5. Non -instructional Facilities
Type
Location
Administrative Offices
2724 S Hillhurst
Maintenance Department
304 Pioneer
SW Washington Child Care Consortium
509 NW 199th
(4 classrooms, enrollment of
129)
Single Family Home
300 N 5th
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-13
District's Capital Facilities Plan 2005-2011, on
file at the City of Ridgefield .2
Table 7-4 inventories the existing instruction-
al facilities in the Ridgefield School District;
Table 7-5 inventories the non -instructional
facilities.
The District determines capacity at for Ridge-
field schools according to a student teacher ra-
tio of 25:1 per teaching station. There is a 75%
utilization factor for Junior High and an 85%
utilization factor for High School. The utiliza-
tion factor accounts for the average time each
day that a teaching station is being used.
Other Major Educationai Institutions
The Washington State School for the Deaf
(WSD) operates in the City of Vancouver from
a 17 -acre site with an adjacent 11 -acre play-
ing field. Enrollment at WSD fluctuates an-
nually between 100 and 200 students. WSD
provides both residential and day programs
for deaf and hard -of -hearing students from
around the state.
The Washington State School for the Blind
(WSSB) is a fully accredited residential K-12
school for blind and partially sighted students
from all over Washington. This state -support-
ed institution is located on East 13th Street
in Vancouver. The WSSB provides assistance,
advice and best practices for educators in
other school districts with blind or partially
sighted students as well as education to the
over 1,400 students enrolled at the Vancou-
ver campus.
Clark College is a community college provid-
ing two-year transfer degree studies, techni-
cal training and basic skills classes to more
than 12,500 full-time and part-time students
each quarter. It is the second largest college
in the Washington State system of 35 commu-
nity and technical colleges. Founded in 1933,
Clark College received its first accreditation in
1936-37 and has been accredited since 1948.
2. The Ridgefield School District will update its capital facilities plan
in 2011, consistent with state law. The City will amend Section 7.10 of
the Comprehensive Plan thereafter to be consistent with the revised
Ridgefield School CFP.
7-14 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
Washington State University began offering
courses in Southwest Washington in 1983 as
part of the Southwest Washington Joint Cen-
ter for Education. In 1989, the University for-
mally established Washington State University
Vancouver as a branch campus of the state's
land-grant institution. The Salmon Creek
campus opened in 1996. WSU Vancouver of-
fers junior, senior and graduate level courses
in more than 35 fields of study. Students may
pursue one of WSU Vancouver's 15 bachelor's
and eight master's degrees. In the spring of
2005, enrollment was 1,895 Students; There
are more than 90 fulltime, Ph.D. faculty.
Additional technical institutes and degree pro-
grams in the area include Ashmead College,
Business Computer Training Institute (BCTI),
International Air Academy, and Western Busi-
ness College. There are no post -secondary
schools currently located within the Ridgefield
City limits.
7.10.2 Direction for the Future
The City of Ridgefield is expressly seeking
post secondary education facilities to locate
within the City limits.
The Ridgefield School District expects to con-
tinue to grow and will therefore need to add
new facilities. To cover the local share of the
new facilities, the district imposes school im-
pact fees, as allowed under the GMA and local
implementing ordinances. The maximum al-
lowable impact fee is calculated according to
an adopted formula.
As more development takes place in the RUGA,
large parcels of land available for schools will
become increasingly scarce. School districts
try to purchase land in advance, based on
growth trends, but this is sometimes difficult
to do with limited funding. As a result, dis-
tricts renovate and make more efficient use
of existing facilities when possible.
There are plans to build a new High School,
with 192,000 square feet, and a total capac-
ity of 1200 students. This will provide a ca-
pacity improvement of 213 students. High
81
ai
a�
ti
in
iM
Ll
I7-7
u
school growth has outpaced all other levels.
This is partly due to a demographic factor as-
sociated with the aging children of the baby -
boom generation.
By 2009, The Ridgefield School District is pro-
jected to add 338 students, an enrollment in-
crease of nearly 18 percent from the 2004
totals. The 2009 enrollment is projected to
be 2227 students, but could be higher if new
housing units become available faster than
is projected. The largest number of students
will be added at the elementary level. In five
years, an additional 171 K-6 students are ex-
pected. A total 2009 elementary level student
enrollment of 1137 is projected. The greatest
gains are forecasted for 2005 and 2006.
There has been discussion about reorganiza-
tion of class levels. This may provide a means
by which to better accommodate the project-
ed 2227 students in 2009.
7.10.3 Policies
PF -ED -1 Coordination
Coordinate with the Ridgefield School District
on capital facilities planning efforts and facili-
ties plans. The City will also notify and coordi-
nate with the Ridgefield School District in the
review of plan amendments or developments
involving five (5) acres or more of residential
land or twenty-five (25) or more residential
units.
PF -ED -2 Site selection
Assist the Ridgefield School District in select-
ing appropriate sites for new school facilities,
in locations that enhance neighborhoods and
urban districts.
PF -ED -3 Double use of facilities
Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with
the Ridgefield School District to formally al-
low Ridgefield citizens access to School Dis-
trict recreational and educational facilities.
PF -ED -4
An adequate supply of kindergarten through
twelfth grade (K-12) public schools and pub-
lic school facilities is essential to avoid over-
crowding and to enhance the educational
opportunities for our children. The City will
work with the School District to develop and
implement policies and regulations that sup-
port the School District's mission of providing
a quality public education.
PF -ED -5
Facilitate location of post secondary educa-
tion facilities within the City limits as part
of providing quality public education to the
community.
7.11 LIBRARY SERVICES
7.11.1 Current Conditions
The Fort Vancouver Regional Library District
(FVRLD) provides library services in four
counties in southwestern Washington (Clark,
Skamania, Klickitat). The FVRLD serves a
total population of 385,000 and an area of
4,200 square miles. The FVRLD's service area
includes the RUGA. The district's central li-
brary is the Vancouver Community Library in
Central Park. Built in 1963, this library is the
largest in the district with more than 260,000
books. The library also provides support ser-
vices to the other libraries in the district.
The Ridgefield Library is located in the heart of
downtown Ridgefield, and is an integral part
of the community. Readers enjoy books on
a wide range of topics for all reading levels.
Audio cassettes and books on CD are popular
with commuters. The library also offers non-
fiction videos. Public access computers are
available for use free of charge. In addition,
children will enjoy the interactive Story Sta-
tion. The library covers 2055 square feet and
has approximately 18,645 volumes and a cir-
culation of 54,926.
7.11.2 Direction for the Future
It is understood that library services must
keep pace with population growth. The Fort
Vancouver Regional Library System developed
a plan in 2003 to address this need; the plan
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-15
proposed new facilities, expansions, and im-
provements. The entire system will increase
from 69,400 square feet to 215,500 feet of fa-
cilities. This will maintain the 0.5 square feet -
to -person ratio for a population of 465,000
people. However, the projected population in
the County will exceed this within 20 years.
The library system will revise its plans based
on a higher rate of population growth than
previously anticipated.
7.11.3 Policy
PF -L-1 High quality libraries
The City of Ridgefield will continue to partner
with the Fort Vancouver Regional library Sys-
tem to provide high quality library services to
residents of the city and surrounding areas.
7.12 PRIVATE UTILITIES
7.12.1 Electricity
Electric service throughout Clark County is
provided by Clark Public Utilities (CPU), a
customer -owned public utility district with ad-
ministrative offices in its Electric Center, 1200
Fort Vancouver Way, Vancouver. Engineering
and operations functions are located at the
Ed Fischer Operations Center, 8600 N.E. 117
Avenue. About half of the power the utility
sells its customers is generated at the Riv-
er Road Generating Plant, a combined -cycle
combustion turbine that uses natural gas to
produce electricity. The remaining power sup-
ply is purchased, mainly from the Bonneville
Power Administration, a federal agency that
markets power generated at federal dams in
the Pacific Northwest.
Clark Public Utilities has invested about $500
million in its electric system. The system con-
sists of more than 100 miles of high-volt-
age transmission lines (69,000 and 115,000
volts), 47 substations, three switching sta-
tions, and about 6,000 miles of overhead and
underground distribution lines. The facilities
serve about 162,000 customers. CPU rou-
tinely reviews the county's growth plans and
7-16 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
coordinates the construction of new electri-
cal facilities with those plans. Major electrical
facilities are in place to serve existing utility
customers; however, additional substations,
transmission lines and distribution facilities
will be required to meet the needs of new
customers. It should be noted that state law
requires utilities to provide electricity to all
who request it.
The utility believes it has adequate supplies of
electricity to meet anticipated customer de-
mands. Utility officials routinely prepare pro-
jections of future demand for electricity and
review available supplies. When projections
show that demand for electricity will exceed
the available supply, the utility will conduct
extensive evaluations of the available op-
tions. The major options are to build addi-
tional electrical generating capacity, purchase
additional supplies of electricity, or expand
electricity conservation programs to reduce
demand for power. Any one or a combination
of the options could be selected.
7.12.2 Natural Gas
Granted its service territory by the Washing-
ton Utilities and Transportation Commission,
Northwest Natural Gas is the sole purveyor
of natural gas in Clark County. The company
serves about 50,000 residential, commercial
and industrial gas customers in the county.
Its customer base has grown rapidly over the
past 10 years, reflecting a strong preference
by builders for natural gas heating in new
homes as the county's residential population
increases.
Northwest Natural Gas receives its supply
from Northwest Pipeline, which owns and
operates more than 7,000 miles of inter-
state pipelines, including lines in the county.
Northwest Pipeline's current and future need
is to keep its pipeline corridors accessible for
maintenance.
Despite recent fluctuations in energy prices,
as the local distribution company of natural
gas, Northwest Natural anticipates continued
all
191
is
�s
FJ
strong growth in customer additions in Clark
County and is planning for future infrastruc-
ture construction and maintenance to serve
the expected need. Additional distribution
lines will be constructed on an as -needed ba-
sis in accordance with local, state and federal
regulations and codes covering land use and
safety issues.
Public safety has been the number one consid-
eration in the siting and construction of new
pipelines, as reflected by natural gas's supe-
rior safety record in the pipeline industry. The
growth of new development and housing sub-
divisions in the county to be served by natural
gas will only increase the need for stringent
adherence to safety and maintenance stan-
dards for the building and operation of trans-
mission and distribution lines.
7.12.3 Telecommunications
The telecommunications industry is currently
in the midst of tremendous advances in tech-
nology. Cellular and optical fiber technologies
are transforming the way service is delivered.
In addition, the physical barriers that separate
data, video, and voice technologies are rap-
idly disappearing. With the breakup of AT&T
in 1984, new technology and new providers
have entered the market at a rapid pace and
have fostered a competitive industry. Many
telecommunication companies provide service
to Ridgefield residents. These include Qwest
Communications, AT&T Broadband, Sprint,
and Verizon. Comcast provides cable tele-
visions and internet access. Because of the
rapid change in this industry, there may be
service providers not mentioned herein that
provide service in the Ridgefield area.
7.12.4 Policy
PF-PU-1 Quality Service
Assist in providing quality and reliable private
utilities and service options to the Ridgefield
residents and business operators, through
partnering, licensing, and negotiations with
utility companies.
7.13 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
7.13.1 Current Conditions
Ridgefield will adopt policies and regulations,
to identify future needs for regional and state-
wide facilities, such as airports, state educa-
tion facilities, state or regional transportation
facilities, state and local correctional facilities,
solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient
facilities including substance abuse facilities,
mental health facilities, group homes, trans-
portation facilities of state-wide significance
defined according to RCW 47.06.140, and se-
cure community transition facilities. No other
Comprehensive Plan policy may preclude the
siting of essential public facilities. Essential
Public facilities includes:
• airports
• state education facilities
• state or regional transportation facilities
• state and local correctional facilities
• solid waste handling facilities
• regional parks/trails
• in-patient facilities, including substance abuse
facilities, mental health facilities, and group
homes
• transportation facilities of state-wide significance
defined according to RCW 47.06.140
• secure community transition facilities
• hospitals and medical clinics
7.13.2 Direction for the Future
The process for siting essential public facili-
ties (EPFs) depends on whether the facility is
a state-wide EPF (like a university or prison),
a local, or a regional EPF. The state-wide pro-
cess will be managed by a board or coun-
cil comprised of representatives from state
and local agencies. Local or regional facilities
would be sited by local governments using
the existing GMA process. A public facility
siting negotiation process may be recom-
mended if the GMA process does not provide
a definite result. The negotiation process
would include representatives from jurisdic-
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 7-17
tions where the facility may be located or
wherein the impacts of the facility would be
manifest. The facility siting committee would
seek to negotiate a resolution to the siting
issue(s) with assistance from the State Office
of Dispute Resolution, if it is available. If an
agreement is reached, each legislative body
represented on the committee would have to
ratify the agreement. If an agreement cannot
be reached, the State oversight body would
be presented with the proposals from each
party. The oversight body would select the
proposal it determines is most consistent with
state policy.
7.13.3 Policy
PF-EPF-1 Essential Public Facilities
Coordinate with Clark County, the state, and
special districts to identify future needs for
regional and statewide facilities.
7-18 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
101
W
IF]
TRANSPORTATION
TV*k
Pllw
is
is
is
a
8. TRANSPORTATION 8.1.1 Roadway Functional
Classification
The transportation system is part of everyday
life. The entire community relies on the sys-
tem to get people where they want to go, to
bring goods to and from the community, and
to connect people to the services they need.
Ridgefield's transportation system has a va-
riety of components, including rail freight
(through the Port of Ridgefield), state high-
ways (managed by Washington State De-
partment of Transportation [WSDOT]),
local streets, sidewalks, transit (C-TRAN)
and bicycle paths. Regional coordination and
consistency are integral to Ridgefield's trans-
portation program. Regional partnerships are
maintained with Clark County, the Southwest
Washington Regional Transportation Council
(RTC), C-TRAN (regional transit agency), WS -
DOT, the Port of Ridgefield, and other cities in
Clark County.
These relationships are formalized through
active participation in the RTC, which serves
as the area's federally designated Metropoli-
tan Planning Organization (MPO) and state -
designated Regional Transportation Planning
Organization (RTPO). The RTC maintains and
runs the traffic modeling for all jurisdictions
in Clark County, based on a common land use
geographic information system. This ensures
consistency in land use and transportation
planning among neighboring jurisdictions.
RTC, as the regional RTPO, certifies Ridge -
field's transportation element for consistency
with the regional plan and with the plan of
each jurisdiction responsible for transporta-
tion planning within Clark County.
8.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Before a local government can adequately
plan for its future, it must assess the capabil-
ity of its existing traffic circulation system to
serve current demand. It is therefore neces-
sary to determine existing levels of service
and to identify existing system deficiencies
within the traffic circulation system.
Functional classification defines streets and
roads according to the type of service they
are intended to provide. Two major consid-
erations are to: (1) serve the through move-
ment of traffic and (2) provide access to
abutting property. The classification of differ-
ent types of roadways and streets can vary
depending upon the size of the community
and the community's vision. Clark County, as
part of its countywide planning process, and
the Regional Transportation Council, as part
of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning
process, define the functional classification
system along the following guidelines:
1. The principal arterial system shall consist of a
connected network of rural arterial routes with
appropriate extensions into and through urban
areas, which serve regional and subregional
trips. Access is limited to other arterials and
state highways, and for regional trip generators.
Access is subservient to the roadway's function.
2. The minor arterial system provides for
subregional access to and from the principal
arterial system, and serves regional and
subregional trips. Access is less restrictive than
for principal arterials but is still subservient to
the roadway's function.
3. The collector system provides connections
through and between neighborhoods and
subregions of the county, and serves as the
principal means of land access to residential
neighborhoods, commercial centers, and into
and through industrial and business parks.
Access is provided to adjacent land uses, but is
often managed to occur at appropriately spaced
locations and is often shared between adjacent
land uses.
4. Those roadways which perform no arterial or
collector function, which serve only local access
functions and which lack essential arterial
characteristics shall be designated "local or
neighborhood access" roadways.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 8-1
The City of Ridgefield has developed a Func-
tional Classification Plan for the different
types of street facilities as shown in Figure
8-1. Pioneer Street/SR 501 and the south
section of Hillhurst Road are designated prin-
cipal arterials. These roadways serve regional
trips and provide the main routes of access
into and out of the city. Minor arterials include
the remainder of Hillhurst Road, N Main Ave-
nue, 45th Avenue, Royle Road, S 15th Street,
N 20th Street in the UGA (NW 289th Street
in the county), Union Ridge Parkway, and
85th Avenue (NE 10th Avenue in the county).
These roadways serve trips within the region
and connect to the principal arterial system.
The collector roadways have been grouped in
the following three subcategories: standard
collector, scenic collector, and commercial/in-
dustrial collector. Standard collectors include
Heron Ridge Drive, N 10th Street (sections
both east and west of Interstate 5), 35th Av-
enue, Bertsinger Road, N 65th Avenue (NW
11th Avenue in the county), and S 5th Street.
Commercial/industrial collectors include 51st
Avenue, Timm Road, 56th Place, S 20th Way,
S 6th Way, N 5th Street and roadways inter-
nal to the "Boschma" area east of Interstate
5 and north of Union Ridge Parkway. These
roadways will primarily serve the employ-
ment and retail developments forecast for the
junction area. These roadways will also be
designed to accommodate truck movements
from these developments.
Reiman Road north of Pioneer Street/SR-501
to Heron Ridge Drive is classified a `scenic
collector". Although classified as a collector,
8-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
the roadside environment and topography
constrain the ability to widen Reiman Road
much beyond its current 22 -foot width. Main-
taining a narrower roadway width will help
preserve the "rural and scenic" nature of the
roadway. As other roadways are improved
or constructed, it is expected that through
traffic will be directed to the north via 35th
and 45th Avenues, instead of Reiman Road.
Improvements to Reiman Road will consist
of maintaining the two 11 -foot travel lanes
along with a few feet of safety shoulders on
each side.
Several roadways not included in the previous
or current Ridgefield UGA are noted in Figure
8-1. Although not in Ridgefield's jurisdiction
at this time, these roadways are neverthe-
less considered important to transportation
access to and circulation within the city. The
City supports efforts to include the N 20th
Street minor arterial including a crossing over
I-5, the NW 219th Street extension from the
Interstate 5/SR-502 interchange west to NW
31st Avenue/Hillhurst Road, and the S 51st
Avenue extension to the NW 219th Street
extension, which is in the county's Arterial
Atlas. These functional classification desig-
nations and corresponding design standards
are compatible between the City and County
to allow the facilities to blend and function
well (i.e., the sidewalks align, lanes are of
similar width and configuration, etc.). Design
standards for these facilities are illustrated in
the City of Ridgefield Engineering Standards,
Chapter 3 — Streets.
8.1.2 Roadway Inventory
An inventory of the existing arterial and col-
lector street system was prepared using infor-
mation obtained from the City, Clark County
and field investigations. The existing physi-
cal roadway characteristics and traffic control
for the Ridgefield Urban Growth area are il-
lustrated on Figure 8-2 while current traffic
(2005-2006 counts) is shown on Figure 8-3.
The existing street network is made up en-
tirely of two-lane roadways. Traffic control is
O
LL
CD a).2
�' y °
LL W 0
a
-
(D
NE 24TH
i
z
3AV O!!£Z 3N
V ONZZ
3AVHIO
leffllwl! -Jlm
I
IOZ 3N
1D
1S1Z 3
B!�
N
t -
z Atl HSl3N
3Atl HIM 3N
3Atl H10l 3N
Atl H101
3
€ 3Atl H10 3N
-
•,•
13 H19 N
>
te
z
Atl ONE
ld H18LF
p
>
_ -
Id OHEM
3AV ONE MN
I
nII,,��
H16
-
10 HIS MN
p
"Qo �y qM Cl
-
1D H15
goo
�
�
F
■
'
3AVHIS iN
10 H10, -
■
_
Nw 9M
V H1El MN
m
3AV H199 N
3AV H_59 \ C
H 16VI1 S
3A Hlll
3AV Hill MN
18TH AV
i
-
,
by
NN.l
z
_
■
yr
w
1d H181 MNi
i
.t
H.99S
_o
c
�
s ld 1SlZ MN''
ARADISEPA R
7dr{r�
a>' 3AV HICZ MN
3
2
g l
Lt N 3
ice`
x
AViSlE
3Atl1SH MN3Atl1SlE
MN m 3AtliSlf MN 3: His y
1OR10E
r C
= "� 3AV HlSt
N
5
AvlsS EMNr
x
NAVISIE''
-
tl
13 EMN
9A
pb
3
N V1$It MN
II
x 3A ISI MN ® 3.iV H1=
S
i
3Ab021£
n
_ owi
L[
g,^, ld HL
S
�b
�9AVMSMN
3AV1StSMN VIM,
T HIS? S
p
I+
r
m
ee N
d 1tz
9
8
�
i x
m '-
98yTH
3AVH199
,d1SlZS
w
LD179 MN
S 197H Pl
n
-
x
■E
"
-
k
1OA14 �72
N
D SLS
y�
puu
I�
2lO113Na03
3AVlS19 MN
Rn
a
n
e
S
p
87TH AVE
3AVISILMN 3AV1SlLMN
3 H1 QQ
H
- 3 Hi[ MH 3AVH1L9MN
VA M
,g
170, MN
Q
■
,�j w
pd
� �
a�nOa anO1
r
�pddpp�
'
■
,
\�
'''•'y�L�
�•
a
HOl3
.t. :NV'iSl HDtlSM
�
�N'TNy1
N
V
w
N
L
d
v
R
L
!0
3
N Ip
Qi
L
X
O
C N
C .0 3
rn m a m
U (n°_ N Q<
C
> 0. it ` > H
0 O l0 N
co H aH- U
Z
� o.o® ,
N N
Q
t J
co
° UZ.4
C
L d
" O Lu
Z
\
?
!^J
V
jr�l
3^bHl NE 26TH AVE �
N
AtlHLLI
16Z 3N H16Z 3N
3Atl H16Z t3 H16Z
- �'3
NE 24TH AVE
o
tl OMEZ 3
�
3Atl Oi1fZ 3N
tlONZZ
x
100a
3Atl H1llZ
RrmR7m�Tw
lOZ 3N
i
1O1S1Z3
10
-
�N
3Atl
4p
AV H1013
H - �s
3AB H10 3N
-
�p _
10 H19 N
>
>
NW pOLL pCK RD
2 z
- AVGN>
Id HLSL
p
_
Z
�
Id OHEM
3AVONZMN
HHHg�
H16
•. t0 H15 MN
-MN
_ -
\
LO HB
goo
z
1
10 H10! —
m ■ 3
1
—'_
H1E{MN $ =z
3AV Hl9N
3AV H1S9N ❑
8NAII5 3
c�J 3A Hit
z
z
o
6TH
Id H191 MN
�
z
r
ld F.19S S
�
v
5
PPRKRD
R-
�2
x
�D\SE
WpP
rd
' 3AVH14ZMry
>t
!
N ARADISE PAR
HlO
3
Atl1SlE .N 3AVIM MN
1St MN m 3AV ISLE MN = HIS'
014.40C
t
to 0
N �n
S Hl9pS
60Ry AV1StCMNr K
3A
10 EMN
oy�k
os
= ■
,tee., m
V1St04"
x 3A 1S! MN hgI _.,
__
_C=2
z z z
3AV08f
w
=
a
Q
6
J
3
pt
B
Fi
16 x 3Atl1StSMN
3Atl1SIS,'." -
'
w
�
N
7d lhts
0
_
m
z 309tH
3AtlH19S 1N
d1S �ZS
N N
w
-
N� - 10 US MN
S 79TH PL
S
1jHlbo k R
0SLS
S
qu
II
80113NHOO
A3
3A111Sl[MN 3Atl1Sl[MN
H1L MN
014"
'9� P
G�OOd
a31r106'anOl
U)
a)
E y
N
M L om a L) 3 Z� rWn
W ,E
L
W
C
ai N W
(� I '■��
. —
LL W i■�' o ►--i
NE 24TH AVE o
100
Atl H10Z
i = '.lOZ 3N z 101s123
� N
Atl H1SL 3N
3AVH10t 3N 3'V _,.z c;RI
AV H1013 x
_¢ 3AVH10 31
3
N (D ? -
M1V VON z x
Id OaE;.:n 31V ON? MN ^
V�
1414 10 HiS 10 Hlc MN rP� I Qa NW 4TH CT -
R M
� " ■ 3ntl WS N
1
10 H1CL M - ■ 2 ■ My gTH !E
3AV 7iS9 N O a WWII S
Hl£t MN _ / 3 G,F�,� 3A Hl:L 3AVH111 MN
jy`
t
� 1d H181 MN / z
z z � � ■ Z
cPFP.1C
15E 1d MZMN
z WPP O _
N pRAD15E PAR
c �
3
tl1Sl£ 3Atl1SL£MN 31V1Stf MN m 3AV1SL£MN
3,1t x115 S L%
d Od AV131£MN� _ Atl Lsl£M
s 3
10 £ MN {� N
It Co
V1St b,ytN x 3A MMN ® =l�T
z 3AV Oaf
I
i
/y w 10es d 141 S
r� N
�b 3Atl1SlS MN 3Atl1StS MN V1SLS s H1SZS
z3 a N d1SlZS
HW 9�t� 17 MTS MN3AV 14199 N N
N - nntl
■ z Lo R
P 0 SlS N p� `
3-"y1Dg2 '� II a0113Na00 3AVISLSM;;
H^ S � NW6'fS14pVE-_-
3AVISLL - �C ^ 3 3AV H1L9 MN
MN 3AVISLL MN �'i) 3�V H1�=�'
.n'na po �, '0dvroll�
r7
�o�t�' V �n01 oder
'$ISd0
as aNvtsr aoi3Hotle M
' �� oyy3Nb1s l
presently provided by posted stop sign con-
trol at intersections. Traffic signals exist only
at Pioneer Street and North Main Avenue, and
at the interchange at Pioneer Street (SR 501)
and Interstate 5. The highest traffic volumes
occur along Pioneer Street/SR 501 west of In-
terstate 5 to 45th Avenue.
8.1.3 Traffic Capacity
In order to evaluate existing traffic condi-
tions, intersection capacity analyses and a
SYNCHRO/SimTraffic traffic analysis and sim-
ulation model were prepared for the morning
and afternoon peak hours in the Ridgefield
UGA. The capacity analyses were conducted
using the methodology of the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM contains
guidelines and computational procedures for
computing the capacity and quality of ser-
vice for various highway facilities, including
freeways, signalized and unsignalized inter-
sections, and rural highways. SYNCHRO is
a software package that employs the HCM
guidelines and is used to assess roadway
capacity. The use of SYNCHRO allowed as-
sessment of the existing transportation infra-
structure and identification of potential future
improvement needs.
8.1.4 Level -of -Service Standards
The following section provides an outline of
roadway level -of -service (LOS) and method-
ology as developed for the 2008 Ridgefield
UGA Transportation Plan update. The purpose
of this information is to provide an overview
of LOS and identify its relationship to the
Transportation Goals and Policies of the City.
The level -of -service used for the Capital Fa-
cilities Plan is "D", except at unsignalized in-
tersections that do not meet signal warrants
or where a signal is not desired, where the
planned LOS is "E". This is consistent with the
City's adopted concurrency policy.
Level -of -service (LOS) is an estimate of the
quality and performance efficiency of trans-
portation facilities in a community. LOS
categories provided in the Transportation Re -
8 -6 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
search Board's Highway Capacity Manual were
adopted for this study. The Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) LOS system measures the de-
gree of traffic congestion and delay using the
letter rating "A" (the best) for least amount
of congestion to letter rating "F" (the worst)
for the most amount of congestion. The fol-
lowing LOS categories provide some general
ideas as to the different levels of service used
in the HCM and their performance measures.
For this effort, LOS D is considered accept-
able except for unsignalized intersections,
where LOS E is acceptable if the intersection
does not meet traffic signal warrants. These
standards are the city's current concurrency
ordinance.
The Washington State Department of Transpor-
tation (WSDOT) is responsible for determin-
ing level -of -service on Highways of Statewide
Significance. The only such highway in the
Ridgefield UGA is Interstate 5. Various plan-
ning efforts including the Ridgefield Transpor-
tation Plan project that deficiencies will occur
at Interstate 5 at the Pioneer Street/SR 501
interchange in the not -to -distant future, even
with interim improvements that were under-
taken in 2005. An increase in peak hour trips
both into and out of Ridgefield on Interstate
5 is the result of increased land designated
for employment in the Pioneer Street/SR 501
and Interstate 5 interchange area. These im-
pacts have been identified in local, regional,
and state transportation analyses; efforts are
underway to fully -fund a long-term recon-
struction of the interchange.
Level -of -service Categories (LOS)
Level -of -service A - Low volumes, high
speeds, and no delays. Freedom to select de-
sired speeds and to maneuver within the traf-
fic stream is extremely high. (Example - Most
arterials in the Ridgefield area at all times of
the day.)
Level -of -service B - Zone of stable flow. Driv-
ers still have reasonable freedom to select
their speed. (Example - Pioneer Street/Union
Ridge Parkway east of Interstate 5.)
1
0
iSt
VA
Level -of -service C - Still in the zone of sta-
ble flow, but speeds and maneuverability are
more closely controlled by the higher vol-
umes. The selection of speed is now affected
by the presence of others, and maneuvering
within the traffic stream requires vigilance on
the part of the driver. (Example - traffic on
Pioneer Street/SR 501 west of I-5.)
Level -of -service D - Approaches unstable
flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are
severely restricted. Small increases in traf-
fic flow will generally cause operational prob-
lems at this level. (Example - Pioneer Street/
SR 501 through the I-5 interchange area.)
Level -of -service E - Represents operating con-
ditions at or near the capacity of the highway.
Low speeds. Freedom to maneuver within the
traffic stream is extremely difficult. Any in-
cident can be expected to produce a serious
breakdown with extensive queuing.
Table 8-1. Level -of -service (LOS) Categories
LOS Segment or Intersection Roundabout Volume/
Volume/Capacity Ratio Capacity Ratio _
A Less than or equal to 0.3 0.00-0.40
B
Less than or equal to 0.5
0.41 — 0.60
C
Less than or
0.61 —0.75
-
equal to 0.75
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & 9th Ave.
C
Less than or
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & Reiman Road
D
13
0.76-0.85
A
equal to 0.90
Avenue (roundabout)
E
Less than or equal to 1.0
0.86-0.95
F
Greater than 1.0
>0.95
Level -of -service F - Describes forced flow op-
eration at very low speeds, where volumes
are above theoretical capacity. Operations are
characterized by stop -and -go traffic. Vehicles
may progress at reasonable speeds for sev-
eral hundred feet or more, then be required
to stop in a cyclic fashion. Long delays.
The V/C ratios in Table 8-1 represent the ac-
tual volume of traffic traveling on the road-
way divided by the volume capacity of that
roadway. Capacity is defined as the maximum
rate of flow that can be accommodated on a
particular roadway segment.
Table 8-2 summarizes the LOS for existing
(2007) conditions. All of the intersections op-
erate at LOS C or better.
8.1.5 Accident History
Accident records for SR -501 and Pioneer in
the study area were obtained from WSDOT
and from the Ridgefield Police Department.
The WSDOT and Police records are for Janu-
ary 2004 through January 2008 (five years).
The most current accident records along Pio-
neer Street are summarized in Table 8-3. As
indicated in Table 8-3, the high collision seg-
ment is Pioneer Street between 45th Avenue
and 56th Place which has experienced 27 ac-
cidents. Of these accidents the intersection of
Pioneer Street and 45th Avenue experienced
12 accidents while seven accidents were re -
Table 8-2. Selected Intersection LOS Summary
(PM Peak)
LOS
Delay (sedvehicle)
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & Main Street
A
8
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & 9th Ave.
C
17'
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & Reiman Road
B
13
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & 45th
A
v/c = 0.35
Avenue (roundabout)
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & 56th Place
C
15
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & 1-5 Southbound Ramp*
B
15
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & 1-5 Northbound Ramp*
C
21
Pioneer Street/SR 501 & 65th Avenue
B
11
65th Avenue/S 5th Street
A
9
S 5th St./85th Ave.
B
14
Notes: 'represents a signalized intersection.
Recent development traffic study submittals indicate this intersection will be at LOS E/F by 2009
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 8-7
Table 8-3. Accident Summar
Segment Number of Accidents
Pioneer Street Between Main Avenue and 5th Avenue (Downtown) 6
Pioneer Street Between 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue 4
Pioneer Street Between 9th Avenue and Reiman Road 6
Pioneer Street Between Reiman Road and 35th Avenue 18
Pioneer Street Between 35th Avenue and 45th Avenue 5
Pioneer Street Between 45th Avenue and 56th Place 27
Pioneer Street/SR 501 Between 56th Place and 65th Avenue 13
65th Avenue Between N 10th Street and S 10th Street 12
corded at the intersection of Pioneer Street
and 56th Place. Note that many of the ac-
cidents which occurred at the 45th Avenue/
Pioneer Street intersection occurred prior to
the installation of the roundabout in 2007,
and many of those which occurred at the Pio-
neer Street/56th Place intersection occurred
prior to intersection improvements completed
there in late 2005.
8.1.6 Transit
Transit service for Ridgefield is provided by
C-TRAN's "Connector" service. The Connec-
tor serves the cities of Camas, La Center, and
Ridgefield with fully accessible dial -a -ride
and regular stop service (www.C-TRAN.com).
Rides are provided via prior arrangements on
a first come, first served basis. Fixed route
service is provided from La Center through
Ridgefield to the 99th Street Transit Center
twice in the morning peak and twice in the
afternoon peak on weekdays, one once mid-
day on weekdays. Connector routes operate
Monday through Friday only and do not oper-
ate on weekends or holidays.
8.1.7 Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities
The City of Ridgefield Engineering Standards
identify the requirements for non -motorized
uses on streets, such as sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways. Currently, a 1 -mile pedestrian trail
exists in Abrams Park. Striped shoulders exist
along sections of SR -501. While not officially
designated bike lanes, the shoulders do pro-
vide refuge for bicyclists and pedestrians. Bike
lanes exist or are being constructed on the fol-
lowing roads: Heron Ridge Drive east of Main
Avenue, Reiman Road from the city limits to
N 5th Street, S 5th Street east of I-5, Union
Ridge Parkway, S. 11th Street and S. 85th Av-
enue near S 5th Street. On other roadways
within the city, bicycle users currently share
the roadway with motorized traffic.
Sidewalks exist through the downtown area
and sporadically throughout the older sec-
tions of the community. Sidewalks are being
included in all new residential developments.
The City adopted the Ridgefield Comprehen-
sive Park and Recreation Plan, which includes
a Trail and Bikeway System Plan that desig-
nates locations for future pedestrian and bike
facilities in the Ridgefield area. Included in
this study are trails identified along Pioneer
Street/SR-501, Union Ridge Parkway, 45th
Avenue, Royle Road, Hillhurst Avenue, and
Main Street.
Ai
ft�
itI
Al
8.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
Basic transportation access to obtain goods
and services and engage in social activities is
an essential need that must be met. Motor-
ists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders
should all be able to use the transportation
system in a safe, efficient, and uniform way.
Through coordination with Clark County, C-
TRAN, and RTC, Ridgefield will develop a
multi -modal transportation system that safe-
ly, attractively and efficiently serves plan land
uses within the RUGA.
Most people who live in Ridgefield view the
community's streets as more than simply
concrete and asphalt. Streets affect the way
people live, work, and play. Streets should be
viewed as part of a dynamic, integrated land
use and transportation system. Street treat-
ments (paving type, sidewalks, lighting, street
trees, signs, and furniture such as benches
and trash cans) should address the needs of
regular users and the surrounding area.
Connected, continuous street systems make
activities of daily living easier to accomplish.
Ridgefield's early development was based on
a grid street system. As development moved
out, a grid based on major corridors was es-
tablished, but many of the connections have
not been completed. In many areas, connec-
tivity for auto travel, pedestrians, and bicy-
clists needs improvement.
The City's roadway system will be improved to
serve development within these new urban ar-
eas and infill development. The Proposed Road-
way Functional Classification map illustrates
how the transportation system will be improved
to serve new development (Figure 8-4).
8.2.1 Trip Generation
The Regional Transportation Council (RTC)
provided a special sensitivity model run of the
Ridgefield area which included the proposed
land use assumptions for the Ridgefield area
as shown in Table 8-4. The 2024 PM peak hour
traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 8-5.
The county's Vacant and Buildable Lands Mod-
el (VBLM) was used to estimate the existing
number of dwelling units and employment in
the City's UGA and the capacity for additional
growth. Additionally, the comprehensive plan
and zoning designations for the additional
UGA included in the September 2007 Clark
County Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan were used along with estimations of em-
ployment and household densities to project
Based on RTC's 2024 TAZ dataset with Ridgefield proposed adjustments; approximate developable acreage and density
assumptions for Clark County's September 2007 Comprehensive Plan adoption; and previous VBLM assumptions.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 8-9
Table 8-4. Urban Growth Area Plan Designations
Approximate
Approximate Net
Net
Developable
KSF of Building
Dwelling
Trips per
Total Peak
Total Daily
Land Use
Acres
Floor Area
Units
Unit/KSF
HourTrips
Trips
1. Single Family
Residential (ITE 210)
1500
N/A
7,500
1.01
7,575
75,750
2. Multi -Family
Residential (ITE 220)
300
N/A
3,000
0.62
1,860
18,600
3. Employment Center
150
967.5
N/A
6.00
5,805
58,050
(ITE 210; 850)
4. Commercial
(ITE 850, 862)
30
193.5
N/A
5.00
968
9,675
5. Mixed Use Overlay
500
1500
400
3.50
1,400
14,000
(Various ITE)
6. Other (Schools,
N/A
115
N/A
3.50
403
4,025
Miscellaneous)
TOTAL
2776
10,900
18,010
180,100
Based on RTC's 2024 TAZ dataset with Ridgefield proposed adjustments; approximate developable acreage and density
assumptions for Clark County's September 2007 Comprehensive Plan adoption; and previous VBLM assumptions.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 8-9
c
0
U
e
mo
r
o
m
a
W r
Y1
o<
U
c O
m L O
W LL R •0
V
g��
° u
2 a
m o o� o_
°
¢'°
mC)
do a
o
v,
������
zQ
( w
Cf��0
LL. O .�
ro
m x¢
v
T
O o
Q
o�,- -
d)
. �
as -Fu o
L v
1
O ci
E
Q
r
N
L3 >3
rc
U
U
-
' -
III
C d •
Z o�
I D
F- -O > >..�
(�i o f
O
(i'
_
I W
or
r
O
o
N
T
3 iV HiL£ 3A HL
3AV HIE 3,N
3AV H1L£ 3N
L
>
L) z
3AVHi"o,.3N
d p�
w
iC iSLC N
S
N
N
O) 7
W
d m
s
3.`;V HI -37 3.N z
z
'Ib'ILK
p
_
z
3 `
C a)
N
C Q
Op >Q
Z
Z
Or
z (OQ
D N(O j
1V Ow
V
d« C
1 S
N
c
i0 aa£
~
CC:E aci
z
101SLZ3
a
Q
0
z
'-
N
F
3AVHi5l N
w
m N
C
w
Z
O
U
�
a)
u o
1
o N
3,VH1
3
o m
a) o_
c E16
c
z
_
A
a)
d
■ QID
U
I
p
'O
S N a7
lOH1SMN
N
■ 0
N
z CLSz
1
iDaae
v v
C c
a)
_
d,••
�
E
alp
`J3!i HiL 1,N
3h LLMN =
It
N
I
J
y<<
Id Hi?I "k4
+
4�
ld HISS SS
s
Shg
NO
16 w
1
I
�U
1
x
�
5.2
m
�
Q O
OM
O0)
w
N C
a)
7
G
Oyu
X
z w
d d
c d
c 0Lo
O E R
st E
.
t
W 43RD
a L
O
6
�
N
d !O
ma`�$
•��
ce)
■
C 7 a) a7
aci m a
U
1tf
Q �_
3
�
■
_
l
a N
1
c-
U
iiViSL9M;.
1
r
100aE9wN
w ■
m
2
m
d
i0 H1Lc ;. N
Q N
1
3c
m
1
a'w
3/iV1S19Mt
La)
0
�p
cu
LSO
'`,�
rr 3A Hi, N.N
3AVH.L9MN
7
)
a)
♦
r�)
Oa H1c) NJ V6
2-
c
1
ao
♦
o
'
♦I is
v
31n0abn01
Jdy
-♦�
o
U)
1
♦
ISLAND RD
a) .N
f
�♦'��CHELOR
o of
5 LLI
0
c6
0
development through the year 2024. The ad-
ditional household and employment growth
between now and 2024 was used to project
the number of new trips generated by this
growth. These new trips were factored into
the transportation demand analysis which
serves as the basis for transportation facili-
ties being planned in this CFP, as well as the
basis for calculating traffic impact fees (cost
of new transportation facilities divided by the
number of new trips per weekday in the 2024
planning horizon).
COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION Rather than
provide new roadway capacity to mitigate the
impacts of urban growth, there are also strat-
egies for reducing the number of new trips
that are generated. The Washington State
Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduc-
tion (CTR) Law in 1991, incorporating it into
the Washington Clean Air Act. The goals of
the program are to reduce traffic conges-
tion, air pollution, and petroleum consump-
tion through employer -based programs that
decrease the number of commute trips. By
encouraging people to ride the bus, van -
pool, carpool, walk, bike, work from home, or
compress their workweek, the CTR Program
removes nearly 19,000 vehicles from road-
ways statewide every morning. Statewide the
program reduces impacts from air pollution
(by about 4,800 tons each year) and from
gasoline consumption (by 6 million gallons a
year).
The CTR Program can be implemented in the
Ridgefield area as major employers are es-
tablished. Employers must participate in CTR
if they have 100 or more full-time employees
at a single worksite who begin their sched-
uled workday between 6:00-9:00 a.m. (Most
construction and seasonal agricultural work-
ers are exempted.) Results will be achieved
through collaboration between Ridgefield,
other Clark County cities, employers, and WS -
DOT. Established programs, incentive options,
and promotional campaigns make collabora-
tion an efficient method of administrating this
program on a county -wide basis.
8.2.2 Required
Transportation Facilities
Based on the Year 2024 traffic modeling using
traffic analysis and travel demand modeling
provided by Regional Transportation Council
(RTC), deficiencies appeared along Pioneer
Street/SR-501 between 35th Avenue and 65th
Avenue, and at the Pioneer Street/SR 501
and Interstate 5 interchange. Additionally,
several intersection deficiencies were identi-
fied along several of the UGA's arterial and
collector facilities.
To serve the proposed additional UGA and
maintain the current plan's level -of -service
minimum standard, the City needs to con-
struct new roads as shown in Figure 8-5.
Planning -level cost estimates were developed
for the new roads based on the improvement
needed, as well as additional improvements
needed in the current UGA to accommodate
the new trips. The new roads and improve-
ments are estimated to cost approximately
$306 million.
To balance the cost of roadway improvements
with the affordability of the Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) rate per trip, a modified TIF program is
recommended. Roadways that are classified
as minor arterials, principal arterials, as well
as Pioneer Street/SR 501 would be eligible to
be included on the program. Certain collector
facilities which serve to transport trips sub -
regionally between areas of the City are also
included. These are roads that carry regional
trips and will serve the majority of trips to
and from Ridgefield - they are the gateways
to and major traffic carriers within the city.
8.2.3 Capital Cost and
Projected Revenue
The Capital Facilities Plan summarizes the to-
tal estimated capital cost to provide roadway
improvements for the UGA. This is summa-
rized by funding source and notes the change
in TIF eligibility. If this is adopted, the City's
TIF rate would increase from $203 per daily
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 8-11
y ,z
oa'c 1
v IZI MN
HNi 18tHAV
K
� ld F
i z
I
L��,�
"
Id 1SlZ MN
3AbHlh2 ry
_MAW.
J]
Cd 3 3 z
M o
s
:S w
S n u
aG ll3Na09 3AV1St9MN
0
67TH AVE
^ 3 H
3AV H119 MN x
m=�:s
te=a
pARA9
�
PAH R
N
L�J
3
i
1SlE 3Atl1SlS MN
c
E Cl
3AV1SLCMN
a
o 3
C Z Z
f.
u
■
A
0
�
o
� �
Z
s
+4
_ tj A4
■
O
o.O
C
_ 10
TREMN
W
J
I
I `
l�
o
x
MN
n
®
r
-
Z
O
w
i
NE 24TH AVE
B 1G GN
t -
AL
z
z z
m
NGNZZ
Id H1 S €
g
i
6J
_.; H12
RMMIF l 13
�Idi
m
-
i
1DZ 3N
z
!31SLZ3
1�
H19Z5
N
id 1S lZS
zN�38yAN
1G 1LS MN
3AVH19C :.•,
N
z O
i 3AVHJLSl 3N
BAY H10L3N
3AV H10l 3N 3AV
H10t
3N
AMM 3
y
r 3Atl H10 3N
ld H19177
a
a z
-
z
O
N
�y1p
Mq 4TH Cl
(`
■
3AV H1S N
�a�¢
O S 1W
1
NW 9TH E
3AV H159N
O
/
aWYi11S
O
'�
3AVHLll MN 3AVHltl MN
CN
l9
3
■
'�
I
L��,�
"
Id 1SlZ MN
3AbHlh2 ry
_MAW.
J]
Cd 3 3 z
M o
s
:S w
S n u
aG ll3Na09 3AV1St9MN
0
67TH AVE
^ 3 H
3AV H119 MN x
m=�:s
te=a
pARA9
�
PAH R
N
L�J
3
i
1SlE 3Atl1SlS MN
3Atl1S:CMN H
3AV1SLCMN
E,,V H1S
■
A
-
_ 10
TREMN
r
l�
x 3AJISII
MN
n
®
r
-
3AVOye
9
w
i
B 1G GN
t -
m
Id H1 S €
g
i
6J
i
�Idi
m
�6
x 3AV1SlSMN
9AVMSN,N
= 7—
-�-NE
H19Z5
N
id 1S lZS
zN�38yAN
1G 1LS MN
3AVH19C :.•,
N
z O
x f
I
L��,�
"
Id 1SlZ MN
3AbHlh2 ry
_MAW.
J]
Cd 3 3 z
M o
s
:S w
S n u
aG ll3Na09 3AV1St9MN
0
67TH AVE
^ 3 H
3AV H119 MN x
m=�:s
te=a
trip currently to approximately $313 per daily
Subsequent engineering analysis since
trip under the new TIF program. It also in-
the 2005 Transportation Plan was adopted
creases the private/TIF share to 58% (from
indicates that constructing a South 35th
52% in the previous Plan) and decreases the
Avenue corridor south of Pioneer Street to
public and grant share to 42% from 48% in
South 10th Way would likely be impractical
the current Plan. Based on this analysis, it ap-
to build, due to terrain, wetland and riparian
pears that the City will have adequate finan-
habitat areas, and would provide some
.S cial resources to serve the proposed additional
engineering as well as environmental impact
UGA. Because facilities must be constructed
challenges. Replacing this sub -regional
prior to the City collecting the TIF revenue,
corridor with the Bertsinger collector corridor,
some of these improvements may need to be
most of which currently exists but would need
financed with loans or bonds.
to be upgraded to provide transportation
8.3 KEY CHANGES FROM THE 2005
capacity, would continue to provide the sub -
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
regional and regional transportation mobility
that S. 35th Avenue would have provided.
There are several noticeable changes that
The Traffic Impact Fee project lists separate
have occurred in the Ridgefield 2008 Trans-
out the costs of new interchanges and
portation Plan update as compared to the
crossings of I-5 (South 15th Street, Pioneer
2005 Ridgefield Transportation Plan. These
Street/SR 501, NW 289th Street) from the
include:
roadway portion of those corridors. This
• Reclassifying the NW 219th Street extension
reflects the fact that the I-5 crossings would
west of I-5: the 2005 Plan assumed that
be built as a separate project and would not
most of this facility would be included in
be phased in via developer -required frontage
the Ridgefield UGA. However, with the
improvements, since developers would not
final UGA having been established with the
have land contiguous to these I-5 crossings
_ September 2007 Clark County Comprehensive
(they would be built in WSDOT right-of-way).
Growth Management Plan adoption, most
Pioneer Street extension into the Port of
of the NW 219th Street extension is outside
Ridgefield's Waterfront Development: the
of the Ridgefield UGA and would have a
2005 Plan included this segment but did
county rural collector designation. The
not provide for TIF funding. The 2008 Plan
2008 RUGA Transportation Plan update
provides 10% of the project's cost as TIF
maintains the city's support of the NW 219th
funding. The 2008 Plan process determined
Street extension, and includes the corridor
this segment was eligible for TIF funding as
in the city's Traffic Impact Fee project list.
it is an extension of a regional, TIF -eligible
f Constructing the NW 219th Street extension
facility (Pioneer Street), provides the only
would provide for regional capacity between
regional transportation capacity into the
west parts of Ridgefield's UGA and I-5, as well
waterfront area, and increases transportation
_ as serving to relieve the Pioneer Street/SR
capacity by removing delays associated with
501 corridor.
the at -grade crossings on the Burlington
• Inclusion of Bertsinger Road/25th Place/S.
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline on roads
10th Way/35th Place/South 15th Street
now serving the waterfront.
collector corridor, in the "doughnut hole"
Studies undertaken since the 2005 Plan
area that is now part of the UGA, in the
indicate that with adequate, 1/4 minimum
Traffic Impact Fee project list, and removal
spacing, roundabouts along the Pioneer/
of the 35th Avenue corridor south of Pioneer
SR 501 corridor, at 35th, 45th, 51st, 56th
Street/SR 501 from the CFP and TIF list.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 8-13
and 65th Avenues, will provide for adequate
transportation capacity, mobility and safety
compared with signalizing all of these
intersections.
• The cost of the Ridgefield Interchange Project
has been increased to $40 million, reflecting the
preferred design alternative and construction
cost increases since the 2005 Plan.
8.4 POLICIES
TR -1 Transportation options
Develop and maintain an interconnected and
overlapping transportation system with ex-
cellent roadways for automobiles and freight,
pedestrian walkways, bicycle facilities, and
transit service. Include support programs such
as traffic operations, transportation demand
management, neighborhood traffic manage-
ment, and the regional trails program. Work
toward completing and sustaining individual
components and programs to ensure success
of the entire system.
TR -2 System balance
Allocate resources using a cost -benefit ap-
proach to improve the transportation system.
Focus most resources on satisfying peak com-
muting demand with roadway capacity and
consider other transportation and options as
funding allows.
TR -3 Transportation safety
Ensure high safety standards for motorists,
pedestrians, and bicyclists through the devel-
opment and capital improvement processes.
Allocate City capital resources to high risk and
collision locations for motorists, bicyclists,
and pedestrians.
TR -4 Transportation finance
Develop recurring and dedicated funding for
a complete transportation program, including
system operation and maintenance. Lever-
age local funding with innovative and aggres-
sive finance strategies including partnerships,
grant development, efficient debt, fee-based
funding sources, and assistance from state
8-14 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
and federal government as appropriate.
TR -5 Transportation circulation and
system connectivity
Develop a transportation grid that provides
good connections to surrounding land uses
and activity centers and allows for multiple
circulation routes to and from each location.
Close gaps and complete system connections
through the development and capital im-
provement processes.
TR -6 Land use and
transportation integration
Develop and implement innovative transpor-
tation investment, design, and program in-
centives to achieve the urban environment
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
TR -7 Livable streets
Design streets and sidewalks and manage
vehicular traffic to encourage livability, in-
teraction, and sense of neighborhood or dis-
trict ownership in linkage with adjacent land
uses.
TR -8 Transportation system efficiency
Invest in and improve efficiency of the trans-
portation system with multi -modal design,
advanced traffic management and operations
technologies, demand management strate-
gies and high -frequency transit service, con-
sistent with the population density.
TR -9 Neighborhood traffic
Protect and enhance neighborhoods with an
active program that focuses on safety, safe
routes to school, traffic calming, education,
and law enforcement.
TR -10 Transportation regional and
metropolitan coordination
Coordinate Ridgefield's transportation plans,
policies, and programs with those of other
jurisdictions serving the Clark County area
to ensure a seamless transportation system.
Focus particularly on cooperation with the
Southwest Washington Regional Transporta-
tion Council, Washington State Department
I
4L
s
Is
is
of Transportation, Clark County and C-TRAN.
TR -11 Transit service
Restore previous level of transit service, and
explore opportunities for improvement.
TR -12 Economic development
In order to support the continued economic
vitality of Ridgefield, major transportation
system investments should facilitate freight
mobility, job creation, regional competitive
position, and revenue growth. Coordinate with
the Port of Ridgefield, the affected rail compa-
nies and the county to ensure adequate rail,
port and freight transportation facilities are
located and well managed near the downtown
core and the Pioneer Street and Interstate 5
interchange.
TR -13 Vehicle miles traveled
When economically feasible, given the popu-
lation density, use transportation and land use
measures to maintain or reduce single occu-
pant motor vehicle miles traveled per capita
to increase system efficiency and lower over-
all environmental impacts. Such measures
include:
• Encourage mixed land uses within easy walking
distance of transit stops
• Provide higher density residential development
near employment centers and major
transportation routes
• Coordinate with C TRAN in the development of
a transit master plan, which anticipates long-
term transit routes and required transit support
facilities, such as bus stops and turnout lanes
• Revise development standards and design
criteria in residential, commercial, and industrial
zones to facilitate pedestrian access and to
support transit use
TR -14 Parking standards
Adopt coordinated parking standards which
maintain neighborhood integrity, promote effi-
cient utilization of limited land, and encourage
desired economic development and growth.
TR -15 Transportation demand
management
Work with major employers, Clark County and
other jurisdictions to establish traffic demand
reduction programs, including the Commute
Trip Reduction Program, and park and rides
which decrease reliance on private automo-
bile transportation, through the development
of a balanced system which emphasizes ade-
quate roads, transit (bus service), and bicycle
and pedestrian improvements.
TR -16 Service standards
• Maintain LOS "D" except at unsignalized
intersections that do not meet the requirements
for use of signals or where a signal is not
desired, where the planned LOS is "E". For
Pioneer Street/SR 501, maintain LOS D or a
mutually -agreed upon LOS between the City of
Ridgefield and WSDOT.
TR -17 Downtown transportation
Recognize and accommodate the pedestri-
an -oriented nature of Downtown Ridgefield
through:
• coordinated urban design which encourages and
supports alternative means of travel
• sidewalk construction and planting of street trees
where adequate right-of-way exists
• development of off-street bicycle paths in Open
Space corridors, or on -street bicycle lanes which
link Downtown to residential neighborhoods
• providing attractive and functional bus stops
• establishing a downtown parking district to
provide attractive and functional public parking,
rather than requiring individual businesses to
construct private parking facilities
• encouraging residential urban infill near
Downtown, so that more people can walk to
Downtown
TR -18 Transit partnerships
• Coordinate with C TRAN in providing bus stops
as well as developing urban design and parking
standards for major developments and for areas
where transit use either exists or is planned.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 8-15
TR -19 System design
Minimize traffic congestion and encourage
public safety in Ridgefield through the follow-
ing programs and design techniques:
• Require sidewalks for all new and infill
development unless the benefits of providing
sidewalks are significantly outweighed by the
burden the sidewalk may place upon critical
areas
• Plan for "grid" street patterns (rather than series
of dead-end streets), to facilitate emergency
vehicle access, avoid overloading arterial streets,
and reduce "out -of -direction" travel
• Minimize direct (driveway) access to arterial
streets and encourage access to local streets
wherever possible
• Consider traffic calming devices, such as
specially -design speed bumps and traffic circles,
as methods of discouraging or slowing through
traffic on local streets
• Encourage the use of innovative traffic
management strategies such as roundabouts,
center turn lanes or other strategies where
prudent, feasible, and cost-effective
TR -20 Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• Recreational trails shall be provided to connect
neighborhoods and to provide public access to
the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, the Gee
Creek, and the Allen Creek Basins
TR -21 Pioneer Street
Consider the Pioneer Street/SR 501 and Union
Ridge Parkway corridor, Hillhurst Road, 65th
Avenue and 45th Avenue (Royle Road) to be
managed or controlled access arterial streets.
Driveway access to residential and commer-
cial development from arterial streets shall
normally occur from side (local) streets, as
shown on the City's transportation plan. Di-
rect (driveway) vehicular access from new de-
velopment to arterial or collector streets shall
be discouraged, except where consistent with
City engineering standards regarding street
and intersection spacing. The City shall con-
sider developing an access management plan
for limited access streets.
TR -22 Access management
Maximize distance between and minimize the
number of curb cuts to increase traffic safety
and visibility, and to minimize congestion. Ad-
ditional access management techniques will
be identified.
Plan bicycle and pedestrian facilities that TR -23 Urban to rural connections
serve the purposes of recreation and com-
muting through the following:
• Coordinate with Clark County in developing
and implementing bicycle and recreational trail
plans and systems, through public acquisition,
dedication, transferable development rights,
development exactions and other appropriate
means
• Provide bicycle lanes along arterial and collector
streets, to reduce hazards to bicyclists and the
motoring public
• Provide sidewalks for all recognized arterial,
collector and local streets, on one or both
sides of local streets, in accordance with City
standards
8-16 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
Coordinate with Clark County in developing a
collector street master plan, which identifies
the general location of planned minor collec-
tor streets for the urban growth area and the
urban reserve area. Compliance with this plan
shall be required for development approval for
both urban and rural developments. In rural
areas within Ridgefield's urban reserve (out-
side the RUGA), and in unincorporated areas
within the RUGA, new residential development
shall not cause LOS C to be exceeded for any
County collector street or arterial street.
W
i*
PARKS
14
1*
9. PARKS AND RECREATION
and Canyon's View Park #2 (Table 9-1 and
Figure 9-1).
9.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS 9,2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
The City of Ridgefield is responsible for man-
aging all parks, trails, greenways, and oth-
er park and recreation facilities in the City
of Ridgefield. The City also manages a Park
Impact Fee Program. Regional parks are pro-
vided by a host of other agencies including
the State, Clark County/Vancouver Parks and
Recreation, and others. The City completed a
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan in
2006. The Comprehensive Parks and Recre-
ation Plan identifies the need for six (6) types
of park and recreation areas in Ridgefield:
Regional Parks, Community Parks, Neighbor-
hood Parks, Pocket Parks, Special Use Areas
and Greenways. Currently, Ridgefield man-
ages seventeen (17) parks: Abrams, Davis,
Ridgefield Community/Skate, Hayden, Crows
Nest, Lark, Overlook, Eagles View, Horn Fam-
ily, Columbia Hills, Columbia Hills Open Space,
Rose Homestead, Pioneer, Allen Canyon, Pio-
neer Canyon Park #1, Canyon's View Park #1
The City of Ridgefield prides itself on its great
parks. The City is fully committed to pro-
viding recreational and natural spaces to its
growing population. However, the provision of
state parks is the shared responsibility of the
State, Clark County, Cowlitz County, and the
City of Ridgefield.
As it grows, Ridgefield will have to acquire
and develop new parks. Although many of the
parks will be in areas with high growth po-
tential, other developed neighborhoods would
benefit from additional parks. The Capital Fa-
cilities Plan for Ridgefield has a well devel-
oped section on parks and open space. That
document includes projected needs for addi-
tional parks, and a discussion of the types of
recreational opportunities that these should
include. There is also an established level -of -
service for parks, cost estimates, and reve-
nue projections.
Table 9-1. Ridgefield Existing Parks and Open Space (2005)
Parks Acres Notes
Neighborhood Parks
Davis Park
0.5 Picnic tables, playground equipment, and open space
Ridgefield
0.3 Basketball, benches, gazebo, fountain, and skate park
Community Park
Community Parks
Abrams Park
37 Softball and soccer fields, group picnic shelter,
covered bandstand, stream, trails, and restrooms
Urban Open Space
National Wildlife Refuge
5,148 Carty Unit: Trails, fishing, Cathlapotle Plankhouse, historic
site, restrooms, outdoor education, and interpretive unit
River S Unit: driving route, walking trail, waterfowl
hunting, visitor contact, restrooms, fishing
Total 5,186
Regional Facilities (nearby) Whipple Creek Park and Trail
Clark County Fairgrounds Fort Vancouver
Paradise Point State Park Gifford Pinchot National Forest
East Fork Lewis River Greenway Vancouver Lake
Woodland Special Campground
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 9-1
N
oa
N
GC
9.3 POLICIES
P-1 Provide parks
Ensure that park land is acquired, developed,
and maintained in an economically efficient
way to meet the needs of existing and future
residents.
P-2 Local trail system
Plan for and develop a city-wide interconnect-
ed system of trails that link schools, parks,
and other public facilities with residential and
mixed-use areas.
P-3 Regional trail system
Coordinate with Clark County and other ap-
plicable jurisdictions to provide regional trail
and bike access and to encourage the con-
tinuity of trail and bike corridors within and
outside the UGA.
P-5 Parks service standards
Provide adequate acreage of parkland to
meet existing and future park, trails and open
space needs consistent with the City's policies
and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
P-6 Shared use
Coordinate with the Ridgefield School District
to formally allow Ridgefield citizens to have
access to Ridgefield School District recre-
ational and educational facilities.
P-7 Parks funding
Develop dedicated funding for a complete
park system that includes acquisition, devel-
opment, maintenance and operation of parks,
trails, open space, and recreation programs
to serve City residents.
P-8 Parks education
Provide public education on the uses and
benefits of parks, open spaces, habitat pro-
tection, and recreational services.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 9-3
W.R.C.
cOINSTR CTIo
10. ANNEXATION
10.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Annexation may occur through various means
under state statute and local regulations.
The State of Washington's Growth Manage-
ment Act of 1990 (GMA) requires counties to
establish 20 -year Urban Growth Area (UGA)
boundaries to accommodate for projected
growth, and encourages cities to annex lands
within the UGA and provide urban -level ser-
vices to these areas. Lands outside the UGA
cannot be annexed. The Community Frame-
work Plan adopted by Clark County, Ridge-
field, and other local cities also encourages
annexation of lands in the UGA. The Commu-
nity Framework Plan establishes County sup-
port for such annexations.
Annexations can be initiated by property own-
ers or cities. When an annexation is initiated
by a city, local support is required. This sup-
port is generally provided through an election
or petitions. The election method requires
approval of the majority of voters in the an-
nexation area, or 60 percent, if the proposal
includes the assumption of indebtedness. The
petition method requires petitions signed by
and owners representing the majority of acre-
age in the annexation territory, and also by
the majority of registered voters in the area if
there are any. Proposed annexations in Clark
County are reviewed by the local Boundary
Review Board to ensure proposed areas are
logical and practical based on service areas,
physical boundaries, existing communities,
and other factors. Other methods for munici-
pal annexation are available for specific cir-
cumstances but are rarely applicable.
10.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
The City of Ridgefield supports annexation
to provide a full range of urban services and
efficiencies to developing and developed ur-
ban areas. The City will work closely with the
community, Clark County, and service provid-
ers to determine annexation issues that exist
in specific areas, and to develop and imple-
ment annexation plans. Larger annexations
will be generally preferable because of ser-
vice efficiencies, and to keep neighborhoods
and communities intact.
10.3 ANNEXATION POLICIES
The City of Ridgefield adopts the follow-
ing policies to ensure orderly urban transi-
tion and efficient delivery of urban services.
These policies are consistent with and imple-
ment Policy Section 9.0 of the Community
Framework Plan, adopted by Clark County
and local jurisdictions, and planning policies
36.70.A.020(2), (11) and (12) of the Wash-
ington Growth Management Act
A-1 Coordination with Clark County
Work with Clark County to facilitate future
annexation of lands within the unincorporat-
ed RUGA, to facilitate infrastructure mainte-
nance prior to annexation.
A-2 Annexation before service
extensions
To receive City -provided urban services, de-
veloping or developed unincorporated areas
should annex or commit to annexation.
A-3 Responsive annexation timelines
Annexation timelines should be responsive to
the interests of citizens and Ridgefield's abil-
ity to provide services.
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate 10-1
A-4 Large annexations encouraged
Annexation of large areas, preferably master -
planned, are encouraged, although individual
property owners should not be prevented from
pursuing annexation. Annexations should in-
clude both sides of streets and roads, includ-
ing rights of -way.
A-5 Service transition
Explore creative ways to facilitate the transi-
tion of government services, particularly pub-
lic safety, transportation, parks, utilities, and
land use review.
GE.,
The City will coordinate with the Ridgefield
School District on annexation requests so
that the School District can continue to meet
its service standards.
10-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
KEY TERMS AND ACRONYMS
Acre
A measure of land area containing 43,560 square feet
Acre, net
An acre of land calculated excluding all unusable spaces
(e.g., roads, infrastructure, environmentally sensitive areas)
Affordable housing
Housing is considered affordable for a household if it
costs no more than 30 percent of the gross monthly
income for rent or mortgage payments or up to
three times annual income for purchasing a home.
This is the standard used by the federal and state
governments, and the majority of lending institutions.
Arterial
A major street carrying the traffic of local and collector streets
to and from freeways and other major streets. Arterials
generally have traffic signals at intersection, and may have
limits on driveway spacing and street intersection spacing.
BCTI
Business Computer Training Institute
BNSF
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
BAS Best Available Science
Information that is based on existing professional
peer-reviewed scientific research and applicable
to local conditions. See WAS 365-195-90off.
CAA
Clean Air Acts
Capital Facilities
Permanent physical infrastructure, such as roads,
sewer and water lines, police and fire stations,
schools, parks and government buildings.
CFP
Capital Facilities Program
Collector
A street for traffic moving between major or
arterial streets and local streets. Collectors generally
provide direct access to properties, although they
may have limitations on driveway spacing.
CPU
Clark Public Utilities
CRC
Columbia Resource Company
CRESA
Clark Regional Emergency Services Agency
Critical Areas
Defined by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.030[5]
to include wetlands, sensitive fish and wildlife habitat areas,
critical recharge areas for groundwater aquifers, and
geologically hazardous areas (such as landslide areas,
earthquake fault zones, and steep slopes) and floodplains.
CSWMP
Clark County Solid Waste Management Plan (2000)
CTR
Commute Trip Reduction Law (1991)
C-TRAN
Regional transit agency
CWA
Federal Clean Water Act
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate A-1
CWSP
Coordinated Water System Plan
Density
For residential development, density means the number
of housing units per acre. For population, density means
the number of people per acre or square mile.
Discovery Corridor
The Discovery Corridor is an economic development initiative
that the City of Ridgefield has advanced in partnership
with other Clark County agencies and organizations to
establish a vibrant industrial base in central Clark County.
DNR
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
DOH
Department of Health
EPF
Essential Public Facilities
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Act
Floodplain
Lowland or relatively flat areas adjoining inland or coastal
waters that is subject to a one percent chance of flooding
in any given year. Also known as the 100 -year floodplain.
FVRLD
Fort Vancouver Regional Library District
GMA
State of Washington Growth Management Act of 1990
Groundwater
Water that exists beneath a land surface or beneath the
bed of any stream, lake reservoir or other body of surface
waters. It is water in a geological formation or structure
that stands, flows, percolates or otherwise moves.
HCM
Highway Capacity Manual (2000)
Household
All persons living in a dwelling unit, whether or not they
are related. Both a single person living in an apartment
and a family in a house are considered a "household."
HUD
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Impact Fee
Fee levied on the developer of a project by a city,
county or special district as compensation for the
expected effects of that development. The Growth
Management Act authorizes imposition of traffic, school,
and park impact fees on new development, and sets
the conditions under which they may be imposed.
LDR
Low Density Residential.
LOS
Level of service is an estimate of the quality and performance
efficiency of transportation facilities in a community.
MDR
Medium Density Residential
MSA
Metropolitan Statistical Area
MGD
Millions of Gallons per Day
MPO
Metropolitan Planning Organization
A-2 City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate
MVMT
Million vehicle miles traveled
Non -motorized travel
Pedestrian or bicycle modes of transportation
NWR
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge
OAHP
Washington State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation
OS
Open Space. Any parcel or area of land or water that is
essentially unimproved, and provides passive recreational
opportunities compatible with resource protection.
RCW
Revised Code of Washington
RPD
Ridgefield Police Department
RTC
Washington Regional Transportation Council
RTPO
Regional Transportation Planning Organization
RUACP
Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2004-2005
SDC
System Development Charges
SEPA
State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 41.23C, as amended)
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
SMA
Shoreline Management Act
Stormwater
Any flow occurring during or following any form
of natural precipitation, and resulting from
such precipitation, including snowmelt.
SWCAA
SW Washington Clean Air Agency
TIF
Traffic Impact Fee
Urban Growth Areas (UGA)
Areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW
36.70A where urban growth will be encouraged
VBLM
Clark County Vacant and Buildable Lands Model
V/C
Volume/Capacity Ratio
Vehicle miles traveled
Average number of miles traveled by a vehicle in a
given area. This is both a measure of trip length,
and of dependency on private vehicles.
WAC
Washington Administrative Code
WDFW
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WUCC
Water Utility Coordinating Committee
WWTP
City of Ridgefield's Wastewater Treatment Plant
WSD
Washington State School for the Deaf
WSDOT
Washington State Department of Transportation
WSSB
Washington State School for the Blind
City of Ridgefield 2010 Comprehensive Plan Upate A-3