1977 Ridgefield Comprehensive Land Use Planlw
4p,
�i
D�
L
lw
4p,
�i
D�
•
REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL OF CLARK COUNTY
1408 franklin street p. o. box 3000 vancouver, washington 98663
phone 1 206 699-2361 director
Paul J. C. Yang
Mayou Alexander and Members
of the Town Council
Ridgefield Town Hall
Ridgefield, Washington 98642
Dear Mayor and Council:
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
Clark county / city of vancouver / city of camas
city of washougal / town of ridgefield / city
of battle ground / town of la center / town of
yacolt / vancouver school district / evergreen
school district / battle ground school district
clark county public utility district / vancouver
housing authority / central labor council
port of vancouver / clark county sewer district
no. 1 / clark soil and water conservation district
port of camas-washougal
November 30, 1977
Early in 1976, the Town of Ridgefield entered into an agreement
with the Regional Planning Council for the purpose of developing
and updating a Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Initial discussions with members of the Town Council regarding
goals, guidelines and policies for development of Ridgefield
have occurred over the past year and have served as a guide
to the planning process. It has been a long and arduous
task., :requiring much thought and research both by the Town's
residents and Planning staff.
The adoption and implementation of a Comprehensive Land Use
Plan is of great importance to the community. Change, growth
and development are inevitable for any healthy vital town and
change can be positive and helpful not only to the current
residents and merchants but also to future residents, employers
and workers.
The enclosed final draft of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
is submitted for your use and guide for development of the
f Town of Ridgefield.
This final plan of land use, policies and goals was adopted
by the Town Council at a public hearing in the Town Hall on
October 13, 1977.
! It is our sincere hope that this plan will serve as a useful
planning aid to you when decisions on future development are
required.
PJC'Y : Ell: and
Respectfully,
gaul J. C. Yang
Planning Director
al��►/ I'ITIAL
DECLARATION 01' ENVIRONMENTAL
/NON-SIG14II'ICANCE
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Comprehensive Pand Use Plan, a basic land use
arrangement within and adjacent to the Town of Ridgefield, directing
future land uses.
PROPONENT Town of Ridgefield
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL Ridgefield, Clark County, Washington.;
LEAD AGENCY Town of Ridgefield, Washington
LEAD DEPART14ENT Regional Planning Council of Clark County
This proposal has been determined to sinter/not have a significant
adverse impact upon the environment. An environmental impact
statement (EIS)=is/is not required under.RC41 43.21C.030(2)(c).
This decision was made after review by the lead department of a
completed environmental checklist and other information on file
with the lead agency.
The attached environmental checklist may -contain margin notes
which indicate evaluation by the lead agency as required by.
WAC 197-10-320(1).
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Willaim Alexander
POSITION Mayor, Town of Ridgefield
DATE SIGNATURE
Distribution:
Clark County:
Department of Public Works
Other:
0 City of_Vancouver:
Department of Public Works
Other:
4 Southwest Washington Health District
Other:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Introduction
The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local
governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when
licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an Environmental Impact Statement be
prepared for all major actions significantly affecting thv quality of the.environmont. The
purpose of this checklist is to help'the agencies involved determine wheth.6r.your proposal is
such.a major action.
Please answer the questions following as completely as you can with the information presently
available to you. Where explanationsof your answers"are:. required, or wheVe you believe an
explanation would be helpful.to government decision -makers, include your explanation in the
apace provided or use additional pages if necessary. .�toynrshould include,references to any
reports or studies of..which you are aware and which are relevant to the answers you provide.
Complete answers to these questions nbid will help a11'd! the agencies. nvol4ad.with your pro
posal to undertake the required environmental review without unnecessary'dlay.
The questions following apply to your total proposal, not'just the license for which you are
currently applying. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your pro-
posal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until some time in the future.
This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to -complete their environmental re-
view now, without duplicating paperwork in the future.,
(This is a standard'form being used by all state and local agencies in Washington State for
various types of proposals. Many of the -.questions may not apply to your proposal.; If.a
question does not apply.,.just answer it "no" and go. onto:the. next questiftW.J'
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: Regional Planning Council of Clark County.
2. Address and Phone Number of, Proponent: 1408`. Franklin Strdbt
Vandpuver, Washington.
3. Date checklist submitted,
4. Agency requiring checklist: Town of Ridgefield
5. Name of proposal, if applicable: Ridgefield'Comprehensive Land Use Plan
6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its
i
size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate
understanding of its scope and nature) : A .description an ,analysis •of,
basic land use arrangements within the Town of Ridgefield,•
as well as proposed goals and guidelines for directing the
future land use of the town. The elan contains a proposed;
land use map and supporting data,
:_7
I, Environmental Checki_.t
Page 2
7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as
the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any
other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environmental
setting of the proposal):_ Ridgefield is situated in an area of
pronounced ridges Most settlement is on the ridges. The.
Town encompasses approximately 430 acres within its
boundaries The surrounding land use is agricultural
8. Estimated date for completion:
9. List of all permits, licenses, or government approvals required for the proposal
(federal, state and local --including rezones):
The Plan will require official adoption of the Plan by the
Town Council at a public hearing.
10.. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or future activity related
or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
Zoning ordinances and a Capital Improvement Program for
Plan implementation.
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your
proposal? If yes, explain:
No
17.. nLtaeh any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal;
if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date,
tleswrib(a the nature of such application form:
Environmental
Checklist
Page 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
'
(Explanations
of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.)
Yes Maybe No
(1) Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a)
Unstable earth conditions or in any changes in geologic
substructures? _
_ X
(b)
Disruptions, displacements or overcovering of the soils?
X
(c)
Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
X
(d)
The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
X
(e)
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either
'
on or off the site?
X
(f)
Changes in deposition of erosion of beach sands, or in
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of
X
the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
_
Explanation:
(2) Air.
Will the proposal result in:
(a)
Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
X _
•
(b)
The creation of objectionable odors?
X
(c)
Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or
x
in any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _
_
Explanation:
(a)
The Plan could provide for more urban development
within
•
the Town boundaries, which could increase auto emissions
because of increase in population.
i
Environmental
Checklist
Page 4
Yes Maybe
`:o
(3) Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
X
(b)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
amount of surface water runoff? X
(c)
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
X
(d)
Change in the amount of surface water in any water-
course?
X
(e)
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
(f)
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground
waters?
X
(g)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an acquifer by cuts or excavations?
X
(h)
Deterioration in ground water quality, either through
direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate,
phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or
other substances into.the ground waters?
X
(i)
Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?
X
Explanation:
(b)
With more development and paving, there could be an
increase in surface water runoff.
4
(c)
Runoff from paved surfaces could increase turbidity
from suspended matter.
(4) Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a)
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants)?
X
(b)
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
i
species of flora?
X
(c)
introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in
a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
X
(d).
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
Explanation:
(d)
Higher intensity development could convert small
acreages of agricultural land to urban usage.
i
I•
r,
u
i
Environmental Checklist
Page 5
Yes Maybe No
(5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, or
microfauna)? _ X
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of fauna? X
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or X
result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? _
(d) Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? X
Explanation:
(d) Higher intensity development within the Town boundaries
could destroy existing bird and mammal habitat.
(6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X _
Explanation:
Residential development could increase noise levels.
(7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X
Explanation:
(8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? X
Explanation:
The Plan contains goals and guidelines that will change
the amount of and location of land use and related
activities for Ridgefield.
i
1*
i
n
u
n
u
Environmental Checklist
Page 6
Yes Maybe No
(9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? X
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X
Explanation:
(10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explo-
sion or t e release of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset conditions? X
Explanation:
(11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an
area? X
• Explanation:
The new Plan will undoubtedly encourage residential
growth in the Town.
•
(12) dousing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create
a demand for additional housing? X _
Explanation:
There presently is not a surplus of housing in
Ridgefield and the new Plan would allow for
additional housing.
n
I!
r
C
Environmental Checklist
Page 7
(13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for
new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
Explanation:
(a) As Ridgefield grows in population, traffic will be
generated and this could create a need for off-street
parking facilities, as well as compel the local
government to provide more sidewalks.
X
X
(14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
(a) Fire protection? X _
(b) Police protection? X
(c) Schools? X
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X
(cam) 'inintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
(f) Other governmental services? X
Explanation:
Fire and police services would probably be needed
with increased development. There could also be an
increase in maintenance of public roads because of
increased population.
Environmental Checklist
Page 8
Yes Mavbe No
(15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel -or energy? X
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy? X
Explanation:
10
(16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,
or alterations to the following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas? X
(b) Communications systems? X
(c) Water? X
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
(e) storm water drainage? X _
(f) Solid waste and disposal? X
Explanation:
An increase in development will put a strain on
sewer and storm drainage systems, especially
since the storm drainage system needs improvement.
•
(17) Ilum,zn health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any
110i1th hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental
health)? X
• Explanation:
Environmental checklist
Paue 9
Yes Maybe No
(18) Aesthetics. willi.the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the pro-
posal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive X
site open to public view?
Explanation:
(19) Recreation. will the proposal result in an impact upon the —
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
Explanation:
(20) Archeological/;iistorical. will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical
. site, structure, object or building. —
Explanation:
L, th•• undersigned, stato that to the best of my knowledge the above information is
true and complete. IL is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declara-
tion of' non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there ►,o any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my
part.
G� ` ✓i
Proponent: 9 .. ...
aul J. C. Yan , rector
Regional Planning Council_
of Clark County
•
•
CI
0
RIDGEFIELD COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
November 1977
Mayor: William Alexander
Councilmen:
Wayne Ball
Barbara Falk
Cynthia Keller
Frances Quiroga
Archie Thornberry
Planning Commission Members
C. Walter Baty, Chairman
Phyllis Potter
Grace Kasper
William T. Miller
Martha Johnson
Parks Advisory Board Chairman
Dr. A. W. Burton
•
•
•
Cm
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Subject
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
History and Settlement
Existing Cultural Resources
Planning Background
Existing Land Use
Chapter 2 GOALS AND POLICIES
Goals and Guidelines
Chapter
3
NATURAL RESOURCES
Introduction
Resource Inventory
Resource Suitability Analysis
Chapter
4
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Population
Housing
Analysis
Chapter
5
ECONOMICS
Chapter
6
COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SEWERS
Water
Sewer
Other Utilities
Streets and Circulation
Schools
Libraries
Parks and Recreation
Police and Fire Protection
Health Services
IMIM
Page
5
10
15
25
39
45
Chapter Subject Page
Chapter 7 LAND USE PLAN 56
Existing Plan
Proposed Land Use Plan
Allocations
Chapter 8 IMPLEMENTATION 60
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
•
•
•
•
INTRODUCTION
0 -4-
cNApTER 1
INTItOdUCYION
HISTORY AND SETTLEMENT
The present patterns of development can be explained in
part by the historical setting in which it evolved.
Indian access trails followed natural water courses avoid-
ing hazardous and precipitous routes. The Cathlapote
Indians were present in large numbers and established the
first settlement pattern in the Ridgefield area. The area
had abundant food and livelihood resources. Lieutenant
William Clark noted in his journal on November 5, 1805,
"Behind this island (Bachelor(s Island) a little above on
the right is a large village of 1/4 of a mile in extent.
I counted 14 large houses in front next to the slew
(slough). Seven canoes loaded with Indians came off to
see us."
Sturgeon and Wapato (potato -like tuber) were observed.
The Shoberts, a pioneer family noted that the Indian
trail "between the river and the lakes" was worn a foot
deep by the padding of thousands of Indian feet.
Early white settlement occurred when the land was opened
up under the Homestead Act for donation land claims
effective between 1850 and 1855. The following is a list
of early settlers who first filed on the land in the
vicinity:
Table 1-1
0 EARLY SETTLERS OF THE RIDGEFIELD AREA
Name of Settler Date Filed
A.
Columbia Lancaster
1849
B.
F. A. Fowler
1852
C.
William Gee
1851
D.
James Carty
1851
E.
Frederick Shobert
1853
F.
B. W. Pickens
1854
G.
Preston and Laws
1855
H.
W. H. Tappan
1850
I.
Elizabeth Powell
1855
J.
D. R. Fales
1855
K.
Jas H. Campbell
1853
Source: Fort Vancouver Historical Society, Clark
County History
-5-
A number of veteran Union soldiers settled in the Ridgefield
area. The Frederick Shobert land claim along the Lake
River was a service center of importance and was named
Union Ridge with the establishment of a post office. The
railroad in 1901 worked as an'incentive for further in -migra-
tion of the population. Steamers plied the Columbia to
Ridgefield and brought supplies and exported lumber and farm
produce. Early industry included a creamery, a chair
factory, grist and flour mills, and a blacksmith shop. A car
loading plant built in 1910 loaded 30 to 40 cars of railroad
ties each day.
The name "Ridgefield" was petitioned to the voters by
S. B. McKay at a public meeting in 1890; it was endorsed in
the early 19001s. Residential construction was active
when Ridgefield was incorported as a Town in 1909. Other
establishments included a store, church, post office, school,
livery stable, hotel and lodges. The Ridgefield State Bank
was chartered in 1910. In 1916, fire destroyed a large
part of the business district.
With the demise of the steamboat as a principle form of
transportation and the development_of the Pacific highway
in 1923, Ridgefield lost its importance as a major trade
and commerce center.
Existing Cultural Resources
Ridgefield has a number of important sites that have
historical significance for the area; in fact, the Town
of Ridgefield and adjacent areas have a greater than average
number of sites. Areas of archeological significance
include the lowland area west of the Town boundaries,
Bachelor Island and shoreline areas along Lake River.
Archeologists are just beginning to uncover traces of the
extensive Indian villages along the waterways. The Lan-
caster House, located north of the Town, was constructed in
the 1850's from material shipped "round the horn".
Planning Background
The Town of Ridgefield has an adopted comprehensive plan
that is implemented by a zoning ordinance. These docu-
ments were adopted by the Planning Commission and Town
Council in 1967. Since that time, the Council, recognizing
the need to accommodate growth, has consulted with the
Regional Planning Council to update the plan based on
current data and economic projections because one of the
basic goals of the Town of Ridgefield is to diversify the
economic base of the community in order to provide for a
strong and stable environment, it is necessary to plan for
changes which may occur.
The comprehensive plan is written for a twenty-year period
and should reflect the ideas and goals of the citizens;
i.e., how the area should look in 1996. This update is
important for the Ridgefield citizens for another reason:
coordination with the broader goals and objectives for
the County as a whole. These goals, if adopted, will
influence growth patterns within the Ridgefield area, for it
is becoming more and more apparent that municipalities
are not isolated. Finally, this update will provide the
Town's decision -makers with a tool for gauging how much and
where growth should occur. A coordinated approach, where
both physical and economic factors are considered, is a very
rational way to make development and land use decisions.
The ultimate product of a plan is a comprehensive land
use map, showing projected land use for the.Town. The
process by which this land use map is derived is as follows:
1. Examination of the physical and cultural patterns of
the Ridgefield area.
2. Development of criteria for land use capabilities based
on constraints and opportunities for development within
the resource base.
3. Examination of the data inventory and analysis of the
major elements associated with development, such as
population, projections, economic growth, etc.
4. Allocation of land use based on predicted growth
factors and the environmental criteria.
All plans should be implemented. The adoption of this
plan will not in itself cause any changes that the plan
expresses. Tools most commonly utilized for plan imple-
mentation are: zoning and subdivision ordinances; adop-
tion of urban service areas; organization of planning
commissions; and enforcement of local ordinances. The
concluding chapter of this Plan defines the kinds of tools
most appropriate for Ridgefield.
MM
EXISTING LAND USE
A land use inventory was completed by Regional Planning
Council staff during the summer of 1976. Table 1-2 shows
the approximate'acreage within seven broad land use cate-
gories: residential, commercial, industrial, public,
agricultural, forests and vacant.
Table 1-2
EXISTING LAND USE FOR RIDGEFIELD
Residential
Approximately 24 percent of the total land area is in
residential usage. There are a,wide range of housing types
ranging from newer houses along Hillhurst Road to old,
well -kept homes west of Fifth Street. Generally, the newer
homes are being developed along Hillhurst Road.
Industrial
There are two major industries within the City of Ridgefield
and the Port of Ridgefield; Symour Frozen Foods (seasonal
employment) on Main Street and Pacific Wood Treatment
(within the Port). They employ approximately 256 people and
comprise 39.2 acres or about 8 percent of the total land
area.
Agricultural Usage
There are approximaely 185 acres, or 36 percent of the
total land use within the City limits of Ridgefield. The
largest portion of the agricultural grazing and crop lands
lie along Hillhurst Road. Grazing is the predominant
activity.
Wom
Percent of
Land Use Category
Total Acres
Grand Total
Residential
124.2
36.6
Commercial
3.2
.94
Industrial
27.9
8.22
Public
74.0
21.81
Forests
37.9
11.17
Vacant
21.8
6.42
Agriculture
50.3
14.82
Grand Total
339.3
100.00
Commercial
Commercial uses lie
principally on an
east -west axis along
Pioneer Street. The
area is small and
compact consisting
of 7.2 acres.
Residential
Approximately 24 percent of the total land area is in
residential usage. There are a,wide range of housing types
ranging from newer houses along Hillhurst Road to old,
well -kept homes west of Fifth Street. Generally, the newer
homes are being developed along Hillhurst Road.
Industrial
There are two major industries within the City of Ridgefield
and the Port of Ridgefield; Symour Frozen Foods (seasonal
employment) on Main Street and Pacific Wood Treatment
(within the Port). They employ approximately 256 people and
comprise 39.2 acres or about 8 percent of the total land
area.
Agricultural Usage
There are approximaely 185 acres, or 36 percent of the
total land use within the City limits of Ridgefield. The
largest portion of the agricultural grazing and crop lands
lie along Hillhurst Road. Grazing is the predominant
activity.
Wom
rl
I!
13
CHAPTER Z
fj0Al5 ANd qu i dElI*NES
is
GOALS AND POLICIES
The Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan is built upon the ideas
and objectives of the citizens of Ridgefield. It is not
possible to draft a plan that is realistic unless it is
a reflection of the attitudes of the people. The following
list of general goals and policies are presented here
in the first part of the plan to give the reader the over-
riding principles upon which this plan is based. These are
listed as follows:
-10-
Natural Resource
AS
Goal 1: To encourage
a pattern of urban settlement which
is in concert
with the land's capacity to accom-
modate human
activities, avoid natural hazard
areas, and preserve
unique areas.
Guideline 1:
Preserve significant mineral and
aggregate deposits.
Guideline 2:
Consider slopes exceeding 25
percent as marginal for intensive
urban development.
i
Guideline 3:
Revise the Shoreline Management
Program according to the Department
of Ecology requirements.
Guideline 4:
Preserve unstable slopes in open
space.
Guideline 5:
Conserve prime agricultural land.
Guideline 6:
Consider the depth of the water
table and bedrock prior to develop-
ment.
Guideline 7:
Prevent rapid runoff and erosion.
Guideline 8:
Adopt a SEPA Ordinance.
Goal 2: To maintain a
visually pleasing town in which
i
structures and surroundings are related in a
harmonious and functional pattern within the
natural environment.
Guideline 1:
Establish design and development
standards to accompany the Ridge-
field Zoning Ordinance.
Guideline 2:
Preserve and enhance specific shore-
line use activities within the
town.
-10-
Economic Element
•
Goal 1: To diversify
the economic base of the town and to
provide and
maintain a stable and strong economic
environment.
Guideline 1:
Encourage the location of industrial
and commercial uses that would not
adversely affect the natural envir-
onment.
Guideline 2:
Encourage commercial and industrial
activities to locate within the
Town.
Guideline 3:
Develop the commercial area as a
strong and competitive service
center for commercial, cultural,
financial and governmental uses.
•
Guideline 4:
Provide a variety of opportunities
for employment.
Guideline 5:
Enhance public use of Lake River.
Housing
Goal 1: To encourage
the provision of a decent home
and suitable
living environment for all citizens
of the community.
•
Guideline 1:
Provide for a variety of housing
types for the Town.
Guideline 2:
Encourage innovative site design
for all new residential develop-
ments which will insure adequate
open space, landscaping and public
facilities.
Guideline 3:
Provide incentives and use means
available to rehabilitate sub-
standard housing in the Town.
Goal 2: To direct development away from agricultural
lands, floodplains, stream banks, places with
unique natural values, and other desirable perma-
nent, public open spaces.
-11-
•
IA
J
E
i
L
0
Goal 1: To provide a full range of community facilities,
utilities and services.
Guideline 1: Develop and implement a capital
improvement program for the loca-
tion and construction of all
community facilities and utilities.
Guideline 2: Improve the storm drainage system.
Guideline 3: Assure that necessary community
facilities, utilities and services
are available prior to or simulta-
neously with new development.
Guideline 4: Adopt an Urban Service Area agree-
ment with the County.
Goal 2: To provide a transportation system which will
promote a balance of transportation modes.
Guideline 1: Encourage county -wide
public transit planning.
Guideline 2: Provide for pedestrian and bicycle
paths.
Goal 3: To develop a transportation system which provides
mobility for all residents, is dependable, acces-
sible, is economical, and minimizes conflict and
delay.
Guideline 1: Encourage the construction of
off-street parking facilities
where feasible, as an alternative
to on -street parking.
Goal 4: To preserve and improve environmental quality for
present and future residents and nearby neighbors of
the Town of Ridgefield through the acquisition,
safeguarding, and enhancement of open space and
public recreation facilities in a properly planned,
developed and maintained system of city parks. (1)
1
Ridgefield Parks Advisory Committee, Ridgefield Comprehensive
Park and Recreation Plan, 1974(5).
-12-
•
Guideline 1: To put to the needed recreation
use for which they are best
suited, all present and future
Ridgefield Park System lands.
Guideline 2: To assure that green and open
space, in a relatively natural
setting, remains available within
the Town limits regardless of
future demands for development of
housing, industry, etc.
Guideline 3: To identify, plan, construct,
and maintain, based upon the
needs and desires of service area
residents, recreational facilities
and programs not provided by
other agencies or commercial
enterprise.
Guideline 4: To put the limited funds avail-
able, from whatever sources, to
use where they will be of greatest
benefit to service area residents.
Guideline 5: To derive maximum benefits for
park system users by eliminating
or minimizing conflicting users
of park system land (i.e., to
provide the optimal mix of uses) .
Guideline 6: To alleviate, by providing more
suitable alternative locations
C for play, the hazards of children
playing and riding horses on the
streets of Ridgefield.
Guideline 7: To provide a network of attractive,
stimulating, and safe places for
S pre-school and elementary school
children.
Guideline 8: To provide adequate facilities
for such inter -city sports as
Little League baseball and soft-
ball leagues.
Guideline 9: To define additional active and
passive recreation facilities for
the elderly and for the teen-agers
of Ridgefield and nearby areas.
-13-
Guideline 10: To evaluate facilities for large,
gatherings of service area resi-
dents during holiday celebrations.
Guideline 11: To preserve access to the Columbia
River, via the public boating
facilities on Lake River, regard-
less of future pressures for
other uses of waterfront properties.
Guideline 12: To encourage consevation of
petroleum products by providing
adequate recreational opportuni-
ties in the Town of Ridgefield.
i
r-7
ID
0 -14-
i0
0
i•
INTRODUCTION
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Ridge-
field is based in principle on the capability of the land
L and resources for development. The assumption is that
areas for potential development can be in part delimited by
the characteristics of the resource base. The resource
analysis segments of the comprehensive plan is a just
parameter in which to make land use decisions. Other
factors to be considered, such as economic growth, popula-
tion projections, etc., will be discussed at length in other
sections of the report.
Basic elements of life such as land, air, energy and water
are well known resources. Other resources such as open
space and unique areas, including geologic and historical
i sites, are also important resources. This element concen-
trates on the natural resources of the Ridgefield area: the
soils, water quantity and quality, forest lands, air quality
and vegetation. The topographic features are also con-
sidered a resource. Slope and relief characteristics
exhibit varying degrees of capability for development.
The natural resource element of Ridgefield's comprehensive
plan is presented as a reflection of the goals and guide-
lines adopted by the Ridgefield Planning Commission and the
City Council. It is not possible to write natural resource
elements of the comprehensive plan unless it is a reflection
of these general goals.
All land use decisions must have cognizance of the existing
supply of resources and the quality of the resource base.
There are areas such as the wetlands which can provide
! scientific study for local students. There may be areas
unique enough to set aside for future scientific study for
comparison with the systems which have undergone human
modification. Another reason is the need to protect the
public from natural hazards such as high water damage from
flooding, unstable slopes and potential pollution from
septic tank failure due to soil characteristics. Another
basic factor considered is the need to preserve prime
agricultural land, or in Ridgefield's case, to -preserve the
rural character of the countryside.
-15-
RESOURCE INVENTORY
The following resources will be addressed and discussed:
soils, forests, air and water quality, surface water drain-
age patterns, ground water resources and wildlife habitats.
First, a general description and inventory of existing
resources will be given and then an analysis of the relation-
ship between the characteristics of the resources and
•__ development suitabilities. It is important to recognize
that conflicts can and do arise when the resources are not
evaluated in terms of their capacity for development.
Recognition of the constraints within the resource base can
protect public property and the quality of the resources.
Geology, Topography and Climate
Ridgefield is geologically Troutdale Formation: upper
member sand and gravel; and lower member silt and clays.
The inter -ridge areas are essentially deltaic fans or
deposits of sands, gravel, fine silts and clay -fluvial
deposits from flooding of the Columbia River. The
inter -ridge areas have been settled and have received
the majority of population growth through the years
because of the large amount of excessively steep land.
S' Climatically, the Ridgefield area lies in the marine west
coast zone, influenced by the Pacific Ocean on the west and
locally by the Columbia River which creates a natural funnel
that influences local climatic conditions. The nearest
reporting weather station is in Battle Ground, 12 miles to
the east. Mean annual precipitation has been recorded as
it 50.9 inches for Battle Ground, giving an estimated range
between 45 to 50 inches occurring as a winter maximum for
Ridgefield.
Mean annual and seasonal temperatures are typical of the
marine west coast climatic zone, with few extremes. Tempera-
tures range from a mean of 37 degrees Fahrenheit in January
to 63 degrees Fahrenheit in July. Precipitation, wind,
and temperature characteristics are important variables in
general living conditions and agricultural and timber
production.
The topographic features and location and extent of major
water bodies in the Ridgefield area creates conditions of
"micro -climate" which could affect human activities and
resource management. Elevation and slope exposure can alter
the temperature regime significantly. Urbanization with
associated land clearing and road construction can elevate
temperature. Ridgefield has many ridges and slopes.
Recognition of exposure of slopes to the weather and their
orientation can be utilized for energy conservation and
enhance livability for the populace.
-16-
Soils, Drainage and Ground Water Characteristics
The major elements of geology, topography, and climate
directly influence drainage patterns, groundwater quantity
and the agricultural and engineering quality of soils.
C Soils and water are basic natural resources. The use
of these resources should be based to the maximum extent
possible on their limitations for use because the conse-
quences of degradation of the quality of these resources may
have irreversible impacts on the quality of life in the
Ridgefield area.
The soils in the Ridgefield area encompass a variety of
types classified in terms of their location and physical
characteristics. Principal factors that explain varia-
tions in soil type are the underlying geology,. topography
or surface features, plant cover, climate, and the presence
of micro-organisms. The formation of soil by chemical,
physical and biological weathering is a complicated but
important process. Soils of Ridgefield were formed on
terraces and lowland areas. Map 3-a shows the major soil
associations in the Ridgefield area. Essentially, the Odne,
Hillsboro, Sara, and Gee series have formed on the terraces
and ridge tops. The Sauvie series comprise the alluvial
bottomlands. Table 3-1 describes the engineering and
agricultural characteristics for the main soils.
It must be noted that any soil classification system is
imperfect and cannot completely describe the variation
in characteristics within the soil series. In general, a
high percentage are good soils for agricultural production
and provide a resource valuable to the economy of the
Ridgefield area. A soils classification system based on the
capability of the soil for various types of land use will be
discussed later during resource analysis.
Hydrologic characteristics include both groundwater sources
and surface drainage. Primary influences in the Ridgefield
area are the geologic characteristics of the uplands and the
Columbia River Lowlands.
-17-
UNE
0
•
•
0 -18-
Table 3-2
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF RIDDGEFIELD SOILS
Limitations
Residential
Soil Types and
Shrink -Swell
and Founda-
Percent Slopes
Potential
Septic Tank
Sewage Lagoons
tions
Hillsboro Silt
Moderate to
Moderate to
Loams, 0-15%
Moderate
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Sauvies Silt
and Clay Loams,
0-8%
Moderate
Severe
Slight
Severe
Sara Silt Loam,
8-20%
High
Severe
Slight
Severe
Sara Silt Loam,
30-50%
High
Severe
Severe
Severe
Gee Silt Loams,
0-20%
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Gee Silt Loams,
30-60%
Moderate
Severe
Severe
Severe
r
Source: Soil Conservation
Service, Soil Survey
of Clark County,
Washington,
pps. 86-100,
November,
1972.
0
•
•
0 -18-
The terraces along Gee Creek and Allen Canyon are the
! major groundwater bearing unit in the Ridgefield area.
Preliminary findings by Arvid Grant and Associates on
groundwater quantities indicate a large acquifer in the
Ridgefield area with minimal potential draw -down impacts
due to water usage projected to the year 2000. (1) Well
logs in the area show wells 14 feet deep to over 100 feet
deep depending on the elevation of the acquifer. The well
located on Port property on a 40 foot high terrace is 109
feet deep and pumps 254gpm. The Town's well water supply at
40 foot elevation is 35 feet deep in a 27 foot thick strata
of water -bearing coarse gravel pumps 250 gpm. (2) This
volume would indicates an ample water supply.
a
Ridgefield lies within the Lewis River Basin. Sub -basins
are Gee Creek, Allen Canyon, and a lower part of the Lewis
River which drain into the Columbia River. Gee Creek and
its tributary system has, presently, the greatest influence
on the Ridgefield area.
•
The water quality in the tributaries and main stem of
Gee Creek is dependent on runoff characteristics and inten-
sity of development within the watershed. Urbanization also
has the potential for creating severe problems of drainage
in areas where this is currently a problem.
1
Arvid Grant and Associates, Clark County -Wide Water Supply
and Development Program; Proiect Status and Review, June, 1976.
2
Mundorff, M. J., Geology and Groundwater Condition of Clark
County, Washington, (Water Supply Bulletin #9), 1964.
-19-
1•
•
Wildlife and Fish Habitats
Identification of important wildlife and fish habitats
can be of utmost importance in evaluating the type and
. intensity of development potential Current habitat condi-
tions can be utilized as an instrument for measuring overall
resource conditions. For example, fish habitat conditions
encompass a variety of environmental elements such as
stream sedimentation and flow volumes, water temperature,
and stream side vegetative cover. All of these are impor-
tant elements in formulating conditions of fish habitat and
are directly related to resource use in the watershed
including both forest and soil management policies.
Construction on steep slopes can accelerate runoff and
soil erosion, causing silting of crucial fish spawning
beds. Clearing of vegetation in the watershed can also
elevate the temperature of water by exposing larger amounts
of water surfaces to direct sunlight. Turbidity can also
increase water temperatures to lethal levels for salmonid
fry. Wildlife habitat experiences naturally occuring
change as vegetational and soil types undergo natural
processes of succession and weathering. These changes are
usually slow, giving both floral and faunal species a chance
to adapt to the new environmental conditions. Man -induced
change, on the other hand, is sudden, giving the biota
little chance to adapt to new sets of environmental condi-
tions.
The Columbia River Lowlands provide a large area of spiny -ray
and catfish habitat within the Federal Wildlife Refuge and
the Carty and Lancaster Lake areas northwest of the town.
Large -mouth bass, crappie and sunfish inhabit the sloughs
and ponds in the lowland area. During the months of April,
May and June, schools of these species spawn in flooded
grasslands and other natural depressions. These wetlands
should be protected because of their functions as nursery
beds for these -species. The stream system provides perm-
anent and seasonal spawning habitat for a variety of ana-
dromous fish, salmon, steelhead and sea run cutthroat trout.
The main stem of the Lewis River is an important stream
for steelhead and salmon. The main stem and tributaries
of the Lewis ranks No. 8 in the State for winter run and
No.4 for summer run steelhead. A Columbia River tributary,
Gee Creek provides spawning habitat for steelhead and
salmon as well as for native rainbow and cutthroat trout.
-20-
I0
Waterfowl and Other Animal Habitat
The waterfowl and corresponding vegetative habitat make
up a somewhat unique area along Lake River, Columbia River
and the numerous lowland areas. The Federal government has
i established a National Wildlife Refuge in the vicinity of
Bachelor Island of approximately 2-3,000 acres with plans to
expand to the north. The refuge is managed for migratory
waterfowl and provides migrating and wintering habitat for
the Dusky Canada goose. A list compiled in 1975 shows 175
different species of all types of birds showing the diver-
sity of habitat offered. Plant communities in the refuge
and surrounding area consist of wet shrub and sedge communi-
ties of various plant composition. The "Salix", or Willow
family, is a dominant shrub along water courses. Hydro-
philic grasses occur as dominant species in the flood-
plain. Upland and lowland areas contain various mammals
such as racoon, beaver, muskrat, nutria and deer. The most
frequented habitat is the lowland area including and
adjacent to the refuse.
Timber and Mineral Resources
There are approximately 40 acres of forest within the Town
boundaries. Forest areas are presently utilized for recrea-
tion, wood cutting and watershed protection.
Sand, gravel and clay occur in significant deposits within
the Ridgefield area. Pleistocene deposits of the Troutdale
formation make up the terraces on which Ridgefield stands.
The significance of these deposits is related to the prox-
imity of the material to market and the costs involved in
removing the overburden, or topsoil, during the mining
process.
•
These mineral deposits are non-renewable resources, which,
when covered are removed from acquisition. Important
deposits lie approximately 1 mile north of the Town bound-
ary. Two inactive and one active pit presently exist in
this area. The terrace area along Lake River is another
Op source. Extraction of clay is also a potential resource in
the sinks around the southern end of Allen Canyon.
-21-
50
�O
o
0�
CO
Co
d
N
p O
w
M
O p
O
00
o
E
E
m
O
3
N
O
O N
o
r
Q
LL
Q m
m
fn
S
(7
(3
O
7 0
�r
r '1
I
os
S
K, 3
t
fj
.... .. ,.a..r .1 1 ♦V
�I
Wit,
�ft
RM
Alwdye.;, -i r � ...,,.. E �a�! � � Nr�e r,•'.' s'�t'•�,r�� �,-J � [ �\�
, �� °.v, tt.:r. � r G f -, � �;,�7{;� no � `�, �' i`.,,x 3�'�{des •". % /�r�� V ��� / � /
IV
wit
'�:.��'�,......:+ ,. a6.� 'fir / l y7A r � �� _ �ti!►wl.:•;': ��� :.,. ,.:: /% I��� /
•vim ...:.,.:.,,.. ,r.�:'.,,:. - //(���/� � �� ,
'k}�A. �t ��4�µ4� �F S t�� ��•9/'�q, _•_�.-�. .u,� '+••l_iiis ., %r - i �
Wsy,,l�'�.,'ti 4��•f �!' I� :!' iM �� � r .��Y:�i _ /:� i� �� \ I 'ice
- i MOV"',
-� q��'g9j/,'.4�.� � {_.�� `�'� V.i�jit���'�4���j-.g•,r" s..f —
11 s
SIS .:aai�'"`4'.�F 7y � i���� • r �_ f• ON
opoor
Ml ■> I 11, _ S.
OVA
�ff
Pat
,'I.� SSI _ �• ,', -
�+ i � � � lis �.•.rn!•.
M4 A, Ir.
►j
RESOURCE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS
The resource suitability analysis recognizes the. suit-
ability of various components of the resource base for
future land use designation. It is also apparent that
scarce or finite resources generate conflicts in land use.
For example, land with good qualities for cropping is also
deemed good for urban development. Although the conflicts
will not be completely resolved by this analysis, the intent
is to provide a framework for decision-making based on the
land and other resource capabilities.
The Ridgefield area was analyzed for four different suit -
abilities based mainly on soil, slope, unique habitat,
natural hazards and facility/utility criteria. Suit -
abilities for conservation and preservation, agriculture,
forestry, and urban are based on the above factors.
Conservation and Preservation Suitability
These are natural hazard areas, along with areas of unique
wildlife habitats that should be designated for conserva-
tion for resource protection and preservation of habitat
conditions. The determinant criteria were prime agri-
cultural areas, waterfowl nesting and resting habitat, areas
of steep slopes and potential flooding and high water. Map_
3-b shows these areas; including areas of significant gravel
deposits. Ridgefield has a significant recreation resource
within the Ridgefield Natural Wildlife Refuge.
Presently, the refuge is utilized by hunters, fishermen,
canoeists, hikers and bird -watchers. Grazing is presently
an important management tool for maintaining proper composi-
tion and condition of vegetation for waterfowl use.
Areas of slope greater than 25 percent should be preserved
for protection of natural resources. In addition, these
slopes present a hazard for building construction. By
keeping steep slopes in their natural condition, soil,
habitat conditions, and water quality will be enhanced.
-22-
Agricultural Suitability
Factors utilized in determining agricultural potential
are based on those developed for the County as a whole.
The suitabilities are based on soil potential for plant
growth, drainage characteristics and current use tax classifi-
cation. Map 3-c shows areas of prime and good, fair and
poor soil for agriculture. (3)
As can be seen from the Map, the immediate urbanizing
area does not have a large amount of prime and good agri-
cultural soils. There are areas south of the Town limits
along Hillhurst Road with good soils. There are also areas
of prime and good soils east of the Town limits, adjacent to
Route 501. The Bachelor Island Farm just west of the Town
limits is a diked area that is currently used for potato
growing. Much of the lowland adjacent to the wildlife
refuge would be considered to be prime agricultural land, if
drained.
Forest Suitability
Forest growth in the Ridgefield area serves many purposes.
It helps conserve soils in the watershed by alleviating
runoff and soil loss due to precipitation. It provides
habitats for wildlife, aesthetics, and more intensive forms
of recreational activity. Woodlots occur among the agri-
cultural lands and occupy steep slopes along Gee Creek.
Many of the soils in the County have been rated by the
Soil Conservation Service into woodland suitability groups
based on erosion, plant competition, and seedling mortality.
Map 3-d shows these suitabilities (see also Map 3-a for soil
types.)
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Clark County,
Washington, November, 1972.
00#19
Urban Suitability
Existing land use dictates to a degree the suitability
of existing land for urban development. Many factors have
to be considered when sites are analyzed for suitability
for construction. Some are steepness of slope, soil charac-
teristics, limitations to septic tanks, and presence of
utilities.
In examining the existing land use pattern, it was found
that approximately 215 acres or 47 percent of the total land
area within the Ridgefield Town limits is in urban usage.
Sewage trunk lines presently serve the area within the
Town boundaries and have been extended down Hillhurst
Road to the High School. (Residential development has been
confined to areas where slope is less than fifteen per-
cent.) Slopes greater than fifteen percent pose problems
associated with construction costs of utilities. For this
analysis, slopes of 15-25 percent were rated moderate and 25
percent or greater, severe for urban development suitability
because of the high potential for soil erosion, cost of
providing sewerage, and slope failure. The Town of Ridge-
field has many natural hazard areas. Special flood hazard
areas have been identified by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and should be considered before develop-
ment occurs. (4) Steep slopes, flood plain areas, and soils
with severe building limitations are identified in Map 3-e.
The soils in these areas have problems in terms of shear
strength, drainage characteristics (low soil porosity) and
high water table. Areas moderately suitable for development
are confined within the existing urbanized area and the
terrace stretching southeast along Gee Creek. These soils
are moderately suited for drainage and present few limita-
tions for development. They also occur on 0-15% slopes for
the most part.
In planning areas for development, it is necessary to
examine the other resources, such as amount of open space in
the developing area, the location of gravel deposits and the
location of wildlife habitats. Aggregate resources north
and east of the city boundaries should be conserved and left
in open space.
4
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Special Flood
Hazard Map for Ridgefield, July 2, 1976.
-24-
•
POPULATION
Ridgefield was incorporated on August 20, 1909 and had a
population of 297 during the Census of 1910. During the
the following decade the population increased by 323 or by
108.8 percent. By 1930 the population had decreased slightly
but then it :steadily (although sometimes slowly) increased
until the 19601s. Between 1960 and 1970 the population
increased sharply from 823 to 1,004, or by 22 percent.
Table 4-1 shows the sporatic changes in population since
1910 and indicates that Ridgefield's population shifts have
corresponded to various historic events. The sharp decline
in the number of residents in 1930 probably corresponds to
the decrease in logging activities of northern Clark County
as well as to the economic recession of the country, spanning
the decade. The increases in population for 1950 and 1970
correspond to the influx of new residents during World War
II and to the general migration of people to the Pacific
Northwest that is still taking place in 1976.
Table 4-1
POPULATION
1910 - 1970
Year
Population
Percent Change
1910
297
+108.8
1920
620
- 2.1
1930
607
+ 5.9
1940
643
+ 18.5
1950
762
+ 8.0
1960
823
+ 22.0
1970
1004
+ 2.2
1976*
1026
* Estimate by State Office of Program Planning and Fiscal
Managament
Source: U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing
-25-
Table 4-2
POPULATION DENSITY
1910-1970
Source: Design for Clark County, "City -County Consoli-
dation", P. 6
J
Table 4-2 shows population by decade and the number of
acres within the Town between 1910 and 1970. Population
f density per acre did not substantially change until 1970,
even including an addition of 20 acres annexed just a month
prior to the Census in 1970. A comparison of population
densities is found in Table 4-3 which shows these for the
years 1940, 1950, 1960 and 1970. Ridgefield's density is
about the same as Battle Ground's and slightly under that of
Camas.
Age distribution is important in understanding the housing
requirements of a town, as well as its expected rate of
growth from natural increase as opposed to in -migration.
In 1970, as shown on Table 4-4, the largest segment of
population for Ridgefield, its surrounding area and for the
entire County was ages 5 to 19. There were fewer children
under. 5 in the Town as well as a smaller proportion of young
adults aged 20-34. This, in itself may be the reason for so
few young children. The age bracket of 35-54 also has
proportionately fewer adults than for the other two areas.
The years of 20 to 54 are usually those when people are
engaged in their occupations and are raising children. The
smaller proportions of people in this adult age could
indicate a Lack of employment opportunities in the Town.
(See Chapter 5 for further analysis of this factor).
-26-
Number of
Population
Year
Population
Acres
per acre
1910
297
410.0
0.72
1920
620
436.2
1.42
1930
607
436.2
1.39
1940
643
436.2
1.47
1950
762
436.2
1.75
1960
823
436.2
1.89
1970
1,004
456.2
2.20
Source: Design for Clark County, "City -County Consoli-
dation", P. 6
J
Table 4-2 shows population by decade and the number of
acres within the Town between 1910 and 1970. Population
f density per acre did not substantially change until 1970,
even including an addition of 20 acres annexed just a month
prior to the Census in 1970. A comparison of population
densities is found in Table 4-3 which shows these for the
years 1940, 1950, 1960 and 1970. Ridgefield's density is
about the same as Battle Ground's and slightly under that of
Camas.
Age distribution is important in understanding the housing
requirements of a town, as well as its expected rate of
growth from natural increase as opposed to in -migration.
In 1970, as shown on Table 4-4, the largest segment of
population for Ridgefield, its surrounding area and for the
entire County was ages 5 to 19. There were fewer children
under. 5 in the Town as well as a smaller proportion of young
adults aged 20-34. This, in itself may be the reason for so
few young children. The age bracket of 35-54 also has
proportionately fewer adults than for the other two areas.
The years of 20 to 54 are usually those when people are
engaged in their occupations and are raising children. The
smaller proportions of people in this adult age could
indicate a Lack of employment opportunities in the Town.
(See Chapter 5 for further analysis of this factor).
-26-
Table 4-3
POPULATION DENSITY
1940 to 1970
Population
Population
Acreage
Per Acre
Battle Ground
1940 ] N/A - Not
incorporated
until 1951
1950
1960
888
528.20
1.68
1970
1,438
712.46
2.02
Camas
1940
4,433
1,588.70
2.79
1950
4,725
1,604.80
2.94
1960
5,666
1,976.60
2.87
1970
5,790
2,113.12
2.74
La Center
1940
193
160.70
1.20
1950
204
160.70
1.27
1960
244
225.00
1.08
1970
300
225.00
1.33
Ridgefield
1940
643
436.20
1.47
1950
762
436.20
1.75
1960
823
436.20
1.89
f
1970
1,004
456.20
2.20
Vancouver
1940
18,788
3,645.60
5.15
1950
41,664
6,051.81
6.88
1960
32,464
6,613.26
4.91
1970
41,859
7,718.39
5.42
Washougal
1940
1,267
297.70
4.26
•
1950
1,577
297.70
5.30
1960
2,672
620.30
4.31
1970
3,388
1,129.48
3.00
Yacolt
1940
207
322.00
0.64
1950
411
322.00
1.28
1960
375
355.70
1.05
1970
488
355.70
1.37
Source: Design
for Clark County, "City -County
Consolidation", p.6.
-27-
1s
3
LIM
-28-
Table 4-4
POPULATION BY AGE
FOR
RIDGEFIELD, SURROUNDING
TRACT 403
AND CLARK COUNTY
1970
Ridgefield
Census Tract 403
Clark
County
A4e
Number
Percent Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Under 5
75
7.5% 220
8.3%
11,628
9.0%
5-19
317
31.6% 870
33.0%
39,003
30.4%
20-34
137
13.6% 411
15.5%
26,045
20.3%
35-54
205
20.4% 579
21.9%
28,605
22.3%
55-64
113
11.3% 260
9.8%
11,522
8.9%
65 & over
157
15.6% 304
11.5%
11,651
9.1%
TOTAL
1,004
100% 2,644
100%
128,454
100.0%
Source:
1970 Census
of Population and Housing
3
LIM
-28-
UM
0
r
0
•
7
0
3
AIR
Date
1960
1965
1970
1975
Date
1980
1985
1990
1995
Date
1980
1985
1990
1995
Table 4-5
RIDGEFIELD POPULATION: TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
POPULATION TRENDS: 1960 - 1975
Ridgefield Clark County
823 93,809
938 108,500
1004 128,454
1039 149,000
POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1980 - 1995
LOW
Ridgefield Clark County
1103 160,500
1199 185,000
1263 203,100
1342 224,200
MEDIAN
Ridgefield
1185
1275
1331
1369
HIGH
Clark Countv
182,300
206,300
221,400
231,275
Date Ridgefield Clark Count
1980 1213 189,800
1985 1356 227,900
1990 1559 281,900
1995 1594 291,150
Source: Regional Planning Council of Clark County,
staff estimate
-29-
HIGH
Year Population Percent Change
1960 823
1970 1,004 22.0%
1980 1,213 20.5%
1990 1,559 28.5%
Source: Regional Planning Council of Clark County, staff
0
0 -30-
Table 4-6
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
GROWTH RATE ANALYSIS
1960-1990
LOW
Year
Population
Percent Change
1960
823
.
1970
1,004
22.0%
1980
1,103
9.9%
1990
1,263
14.5%
MEDIAN
Year
Population
Percent Change
1960
823
1970
1,004
22.0%
1980
1,185
18.0%
1990
1,331
12.3%
HIGH
Year Population Percent Change
1960 823
1970 1,004 22.0%
1980 1,213 20.5%
1990 1,559 28.5%
Source: Regional Planning Council of Clark County, staff
0
0 -30-
The number of residents over 55 is much higher than would
be expected, based upon the ratios of the Census Tract and
the County. It appears that many people have either lived
their entire lives in Ridgefield and have not moved upon
retirement and/or that some people have worked elsewhere and
have moved into the Town where services of larger urban
areas are still available but the life style is still casual
and comfortable.
Table 4-5 indicates population projections in five-year
increments to 1995. Three estimates are given, one for a
low rate of growth, one for a high rate, and one which
is in between or median.
According to these figures, Ridgefield might realize a
growth between 1970 and 1980 of 9.9 percent (low), 18.0
percent (median) or 20.8 percent (high). In absolute
numbers this increase would be 99 (low) 181 (median) or 209
(high) .
For the purposes of this Plan, it will be assumed that the
median projections.are the most likely to occur. This
means that a population of 1,369 is anticipated by 1995 - an
increase of 365 persons in 25 years. .
HOUSING
While basic population data is available from each Census
year for towns, not until 1970 was much information publish-
ed about housing characteristics. The only firm data that
is known about housing prior to then, is that there were 308
units in Ridgefield in 1960. Other data for 1960 was
extrapolated (inferred) from information published for
Census Tracts or from the number of building permits issued.
(Even this information is not totally reliable because not
all buldings for which permits are issued are actually
constructed.) Nevertheless, there is enough data from
various sources to analyze what has occurred in the past and
to project into the future.
Table 4-7 shows general housing characteristics for 1960,
1970 and 1976. While there has been a steady increase in
the number of single family homes constructed during the
past 16 years, it is evident that duplexes and larger
apartment houses have become increasingly important. In
addition, more single family homes have been made available
for rent, with an increase in renter -occupied units of 16
during a ten-year period.
-31-
•
Table 4-7
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
1960, 1970 and 1976
.a -32-
1960-1970
1960-1976
Percent
Percent
1960
1970
Change
1976
Change
Number of Units
308
345
12.0%
405
31.5%
1 Family
279
301
7.9%
344
23.3%
2 + Family
29
39
34.5%
53
82.8%
Mobile Home
0
5
----
8
----
Occupied
276
325
17.8%
393
42.4%
Vacant
19
20
5.3%
12
-36.8%
% Vacant
6.2%
5.8%
----
3.0%
----
Number of
Households
276
325
17.8%
393
42.4%
Population
in Households
783
962
22.9%
986
25.9%
Population
i
per Household
2.84
2.96
----
2.51
----
Owner Occupied
207
240
15.9%
N/A
----
Renter Occupied
69
85
23.2%
N/A
----
1
In 1960 there
were 40 persons
in group quarters,
in
1970
there were 42;
it is assumed that
in 1976 there
are
40.
These figures
asre subtracted
from the total
population
to
arrive at -the
population
in occupied
housing
units.,
Source: U.S. Censuses
of
Population
and Housing
by
Census
Tract,
1960 and 1970
Clark
County PUD,
"Vacancy
Analysis,
Residential
Accounts",
April
1976
Regional Planning
Council of
Clark
County, staff estimates.
.a -32-
1!
to
9
0
Year
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
TOTAL
Table 4-8
HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED BY
BUILDING PERMITS
1961-1975
Single Family
7
5
5
5
4
1
3
3
0
4
2
12
0
2
2
55
Multi-Famil
0
0
2
2
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
24
Demolition
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
G
Net
Total
7
4
6
7
4
1
9
3
0
4
0
26
0
2
2
75
Source: Regional Planning Council of Clark County, "Clark
County Housing Inventory", 1974.
Columbia Region Association of Governments, "Building
Permit Statistics, 1973-1975," unpublished.
0 -33-
10
11
Vacancies have been steadily decreasing since 1960; coupled
with fewer persons per household, this indicates both smaller
families (as is the national trend), and more elderly one-
person households (see Table 4-4).
As in the entire County, demolition of residential structures
has been rather insignificant. As shown in Table 4-8,
new construction has been occurring at a leisurely pace,
with 1973 being the year with the largest amount of building.
Generally speaking, construction activity has been parallel
with that of the County and the nation.
According to a survey of housing conducted by the Regional
Planning Council in 1972, just over 80 percent of all
residential structures in Ridgefield appeared to be in sound
condition and less than 3 percent had structural difficien-
cies visible, from the exterior. For the entire County, 94.5
percent of all residential structures appeared to be sound
and less than 1 percent displayed external signs of structur-
al decline.
In addition to condition characteristics, Table 4-9 also
indicates the relative age of housing structures within
the Town. It appeared, during the 1972 survey, that over
one-half of the structures had been built more than 30 years
before. (See Table 4-10). From aproximately a 43 percent
sample of Assessor's records which indicate the year single
family houses were built, just under one-half were construct-
ed before 1920. Interestingly, just under 5 percent were
built before the turn of the century - over 75 years ago.
Also extrapolated from the Assessor's records was the value
placed upon the structures by the appraisers. The median
value for all homes was $9,200. Table 4-11 shows median
building values for structures by decade built.
ANALYSIS
Although the population of Ridgefield has varied widely
since its incorporation 67 years ago, new residents have
been attracted to the Town, especially during the past 15
years. The number of young children within the Town is less
than could be expected, but the number of retired and
elderly is much greater than would be anticipated, based
upon the County's population characteristics as a whole.
0 -34-
if
Projections for population growth vary considerably; how-
ever, the median estimate appears' -to be consistent with
past growth trends. 365 additional residents by 1995 (over
the 1970 Census of 1,004) would indicate a need to increase
the number of housing units by approximately 146 during
the coming 19 years if it is assumed that the ratio of 2.5
persons per household will remain constant. This also may
assume that more multi -family units might be built or that
new single-family homes will be constructed on currently -
existing large lots that will be segregated or split during
this time period.
As a general rule, the housing within the Town is extremely
well-maintained. Exteriors are freshly painted and lawns
are carefully tended. All the streets are paved and add to
the nicely -groomed look of the Town.
Because a large proportion of the population is over 55
40 it can be expected that within the next 10 years there will
be a significant transition in ownership'of many of the
older homes. Since these are in fairly good demand at this
time, it could be expected that younger families would
purchase them and either rehabilitate him or keep them
well-maintained. On the other hand, if ehergy becomes more
scarce, it may be dirficult to sell the houses because of
the high heating bills associated with large farm -house
types of structures. The Town should be concerned about the
preservation of the homes which give Ridgefield its charac-
ter; demolition of these structures and the subsequent
construction of multi -family homes in the center of Town
could very well disappoint many long-time residents.
9
New construction of both single family homes and apartments
will occur, however, and if properly permitted, could
further enhance the charm and character of the Town.
Implementation of this Plan through zoning and subdivison
ordinances as well as through implementation of other
programs, can both preserve existing neighborhoods as well
as set guidelines for new units that are compatible with the
existing neighborhoods.
-35-
I•
•
S
i
9
i
0
En
H
3 Lo tj
CA F•3
H
3 w N
O H
O
O
O+
rt L<
O
O
G
H
u 'TJ rTJ
K b
H
U+ pTJ 'TJ
K
>
r• W Iv
G (D
>
r W A)
En (D
t7
r
N sv F5
n
t"
' 5
rr
(D
(D r- r-
rt' O
(D 0)r• r•
K
••
r N F• -j
x �'C '•C
K
x r-�C 'C
n
O
(D
O
rt
= ;U
�g
E3 l<
G
0 (D
(D
(D
K
P- to
(D
D) r -
K O
PV ::j
Di
C) F✓
z
z
c1-0
am
E N
w
tj
51
:5
P O N Ln
a tD
—I
Ul N 0. O1
iT
rt ¢1
(D In
(D In
�C G
K v
K O
G
I
G
O G
N
OD I Ul N
(D tD
00
O Cl O J
(D D�
GW
,P
o f otv
K -I
o
000tD
K
ul
1 . .
n N
n
P- C)
o
0 ow
(D
N
000w
(D
n
G O
dP
dP dP ow
G
dP
dP dP dP dP
G
O
LQ G
rt
rr
z
a
c)
d
H n
t7l
�+
G r•
y
C I-'
z
O
z 0
H H
(D
G
rTJ
G (D
O W
G O
Ul
U,
g rt
z s?
rt M
W
F -j O N O
0- tD
!n
N
G O O N
0- (D
F✓
I O
(D 4�6
y
(D K
Q (D
w K n
rn F-
I
C
O
I = a)
ro N
C7
ro K
to i
K
N
N I Ln N
(D %D
y
F-+
F -I
(D W
y tD
7C
.P
o l o �P
K In
C
v
1 1 I v
K rr
;q
I• .
n v
r•
C
to C)
o o ON
(D
b7
to
I I I tD
(D :3
(�
-1 O
dP
dP dP dP
�3
to
dP
dP
G RO
H
.tom G
rr
rt
C
• :3
�u
rr
txj
U)
z
z
F-'
►-
G
G d
Ln
Ln
ro
r•
N
O N o 0
CT K
00
O O O OD
1T F-
(D r•
(D 0)
K O
K
K
r•
Ul
I o I Ul
(D
(D 0)
F-
I O I N
K tD
N
I t l to
K rt
•
1
nit�-
I I I -
0 (D
W
O m
(D N
00
1 1 1 00
(D Di
dP
dP dP
:3
dP
dP
:
rt
rt
In
In
n H
n H
N
N
G O
N
N
G O
tD
00
n rr
lD
OD
0 rt
m
In N sP In
rt W
ON
Vl N 4,. U1
rr N
G F-
G F -
K
K
(D
(D
M
N
10
IA
•
•
:7
Table 4-10
YEAR BUILT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
1970
Year
Number
Prior 1900
12
1900-1909
40
1910-1919
90
1920-1929
52
1930-1939
16
1940-1949
26
1950-1959
28
1960-1969
37
TOTAL 301
Percent of
Total
4.0
13.3
29.9
17.3
5.3
8.6
9.3
12.3
100.0
Source: Clark County Assessor, 43 percent sample of
residential characteristics data file for
Ridgefield.
-37-
Table 4-11
MEDIAN VALUE FOR
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
BY YEAR BUILT
•
Years
Median Building Value
1800-1909
$ 7,600
1910-1919
$ 6,900
1920-1929
$ 7,000
1930-1939
$ 8,600
1940-1949
$ 9,000
1950-1959
$17,150
1960-1969
$26,350
1800-1969
$ 9,200
•
Note:
Source:
J
a
i
Does not include land value and may not represent
price for which structure could be sold.
Clark County Assessor's Office
0 -38-
An important consideration for any town's plan is the
economic strength that exists within the town and what may
• be in its future in terms of employment, income, and other
such standards. In order to project this future, the
existing foundations of the city must be examined.
One of the most important economic resources a city has
is its people. The population make-up, especially in terms
of income and skills are the most important part of an
economic unit. Some analysis of the Town of Ridgefield's
population is important for these reasons.
City
Ridgefield
La Center
Vancouver
Yacolt
Table 5-1
MARKET VALUE PER CAPITA
Total
Market Value
10,365,284
2,879,688
556,856,337
2,176,824
Market Value/Per Capita
$10,103
6,856
11,975
3,994
Source: Clark County Assessor's Office, 1976
_39-
The 1970 Census provides various statistics which can be
used regarding the population. However, these statistics
are normally available only for cities and towns larger than
2,500. Therefore, it is necessary to resort to using the
surrounding Census Tract 403 which includes Ridgefield
and the surrounding area to gain some idea of the population
characteristics.
Median family income as of the taking of the 1970 Census
for the Ridgefield area was $9,054. Comparing this figure
to the City of Vancouver and Clark County, we find the
following: $10,195 (Clark County), and $9,815 (Vancouver).
The area also had approximately 12.9 percent of its popula-
tion below the Federally defined poverty level for 1970 as
•
compared to 8.3 percent and 7.2 percent for Vancouver and
Clark County respectively. Contrary to what might be
expected, the mean income (as opposed to median) for fami-
lies and unrelated individuals was $10,903 for the Town. of
Ridgefield as compared with $9,725 and $9,108 for Clark
County and Vancouver respectively. One other piece of
•
information that is useful in describing the income/wealth
picture of the town is the assessed valuation per capita for
Ridgefield as compared with other cities within the County.
The County Assessor's Office provides total market valuation
figures (this is total residential, industrial and commer-
cial and property on the 1975 roll for 1976 taxes at 100% of
1
market value) .
City
Ridgefield
La Center
Vancouver
Yacolt
Table 5-1
MARKET VALUE PER CAPITA
Total
Market Value
10,365,284
2,879,688
556,856,337
2,176,824
Market Value/Per Capita
$10,103
6,856
11,975
3,994
Source: Clark County Assessor's Office, 1976
_39-
All of these! figures help to draw a picture of the Ridge-
field population. The median and mean income figures show
that there seems to be a good deal of difference between
income groups for although the median figure is lower than
the City of Vancouver or Clark County, the mean income
figure (which can be pulled up greatly by some incomes at
higher levels) is significantly higher for with either the
County or the City of Vancouver. Thus Ridgefield compared
with the other two areas, has more lower and higher income
families than middle income families. The assessed valua-
tion figures and percentage of people below the poverty
level again seem to point to such a conclusion. However,
the lower end of incomes may not be quite as low as indi-
cated because when comparing the poverty level for a urban-
ized area such as the City of Vancouver to a relatively
rural area such as the Town of Ridgefield some discrepancies
exist. Generally, the cost of living in rural areas is less
than a highly urbanized area. Housing in particular is
usually less expensive because land costs are lower. As
housing can be such a large part of total expenditures,
rural areas in fact do have lower costs of living. Because
of a lower cost of living, the standard of living may not be
quite as low as the income levels may indicate.
These figures give only a partial picture of the Town,
however. Other statistics such as age distributions and
the make-up of the work force can help in describing the
existing economic resource of the Town. For age distribu-
tion, a special breakdown was done for the Town which was
cited in Chapter 7. The "dependency ratio", or ratio of
those of ages not normally in the work force, is 54.7
percent. This compares with a rate of 48.5 percent for
the County. There are reasons for this high dependency
ratio. First, a large proportion of the population (39.0
percent for Ridgefield and 39.4 percent for the County) is
under age 19. (Normally the dependency ratio only includes
those up to age 16 but this information was not available in
. this form. Using the corresponding figure for the County
makes comparison possible). The County, as well as the Town
of Ridgefield will have to decide how to deal with this
"bulge" of population. In addition, the Town of Ridgefield
has a significantly higher proportion of people over age 65
(15.6 percent as opposed to 9.1 percent for the County as a
whole). Thus, the percentage of the total population
of working age for Ridgefield (the inverse or opposite
of the dependency ratio) is lower (by 6.2 percent) than that
for the County.
C7
0 -40-
Looking at those working within the Ridgefield area (using
Census Tract 4:03) the following table lists occupations
and makes a comparison with Vancouver and Clark County:
Table 5-2
OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY BY PERCENT OF WORK FORCE
•
•
Census Tract 403
10.1%
9.1%
3.8%
17.2%
20.1%
19.0%
2.7%
3.8%
6.2%
7.3%
0.1%
Table 5-2 shows that craftsmen, operatives and farm workers
(this includes owner -operators as well as laborers) for
Ridgefield all have substantially larger numbers than those
for Vancouver and Clark County. In reviewing employment
within the Town, part of the reason for this concentration
may become more clear.
Q9C
Occupation Clark County
Vancouver
Professional,
technical &
kindred
13.7%
15.7%
Managers & ad-
ministrative
(except farm)
8.1%
8.3%
Sales workers
6.5%
7.1%
Clerical &
kindred workers
16.2%
19.0%
Craftsmen, foremen
& kindred workers
16.8%
14.1%
Operatives (except
transport)
15.0%
13.5%
Transportation
equipment operators
4.6%
3.7%
Laborer (except farm)
5.6%
5.0%
Farm workers
2.1%
0.5%
Service workers
10.3%
12.1%
Private household
workers
1.1%
1.0%
Source: U.S. Census of
Population
and Housing, 1970
•
•
Census Tract 403
10.1%
9.1%
3.8%
17.2%
20.1%
19.0%
2.7%
3.8%
6.2%
7.3%
0.1%
Table 5-2 shows that craftsmen, operatives and farm workers
(this includes owner -operators as well as laborers) for
Ridgefield all have substantially larger numbers than those
for Vancouver and Clark County. In reviewing employment
within the Town, part of the reason for this concentration
may become more clear.
Q9C
Before the Census materials are left, one other piece of
information can be looked at. This relates to where people
within the Census Tract work. The information is somewhat
limited in that there is no break -down for areas within Clark
County. However, the following has been provided by the
1970 Census: 67.4 percent of the population living within
the Ridgefield area works in Clark County, 11.3 percent work
outside both the Portland area and Clark County (more
specific breakdown again not given) and the remaining 21.3
percent work in the Portland area. This indicates that the
Portland urbanized area (including Vancouver) is an impor-
tant part of Ridgefield's economic functioning in at least
• one way (the market this area provides is discussed later),
for it provides employment for a good portion of the Ridge-
field population.
• Table 5-3
EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD
Full-time
Professional,
financial 13 5.9% 1 ---
Personal services 3 1.4% 2
Total 221 100.0% 20 76 - 106
Source: Regional Planning Council, 1976 Survey
As shown on Table 5-3 industrial activities are by far the
largest employer (this is due to the 113 people employed
full-time by Pacific Wood Treatment Corporation), corre-
sponding to the above statistic of the large representation
in the craftsmen and operative occupational classes. In
addition to the 30 seasonal workers employed by Pacific Wood
Treatment, the other industrial employer, Mountain Mist
Packing Company provides seasonal employment for up to 75
people.
-42-
•
Full-time
employees as
Sector
employees
% of total
Part-time Seasonal
Retail
23
10.4%
9 1
Industrial
114
51.6%
1 75 - 105
Government
68
30.7%
7 ---
Professional,
financial 13 5.9% 1 ---
Personal services 3 1.4% 2
Total 221 100.0% 20 76 - 106
Source: Regional Planning Council, 1976 Survey
As shown on Table 5-3 industrial activities are by far the
largest employer (this is due to the 113 people employed
full-time by Pacific Wood Treatment Corporation), corre-
sponding to the above statistic of the large representation
in the craftsmen and operative occupational classes. In
addition to the 30 seasonal workers employed by Pacific Wood
Treatment, the other industrial employer, Mountain Mist
Packing Company provides seasonal employment for up to 75
people.
-42-
•
i•
This gives the Town a heavy seasonal character (up to
approximately 50 percent of total full-time employment)
which could absorb unemployment at least on a temporary
basis and could boost sales to some extent.
The next largest employer by sector is government. The
breakdown for full-time employment in this sector is as
follows: schools 50, Town government (police, water -sewer,
administration) 9, U.S. Post Office 8, and Community Lib-
rary, 1. The employment figure for schools includes those
employed by schools within the Town limits of Ridgefield.
The District is much larger than the Town boundaries so that
Ridgefield gains employment because of its central location.
The retail trade making up 10.4 percent of total employment
seems to be oriented to the area of the Town limits and
slightly beyond. Food markets, hardware/building materials
and a few specialty shops primarily make up this category.
The marinas (public and private) do not account for much
year round employment currently but have good potential.
Finally, professional and financial services (a bank, a
savings and loan, and an insurance office) and personal
services (barber and beauty shops) make up 5.9 percent and
• 1.4 percent of total employment respectively.
The above figures should be used with some caution particu-
larly the total employment figure --for this is a survey of
commercial and industrial activities operating out of
standard places of business. Some may operate out of homes
such as farming and some construction trades. Therefore the
total number of jobs within the Town of Ridgefield is
somewhat higher than the above survey shows.
As was indicated earlier, the Town of Ridgefield does not
operate in a vacuum, rather it is interconnected with the
Portland -Vancouver area. The industrial activities within
Ridgefield depend on markets, outside of the Town. A
number of links exist with these markets, including the Port
facilities with access to the Columbia River (and indirectly
to markets outside the continental U.S.). In addition, the
Burlington Northern Railroad line adjoins the port area so
that rail access is also available. Finally, Interstate 5
is available to the east of the Town limits for truck and
other vehicular traffic. With the completion of I-205,
access to the Portland International Airport and beyond will
be easier and quicker, for the existing congestion in
Vancouver on I-5 during peak periods will be avoided.
•
-43-
•
The economic future of Ridgefield will depend a great deal
upon how the Town wishes to grow and at what rate. Certain
pressures will be exerted by outside or uncontrollable
forces: the completion of I-205, the expected population
in -migration to the State of Washington from other states;
and the bulge of population which in 1970 was in the 5-19
age group.(1) A large portion of this age 5-19 group is now
approaching adulthood, attempting to enter the work force
and getting nearer to "the age of family formation", all of
which present certain demands. The commercial activities of
the Town can expect to expand somewhat in the coming decade
from these activities and the recreational aspects within
the Town (particularly the marinas) can expect to enlarge as
0 other such developments become more crowded and expensive.
Estimates made for the State of Washington as a whole
indicate that retail trade can expect healthy growth
(approximately 21 percent over 1975 levels) and Ridgefield
as a part of a growing community can expect to have some of
this growth.(2)
The industrial side of the Town is somewhat different.
The statistics for lumber and wood products, paper and pulp
show that these sectors are projected to recover by 1980
the pre -1974 levels. (3) This will put these industries
back to a more healthy position after a "soft" market in
sectors which use these products. Existing industry has
.located along the waterfront; however, little land remains
for expansion in this area.
The overall picture for the Town of Ridgefield is that it
is healthy if not too dependent on one industry (and one
company) but that the potential for the type of growth
the Town of Ridgefield may wish to have will be available
to a large degree.
0 1
State of Washington, Department of Revenue, Economic Pro-
jections for the State of Washington, 1976.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
i0
•
CHAPTER G
COMMUNITY FAcIRITIES
ANd SERVICES
RIDGEFIELD WATER SYSTEM
Existing System
The existing water supply for Ridgefield was constructed
in 1935 and since that time has been changed. The present
system consists of six wells and a covered concrete re-
servoir which is located south of Highland Street near
the southeast town limits. Two of the wells were drilled
within the last two years and are located at the end of
Cook and Hall Streets. Three are located in Abram Park
and one near the sewage treatment plant along Burlington
Northern Railroad tracks. Pacific Wood Treatment has
drilled their own well near the city well on Port pro-
perty. Improvements to the system have been made by the
consulting engineers, Haner, Ross and Sporseen, consisting
of a newly -built supply line from the wells in Abrams
Park to the reservoir. The firm has also investigated
infiltration into the present system.
Future Water Needs
The present water system serves the area within the Town
boundaries and a small area south along Hillhurst Road.
Development has been occurring to the south and there exists
a potential need for water facilities as the area is developed.
Preliminary discussion between the consultants, Haner, Ross
40 and Sporseen and the Ridgefield Town council have indicated
a need to look at a ten year water study on the existing
system inadequacies as related to growth.
•
-45-
Ll
RIDGEFIELD SEWER SYSTEM
Background
The drafting of wastewater plans for Ridgefield becomes
important and should be analyzed in terms of projecting
the total area needed for overall growth in the community.
Development should occur where a full range of services
are available. Sewer and water accessibility provide the
opportunity for higher intensity development.
Present System
The present system consists of sewer lines, treatment
facility and outfall to the Columbia River located west
of Cook Street in the industrial area where Pacific Wood
Treatment is located. The existing sewage lines extend to
the city boundary and represents the limit for planned
facilitis in the Ridgefield area. A sketch map was drawn in
1959 and shows future sewage line expansion south and west
of Shobert Avenue and east of Gee Creek along Maple Street.
It is assumed that these extensions have been made since
records show approximately 500 connections have been made to
the trunk lines; many more than is shown on the map.
According to the city engineer, the present system has the
capacity to serve a population of 3500; double the projected
population of 1,559 persons by 1990. Discussion with the
engineering consultants Haner, Ross and Sporseen have
indicated new additions to the system since 1959 as two
interceptor lines running along the water front connecting
Pacific Wood Treatment and the boat basins to the treatment
plant. The consultants considered the present sewage system
as "adequate" with minor problems of leakage and overflow
during periods of maximum rainfall.
Future Needs
The present system has the capacity to serve a population
of 3,500 people. Projected propulation for Ridgefield is
1,594 and therefore the potential for growth accommodation
is excellent within the existing system. The consultants
feel the current system is adequate with minor problems
of leakage \and overflow.
-46-
OTHER UTILITIES
Other utilities such as telephone, electrical power, solid
waste disposal, and natural gas are services which have
to be provided for the future growth of Ridgefield. The
following discussion is only concerned with the future
availability of these services.
Telephone
Pacific Northwest Bell provides telephone service -to Ridge-
field. Present capacity is 1700 lines and the present
number utilized is 1685. The Company plans to add the
capacity for 400 more lines which should be ample for future
growth of the region.
Electric Power
Ridgefield is supplied by power from Bonneville Power
Administration and distributed by the Clark County Public
Utility District, a publicly -owned electric utility.
Ridgefield substation located off of 4th and Pioneer is
the main distribution plant for the downtown; Clark substation
has four lines running out in the surrounding area. The
supply of energy is adequate at this time. As with any
resource, the availabllity of electric power is a function of
the abundance or scarcity of water available for power
generation.
Natural Gas
Ridgefield currently is supplied by Northwest Natural Gas.
The 4 inch feeder main is not used at full capacity at this
time. Projections indicate that there will be an ample
supply for future development.
•
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Ridgefield is presently serviced by Buchman Sanitary
Service who collect the garbage and trucks it to the Five
Corners area for final disposal. In order to handle future
generation of solid waste, it may require construction of a
solid waste transfer station somewhere in the Northwest part
of the County.
•
•
-47-
Streets and Circulation
Most streets in Ridgefield are presently paved. Primary
arterials include Pioneer Street with the major east -west
arterial, Hillhurst Street and Main Street as north -south
arterials. Secondary arterials extending east -west are Mill
Street and Division Street. North -south secondary arterials
are Fifth Street and First Avenue.
r]
SCHOOLS
The two Ridgefield Schools (one elementary and one middle
school) are located on a 19 acre site in the Town.
Union Ridge Elementary School, grades K through 6, was
completed in 1952 with a designed capacity of 366 students.(1)
October 1, 1976 enrollment was 448 students.(2)
View Ridge Middle School, grades 7 and 8, was completed
in 1976 with a designed capacity of 315 students.(3)
October 1, 1976 enrollment was 254 students.(4)
The Regional Planning Council of Clark County will publish
a comprehensive study of Ridgefield School District 122's
school needs, current and future, as a part of the Clark
County Comprehensive Plan, planned for publication in 1977.
For detailed information about the schools and an assessment
of needs, reference should be made to the County document
at that time.
LIBRARIES
A branch of the Fort Vancouver Regional Library is located
in the Priscilla Club in Ridgefield. The library is run by
contract with the main library in Vancouver and operates on
a two -third time basis.
According to John Legry, Assistant Director of Fort Van-
couver Regional Library, the Ridgefield library is not
adequate to meet the needs of the Town at this time.
Expansion of existing facilities or construction of a new
library could be achieved with funding by the Town or
State.
1 Washington
State Administrative
Code, 180-30-110, 1975
for State
Matching Formula Purposes.
2 Ridgefield
School District 122,
Official Full -Time
Equivalent
Enrollment, October
1, 1976.
3 Washington
State Administrative
Code.
4 Ridgefield
School District 122.
0
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Ridgefield Parks Advisory Committee was appointed
in 1974 by the Mayor of Ridgefield to provide recommen-
dations to the Town Council about parks and recreation
needs.
The Committee, composed of local residents, reviewed the
existing facilities and explored the needs for leisure
services in Ridgefield. The resulting Comprehensive Park
and Recreation Plan reflects the desires of the community
and provides the groundwork for participation in the
Federal Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
Grant -in -Aid Program.
The goal and a set of objectives developed by the Advisory.
Committee to meet the Ridgefield's recreational needs
are included in Chapter 2, Goals and Guidelines.
Inventory of Existing Park Areas
MAJOR PARKS: The Town of Ridgefield feels that it should
leave development of major parks to larger governmental
agencies such as the State and County.
• At the present, there are two major parks sites: one under
the ownership of the County Parks Departments, Whipple
Creek Park, six miles south of Ridgefield; and one under the
ownership of the State, Paradise Point, which is four miles
northeast of Ridgefield.
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, located on approximate-
ly 3500 acres northeast of the Town, is managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
The agency is funded to provide only those types of recrea-
tional activitiess that are "wildlife oriented"; that is
hunting, fishing, birdwatchng, photography, and certain
kinds of hiking.
TOWN PARKS: Abrams Park is the largest park owned by
the Town. It contains approximately 37 acres of land
through which Gee Creek, the major drainage stream of the
area, flows, and, is a fully -developed recreational facility.
S
Davis Park is about 1/2 acre in size and is strategically
.located next to a duplex zone. It meets the criteria of
playlot. (See Park Classifications).
Fire Hall Park is an open space of 1/3 acre in downtown
Ridgefield.
-50-
li
W
Park Classifications
The following is a shortened form of the original list
of park classifications from the Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan. The classificatons are useful in defining
any existing or proposed parks.
PLAYLOTS: The playlot is a small area intended for children
up to 6 or 7 years of age. It is essentially a substitute
for the backyard and thus normally provided in high-density
areas such as apartment or tenement districts.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND PLAYGROUND: The neighborhood park
and playground provides active and passive recreation areas.
It serves primarily the five -to -twelve year age group, but
may afford limited facilities for youths and adults.
COMMUNITY PARK AND PLAYFIELD: The playfield part of this
facility provides varied forms of recreational activites
primarily for young persons and adults. It provides open
areas for forms of recreation that require more space
than would be available in a playground.
GREENWAYS AND GREENBELTS: The extent and location of
lands designated for open space greenways are determined by
natural features. The establishment of open space greenways
should consider waterways, slopes, ravines, swamps, and
other areas of natural and scenic values.
Standards
The following is a table of recreational facilities standards
per thousand people population, which was the basis of the
recreational needs in Ridgefield.
-51-
7`'
i
U)
a)
L4
U
0
r -I
W
W
La
U
0
M
CD
O
00
0
w
O o
O
a
O 00
a
w
ri w
V
H
_
a)
a)
a
G4
a
W
4
a)
Q
LJ
U •�
W
U
m U
W
ro
ro
z
0
v' W
ul
Ln
0
w
0
r"I r" I
H
W
EA
C7
•
H
Q
Ln
S-4
W
r1
H
a
-H a)
U
U
w
�
$4
La
o
a,
O ra
v4-)
s~
>, ra
z
H
4J
O
z
O
H
H
r -i
E-1
-'3 44
�
�
E
r0
r-1 W
Ia
w
za
Uw
ri
W
a, a
.il
v
HH
cW�xa
z
Q W P4
>
►-+
W 040
ro
E
a w
'a
a
UEO04
m c
w
FC w
E-4
O
-q
r1
E-1 2
E
a E
•ri
ro
� ro
U
co
O
z U O
ro
w
H x
A
rd Q
Z rJ-+ E -i
O
a1
Q
O
cn
.—I
a r• -I
rT
.-I
?,
roo
Q
z
r
a) ro
4
(
3
Ei
a)
41 .1-1
E
7`'
i
U)
a)
L4
U
0
r -I
W
W
La
U
0
M
I
o O
CD O
0
$4
La a)
QL
v
a La
U O
R1 U
H ri
E
ru
a
La
H U)
ro 4J
41 >�
r
E U
s~
O ul
r' C
O a)
W Ei
R
ul ul
v a)
E E
Kr lcr
1 I
"r \
U1
v
U
m
9J
La
U
ri
CD
O
00
0
0
O o
O
O
O 00
r-{
ri w
�+v
a)
a)
a
a
a
4
s.
LJ
U •�
U
U
m U
rts
ro
ro
0
0
v' W
Ln
Ln
0
0
0
r"I r" I
N
N
W
aJ
•
x
O
Ln
S-4
W
r1
H
N
-H a)
w
x
>a
$4
La
o
a,
O ra
v4-)
s~
>, ra
La ,7
4J r—I
4J
O O
•ri (1)
O
1Q w
O.-1
r -i
Z Or
-'3 44
�
�
E
r0
w
za
Uw
I
o O
CD O
0
$4
La a)
QL
v
a La
U O
R1 U
H ri
E
ru
a
La
H U)
ro 4J
41 >�
r
E U
s~
O ul
r' C
O a)
W Ei
R
ul ul
v a)
E E
Kr lcr
1 I
"r \
U1
v
U
m
9J
La
U
ri
N
a
Ln
I-
0)
s~
ro
ri
a
C
O
•ri
41
�s
a)
La
U
a)
a
ra
x
ro
a
a)
ul
C
CD
v
CL
L,
E
O
U
ra
r -I
v
44
a)
tr
ra
• r1
a
a)
U'
L.
O
E
H
Lr
a-►
0
0
.O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ra
0
0
aJ
•
O
Ln
c EO
kD
r1
H
N
-H a)
E W
$4
La
La =3
v4-)
� co
a) v
r -i
r -i
i—i
�i
'a 44
ri
.il
v
c
U)
Ul ul
>
•ri
ro
r0 rc)
41
'a
O
m c
-H
H
O
O
-q
r1
E
a E
•ri
ro
� ro
U
co
r+
aT•r1
ro
A
rd Q
Gu
O
a1
O
cn
.—I
a r• -I
rT
.-I
?,
roo
r
a) ro
--I
(
3
a)
41 .1-1
E
La
v
UI
.LJ 4-1
•.-1
U
a)
(a
•ri O
3
(1)
La
m
a cn
cn
a
c�
N
a
Ln
I-
0)
s~
ro
ri
a
C
O
•ri
41
�s
a)
La
U
a)
a
ra
x
ro
a
a)
ul
C
CD
v
CL
L,
E
O
U
ra
r -I
v
44
a)
tr
ra
• r1
a
a)
U'
L.
O
E
A
a
ib
Summary of Needs as Listed in the Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan
PLAYLOT: There should be two - one located to the north and
one .located to the south of Town. Note: the playlots
should be combined with neighborhood parks when feasible.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND PLAYGROUND: None within the Town
limits but plans should be made by the County to set areas
aside immediately to the north and south of Ridgefield. The
area to the south should have highest priority.
COMMUNITY PARK AND PLAYFIELD: Abrams Park and the school
grounds can serve this need provided there is substantial
development. Note the following comments on special facili-
ties.
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS: The wildlife refuge provides suf-
ficient area but the proximity of Abrams Park to the schools
would indicate that a small environmental education area for
short classes should be developed in Abrams Park.
TENNIS COURTS: Two tennis courts should be built to satisfy
the recreatinal and educational demands of the Town and
new middle school.
BASEBALL DIAMONDS: There are sufficient numbers at the
school but improvement of the existing facilities is
recommended. It is also recommended that the schools have
outdoor entrances to restroom areas to accommodate partici-
pants and spectators.
LITTLE LEAGUE AND SOFTBALL DIAMONDS: One additional diamond
of league play quality is needed. School playground field
needs to be redesigned to accommodate maximum safe recrea-
tion play.
Another significant recreation area is the waterfront
facility on Lake River. There is a need for greater public
ownership to accommodate an increased on-site usage expected
with improvements in Lake River and Vancouver Lake water
quality. The priorities for development of the facility as
determined by public survey are restrooms, improved dock
facilities, and additional parking.
��15
POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION
Police
The Ridgefield Police Department offers what the town
considers an adequate level of service at this time,
with four full-time employees. There is an eight -person
reserve force, each one serving 16 hours per month on
patrol with a regular officer.
The national standard for numbers of law enforcement
officers in a town or city is 1.5 officers per 11000
people. (5) According to the Clark County Law and Justice
Plan, Ridgefield has three full-time officers. (6) With a
i 1976 Census of 1,026 (7) the ratio of police officers to
population is 1 to 341 persons. This ratio is quite a bit
higher than the national standard. To maintain this level
of service, one officer should be added to the police force
when the population reaches approximately 1,368 persons.
Using the median population projections for Ridgefield, this
. population could be reached by 1995 (see Chapter 4, Population
and Housing, Table 4-5).
The old and outmoded jail in Ridgefield is no longer used to
detain arrested persons; instead, they are transported to
the City -County jail facility at City Hall in Vancouver.
Fire
The Ridgefield Fire Department serves the residents of the
Town and is staffed by volunteer fire fighters and a Fire Chief
who receives a nominal monthly salary for his services.
There are no County or State standards governing the number
of fire fighting staff per unit of population. This is
determined by the particular needs of the community. By 1990,
the population of Ridgefield is expected to reach approximately
i 1,559, and by that time the Town may wish to consider hiring
full-time fire fighting personnel (see Chapter 4, Population
and Housing, Table 4-5).
0President's Commission on Law Enforcement, 1968.
N.
i 7
Clark County Regional Planning Council, Clark County
Law and Justice Plan, 1977.
State of Washington, Office of Governor, Office of
Program Planning and Fiscal Management, Olympia.
-54-
HEALTH SERVICES
The Town of Ridgefield does not have any physicians, den-
tists, or optometrists in residence. The citizens instead
take advantage of these services as offered in nearby urban
areas such as Battle Ground or Vancouver. Two ambulance
companies, American and AA both serve the Ridgefield area.
Both companies are based in Vancouver. Conversations with
personnel at American revealed that while most emergency
calls received are from Vancouver, approximately 4 to 6
calls per months are received from the smaller population
centers in Clark County such as Ridgefield. The ambulance
company assumes a 15 -minute average traveling time from
Vancouver to Ridgefield and each ambulance is manned with
-paramedical personnel. AA Ambulance Company began serving
Clark County on November 1, 1976, at which time it took over
the National Ambulance Company. Like American, it answers
calls from the entire County including the Ridgefield
area.
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Health
Resources Administration, Bureau of Health Manpower has
made suggestions as to the proper ratio of professional
health personnel to the population in order to provide an
optimum level of service. The ratios are as follows:
s One physician per 1,500 persons.
One dentist per 3,000 persons.
One optometrist per 15,000 persons.
One pharmacist per 4,500 persons.(8)
Although the ratios tend to indicate that Ridgefield may
i not be able to support these professional services, there
appears to be a strong desire on the part of local residents
to encourage practitioners to locate within hte area. The
Town should probably actively seek to attract qualified
physicians and dentists who may want to practice in a small
town that is still close to a large urban center.
0
8
"Criteria and Procedures for Identification of Health Manpower
Shortage Areas" (for purposes of loan cancellation and repayment
program) BHM/OPD MAB, September 1975, Report #76-31, Manpower
Analysis Branch Department of HEW, Page 2.
-55-
w;_--
The Town of Ridgefield adopted a Land Use Plan and and
implementing zoning ordinance November 28, 1967. The
proposed comprehensive plan does not disregard the land
use pattern depicted on the map but attempts to go
further and examine the physical and economic character-
istics which will shape the future of the Ridgefield
area based on the goals and guidelines adopted by the
Planning Commission and Town Council. The new plan is
considered both an update and addition to the existing
comprehensive plan.
PROPOSED NEW LAND USE PLAN ALLOCATIONS
Introduction
There are a number of factors which will shape the future
land use patterns for the Ridgefield area. These are:
A. The amount and availability of land which is suitable
for development (including slope and soils).
B. The updating of Clark County's comprehensive plan
which calls for development to occur within existing
commercial clusters.
C. The potential for extension of sewer and water and
the capacity of existing systems to accommodate
growth.
Development of an Urban Service Area
The .present Town limits boundary is considered adequate
for consideration and growth within Ridgefield. The
southern Town boundary interfaces with agricultural
soils along Hillhurst Road. The goals and guidelines
suggest that these agricultural lands should be retained
when possible. Other surrounding lands around the Town
boundary either exhibit steep slope or flood hazard and
soil conditions that restrict high density development.
-56-
n
Economic analysis shows limited future commercial and
industrial growth, important factors in determining a total
growth area for Ridgefield. This also directs future growth
to occur within existing Town boundaries. Water service
will undoubtedly be needed in areas within the Town cur-
rently not served as future growth occurs. The sewer system
is adequate to accommodate future growth and the water
system should correspond to the sewer facilities in total
areas served.
COMPARISON WITH EXISTING PLAN
The major difference between the new land use allocations
for Ridgefield and the existing comprehensive plan is the
total area designated for open space and preservation and
for commercial use. The area for commercial use has been
shifted north of Pioneer Street where expansion is occur-
ring.
Open Space
Ridgefield is fortunate to have scenic areas with ridges
and creeks such as Gee Creek. The proposed plan desig-
nates the entire Gee Creek waterway as open space. Other
open space designation include areas of steep slope, areas
with soil drainage problems, the wildlife refuge and the
undeveloped floodplain areas.
Commercial
As mentioned earlier, the proposed commercial area is
designed for compactness so the existing activities can
reinforce one another and conserve space. It also con-
tains enough land area for expansion. The commercial
areas are currently experiencing a slight decline in bus-
iness but economic projections indicate a gradual growth
as population increases and a greater demand is created.
• Residential
Residential patterns are a reflection of two basic factors:
periodic population increases and declines and the availability and
attractiveness of an area for residential growth and development.
Ridgefield contains older well -kept neighborhoods as well as newer
•
-57-
neighborhoods (see Population and Housing element). The
oldest neighborhood occurs south of Pioneer Street and west
of Hillhurst Street to Shobert Street. An area north of
Pioneer, especially near the commercial section, also
contains older residences than the surrounding area. Newer
areas have been building up east of Hillhurst and south of
Shobert Street with infill in older neighborhoods. The
total acreage proposed for residential use is less than
that allocated in the existing zoning plan for Ridgefield.
In the current zoning plan areas have not been set aside for
open space and preservation as is the case for the proposed,
comprehensive plan. Some of the area presently zoned for
residential use may not be suitable for development, according
to the analysis of Chapter 3, and this land should be left
for greenways and other types of open space.
Community Facilities
The present school facilities, Davis Park, Fire Hall Park
and Abrams Park are planned for development and will be
adequate to accommodate future recreational needs. The lake
front area has limited potential for development of boating
and water oriented recreational facilities.(1)
Industrial
The Port of Ridgefield currently owns and manages lowland
areas along Lake River. Industrial lands are occupied by
Pacific Wood Treatment Corporation and Burlington Northern
Railroad right-of-ways. If industrial expansion is to occur,
i a new area would have to be designated for these uses.
Tentative industrial designations have been given to the
area north of Lake Street in the adjacent area outside the
Town limits as a potential light industrial site. If
Pacific Wood Treatment could consolidate their storage
area, a small amount of space would become available for a
limited amount of new industrial development.
1
• Ridgefield Parks Advisory Board, Comprehensive Plan Park
Plan for Ridgefield, pps. 62-65, 1975
ZME
:7
i
LI
0
Streets and Circulation
A number of :streets within Ridgefield would be enhanced
by improved street surfacing. Primary arterials include
Pioneer Street with the major east -west arterial, Hill-
hurst Street and Main Street as north -south arterials.
Secondary arterials extending east -west are Mill Street
and Division Street. North -south secondary arterials
are Fifth Street and First Avenue. Attention should be
given to continued maintenance of these streets.
-59-
1 J p QV 00600000000 p`+4 TTTM MT 4i4ffil�4f4T+}#};T! #4ii+f+ may' O 0 0 0 0 0 0 +++ t t}} #++
Q O O O O p p +##+Ftf+ aaiii••
o QQQo pogo°opo°o° ° T+++:;: + ++rai++f4■ri:ti-i=
r -
6
I♦
•
El
i
0
•
r
L
IMPLEMENTATION
INTRODUCTION
The adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan is only the
first step in shaping how Ridgefield should grow, change and
develop. In order to assure that community will adhere
to the plan, a variety of tools may be used to implement
or carry out the intents of the plan. Among these are:
1. A zoning ordinance
2. A subdivision ordinance
3. A sign ordinance
4. Design review standards
5. Other tools which may be necessary to implement the
Plan.
Zoning Ordinance
There needs to be some revisions of the current zoning
ordinance to, implement the new comprehensive plan.
Subdivision Ordinance
Proposed divisions of land into lots to be sold for resi-
dential development should be reviewed by the Town. The
subdivision ordinance sets down for public knowledge
all requirements that need to be met before the land can
be divided. This insures that proper street alignment
will be carried out and that all utilities and streets
will be provided. A density bonus system could also
be provided by the ordinance. A density bonus system
is one in which residential areas are zoned for a very
low density (perhaps one to two acre lot minimums).
In order for a subdivider to gain more density, the
design of the subdivision would have to include amenities
which could be such things as :
1. Separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic
2. Provision of open space to be held in undivided
interest by all owners of the subdivision
3. Clustering of units so that provision of urban
services is more economical
4. Dedication of land to the Town for parks
This list is only partial and many other alternatives
could be added.
Design Review
Design review procedures pertain to the visual and
aesthetic aspects of development. This process involves
review of the site and building design and how well the
building blends with its environment. This tool may not
be appropriate to the small town atmosphere that now exists.
Although with growth of residential and commercial uses,
such review may become more desirable.
-61-
Comprehensive Capital Improvements Program
A comprehensive Capital Improvements Program, sets out all
proposed facility/utility maintenance and construction plans
for a period of several years. Each year this program is
evaluated and in additional year's work is added. By knowing
when funds for street improvements will be forthcoming, any
major work on sewer and water lines can be implemented before-
hand. This tool is very valuable in order to assist munici-
palities in making long-term capital investments in a logical
order with few surprises.
Shoreline Management Program
A major part of the Ridgefield comprehensive plan is to
develop a shoreline management program to protect existing
shorelines of which Ridgefield has many. The aesthetic
beauty of Gee Creek and the adjacent natural wildlife refuge
needs to be protected from urban encroachment. It may be
advantageous to use the plan developed by La Center as a
model for the program.
-61-
GLOSSARY
Age of family -formation An age at which people marry
and form a new household - normally considered between
ages 19 and 25.
Alluvium Sand or clay -type material deposited by moving
water, usually found in stream beds or along stream banks.
Amenities Those things which enhance the .liveability
or pleasantness of surroundings that are beyond the pro-
vision of basic services. Examples include: landscaping
and attractive open space; recreational facilities, speci-
alty services such as nearby cleaning establishments,
grocery stores and other retail services.
Aquifer An underground layer of porous and permeable
material, usually sandstone, in which underground water
collects, and through which underground water moves easily.
Census An enumeration or count of an entire population.
Census Tract A geographic area originally designated
as having relatively homogeneous (similar) population
characteristics, economic status and living conditions.
Tracts contain an average of about 4,000 residents.
Comprehensive Plan . See Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan A document reflecting
the policies of a city or town toward the most desirable
ways land within the municipality should be used. It is
general and usually contains the following: 1) identifica-
tion of issues and problems; 2) basic information about
natural resources, housing, economics and community fac-
ilities and services; 3) forecasts of future demographic,
economic and environmental characteristics; 4) visual aids
(maps) of proposed land uses (residential, commercial,
industrial, public); and 5) description of ways to implement
the plan.
Cost -of -Living The amount of money that is required to
maintain a household with an average amount of housing,
food, etc. Time, inflation, new products, and changes
in consumer desires, change the dollar amount required.
Cutover An area that was recently logged, now covered
with stumps and brush -type vegetation.
Dependency ratio A comparison of the number of those
of ages not normally in the workforce - under age 16 or over
65 - to those of working age.
Deteriorating Construction A designation given to a
housing unit. if it shows evidence of a sagging roof, crack-
ing foundation, and/or other structural deficiencies which
could be remedied. (See Sound and Dilapidated).
Dilapidated Construction A designation given to a
housing unit if it has a non -repairable condition such as
rotted timbers, and/or it is uneconomically feasible to
repair. (See Sound and Deteriorating).
Disposable or Spendable Income The amount of money
available to spend after taxes.
Effluent The discharge from a sewer system (normally
after treatment)
Extrapolate To infer or project on the basis of known
data.
Floodplain Composed of stream -deposited sand and gravel,
usually bordering streams channels; areas that are occas-
sionally inundated during high water periods or flooding.
GPM Gallons per Minute; the volume of water delivered
through a water system every minute.
+ Gravity feed Pertaining to locating water and sewer
facilities for maximum use of gravity to move both water and
wastewater.
Groundwater Water that fills all the unblocked pores
of underlying material below the water table (usually sand-
stone).
and-stone). The water table is considered the upper limit of
saturation.
Hinterland Relatively undeveloped or agricultural lands
surrounding an urbanized area which depend on the commercial
markets, services, communications (newspapers, etc.) and
other attractions .located in the more centralized area.
Hydrology The science dealing with the earth's surface
and underground waters, including oceans, lakes, rivers,
marshes, and aquifers; and of the cycle involving evapora-
tion, precipitation and flow to the seas.
In -Migration Migration is the movement of people who
reside in one place to a residence in another place.
Inmigrants are those people who have moved into an area.
Infiltration Rate A soil characteristic determining
or describing the maximum rate at which water can enter the
soil under specified conditions, including the presence of
an excess of water.
Influent The raw sewage collected by a sewer system,
and flowing into a treatment system.
Mean Average. The sum of a category divided by the
number of items within that category. Thus the mean family
income for an area would be the total of family incomes
divided by the number of families.
Median The point at which the number of values below
this number is equal to the number above. Therefore, a
median family income of $10,000 for 20 families would
indicate that 10 families had incomes greater than $10,000
and 10 had incomes less than $10,000.
Node A point of activity; a central place.
Outfall The pipe which discharges treated or untreated
waste from a holding facility.
Outwash Landforms built by streams extending beyond
an ice front and depositing their sediment loads due to a
change in gradient.
Permeability The ease with which gases, liquids, or
plant roots penetrate or pass through a bulk mass of soil or
a layer of soil.
Poverty Level A level of income below the point where
decent housing, food, transportation, etc. are not obtain-
able. For the 1970 Census the poverty level for a non-farm
family of four was $3,743.
Riparian Pertaining to the plant and animal habitats on
the banks of a river, lake, or pond.
•
School -Park Concept This is a concept which suggests
that the school should be the center of neighborhood acti-
vity. It also suggests that by combining schools and parks
together that the educational needs can be enhanced by the
park and that the leisure time demands of the neighborhood
or community can be enhanced by the school facility. It
also suggests that through joint planning the combined uses
can be more productive and through the sharing of main-
tenance responsibilities it can be more economical to
operate. (Source: Clark County Parks and Recreation
Department) .
Sewage Treatment
Primary - Removal of water of settleable and some sus-
pended wastes in sewage by screening, settling, and
skimming, chlorine or hydrogen peroxide added to kill
harmful bacteria before release to the environment.
Secondary - Treatment of sewage to remove the suspend-
ed organic matter by bacterial decay and aeration.
Tertiary - Removal of most of the dissolved salts and
nutrients from waste water by coagulation, absorption
by carbon, and electrodialysis.
Shear Strength The capacity of the soil to resist
right-angle force before movement.
Slopes The incline or steepness of the land usually
expressed a ratio of "rise over run". Therefore a 10
foot rise in a 100 foot long run would be expressed as a
10 percent slope.
Sound Construction A designation given to a housing
unit if it generally appears to be in conformance with all
building code requirements (See deteriorating and dilapi-
41) dated) .
Vacancy Rate The proportion or ratio of vacant housing
units to the total number of units. This is one of several
indicators of demand for housing.
Water Table The upper surface of the groundwater,
measured in terms of distance from surface of the ground to
upper surface of groundwater.
Watershed The region drained by a particular river.
0
0
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF CLARK COUNTY
Member Agency
Clark County
City of Vancouver
City of Camas
City of Battle Ground
City of Ridgefield
City of Washougal
City of La Center
City of Yacolt
Clark County Public Utility District
Port of Vancouver
Vancouver Housing Authority
Battle Ground School District
Evergreen School District
Vancouver School District
Central Labor Council
Clark County Sewer District #1
Clark'County Conservation District
Clark County Planning Commission
Vancouver Planning Commission
Representative
Commissioner Dean Cole
Mayor Jim Gallagher
Mayor Tom Toolson
Mayor Everett Eaton
Mayor William Alexander
Councilman Carl Rhorer
Mayor Pro -tem Jay Noakes
Mayor Richard Alexander
Mr. Robert O. Archer
Mr. Alex Tyrpak
Mr. D. Elwood Caples
Mr. Paul Grooms
Mrs. Alicia Orde
Mr. Bill Fletcher
Mr. J. Milton Brown
Mr. James Sweiberg
Mr. Wally Miller
Mrs. Silva Bolds
Mr. John Legry
ti
•
•
Ll
0
0
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL OF CLARK COUNTY
N ame
Paul J. C. Yang
Hal Hewitt
Richard Mayhew
Richard Hines
Mike McCollum
Steve O'Brien
Busse Nutley
Monty Anderson
Michael Grant
Glenn Gross
Gilbert Mallery
Larry McCallum
Vicki Pflaurner
Patrick Russell
Mark Turpel
Vicki Cannard
Roger Morley
Byron Liggett
Mike Smith
Anne Dosskey
Paul Gage, Jr.
Christine Johnson
Ilee Davenport
Edith Legry
Marlene Merrill
Linda Irvin
Marc i Dese ive
Technical Staff
Title
Planning Director
Assistant Director
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Senior.Planner
Planner III
Planner III
Planner II
Planner II
Planner II
Planner II
Planner II
Planner II
Planner II
Planner I
Planner I
Planner I
Planner I, Graphics
Intern
Cartographer
Draftsperson
Bookkeeper
Executive Secretary
Zoning Technician I
Clerk Typist II
Receptionist
prepared
by
regional
planning
council
Of
Clark
county