Fern Prairie residents balk at Port’s airport plans

The Port of Camas-Washougal delivered a message to Fern Prairie residents earlier this month about its plans to annex 12 of its properties at Grove Field into the city of Camas in order to attract revenue-generating businesses to the airport. The message wasn’t well-received by the community members, who repeatedly voiced their concerns about how future development could disrupt their lives in a variety of ways. Nonetheless, Port leaders emerged from an open house, held June 5 at the Port’s administrative office, resolute in their determination to develop the property, preferably with the residents’ blessing. “I hear what they’re saying,” Port Chief Executive Officer David Ripp said after the meeting. “They said, ‘It doesn’t matter if it’s 10 or 15 or 20 years from now, we don’t want to see anything.’ Well, we have to plan. You can’t just put your head in a hole and not do it. We’re trying to plan and move forward. We are a public agency, and we’re going to listen to our constituents and plan something that meets everyone’s needs. (We’ll) try. I mean, you’re going to get people that don’t want to see anything, and that’s not fair either, so we have to meet someone in the middle.” Earlier this year, the Port submitted a site-specific request, part of an annual review process through which Clark County considers changes, additions, and updates to its comprehensive plan and zoning designations, to move 12 of its 13 Grove Field properties from the Rural-5 zone area into the Camas Urban Growth Area and zone the properties North Shore Mixed Development. “The Washington Growth Management Act is requiring Clark County and the cities to update their comprehensive plans to accommodate population and employment growth into 2045,” according to a fact sheet provided to attendees. “Changes to the comprehensive plans and urban growth boundaries (UGB) will be considered between now and the end of 2025. If the Camas UGB does not change with the 2025 update, the next opportunity will not occur until 2035.” If the County approves the request, the city of Camas could annex the Grove Field properties into city limits, a move that’s been long desired by Port leaders, who recognize that they can’t develop the properties without access to City services. “The purpose of (these properties) being brought into the urban growth boundary is in the future, Camas (could bring them into the city limits and be) able to service them property with water, sewer, fire, police, all that stuff,” Ripp said during the meeting. Grove Field houses about 120 aircraft and includes 79 public hangars and 14 tie-downs and a self-service fueling facility, as well as 18 private hangars on land leased from the Port and several private hangars on surrounding properties. The Port owns 13 parcels of land around Grove Field, including five that comprise the runway, taxiway, eight hangars, a fixed-based operator building, and a parking lot. The other eight are located on either side of the runway or are north and south of the runway and hangars. The Port hopes to ultimately annex 12 of the properties (all except a parcel located east of State Routh 500, in the flight path of the runway) into the city of Camas to create opportunities for property development and job growth in and around Grove Field, according to Ripp. “For us, it’s about economic development and developing property,” he said. “We have to create jobs and commerce — that’s just what ports do.” The roughly 30 residents in attendance expressed other priorities. They centered their complaints on their view that the development of businesses at Grove Field would create unwanted traffic and noise, and disrupt the natural beauty of the area. “You have to live out there and feel the atmosphere in that area to have a better idea,” one attendee said. “When I moved out there, I quickly fell in love with it, all my neighbors, the community that we have out there, and it feels like (the area) will be impacted.” The attendees also raised financial concerns. “(The common perception is that) our taxes would go down (if we were brought into city limits),” one resident said, “but I don’t think that’s true because once we’re in the city of Camas, we’re going to be appraised at a significantly higher value by the county, so even though my tax rate is lower, the reality is I’m going to be paying more taxes because the the amount is going to be higher.” The residents collectively groaned in dismay at Commissioner John Spencer’s suggestion that new buildings would “create a buffer, both sound and visual,” between the residences and the airport. “You’re trying to protect the airport with businesses around it, but what makes you think that we want those businesses protecting us?” one resident said to Spencer. “We don’t want all that in-and-out. That’s the problem.” One resident asked Ripp if the Port would “ever end” the purpose of its existence. “The Port’s mandate is to build buildings and create commerce, and right now, you’re kind of ruffling the feathers of this group here because we don’t really want light industrial and commerce out there,” he said. “I know it’s your property, but at the same time, when you run out of property, are you just going to keep buying more property and continue to expand? “Fern Prairie, in most people’s casual observance, is not a great location for this, whereas down there on the river and where the industrial everything already is, it makes sense. This is out of the way, doesn’t make sense, and certainly is not supportive of the airport in any way, shape or form.” Port commissioner Cassi Marshall pushed back on the resident’s final claim. “(We’re asking ourselves), ‘How do we keep the airport?” she said. “That’s the goal. How do we keep it functioning, and what can we do around the airport to make it sustainable?” Annexation of the 12 properties into the UGB would “not affect property owned by others” in the “short-term,” according to the fact sheet. “In the long term, if the Port property is annexed into the city of Camas and it develops as planned, the surrounding property will have Port-owned development as neighbors,” the fact sheet states. “Properties outside the UGB will remain the same and will be on wells and septic systems. For any significant changes to occur on other properties, they would have to be brought into the UGB at a later date.” Clark County councilors will make their decision on the Port’s request in 2025, most likely in the second half of the year, according to Ripp. “The county is moving forward and approving their comp plan, and if this property was to be brought into the urban growth boundary, you’re probably looking at another four, five or six years before the City would even consider annexation, and then another couple of years for the Port to be able to plan and develop, so at the earliest, it would be 2033, but most likely 2035 before anything would happen,” Ripp said. “This isn’t happening overnight, so there’s plenty of time to talk to the commission and discuss it and ask questions (and provide) comments and concerns.” Clark County “is generally supportive” of the Port’s request, and will hold workshops this summer and fall with its planning commission and council to review site specific requests, according to the fact sheet. The city of Camas, which is also “generally supportive,” of the request, has its own “public participation plan and series of meetings to consider changes to its comprehensive plan, including requests to expand the urban growth boundary,” according to the fact sheet. “Our city limits cannot expand beyond what the urban growth boundary is, so if the urban growth boundary was expanded to include the Port’s property, that would be the maximum extent of the city limits in this area, and that would only happen if that land is eventually annexed, likely through the Port’s petitioning of the City and the city council’s approval of the annexation,” said Alan Peters, the city of Camas’ community development director. “At this point, we’re in the middle of a comprehensive plan update that would consider any expansions or changes to the urban growth boundary. We’re not looking for expansion. We’re being responsive to requests. This is one of them that’s on the table.” When asked what types of businesses the Port is planning to bring to Grove Field, Ripp said that while he couldn’t get into specifics, light industrial and/or commercial manufacturing companies that either build or produce products and sell them on site or are airport-specific could be good fits. “The Port is really interested in growth, but well-planned growth,” Port commissioner Larry Keister said. “Our mission is economic development for the community. The reason that we have this meeting and other meetings like this is to get your input as to what it is you would like to see and what it is you don’t want to see. No decisions have been made as to what’s going to go in this area, but if we don’t plan for it now, it will get developed by other people. “The Port is only looking at their property that it owns, not anything outside of that. We have to keep putting ideas on the table to see what the community wants. We’re listening to what you’re saying, and over time, we will develop those (suggestions) so it benefits the Port and it benefits our community.” The Port plans to maintain the airport’s current size, but “continue to make improvements to sustain the success of the airport,” according to the fact sheet, which states that “in the future, the Port could add additional hangars, as well as a multi-use facility where pilots can work on their flight plan, conference rooms can be reserved, and a restaurant could serve airport users.” “I think we’re going to be really thoughtful about the development that we do,” Marshall said. “I mean, part of having an airport is knowing that you have to be a really, really good neighbor, because airports can ruffle a lot of feathers for people. As we’re looking at what the possibilities might be, we really want to be paying attention to the environmental sustainability of it, the efficiency of these things, how they impact our neighborhood, and having you be part of a public process. I want to be optimistic. I think that we can be a good neighbor and come up with the best possible development that we can get on this property (through) a public process.” Fern Prairie resident Jim Keller acknowledged that the Port has a right to develop its property, but hopes that it will give residents a chance to voice their opinions about how the property is developed. “I think part of the problem has been, and always will be, is that the Port’s mission is very clear, and it’s mandated. The Port’s mission is to create commerce, and that’s what they do,” he said. “And so then the question is, ‘Do we have any input on where they create commerce?’ I think what we all have to understand is that their mandate might not align with our personal desires and wants. We don’t want more traffic. We don’t want commercial buildings out there because it’s an urban residential area. We want the airport to continue to exist, but we want to be able to continue to exist and be safe. The issue is simply we have to figure out how to work with the Port, meeting their needs and our needs.”

Related Stories