Building_development

2:06:04 no de-designation without TDR guarantees and protections, if and only if that's in place, then maybe move forward with some of the specific lands identified for de-designation as essentially prime candidates for that TDR program to take effect. The purpose of those conditions was to line the recommendation with the Growth Management Act, directing growth into urban areas while conserving agricultural lands of long-term significance. And a TDR program can do that, but only if it's real, operational, and enforceable. The materials you have, including the proposed inter-local agreements as frameworks, may contemplate de-designation of ag lands and inclusion in the UGA now, with details of TDR program to follow later. And that is where the risk lies.

2:07:02 I have significant concern about allowing automatic UGA expansion after time expires and there's no TDR program. Rather, those lands should be re-designated agricultural if a TDR is not in place by the end of the chosen period. There needs to be a maintained overlay during that process until TDRs and the sending and receiving sites are specified and the rights purchased. If those aren't in place, then there is no functioning TDR program with enforceable requirements and alternative one would then be the better course of action. Thank you. - Thank you very much. Isaiah Irish. - Thank you, Council, for your time today. My name is Isaiah Irish, I-R-I-S-H.

2:08:02 I operate a small mixed vegetable farm in the county and today I'm speaking as an individual. I'm speaking here in what was formerly the prune capital of the world. And although we no longer elect a prune queen every year, agriculture is as critical to our future as it was to our past. I urge no de-designation of agricultural land in the county with this comp plan update. Although some of the land being considered by the cities for de-designation and development has been described as having no economic future in agriculture, I wish to speak to the economic and cultural value of the agricultural land that remains in the county. When we impose our collective idea of conventional farming on the plots of farmland that remain between our neighborhoods, I can understand the perspective of those who speak in favor of de-designating this land. A field of roundup ready corn planted in dusty earth, fence row to fence row is not a desirable neighbor, but conventional agriculture

2:09:01 is not the future of agriculture. Many of the farmers who have commented throughout this process have operations within our communities. They sit on just a few acres and feed their neighbors. These farms are not only useful providing food and jobs, they are also beautiful. They are desirable neighbors. These farmers and farms are critical in regenerating our landscape and carrying the knowledge of land tending and stewardship forward through our generations. Conventional agriculture has devastated the soils. Since the development of petroleum-based fertility in the midst of World War II, we have lost most of our topsoil in this nation. Fertility cycles have been destroyed, forsaking nature to impose our will. Growing 100 calories of corn using some 800 calories of petroleum will never make sense. With this conventional mindset, there is no future of economically viable agriculture anywhere. Farmers in the best-growing land of our nation haven't turned a profit in years

2:10:01 with this conventional agroeconomy. As hopeless as this all sounds, there is hope. Our land has been degraded, but it can recover. Our participation with the land can regenerate our region. If we are thoughtful and observant, we can grow our agricultural output while increasing the value of the communities and landscape. This small farm future relies on ag land being available for next generations of growers. The ripple of de-designating ag land will be felt in many more of the agricultural parcels in the county in the form of land speculation. I believe in the creativity and ingenuity of our community. I am confident we can create the homes to welcome the increasing amount of people who want to call this region home without carving out more agricultural land. I hope the council will be firm in standing with the agricultural community and retaining all of our remaining agricultural land. Thank you for your time today. - Thank you. Alex Luna. (rustling)

2:11:00 - Good evening, my name's Alex Luna, L-U-N-A. An incredible testimony, Isaiah, amazing. I've been a homeowner, business owner, and advocate of Clark County for almost 15 years. This city and county has become almost unrecognizable to me. You can't walk more than a block without seeing the effects of urban sprawl on this place. From towering buildings blocking the view of our most iconic mountains to highways covered in trash, all in what seems to be an effort to rebuild Vancouver in Portland or Seattle's image. I've watched some of our oldest historic buildings be knocked down in favor of shiny, new, uninspiring, dystopian superstructures. I've seen former U-pick farms cut down so that instead of freshly picked berries, we get houses that are a carbon copy of one another, each with a car or two,

2:11:59 all to be off-gassing for years to come. The amount of agricultural land in Clark County has been eroded by the county's actions over the decades since the passage of the original comprehensive plan, and still, it would seem it's not enough to satisfy the insatiable hunger of greed. The county's own modeling shows that all of our current urban areas have the capacity for growth for the next 20 years. If the council selects any alternative that allows for urban growth area expansions, especially those that include the de-designation of agricultural land, they will be illegally permitting the permanent destruction of hundreds of acres of our prime farmlands. Alternative one is the only responsible choice. To use encroaching development as a justification to de-designate land will continue to chip away at agricultural land, which goes against the conservation purpose of the agricultural land designations. If you allow this, you will be responsible

2:12:56 for the destruction of family-owned multi-generational farms that feed our community fresh, locally-grown food. Indigenous peoples have long said, "When the last tree is cut down, "the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, "you will realize that you cannot eat money." I wonder what this place would look like if we valued stewardship as much as growth, if we protected the land that feeds our community and allows us to be resilient as our climate changes. Just as our residents need housing and jobs, they also need food. Thank you. - Thank you. Steve Morass. No need to run. - Well, I know it's gonna be a long night, and I'd like to move things along.

2:13:52 So, for the record, Steve Morass, M-O-R-A-S-C-H, and I would like to talk briefly about the county staff memo and analysis that was submitted today. It's based on some rosy assumptions as to need and how many houses we're going to need in the next 20 years, and I would encourage the county to err on the side of caution with a overcapacity rather than trying to hit the number exactly, and then if a mistake was made, we will have an undercapacity or a shortfall which will lead to even greater affordability issues. Trying to predict anything 20 years into the future is a difficult task, and so there should be some effort to accommodate a somewhat of a slight overcapacity

2:14:51 so there's room for an error to have occurred or for maybe more growth than was anticipated without having an undersupply that would significantly increase costs of housing for the general public. I would also point out that the capacity estimates as discussed in the staff memo are based on this idea, and it comes from new state law, that all single-family zoning districts must allow fourplexes and multiplexes to be built and can't be restricted to single-family only. So the capacity number really envisions that no new single-family residences will be built on undeveloped lands during the planning horizon. That's how they show adequate capacity. So in essence, a vote for alternative one

2:15:51 is a vote for no new single-family developments in the next 20 years, which will also significantly increase the price of single-family homes and make the dream of owning a single-family home unaffordable for most people. Before my time runs out, I wanna turn to the reason I came tonight, which is to advocate for the Jones-McPherson property in the city of Ridgefield UGA. This is property the city has requested to be brought into the UGA. It's adjacent to the UGA on two sides. It's near a new school, and the letter that I submitted together with the Johnson Economics Report that is attached shows compliance with all of the WAC factors for de-designating farmland, and we would encourage you to listen to the city of Ridgefield and include this property into the UGA.

2:16:49 Thank you. - Thank you. - Monica, is what the table?

2:17:08 You guys are making lower, there we go, awesome. I'm not that tall. All right. Good evening, council members. My name is Monica Zazwetha Tabor, T-A-B-O-R. I am here today because I believe that the way we organize our land reflects our deepest values. I believe in a holistic future based on regeneration. We don't just manage growth,