Building_development

35:50 >> State your name. >> Senior Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Rebecca Ward-Palmerton. >> Okay, I think it's important to get an answer to that, because it was stated that all 14 are required. And I'm not sure that's accurate. Are there other points to discuss? Yes, please. >> Yes, as I understand, there's three required criteria and then 11 optional. But I believe they should all be considered, and since the decision is up to us, I will want to look at all 14. >> Okay, so that's a policy decision, I think we answered it amongst ourselves.

36:41 Okay, and I would like to just read for the public's understanding the recommendation by the Planning Commission related to TDR program. Their recommendation, any agricultural land considered for UGA inclusion would be subject to an urban holding overlay, an inter-local agreement that allows a time certain for an equitable TDR program to be developed by the county. And in parentheses with participation and inclusion of all stakeholders, end of parentheses, resulting in an equitable solution to agricultural designation and designation in the county. That's what your motion would remove, Councillor Little? >> Yes. >> Okay.

37:37 Any other discussion on the motion? Councillor Fuentes. >> We're still waiting on a response from legal, correct? >> I think there was a correction related to what was required in terms of those criteria. And it was a policy decision recommendation by Councillor Little to include all 14 in the examination. >> Okay. >> That's not part of the motion at this point, though. >> I was recently talking about TDRs, is that what you're talking about? >> No, the 14 criteria and having it analyzed is not a part of the motion, so if that's something we do- >> Is that part of the motion?

38:33 >> No, a very straightforward motion here, again for the third time, but I know this is important stuff. >> I just want to, I'm comfortable at this point, I don't need to have it repeated. We just had a side conversation, essentially we weren't really discussing the motion at hand. >> That's right. Okay, is there any other discussion, anything from staff? Are you ready to- >> Sure. >> I think before we vote, I'd like to make a statement because I know the direction that this vote is going. First of all, I want to thank staff for all the work that they've done, and we had quite a turnout last night. There were a lot of people that expressed their concerns through comments and public testimony. It was evident that there is strong support, particularly for preferred alternative one. Now, I know that we're not making the final decision today on what the outcome will be, but

39:29 what is important, what I heard consistently yesterday was preserving farmland and avoiding the designation of agricultural lands. I also want to acknowledge the testimony from the Agricultural Commission. They spoke in support of the transfer of development rights, which I strongly support. And it can be an important tool, thank you for removing that for further discussion. Because I do believe that work should happen after we complete the comprehensive plan update and can thoughtfully implement a county-wide program, not just specific to one or two cities. But there's no need to rush that in today's decision. At the core of this discussion is a simple question. Do we need to expand our urban growth areas to meet the needs of the next 18, 19 years? Based on the evidence before us, particularly in the draft environmental impact statement, the answer is an absolute no. The DIS shows that these cities have sufficient, that cities of Richfield and the center in particular have sufficient capacity within their urban growth areas to accommodate projected housing.

40:28 And employment growth over the planning period, meaning the next 18, 19 years. That is critical finding, because if capacity already exists, then expansion is not necessary. It is a policy choice, and it's choice with real consequences. Expanding UGA's requires extending infrastructure, roads, sewer, water, and emergency services into areas that are currently rural. Something that this county is currently not equipped to support now or probably into the future. That brings significant upfront costs and long-term fiscal obligations, costs that will ultimately be borne by you, the taxpayer, and future taxpayers. It also leads to the permanent loss of agricultural land, something that we cannot afford. And this is where the county's own agricultural land study becomes particularly important. The study confirms that the vast majority of our designated agricultural lands meet state criteria for long-term commercial significance and- >> Sorry, can you slow down? >> Yes. >> Please.

41:27 >> And that these are, in many cases, prime agricultural lands. In fact, the study suggests that some lands may even warrant additional protection, not less. So when we talk about expanding UGA's, we are not talking about unused or low value land. We are talking about converting some of the most productive agricultural land in our county. That has real implications for food security, for our local economy, and for long-term resilience. There is also a clear connection to climate change. Expanding outward increases vehicle miles traveled, contributes to higher greenhouses, gas emissions, and makes it more difficult to meet our climate goals. If we are serious about climate action, then our land use decisions must reflect that. I also heard about the need for more housing. I couldn't agree more. We need more housing. But the DEIS makes clear that the issue is not simply local land supply. It is how we use the land we already have.

42:25 That means focusing on infill, increasing density where appropriate, and aligning land use with infrastructure and transportation investments. This is about discipline and planning. Under the Washington Growth Management Act, we are called to manage growth responsibly. To direct it into areas where it can be supported efficiently and sustainably. Expanding outward before we fully utilize existing capacity rounds counter to that intent. I encourage, I implore this council to carefully consider what our constituents are asking for. Last night, we heard clear support for a more conservative approach. One that protects farmland and prioritizes responsible growth. We should take that seriously. We must also consider the broader implications of our decisions today. Choosing a preferred alternative that expands UGA's unnecessarily could expose the county to legal challenges if it is consistent with the Growth Management Act or not adequately supported by the record. This is a risk we should not take lightly.

43:23 And finally, this is not about stopping growth. Growth is coming, and we should plan for it. But we must do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, environmentally sustainable, supports food security, and reflects the values of our community. Know that this is not the final decision. But I strongly reject the Planning Commission's proposal and recommendations. >> Chair? >> Yes, please go ahead. >> Two days ago, the data that we had said alternative two would provide an excess of 38,000 housing units. The information we got yesterday says it's only eight. That is a huge discrepancy. And this data is still four years old and needs to be updated. I think the prudent thing to do is to make sure that we have our options open. Once we close them, we can't go back.

44:23 If that model changes more and we find out we have a deficit, we've got a real problem if we don't study these other alternatives.