Building_development

2:12:32 David Toyer, D-A-V-I-D, last name, T-O-Y-E-R. With Toyer Strategic Advisors, we're a land use planning and economic development consulting firm located up in Everett. And we've had the privilege of working with the cities of Ridgefield, Le Center and Camas to provide technical advice and expertise on transfer of development rights. As you heard from the cities earlier this evening, relative to their proposed EGA expansions, they do support creation of a county-wide TDR program. And one of the things that we've done in working with the cities was help them propose a language that is in the land use element on page 31. It's county-wide planning policy 1.1.24.

2:13:28 And that establishes a specific policy that directs the creation of a transfer of development rights program. And it also sets it up to allow the county council to require that UGA expansions can be done contingent upon participation in a transfer of development rights program. It ties that to the execution of an inter-local agreement. And so we appreciate the work that the planning commission did earlier this year and last year to make their recommendation in favor of several of those urban growth boundary expansions for the cities. And then you did make your recommendation contingent upon the creation of a transfer of development rights program. And recognizing the need to make sure that there's a policy framework and

2:14:24 a process that would be in effect, that's where the genesis for this language has come from. It has been shared with the council and we would encourage the commission, as you contemplate the recommendations you made previously in support of those expansions that made it into the preferred alternative. But you also likewise make sure that you take a look at that language in the land use element and reconcile how that fits with the previous recommendation you made. And I think your desire unanimously as a planning commission to want to put in motion really a unique and innovative approach to preserving agricultural land as well as providing for helping cities accomplish their growth planning goals. So, thank you, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Any questions?

2:15:21 I think Alicia has one. None, thank you sir, appreciate your comments. >> Thank you. >> Let's go with, Teresa, you're up next.

2:15:38 >> Good evening, Teresa Hardy, H-A-R-D-Y. I have two concerns, the first one I'm going to read. Many of us in the community were eager to see new planning commissioners who we saw as wanting to protect our natural resources. But we're surprised when we watched you support a preferred alternative that needlessly expands UGAs and destroys designated agricultural land. In the case of battleground ag quality rural land that should be designated as ag. We're confused by this decision given that it's been reiterated time and again that the VBLM shows that it is unnecessary to expand UGAs to accommodate the projected growth population. And as Brian Snodgrass, City of Vancouver, just addressed, now the county's final environmental impact statement has put this fact in writing as well. It states, given the planning assumptions for growth rate and jobs acre,

2:16:32 the preferred alternative exceeds the land capacity needed to accommodate the housing and job growth projected for the next 20 years. So even if you stay with your previous position to expand UGAs like you did with the preferred alternative, we believe you owe it to the public to really discuss this. We believe that the UGA should be expanded. Explain why you believe the UGA should be expanded when that's not what the VBLM shows is necessary. When the county's own FEIS document states so, and when it violates the Growth Management Act to needlessly expand UGAs, which will predictably land the county on the losing end of a court battle that could potentially cost taxpayers a lot of money. The next thing I want to address is that as a Sierra Club, we would like to see that you not move forward with approving the changes that have been made four years ago,

2:17:29 which was multi-family residential outdoor area standards. And that are now multi-family residential amenity standards, recreation and landscape has been taken out of that. Originally, four years ago, it was the DEIB who brought it, and I have it in those packets. The first thing was when they brought it to council as an interim ordinance, and that was just a combined landscaping and recreation. Then it went to the biannual, and it was Brian Ng at the time who said that it should not go through the biannual because there were unintended consequences, there were density implications, that it was not a minor amendment, it should be considered under policy. Planning Commission went ahead and approved it, it went forward. Then it went through the multi-family housing options, it went through the tech forum. The tech forum did not include any public input on that.