Building_development + Cross_cutting

27:04 haroon i second it we have a motion second jeff can we get a roll call brian halbert aye mark bergfold aye kyle fadness aye ron barca hi jack haroon aye alicia duke montgomery aye carl johnson aye seven zero motion passes now we're gonna go through uh five six seven eight and nine each of these are are include a de-designation of ag land so i know that we had talked about a tdr if somebody wants to speak to that now and that maybe we could just get that discussion i don't want to say out of the way but we could just attach it to each of those thank you this is commissioner leduc montgomery and what i have is a proposed policy language change to policy 1.1.24 uh which i think staff had prepared a proposed policy to um for our tdr program and we've had discussion about that

28:02 and i just wanted to propose amended language um that if it was adopted in my mind would then tie any vote to expand the uga through the designation of agricultural lands those de-designations would be tied to the implement of implementation of this tdr program so that's where this proposed policy change is coming from and so i can read my proposed language of the policy and then i have a quick statement on why i think this is more defensible um if we are to move to de-designate any agricultural land um so proposed policy language 1.1.24 clark county and participating cities shall cooperatively adopt and implement a county-wide transfer of development rights or tdr program to permanently conserve agricultural lands while accommodating the

29:00 urban growth adopted through the 2025 comprehensive plan periodic update uga expansions that include de-designated agricultural lands shall be subject to an urban holding designation until applicable tdr requirements are satisfied the county and affected city shall enter into an interlocal agreement establishing tdr requirements implementation responsibilities conservation objectives and timelines the county-wide tdr program shall be fully operational no later than december 31st 2027. the program shall ensure the permanent conservation of at minimum one acre of agricultural land for each acre of designated agricultural land converted through ug expansion while also ensuring no net loss of agricultural resource lands resulting from adopted uga acreage

29:55 or planned housing population or employment capacity resulting from implementation of the tdr program the program shall include a mechanism for identifying and evaluating rural lands for suitability of designation or redesignation as agricultural resource lands if sufficient tdr credits are unavailable or if the tdr program is not operational by the implementation deadline the county and affected city shall use purchase or transfer of development rights permanent conservation easements or another mechanism providing substantially equivalent permanent agricultural conservation failure delay or insufficient participation in the tdr program shall not result in removal reduction or reversion of an adopted uga expansion or a reduction in its planned urban capacity future uga expansions involving designated agricultural

30:52 resource lands shall participate in the tdr program and provide permanent agricultural conservation at a minimum one-to-one acreage ratio or provide an alternative mechanism achieving substantially equivalent permanent agricultural conservation so that is my proposed policy language and i can talk briefly about where i'm coming from with that so the alternative to uga expansion involves you know de-designation of agricultural lands and we had talked previously about adopt tying that to the adoption of a tdr policy and i think that that policy needs to be meaningful if we're talking about actually de-designating lands especially when the county's already been sued for non-compliance with the timelines around this comp plan thinking about defensibility in my mind as an individual commissioner

31:47 the gma requires us to reconcile two obligations rcw 36.70 a.060 requires the county to assure the conservation of designated agricultural resource lands while rcw 36.70 a.110 requires ugas to contain sufficient areas and densities to accommodate to accommodate projected urban growth the department of commerce's rules are also relevant whack 365-196-310 states that ugas should not be expanded into designated agricultural or other resource lands unless no other option is available and whack 365-196-815 explains that conservation means keeping resource lands available for commercial production and preventing their conversion into incompatible uses and then there's been some washington supreme court decisions that reinforce the importance

32:41 of taking the agricultural conservation obligation seriously in the case of king county versus the central puget sound growth management hearings board the supreme court considered uses proposed on designated agricultural lands and held that the challenged amendments did not comply with the gma the court was recognizing the acts agricultural land provisions that protect continued viability of agricultural resource lands and industries and the lesson i take from that is that conservation under the gma needs to have some sort of substantive meeting not just calling land agricultural while adopting policies that undermine a continued availability for agricultural production and similarly there was a king county versus central puget sound growth management hearings board case in 1999 where the supreme court made clear that an individual uga designation remains subject to substantive review for compliance with the gross management act so i think some of these concerns certainly we've heard in our own

33:40 record throughout the process there was the environmental review that identified potential conflicts with alternative two's conversion of ag land and the gma's requirement government expansions into designated ag land um we had our whole you know discussion about tdrs during our original recommendation for what to study there was the agricultural advisory commission that unanimously recommended maintaining existing ag land recently there was an agreement between the central puget resource ag land and we've heard significant and repeated public comment throughout the process um about the need or the desire of the community to conserve agricultural land capacity um and then there's you know references and feedback in the feis the vacant middle buildable lands model and others written testimony that we've received to this effect and so for me the tdr provides an import the policy i propose provides an important means of addressing those concerns with the urban growth that's been contemplated in alternative two

34:38 um rcw 43.362005 and point zero one zero expressly recognized tdrs as a mechanism to permanently protect sending lands while transferring development opportunity into receiving areas and i think that's along the lines of the balance we're trying to achieve here or that's been discussed and so my position is that i find the uga expansions being proposed um are substantially reasonable under the growth management act when there is convert when we're talking about conversion of agricultural land if it's paired directly with an enforceable commitment to permanently conserve ag land elsewhere that results in no net loss of agricultural resource land so if there's a de-designation one area there would need to be a designation redesignation protection in another area so that we're not having a net loss when there's potential concerns about is there enough demand for the capacity

35:33 in the first instance so that's why i support a no net loss approach on both sides on the one hand one acre of qualifying ag land permanently conserved for every acre designated land that is converted while preserving the uga acreage and housing you know population employment capacity that's being proposed to be adopted through this comp plan update i also wanted to ensure that our tdr proposal includes a date certain and a fallback in case there isn't something durable so we don't end up in a situation where we vote to agree with certain ag landy designation but there's not really an enforceable or durable tdr process then that tdr process and come to fruition and so then it's essentially the uga you know is expanded regardless without that intentionality of the ag conservation goals and i think we saw that with our last round where we said yes we were voting to approve these

36:33 various de-designations of ag land tied to a tdr program and then the council agreed with the de-designation but took out our recommendation about tying it to tdr so that's my reasoning for wanting to propose a more specific and hopefully durable connection of voting to de-designate certain ag lands with on the one hand voting to update this policy saying it's expressly being subject to a tdr so i think that's something that we're going to continue to work on as we go forward so there's no net loss of ag land i know that's a lot but that's i put some thought into it so with that said let's just we're going to get there so we're going to start with number five thank you for the for that part of that commissioner uh so we're going to start with the canvas uga which includes a d-dex nation of agricultural resource land and a uga a uga expansion to the east for housing so with that said we're going to discuss that one so if there's discussion about the tdr and whatever this is where that begins but

37:32 we're going to specifically start with each one of these so commissioner barker go ahead this is commissioner barker i i'm i'm sorry chair but i think to go forward with alicia's recommendation we need to go to number 33 the chapter one and get that revision at 1.124 put in place before we go forward with any discussion of any designated land this is commissioner leduc montgomery i agree i think a fastest approach or a streamlined approach would be to go to that um section i propose this policy and then whether or not it's adopted we can then quickly vote on the others in light of whatever the outcome is okay so let's jump to page five which is number 33 uh chapter one land use element uh we went through all these chapters before um so i would take your amendment alicia however you want to do that and we could vote on that up or

38:32 you could go back okay can can we discuss oh yeah sure we're doing 33 now 33 yeah by discussing the