Clark County Agricultural Advisory Commission backs countywide TDR/PDR program, demands 'no‑net‑loss' safeguards

The Clark County Agricultural Advisory Commission on Jan. 28 voted to transmit a package of positions to the planning commission and county council endorsing TDR or PDR programs — provided the programs are countywide, developed with heavy involvement from the Ag Commission and farmers, and designed to prevent net losses of ag‑designated farmable land.

The positions, read aloud and taken as separate votes, passed after commissioners debated program mechanics and risks. Co‑chair Mo McKenna summarized the slate before the roll call ballots: support for a TDR/PDR program; countywide scope across jurisdictions; active Ag Commission and farmer participation in program creation; no designation of land prior to a program being in place; no net loss of ag‑designated farmable land of similar quality; a moratorium on de‑designation for qualifying rural lands; and adequate time to develop the program.

Why it matters: Transfer‑of‑development‑rights programs can preserve farmland by moving development potential to other locations, but commissioners voiced concerns that a city‑led, one‑off approach could inadvertently de‑designate productive farmland, create speculation and result in credits that do not protect farm quality. The commission framed its recommendations as guidance to ensure farmland protections are not weakened during the county’s comprehensive plan update.

Commissioners raised specific design issues. Justin Burger warned that a poorly designed program could make land speculation worse, saying the “devil’s in the details” and urging that designation not precede program rules. Several commissioners cited Kitsap County’s no‑net‑loss swap mechanism and Snohomish County’s FEED program as comparative models, while Kevin Dobbins and others emphasized that any no‑net‑loss standard must guard for quality as well as acreage.

Public testimony and internal discussion also focused on timing and authority. Commissioners expressed skepticism about an interlocal agreement that would let a city de‑designate land now and rely on future credits; several favored a countywide program that would apply uniformly across jurisdictions. After the discussion the commission voted on each proposed statement, and each passed.

What the commission voted (outcomes): the commission voted to support TDR/PDR programs; to prefer countywide programs spanning jurisdictions; to insist that the Ag Commission and farmers be heavily involved in program design; to oppose designation of land before a program is in place; to require no net loss of ag‑designated farmable land of similar quality; to request a moratorium on de‑designation of qualifying rural lands (three‑year moratorium had been discussed); and to request sufficient time to develop a program rather than rushing adoption.

Next steps: Staff said it would summarize the commission’s positions in writing and attempt to add the language to the planning commission record for the next hearing. The planning commission is continuing hearings on the comprehensive plan update and the county council will also review recommendations.

Attribution: Recommendations and the formal roll‑call votes were conducted during the commission meeting and recorded by chair Mo McKenna and participating commissioners (names recorded in the commission’s roll call).