Three cities back countywide TDR policy; Vancouver objects and will propose alternative wording

Commissioners spent substantial time on language about a countywide transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) program that three jurisdictions proposed as a countywide planning policy. Jose Alvarez said Camas, Ridgefield and La Center submitted the proposal; "any jurisdiction can propose a policy amendment," he said, and staff must include proposed wording and the rationale in a memo for jurisdictions and the commission to review.

Commissioner Kyle pressed staff on why the language appears if there is not consensus. Alvarez said the commission is required to receive proposed changes and a discussion of where jurisdictions could not reach agreement; staff will include the outlier jurisdictions' concerns (he named Vancouver as an objecting party) in the memo for the commission's consideration.

Staff and commissioners described two competing positions: the three proposing jurisdictions want countywide policy language that would support a TDR program, while Vancouver's suggested alternative would treat TDR as an exploratory or voluntary effort rather than a requirement. Alvarez said the memo will show both approaches and their rationales so the planning commission can make a recommendation to the council.

Why it matters: a countywide TDR policy could change how land brought into the urban growth boundary is treated and how development rights are managed across jurisdictions; the inclusion or omission of such a policy affects future land-use decisions and interjurisdictional agreement.

Next steps: staff will draft and circulate a memo that reproduces the jurisdictions' proposed language and objections; the commission will review that memo in a subsequent work session and may hear testimony when the item proceeds to a hearing.