Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Countywide TDR policy sparks debate; Vancouver memo urges more cautious language
Summary
Staff presented proposed countywide planning policy amendments including a new transfer‑of‑development‑rights (TDR) policy, prompting disagreement between cities and councilors over specificity and legal risk. Staff said any TDR program would be adopted post‑plan adoption and not necessarily tied to immediate UGB decisions.
County staff introduced revisions to countywide planning policies on July 1 that include proposed language recognizing transfer of development rights as a tool; the new draft policy prompted objections from the City of Vancouver and a multi‑city debate among councilors.
Oliver (community planning staff) told the council that the draft adds a fourth bullet to policy 1.1.7 recognizing innovative programs, including transfer of development rights, and that a new proposed policy 1.1.24 would have the county and participating cities "work cooperatively to adopt a countywide transfer of development right program to support mutual agreed‑upon conservation goals." He said the language was drafted in coordination with several smaller cities and a consultant.
The response: Vancouver submitted a June 18 memo objecting to the specific draft language for 1.1.24 and suggested alternate wording that would emphasize feasibility study, program scope and the ability for cities to opt in or out. Councilor Little said she favored acknowledging TDRs as a recognized tool but opposed the specific 1.1.24 language as written, warning that detailed language in the comp plan could be used in legal challenges tied to urban growth boundary decisions.
"I do not support this language but I do support including it as a tool that we can use," Councilor Little said, urging general, non‑contingent wording and a separate post‑plan process to design a TDR program.
Staff clarification: Oliver and staff said the draft policy would not require immediate implementation or tie a TDR program to current UGB expansions; rather, adoption and program design would be a post‑adoption cooperative process with participating cities. Amber Smith, chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney, clarified procedural expectations for any post‑adoption motions or hearings and confirmed councilors' options for future actions.
Other land‑use issues: staff also reviewed proposed text changes to policy 1.1.14 (zone changes should "generate greater economic benefit" rather than simply higher‑density jobs) and an annexation policy (12.01) where Vancouver asked staff to remove a phrase about cities "designating areas to be annexed"; staff recommended retaining collaborative language to encourage coordination without requiring cities to prepare annexation plans.
What happens next: staff will incorporate feedback, maintain the draft for public comment at the planning commission and public hearings, and return to the council for formal action during the scheduled hearings later in July. No formal policy decisions were made at the work session.
