Am I the only one that finds distressing the process use to justify the Legacy Lands acquisition on the agenda for our upcoming "virtual meeting?" Speaking of land values, it is interesting that the most recent major land sale in Camas, the last of the Sharp facilities sold to nLight (which is wonderful for the City) involved a 21 acre site with 165,000 sq. ft. of building, including a clean room, for less than the City is paying for 54 acres of raw land with a number of environmental constraints. That's down from an $18 million asking price a 18 months ago. Maybe someone should look at the appraisal... Here's the comment I submitted. I wonder if there will be any sort of answer provided. In this interesting time of virtual meetings I provide this public comment on the proposal to approve these purchases. I absolutely support their acquisition. Lacamas Lake and our trail system are one of the big reasons I moved here. Nonetheless, I have significant concern, and questions, of the public graphics supporting acquisition.

The slides infer the City of Camas would approve subdivisions as depicted showing substantial coverage of land by residential lot and building. Never mind trees and a watercourse (that somehow disappears beneath the subdivision). This in a city where people wonder if they can fell a dead tree on their property that is threatening a structure. Despite these significant constraints, including sensitive lands draining into a ecologically signifiant lake used for recreation, these subdivisions would be approved as depicted. I would also note that both of these depicted subdivisions depend on road access through undeveloped, and unapproved properties that have yet been subject to a public review process. It is not clear that these properties have confirmed access so support this level of development.

While perhaps I should, I'm not questioning the appraisal. For all I know the value of these properties for a handful of large estates, still closed off to the public, supports the appraisal. I do know depicting the result of a lengthy public development review as a "done deal" is not appropriate. This is especially the case when the properties involved are presently seeking approval of a sub-area plan that would formalize similar significant development on sensitive lands.

Is this depiction a "wink and nod" that the City of Camas presupposes approval of exactly what a developer would submit? The inference is there. I certainly hope this isn’t the case.

Before the Council votes on these acquisitions, I request the City Attorney answer the following questions:

(1) Does the depiction of development, specifically subdivision, in any manner imply or prejudge what the full City review of a development submittal would result in?”

(2) Does depiction of these potential developments in any manner imply the City of Camas supports and considers approvable further development proposals on adjacent properties within the North Shore sub-area plan still going through a public planning process, let alone development review?

(3) Do these subdivisions, as depicted, have approved access suitable for this intensity of development? Does this potential road access depend on expenditure of public money?

(4) Finally, if subdivision of this land was considered feasible and achievable, where do services (water and sewage) come from and does it require expenditure of any public money to make this development possible?

In conclusion, I ask you if a common person looking at those maps, seeing that both rely on road access from the undeveloped North Shore, and seeing these in a City document, would reasonably conclude that decisions on North Shore development have been made? I surely hope this isn’t the case. Moreover, it is this type of miscommunication with the public that led to the revolt against the Aquatic Center. Camas wants transparency.

Again I support the acquisition, but believe the justification for them cannot be circumvention of a public planning process. To preserve the sanctity of the City’s future planning options, I request these answers in the public record before approval.