2026-9-14 CDS_SS_BRIEFINGS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Amend KCC 17.13.015: Redefine"Receiving site"to exclude the phrase"all the Rural Lands" and to require location within a city(per agreement), a UGA with demonstrated urban services capacity, or a specifically designated Type I LAMIRD under controlled infill standards. Redefine "TDR density credit"to remove "or land with a Rural Land designation." • Amend KCC 17.13.030(1): Delete or substantially rewrite subsection(g). Revise (e) and (f) so that only PUDs and long plats located inside UGAs (or cities) qualify as receiving sites, or impose absolute rural density ceilings consistent with the County's adopted rural character definition. • Amend KCC 17.13.080(5): Remove the"Rural Development— 1 TDR Credit= 1 Additional Unit"row, or replace it with a provision that TDR credits may not be used to increase density on lands designated Rural outside UGAs/LAMIRDs. Clarify that"Additional Units"means density above the underlying zoning maximum and only in designated urban/UGA receiving areas. • Amend KCC 17.13.055: Limit the authority to decrease parcel sizes and increase density via TDR to projects located in cities, UGAs, or Type I LAMIRDs. • Amend KCC 17.13.010: Add language stating that density credits are redeemable only on receiving sites that direct growth into cities and UGAs, so the purpose and operational sections are consistent. • Comprehensive Plan: Create a dedicated TDR subsection within the Rural Element consolidating goals and policies, as recommended in the March 27 letter. Conclusion The sending-site provisions of KCC 17.13.020 are generally consistent with GMA resource-land and critical-area conservation objectives. The receiving-site side of the program is not. The combination of: • KCC 17.13.015 definitions authorizing use on"all the Rural Lands" and"any ... land with a Rural Land designation," • KCC 17.13.030(1)(g) declaring"All parcels designated as Rural Land shall be eligible to be a receiving site," • KCC 17.13.030(1)(e)—(f) allowing density-increasing PUDs and long plats in unincorporated areas, • and KCC 17.13.080(5)providing a 1:1 exchange rate for Rural Development, creates a lawful pathway for rural-to-rural density transfers. Commerce has identified these provisions as ambiguous and potentially contrary to the purpose of TDR under the GMA. The gaps conflict with RCW 36.70A.020, .030(38), .070(5), .090, and .110. Closing the gaps requires targeted amendments to the cited subsections. This analysis is based on the text of KCC Chapter 17.13, the two Commerce letters, and the cited GMA provisions.