2026-9-14 CDS_SS_BRIEFINGS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Several peer jurisdictions have responded by: • Substantially revising their TDR programs; • Shifted emphasis to public purchase of development rights or conservation easements; • Using TDR as a limited or residual conservation tool rather than a primary growth-management mechanism; or • Maintaining programs with limited activity due to restricted market demand. Kittitas County's development pattern, available infrastructure capacity, and limited number of city partners with active TDR frameworks more closely resemble jurisdictions with limited program than the high-volume King County model. The absence of a TDR bank and limited interlocal agreements with incorporated cities further constrain the ability of a private TDR market to function effectively. D.Legal Review—Vested Rights,Takings Exposure, and Transition The Prosecuting Attorney's Office provided the following guidance, summarized for policy consideration: • Issuance of a TDR certificate does not vest a future receiving-site development application to the regulations in effect when the certificate was issued. Vesting for the receiving-site project occurs when a complete project application is submitted under the regulations in effect at that time. • Previously issued certificates retain the TDR credit established through the completed sending- site transaction, including the certificate's validity and quantity. However, issuance of a certificate does not preserve prior receiving site regulations for future development proposals They do not carry the prior code forward for future receiving-site projects. • Previously issued certificates must remain redeemable. Eliminating a practical means of redemption may create a takings concern. • The County may amend receiving-site rules,provided the amendments do not make existing certificates essentially un-redeemable. • The County may prospectively repeal the TDR program if it adopts a"legacy certificate" provision that establishes an enforceable transition framework for already-issued certificates. Such a provision could apply the receiving-site rules in effect at the time of certificate issuances or another clearly defined and legally supportable framework. This legal guidance confirms that either substantial program revision or prospective repeal may be legally feasible,provided that the County adopts appropriate protections for holders of existing TDR certificates . 4. Preliminary Options Consistent with the Work Plan, staff evaluated two primary paths. Option A—Comprehensive Revision of KCC Chapter 17.13 This option would retain a TDR program but require substantial amendments to address structural and GMA-consistency concerns. Potential amendments would include;