Laserfiche WebLink
From:Val OLeary <br />To:Jamey Ayling <br />Subject:Suncadia Extension <br />Date:Friday, January 23, 2026 4:16:46 PM <br />Attachments:Kittitas Community Development Services.docx <br />CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Kittitas County network. Do not click <br />links, open attachments, fulfill requests, or follow guidance unless you recognize the sender <br />and have verified the content is safe. <br /> <br />Kittitas Community Development Services <br />Attention: Jamey Ayling <br />411 N Ruby St, Suite 2
Ellensburg, WA 98926 <br /> <br />Re: Suncadia Development Agreement Extension <br />My name is Valerie OLeary, and I am a homeowner in Suncadia. I am submitting this public <br />comment in response to Kittitas County’s request for input regarding the proposed <br />extension of the Suncadia Development Agreement. <br />The current Agreement includes obligations related to infrastructure phasing, public <br />amenities and access, environmental mitigation, and other performance commitments that <br />were part of the original approvals. Given the age and maturity of the project, it is not clear <br />from the public record which of these obligations have been completed, which may have <br />expired by their own terms, and which, if any, remain outstanding. <br />For the past three years the area has experienced reduced hydrological events, and the <br />number of developments besides Suncadia are on the rise. I am very concerned about the <br />availability of water going forward. The demographics of homeowners is changing with <br />more people living here permanently rather than vacation homes. This assumption should <br />be reviewed for its impact on water usage. Is Suncadia compliant with their water rights? <br />My other area of concern is open space. I have concerns with how this is calculated. My <br />understanding is that areas around the houses are counted as open space. The newer <br />sections of Suncadia appear to have bigger building envelopes than the original homes. I <br />think that calculation needs to be audited for compliance. <br />Also, why is the request for 15 more years? When you add that to the existing 5 years, that <br />is another 20 years. I think the extension should be for something less, maybe 10 more <br />years. <br />Granting an extension without first establishing a clear, written record of compliance risks <br />allowing unresolved obligations to be the new standard. It becomes significantly harder to <br />enforce earlier requirements, particularly those tied to timing or early phases of <br />development after the extension has been granted. <br />Since there are five years remaining I would like for the County to review and verify <br />compliance with the existing Development Agreement before considering any extension.