2026-03-30-CDS-SS-BRIEFINGS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Comment—Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan Update March 2026 Public Comment Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan Update Re: LAMIRD Boundary Expansion (RR-P73) & Rural Mixed-Use Policy (LU-P39) Submitted to the Kittitas County Planning Connniss;on for the official record Kittitas County Planning Commission c/o Community Development Services Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. We appreciate the significant effort that has gone into this update and want to begin by acknowledging several provisions we strongly support: the wildfire infrastructure and insurance affordability policies, and the Coal Mines Trail extension to Salmon La Sac. These are smart, community-supported, GMA-compliant changes. Our comments are focused on two specific policies— RR-P73 and LU-P39 —which we believe carry significant legal exposure, lack necessary safeguards, and were advanced without adequate input from the communities most directly affected. We raise these concerns constructively, with the goal of strengthening the plan before adoption. RR-P73: LAMIRD Boundary Expansion The Legal Problem The proposed expansion of the Ronald LAMIRD boundary under RR-P73 is, in our view, the single highest-risk policy change in this update. We urge the Commission to give it careful scrutiny before moving forward. Under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)), LAMIRD boundaries must be drawn around development that existed at the time the county was required to plan under GMA. The statute is clear: counties must establish "logical outer boundaries, based on the boundaries of existing development, to contain more intense development." The Growth Management Hearings Board, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court have all treated this as a one- time recognition standard not an invitation to expand boundaries in future plan updates. This is not an abstract legal concern. Kittitas County has already been on the losing end of this issue. In Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation Coalition (2013), the Court of Appeals upheld the GMHB's rejection of a LAMIRD expansion in Thorp, finding the expanded area did not reflect pre-existing development patterns. Whatcom County spent over a decade in litigation after Futurewise successfully challenged LAMIRD boundaries that exceeded the built environment. Gold Star Resorts v. Futurewise (2009) reinforced the responsibility of counties to minimize and contain LAMIRDs. The legal trajectory is consistent and unambiguous: boundary expansions invite challenge, and they lose. Furthermore, under SB 5042 (now codified in RCW 36.70A.070), the effective date of any action that expands a LAMIRD is automatically suspended if a petition for review is timely filed with the GMHB. This means any development approved under the expanded boundary during litigation could be retroactively invalidated —creating legal and financial exposure not just for the County, but for landowners who relied on the expansion in good faith. ...................................... .............................. .............. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Submitted for the Public Record Page 1