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

Home Browse Search

Public Comment-Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan Update March 2026 We ask the Commission: Has the Prosecuting Attorney's Office provided a written opinion that RR-P73 is legally defensible? If so, we request it be made part of the public record. If not, we respectfully ask why a policy with this level of legal exposure is being advanced without legal review. We also ask whether the County has budgeted for the cost of defending a GMHB challenge, and what the estimated financial exposure to taxpayers would be if the expansion is overturned. Who Benefits? We believe the public has a right to know whose land would be brought into an expanded LAMIRD boundary and whether this change was initiated by a private interest or by community need. We ask the Commission to direct CDS to disclose the following before any vote on RR-P73: a parcel map showing all properties that would be added to the Ronald LAMIRD, the current owners of record for each parcel, and all correspondence between County staff, elected officials, and private parties regarding the proposed expansion. If any landowner, developer, or representative requested or advocated for this boundary change, that should be on the public record. We also ask whether any parcels in the proposed expansion area are owned by or affiliated with Suncadia, Central Cascades Forest LLC, Weyerhaeuser, or any other large landholding or development entity. The 9,700-acre Cle Elum Ridge acquisition from Central Cascades Forest LLC to DNR is still pending and has not closed. The status of surrounding land ownership has direct implications for who benefits from boundary changes and what kind of development pressure actually exists in this area. Internal Contradictions RR-P73 directly contradicts one of the best policies in this update. The plan's redirection of TDR receiving areas from rural zones into Urban Growth Areas is a smart, GMA-compliant fix that concentrates growth where services exist. But RR-P73 works in the opposite direction — it disperses development into rural areas by expanding the boundaries where more intensive uses are allowed. These two policies cannot both reflect the County's growth strategy. We ask the Commission: which one is it? We are also concerned about the cumulative effect of RR-P73 combined with the Workforce Housing Rural Infill Overlay (WHRIO). If the WHRIO can be applied anywhere residential is permitted, and the LAMIRD boundary is simultaneously expanded, the combined effect could authorize significant new density in rural areas — precisely the outcome the GMHB has repeatedly rejected. Infrastructure & Community Input The GMA requires that public facilities and services have sufficient capacity to serve new development within a LAMIRD. We ask whether the County has confirmed water, sewer, fire, and road capacity with all relevant providers for the proposed expansion area. Has the Kittitas County Fire District been consulted? Has a SEPA environmental review been conducted? Most importantly, we ask the Commission to consider who was at the table when this policy was drafted. The Easton community has invested hundreds of volunteer hours in subarea planning, emergency preparedness, and community engagement. We have repeatedly invited County officials and the Fire District to participate in our meetings. We have asked, again and again, to be part of the process. Adopting a major boundary expansion that directly affects our Subrnitterl for the Public Reccrd Page 2