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