Laserfiche WebLink
From: Leto Castrilli <br /> To: Jeremy Johnston <br /> Cc: Laura Osiadacz <br /> Subject: Easton Subarea Plan Amendment Comment <br /> Date: Sunday,April 26,2026 10:53:40 PM <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 /> Hello Jeremy, <br /> I would like to thank you for hearing the communities' feedback and proposing the revisions <br /> and amendments to the Easton Subarea plan. I sincerely hope they are accepted. I am certain <br /> there has been more community input in the last few weeks than the last two years combined <br /> -thank you for hearing it out. It is a shame we don't have more time, but I am glad to know <br /> that the communities' feedback is being heard and acted upon. <br /> I support all amendments. To reiterate and elaborate on them: <br /> 1. "One voice" for Easton should no longer be mentioned. Unless the town of Easton is <br /> someday incorporated, there will never be a group that has the ability to speak for our <br /> community, especially not this 'community group' which has had very little involvement or <br /> outreach in the Easton community thus far- hence the under-attended planning meetings. <br /> Please continue interfacing with the community on a one-on-one basis. We reserve our right <br /> to work with our elected commissioner(s) and county planning staff without interference from <br /> any 'community group'. We do not wish to build towards one voice. <br /> 2. All references to specific infrastructure "upgrades" should be removed. These "upgrades" <br /> were being pushed by a select few and are wildly unpopular with the larger community. If the <br /> community wants sidewalks, restrooms, etc, someday, it can be discussed at that time with <br /> the community. Until then, there should be no mention of it or any other specific <br /> infrastructure change in this plan. <br /> Additionally, I would urge the planning group to change the wording of'revitalization <br /> plan'. Revitalization has a connotation that the area in its current state is somehow unfit or <br /> lacking, which it is purely a matter of opinion. It is important that this plan relies solely on fact, <br /> not opinion. A subarea plan is nice to have as a guide when moving forward, but a <br /> revitalization plan under that name is unnecessary and overreaching. <br /> 3. As the sewer system was mentioned in the feedback section, could recent feedback also be <br />