Kittitas County begins 2026 comprehensive plan update; staff flag transportation, small-reactor and rural-commercial issues

Kittitas County commissioners heard a briefing on the county's 2026 periodic comprehensive plan update, with staff outlining preliminary policy ideas for transportation, capital facilities, utilities, economic development and parks and recreation and asking for early feedback from the planning commission and public.

Jeremy Johnston, long-range planner with Kittitas County Community Development Services, told the board that staff are "in the middle of our periodic comprehensive plan update" and are bringing draft policies chapter-by-chapter for initial feedback. He said the planning commission requested more data on levels of service for roads and public transportation to determine whether inter-municipal transit or multimodal options could be supported.

The presentation covered multiple areas. On energy and capital facilities, Johnston said planning commissioners specifically asked staff to study small nuclear facilities, describing them as "micronuclear" sites and asking the county to consider what regulations and review criteria would be appropriate should proposals arise. On economic development, commissioners asked staff to explore stronger ties with Central Washington University for workforce and training opportunities and raised ongoing concerns about rising fire-insurance costs that affect development options.

Chad Beilin, director of Community Development Services, said many constraints on rural commercial development stem from the Growth Management Act (GMA), and observed that county practice historically limited rural commercial footprints to small interchange-oriented uses (he referenced roughly a 4,000-square-foot threshold). "Most of the limitations regarding commercial out in rural areas is limited by GMA," Beilin said, and staff noted recent 2024 comp-plan changes that have expanded some square-foot allowances in certain areas would need reconciliation with broader land-use policy.

A sustained portion of the discussion focused on transportation and emergency access in the upper county. Multiple attendees described that when Interstate 90 closes, Easton can become effectively isolated because there is no continuous frontage or back road. Participants suggested potential secondary connections (Railroad Street and extensions of Tree Farm Road were discussed), but noted obstacles including river crossings and rail right-of-way. Johnston said Easton is "a tricky one" because parcels are divided by I-90 and that staff will review mapping and possible policy language; he emphasized the value of identifying policy options now so the county can pursue funding quickly if opportunities arise.

Staff also urged coordination for parks and recreation, recommending the comp plan draw on three existing county plans (recreation and open space, recreation and tourism, and tourism infrastructure) to avoid duplication and to maximize partnerships with state land managers. On brownfields and mined-site reclamation, staff and attendees discussed potential reuse and the need to identify funding and technical pathways; Johnston said the county had not identified an official brownfield designation countywide.

No formal motions or votes occurred during the session. Beilin announced that staff and the planning commission will begin land-use table amendments at a planning commission meeting the following evening and that two planning commission hearings per month are scheduled for October and November to refine permitted, conditional and administrative conditional uses and definitions.

Next steps: staff will refine draft policies, compile additional level-of-service data for transportation analysis, review mapping for Easton access options, and continue the public planning-commission process through upcoming hearings. The briefing produced feedback and follow-up tasks but no regulatory decisions at this meeting.