[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6602711,"mediaKeyId","3220744-0a21a42d6522b1a7d67cd1c0cbbb80ff","parentId",3220744,"title","Skagit County Planning Commission forwards comprehensive-plan recommendations, approves recorded motion","audioSeconds",3291,"startMs",43000,"endMs",3334000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3220744-0a21a42d6522b1a7d67cd1c0cbbb80ff&start=43&end=3334","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3220744-0a21a42d6522b1a7d67cd1c0cbbb80ff/thumbnail_43000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6602711/Skagit-County/Washington/Skagit-County-Planning-Commission-forwards-comprehensive-plan-recommendations-approves-recorded-motion","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6602711-db1da61299ea4fd26dba8a4ca89ff92b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180864&Signature=VuACYoCYw6WIQskUlothnQYyTYf9uZUnwGmAwpUdju0ga9kMCWL1W~BvRuUJvOReLCjsheU4eiiVtZViJIGeSuF7TnExgYPoGSt025V2AzOTxGCYHY~WV2OP53VJHIc35pBuf~s7RS3glpc52JwabUug8urjY1KFlQB3UN8Xyo5dtB1IXzeYb8Y4KWWhRABBaq3OMUu~XyoP6u0YaQ7Xe40NXnYhEdSJt9jYgc9jbseMhNrNwx2fxJEJmYDbIFpqssQrJBbvS-ivQPOpQpWhAWyPO2KBwHcB6SF66mOc9rtlGcf7i3JlJYvXnuxYzeE1mzJMDZ4esxZg6pPPqXl49g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Skagit County","date","2025-04-15T00:00:00Z","article","The Skagit County Planning Commission on April 15 approved a recorded motion forwarding its recommendations on the 2025 periodic comprehensive plan update to the Board of County Commissioners, including a factual correction to a Swinomish urban growth area paragraph, support for policies to encourage denser development within unincorporated urban growth areas, and a recommendation to include nine parcels in the Anacortes urban growth area for recreational and operational purposes.

The commission’s action bundles multiple edits and findings that staff and commissioners had debated during deliberations of the periodic comprehensive plan. Commissioner Day asked the commission to correct the Suwinomish UGA paragraph on page 49, saying, “I happen to live on the reservation,” and noting the current paragraph references a facility that burned and omits a memorandum of understanding between the county and the tribe. Planning staff said the paragraph is accurate except for the reference to the Hope Island Inn and agreed to remove that sentence; staff member Robbie read the proposed recommendation into the record as, “remove the reference to the zoning of Hope Island in the Suwinomish UGA paragraph of page 49 as it is inaccurate.”

The recorded motion, as approved, also contains land-use recommendations addressing countywide population allocations and urban growth-area policy. The commission voiced support for policies 2A 8.6 and 8.7 (page 65), which call for collaborating with the Skagit Council of Governments to investigate revising countywide planning policy targets and for working with cities and towns to explore allowing urban levels of development within unincorporated urban growth areas. Commissioners discussed the 80/20 target split (80% of population growth directed to cities/UGAs; 20% to rural areas) and urged that the recommendations encourage cities to maximize density in UGAs so county goals for housing and rural-character protection can be met.

The commission recommended an expansion of the Anacortes urban growth area to include nine parcels owned by the city for recreational and operational purposes, noting explicitly in its recommendation that the expansion “will not be used for the purposes of accommodating population, housing, or employment growth.” Planning staff said several of the parcels are in conservation easements and one is used for city public-works material storage.

Commissioners also added a finding under utilities urging energy resiliency language in the plan. Commissioners proposed and agreed on a finding stating the county should “maintain options for a variety of energy sources at least until such time as technology or advancements in technology negate the need for multiple options,” with one commissioner suggesting the phrase be expanded to “healthy and resilient” energy systems.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve the April 8 minutes — moved and seconded; outcome: approved (vote tally not specified in the record).
- Recorded motion forwarding the planning commission’s recommendations on the comprehensive plan for transmittal to the Board of County Commissioners — moved and seconded; outcome: approved (commissioners responded “Aye”; individual tallies not specified).

What happens next

Staff told commissioners that draft development regulations to implement the plan (including the updated critical areas ordinance) will be presented to the commission at the next meeting, with a public hearing on the development regulations scheduled for May 6 and deliberations on May 20. Staff also reminded the commission that the Board of County Commissioners asked to finish the update by June, and that some grant funding and timelines make that target important.

For transparency, the commission recorded its recommendations and attached supporting findings and letters (including a letter from the Agricultural Advisory Board supporting the recommended agricultural-policy changes) to the recorded motion it approved.

Ending

The Planning Commission closed deliberations and moved on to department updates and commissioner comments; staff said it will deliver the draft development regulations and the draft critical areas ordinance to the commission in advance of the next meeting so commissioners can review the documents before May 6’s public hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Skagit County - Skagit County Planning Commission - Apr 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Skagit County Planning Commission on April 15 approved a recorded motion forwarding its recommendations on the 2025 periodic comprehensive plan update to the Board of County Commissioners, including a factual correction to a Swinomish urban growth area paragraph, support for policies encouraging denser development in unincorporated urban growth areas, and a recommendation to add nine Anacortes parcels to the city UGA for recreational and operational use.","taxTitle","Skagit County, Washington","taxId",5125,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6602708,"Planning Commission urges county-specific analysis before new sea-level regulations, debates 'best management practices' wording",2811,109000,2920000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3220744-0a21a42d6522b1a7d67cd1c0cbbb80ff&start=109&end=2920","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3220744-0a21a42d6522b1a7d67cd1c0cbbb80ff/thumbnail_109000.jpg","/articles/6602708/Skagit-County/Washington/Planning-Commission-urges-county-specific-analysis-before-new-sea-level-regulations-debates-best-management-practices-wording","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6602708-f23f726138cd6c92984f1c5d0ef3bbea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180864&Signature=a-duWP6OZUR2rzJerXtkTdQmIroz1ccERwM1gGKezdLv97MgmYwt8BY6VIvC~GZWSSy4f746EcYiU6uRKS3nAXk-VO1DHZQzFLNiu5qOpu6IqRd9WTHtHlFdySWbBi0XeD3JMiakyXUBLk5JoU10dYXk5aLAbmqoXM0tN-VONSgC0N4woUD3IaL3WgQLbDKCNqP19czqeD5hLLomthKlANaGUn1nJCYv~3Mn5IS~xj34zkym5A-2jyE1sOe7IWT1QZUO79n9cy2fTMNkRs~oHh-Fxym~fqlwxEoj2QILg794OyCYW9csIFuG1O4k9poz9Qh1COKnkxrfXJxLku9v7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Skagit County Planning Commission debated on April 15 whether the comprehensive plan should direct the county to develop new regulations to address sea-level rise before the county undertakes detailed, local scientific analysis and stakeholder engagement. After extended discussion, commissioners agreed to recommend adding conditional language to coastal and resilience policy text requiring in-depth analysis and stakeholder input before developing prescriptive regulations.

Commissioner Day raised concerns that policies calling for regulations on elevation and setbacks read like \"cart before the horse\" when the county lacks a local monitoring program for sea-level impacts. \"We talk about sea level rise but we don't currently in our county have any monitoring or ability to really look at what the science is on that or what that looks like for us,\" she said, and asked that the commission add language that ties regulatory action to county-specific analysis.

Planning staff said available statewide mapping currently relies largely on FEMA datasets and statewide tools, and that the county’s critical areas ordinance update (coming to the commission next week) will include the best-available science used for that regulation. Staff member Robbie told the commission that \"best management practices and best available science are both defined in, in county code\" and pointed to definitions already in Title 14; Clay and other staff noted that the critical areas ordinance and development regulations will include more detailed technical material.

Commissioners expressed different concerns: some wanted a broader, \"environmental science\" preamble that would encourage review of multiple scientific disciplines (geology, hydrology, meteorology) when the county evaluates environmental issues; others cautioned that the widely used term BMP (best management practices) often is tied to stormwater and specific Department of Ecology guidance. Staff suggested that many BMP and BAS definitions are already codified in Title 14 and that the forthcoming critical areas ordinance package will provide an occasion to revisit definitions and technical bases.

After discussion the commission agreed to recommend modifying the relevant sea-level policy (policy 12j-1.1/12j-1.7 was referenced in the discussion) to include conditional language such as \"if appropriate after in-depth analysis and stakeholder engagement\" before directing staff to develop regulations that would require elevation or setback standards based on sea-level projections. Commissioners and staff emphasized that this approach would place assessment and stakeholder processes in the implementation plan so that methodology and local vulnerability mapping can be completed before prescriptive regulations are adopted.

Ending

Staff told the commission the draft critical areas ordinance (including the technical basis and best-available science references) will be presented at the next meeting and will be the vehicle for more detailed, implementable definitions and vulnerability analysis. The commission asked staff to incorporate the conditional language into the recorded motion forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners.","Commissioners argued for local data and stakeholder review before adopting sea-level regulations and discussed whether the comp plan should add broader definitions for best management practices and environmental science.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Skagit County Planning Commission forwards comprehensive-plan recommendations, approves recorded motion

Planning Commission urges county-specific analysis before new sea-level regulations, debates 'best management practices' wording