Sedro-Woolley planners review land-capacity analysis and package of housing-policy options

Sedro-WoolleyPlanning Commission members received a detailed review March 18 of the cityland-capacity analysis and a suite of housing-policy options that staff and consultants say the city could use to meet state-required housing and employment allocations.

The presentation was led by Tom Glover, Sedro-Woolley planning director, and Matt Covert, a senior planner with the cityconsulting team. Covert told commissioners the analysis translates available assessor and permit data, critical-area deductions and infrastructure assumptions into a zone-level estimate of how many housing units and jobs the citycan accommodate under current regulations. "You have to show that in your plan that you have the capacity to accommodate the population, housing, and employment growth for a 20-year period," Covert said.

Why it matters: Washington state guidance and recent legislation require cities to demonstrate housing capacity across income bands (including units affordable to households below 80% of area median income). That changes how cities count housing need and can produce shortfalls in lower-income bands even where total population capacity appears sufficient.

Key findings and numbers - Baseline population used in the analysis: 12,596 (2022). The technical allocation Covert presented shows an additional roughly 4,000 people assigned to Sedro-Woolley under the county process (the packet lists 16,596 as the relevant growth allocation figure when the baseline and target are compared). - The county-derived housing allocation that the city must plan to meet totals about 2,360 housing units when income bands are combined; much of that required capacity falls below 80% AMI, the statedefinition of lower-income. - The cityland-capacity analysis (LCA) as presented shows current zoned capacity of about 2,000 housing units and capacity for nearly 5,000 people under the consultantsassumptions; adjustments the team plans to make (inventorying recent permits and pipeline projects) will change those counts. - Staff accounted for recent pipeline projects, including 143 units in two proposed mixed-use developments, which reduce the number of additional units the city must plan for.

Methodology and assumptions discussed Covert reviewed the main assumptions used to convert gross acreage to developable acres and then to housing units: deductions for critical areas and easements, a roughly 15% deduction to reflect infrastructure needs (street right-of-way, stormwater facilities), market-factor deductions for the likelihood of a site developing within the planning horizon, and household-size and occupancy-rate multipliers to convert units into population. The presentation used a citywide household size of 2.58 persons and an occupancy rate of about 96%.

The consultants also noted that the LCA is typically done at the zone level rather than parcel-by-parcel because critical-area boundaries and site constraints are often verified only through on-site studies. Covert said that where code changes have already been adopted (for example, allowances for accessory dwelling units or cottage clusters), the analysis should accommodate them when possible but cannot count proposed changes until they are in force.

Commissioner input and technical questions Commissioners repeatedly urged staff to incorporate local, site-specific data and recent permit information before finalizing the numbers. Commissioner Fattizzi said the city already has code and projects adopted since 2014 that increase capacity and requested that staff recalculate capacity with those changes and known pipeline projects included. Commission members pressed for more defensible density assumptions in the mixed-commercial and central business districts, including whether the existing per-building or per-acre assumptions understate how many units frequent redevelopment or PRD (planned residential development) formats can yield.

Several commissioners raised practical limits on how much vertical density is feasible in Sedro-Woolley, citing fire-department response and equipment constraints and the citydesire to protect CBD character. Commissioners also flagged parking requirements as a constraint on some higher-density approaches.

Policy options discussed Staff and the consultant presented a package of policy tools commissioners could consider to close any remaining capacity gap and encourage targeted housing types. The menu included: - Density bonuses tied to affordability covenants (additional units allowed in exchange for recorded affordability commitments). - Encouraging or clarifying multifamily development on underused mixed-commercial parcels and allowing first-floor residential on non-street-fronting building faces, with design standards that would make future conversion back to commercial feasible. - Continuing and refining PRD approaches and using site plans (for example, the Duke's Hill proposal) to calibrate density assumptions where 3-acre+ parcels make higher yields feasible. - Middle-housing code changes (duplexes, triplexes, townhomes) where appropriate and already enabled tools such as cottage housing and ADU rules; the city will need to update ADU code to meet state requirements. - Administrative reforms and fee reductions, including preapproved ADU plans and possible reductions or waivers of permit and utility fees for projects that meet affordability criteria. - Programmatic tools such as ground leases of city land to housing nonprofits, partnering with nonprofit housing developers and land trusts, and exploring multifamily tax-exemption (MTE/MFTE) programs.

Public comment Tina Tate, chief executive officer of Skagit Habitat for Humanity, addressed the commission during general comment: "I am just very interested in looking at how affordable homeownership might be able to fit into the comp plan," she said, and said she was "super excited to follow this."

Next steps Staff and the consultant said they will incorporate commissioner feedback and site-level information into a revised LCA and return with updated numbers. Covert asked commissioners to share site plans, permit records, and pro formas (he specifically requested PRD site plans such as Dukes Hill) so the consulting team can refine the density assumptions and re-run the capacity estimates. Staff noted timing constraints tied to grant deadlines (June 30 for some grant work) and the year-end deadline for the comprehensive-plan update and said the commissionwould see refinements at future meetings (the commission set April 15 as its next regular meeting and kept the option of an additional special meeting).

Ending The presentation closed with staff committing to revise the LCA with local permit and site-plan data, to quantify how PRDs and recently permitted projects change the need, and to return to the commission with a narrower set of recommended code and program options to pursue. No new formal ordinance or map changes were adopted at the March 18 meeting.