Planning commission reviews draft economic development goals; discusses creative district, microenterprises and tourism

The Anacortes Planning Commission discussed draft 2025 Comprehensive Plan amendments to the economic development element at its May 14 meeting, with staff and consultants outlining proposed changes to goals and policies and commissioners raising questions about wording, scope and implementation.

Commissioners said the update matters because it would guide city support for small businesses, arts and culture, visitor-serving lodging and incentives that affect land use, public funding applications and future development regulation. Staff said the changes are intended to make the goals more actionable and to fold a catch-all “other growth” goal into more focused goals on a balanced economy, retail/commercial, tourism and industry clusters.

John Coleman, director of the Planning, Community and Economic Development Department, introduced the item and told the commission, “Tonight we're gonna be talking about the economic development element goals and policies,” and said the city had recently received about $108,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for the current cycle; staff noted that reference to microenterprise incubator space in the plan helps the city align future grant applications with plan language.

Andrew Oliver of Leland Consulting Group summarized the recommended edits and reorganization. He said the draft reduces duplication by removing a former Goal 5 (“other growth economic sectors”) and moving its policies into other goals. Oliver described ED1 (Balanced economy) as focused on “Foster a balanced, diversified, and sustainable local economy,” and pointed to a new arts policy added in yellow in the draft that recommends partnering with the Anacortes Creative District and supporting arts festivals. He told commissioners the draft also adds specificity on business retention (incubators, technical assistance) and aligns workforce housing policy language with the updated housing element.

Commissioners asked several clarifying questions and offered direction. Commissioner McCombs pressed for stronger, less-“consider”-style language where the draft said “consider” (for example, policy 2.8), saying “considering something is really a goal or a policy” and asking for firmer wording. Commissioner Mills asked whether the Creative District has geographic boundaries; Oliver replied that the Anacortes Creative District is a state designation with boundaries roughly similar to the Central Business District and designed to capture arts, manufacturing and parks areas.

On incubator and microenterprise language, Oliver explained that CDBG funds can be used to support microenterprises (very small start-ups) and gave an example of small structures intended as incubator spaces; he said explicitly referencing microenterprise in the plan helps the city demonstrate eligibility when applying for CDBG projects that create jobs.

Tourism and lodging drew extended discussion. Commissioners debated wording about “overnight accommodations” in the Central Business District and whether references to hotels, motels, bed-and-breakfasts or short-term rentals conflict with existing short-term rental rules. Commissioner McCall asked whether the city could be more direct about creating and funding a city culture and tourism office; staff responded that the city currently uses the chamber of commerce and lodging tax advisory committee funds for marketing, and that stronger language would commit the city to find funding, which may not be feasible in the current planning period.

Commissioner Currier and others discussed strengthening policy language to encourage development of a focal tourist attraction—a “key or focal tourist attraction” that could draw visitors to Anacortes on its own merit—and commissioners mentioned whale watching, Washington Park and Cap Sante as existing visitor draws. Commissioners also asked staff to ensure economic-development policies align with climate and housing elements, including new references to bicycle parking and electric-vehicle charging in downtown parking policy.

Staff direction and next steps: Andrew Oliver and staff will incorporate commissioner feedback (including clearer wording in place of repeated “consider” language, clarifying lodging references, and adding references to fiber and marketing utility assets) and return a fresh, clean draft for a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. No formal binding decisions (ordinances, votes on plan text) were adopted at this meeting; commissioners provided feedback for revision.

Ending: The commission scheduled follow-up work on the economic development element and will review an updated draft at the next meeting, at which the commission plans to open a public hearing on the revised element.