Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners present housing 'toolbox' to respond to Growth Management Hearings Board rulings
Summary
City planners showed a spreadsheet toolkit modeling zoning, incentives and funding options to help Sedro‑Woolley meet state housing‑capacity requirements after recent Growth Management Hearings Board decisions (Mercer Island, Kitsap County) raised new expectations about documenting incentives for lower‑income housing.
City planning staff presented a “toolbox” spreadsheet to the Sedro‑Woolley City Council and Planning Commission that models how zoning changes, density and height incentives, cottage‑housing and financial tools might change the city’s capacity to accommodate housing across income bands.
Donna and Matt, two planning staff members, said the presentation responds to recent Growth Management Hearings Board rulings — notably Mercer Island and Kitsap County decisions — that, according to staff, require cities not only to identify land but also to document “specific subsidies and incentives” that make development affordable to extremely low, very low and low income households.
Donna and Matt showed a spreadsheet that applies different assumptions to the city’s land‑capacity analysis and reports potential unit changes by area‑median‑income (AMI) bands (0–30%, 30–50%, 50–80%, 80–100%, 100–120%, 120%+). The toolkit allows staff or officials to select single tools (for example, a cottage‑housing ordinance or an MFE workforce housing program) or combinations (multiple rezones, density bonuses, reduced lot sizes) and view modeled impacts across AMI bands.
Presenters emphasized that the spreadsheet is a planning tool — not a guarantee of units built — and that many low‑AMI units (especially 0–30% AMI) require deep subsidies and are difficult to produce without external funding. Nikki and other staff noted state guidance has not been updated and the recent hearings board decisions are among the first tests of newer legislative requirements, so cities near their plan deadlines face new compliance complexity.
Staff highlighted example outputs from the toolkit: a set of six rezones together produced modeled increases in the 30–50% AMI band and near‑sufficiency for the 50–80% band, while incentives such as inclusionary bonuses and height/density incentives produced larger modeled gains in the 50–80% band. They cautioned the 0–30% band remains the largest shortfall and would require substantial subsidy or land donation to close.
Council members and planning commissioners asked practical questions about staggering rezones, impacts on property owners in areas proposed for CBD rezoning, and how developer economics and funding gaps would be addressed. Commissioners suggested outreach to state legislators and neighboring cities to coordinate responses and possible requests for additional time or resources from the state.
No formal action was requested at the meeting; staff asked for direction on which tools the council and planning commission want them to study next and which combinations of changes to model further.
