Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedro-Woolley planning staff presents version 7 of comprehensive plan, schedules 60-day state review
Summary
Planning staff introduced the draft 2025 comprehensive plan (version 7), collected editorial and policy questions from commissioners about data, displacement language, ADU rules and implementation benchmarks, and said the draft will go to the Washington State Department of Commerce for a 60-day review before a tentative council first reading in January.
Planning staff presented the latest draft of Sedro‑Woolley’s comprehensive plan at the Dec. 16 Planning Commission meeting, describing it as "version number 7" and saying revisions to the housing element followed local growth-management hearings board decisions and community input from an open house and survey.
City planning staff told commissioners the document will be submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce for a 60‑day statutory review of state agencies and that the planning department aims to bring a first reading of the ordinance adopting the plan to the city council on Jan. 14 (tentative). "After tonight's meeting... we'll send it off to the Department of Commerce to start that 60‑day review," a staff member said.
Commissioners and attendees raised a series of editorial and policy questions. One commenter flagged duplicate household‑income text and minor wording issues on packet pages 43–44; staff agreed to record the edits. Another commissioner noted an internal population discrepancy (page 7 lists 13,098 while page 42 lists 13,080) and asked whether a housing‑policy table is merely what the state requires or represents long‑range unit projections; staff said the table covers state requirements and offered to follow up with the consultant (Facet) to clarify the analysis.
On displacement, a commissioner said the phrase "protect residents from displacement" was unclear; planning staff explained the reference concerns rising housing costs, changing property values and property taxes that can push long‑time residents from their homes, and summarized possible protections such as overlays for mobile home parks or community land trusts.
The commission also discussed manufactured housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). A commissioner asked whether manufactured homes can serve as ADUs; planning staff said manufactured homes that meet Labor & Industries or ANSI building codes are permitted in zones where single‑family dwellings are allowed and that the ADU code will be updated to allow compliant manufactured homes (the current prohibition applies only to park models).
Staff reminded commissioners that the state requires a five‑year check‑in and that a public progress report will be prepared; they also noted annual permit reporting to the state Office of Financial Management can help track implementation metrics such as new unit types and income categories. Commissioners asked whether the community climate policy advisory team referenced in the plan is the city's body or a county team; staff said the group was formed of local participants and could be reconvened for implementation work.
Staff encouraged ongoing public comment and said comments will be accepted until the city council adopts the ordinance. Following tonight’s edits, the planning department will transmit the document to the Department of Commerce for the 60‑day review and expects to update commissioners as the schedule and comment period progress.
Votes and formal actions taken at the meeting were limited to routine procedural matters; the commission adjourned after a motion that the chair declared carried by voice vote.
