Date: July 13th, 2026
Subject: Nihart comment on AMC Title 19, Unified Development Code
Hello Planning Commission:
I have some concerns regarding the AMC Title 19, Unified Development Code proposal I am hoping the Planning Commission members can help me understand better.
- How does doing a substantial process change at the same time as a huge time-consuming, complex process provide for “better” outcomes than completing the SMP/CAO updates and approval first than doing a process improvement project complete with Public Involvement? (Not to mention not only does this put a huge burden on City Staff, the Planning Commission and Council it is being done during the summer vacation time.)
- What part so the AMC Title 19, Unified Development Code proposal addresses the issues brought up by the FACET Report commissioned by the City? How can a process improvement happen without addressing the issues brought up that report?
SGA has some suggested edits/additions to the proposal, a proposal that should happen after the SMP/CAO update and FACET Report Analysis:
- It is important to communicate early to neighbors and get their input on major projects. Thus, adding language such as requiring a neighborhood meeting or equivalent early outreach for Type 2, shoreline, critical area, and multifamily projects before SEPA threshold determinations or site plan approval. In addition, require notice plus a comment period before the City issues DNS or MDNS on major projects.
- Environmental issues should be kept open until the project is fully defined. This would require the site plan finality language so that later permits may still revisit environmental mitigation where the engineering package changes materially. Thus, the process should allow reconsideration if revised grading, drainage, access, drainage outfalls, lighting, or utility design could affect shoreline, wetland, steep slope, fish and wildlife habitat, or buffer functions.
- It is important to narrow administrative flexibility in sensitive areas to ensure a repeatable process by all planners and over future years. So, the process should be clarified that no administrative exception or departure may be used to reduce standards in a manner that undermines SMP, CAO, stormwater, floodplain, or comprehensive plan policies. And as important administrative flexibility is not allowed if the result would reduce buffer function, habitat protection, public views, shoreline ecology, or mitigation effectiveness.
- The SEPA/permit sequencing should be much more transparent. The City should publish a single consolidated project summary when SEPA, site plan review, and administrative exceptions are being considered together. To ensue transparency a public-facing decision memo should identify all departures, exceptions, mitigation measures, and unresolved issues before final project approval.
I am all about public involvement as we (including PC members) are the residents – the owners and financiers – of the City of Anacortes: The process should not only preserve public appeal relevance but enhance it. To do this if later engineering plans materially change impacts to critical areas, shorelines, drainage, or access, a supplemental review notice and comment opportunity is required before issuance of site construction or building permits.
The Planning Commission is authorized and mandated to maintain a transparent, accessible public process. They hold regular public hearings to gather citizen testimony and stakeholder input before moving a recommendation forward. I am looking forward to that process.
To close I am very excited that the City is thinking about process improvement. I spent lots of my time at Boeing involved in process improvement projects. I also have a Master of Science in System Management, so it is a passion of mine – systems and improving them.
Thank you for your attention. Much appreciated.
Respectfully,
Mark B. Nihart
Ward 2
