The Planning Commission held a public meeting on 9/15/26 to hear the Planning Department’s proposal to streamline permits in the interest of of reducing staff time, improving efficiency, and providing an easier to follow process for applicants. SGA and others provided public comment that seemed to make an impact on commissioners. This resulted in commissioners discussing the importance of public involvement as well as asking the Planning Department to complete their proposal so the commission can see the full details before recommending to council. There will be a follow-up meeting scheduled for this, likely in October.
This is a two hour video of the meeting. To skip to Public Comments, jump to 1:13 to 1:31. Listen further for commissioners’ discussion of public involvement, 10% discretionary flexibility on setbacks, and decision to delay to a further meeting to be provided the complete details of Planning’s proposal (it was not complete at time of meeting).
Residents who provided in-person Public Comments emphasized that the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan require ongoing, meaningful public involvement, and that as the City’s taxpayers they deserve a real voice in land‑use decisions. They noted that SGA has provided policy‑based recommendations and urged staff to collaborate with community groups to create a streamlined process that still produces good outcomes. Multiple commenters raised concerns that current “check‑box” reviews in the R1 zone ignore the Master Plan’s intent, and that neighbors have been denied meetings and left without responses to comments submitted months ago. They argued that the City should map the R1 zone, take the time needed to get streamlining right, and ensure that any administrative flexibility—such as reduced buffers or setbacks—includes direct neighborhood involvement. Overall, speakers called for transparency, timely communication, and a process that honors both code requirements and community impacts. There were written comments that also emphasized these points as well as that there is no reason to rush this process as it will have significant impact on Anacortes for years.
See the Meeting Agenda Packet.
Ian Munce submitted a wonderful letter for this meeting to the Planning Department that provides historical context and summary of what is at stake.
INTRODUCTION
Former City Councilmember Ben Root, 1994-1997, continually urged his colleagues and staff to recognize that we are “a city in a park” and shape our actions accordingly. Former City Couincilmember Bud Rock, 1978-82 and 1996-2007 constantly reminded that “neighbors have property rights too”. Mayors Rice, Doyle Geer, and Maxwell prioritized long range infrastructure planning focused around affordability and critical area protections, and insisted on complete transparency, honesty, the golden rule, and issues being properly discussed in public.
How things have changed. Current City leadership agreed in private to plan and program to bring 3,000 new households to town and do so without any consideration of cost to existing taxpayers and ratepayers, as required by Comprehensive Plan CF Policy 4.2, and without any consideration of the environmental destruction that will follow building in previously protected natural and critical areas. They went on to eliminate the CP directive that new development pay its own way and set the stage for existing ratepayers and taxpayers to absorb these costs, e.g. charging new development for only “a share” and not “its share” of necessary infrastructure.
As to the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update, they just ignored the fact that for 30 years now all the sewer, water, and stormwater lines were sized for buildout at the current sewer plant capacity of 19,300. We know just from the Draft 2025 Sewer Plan embraced by the City Council last year that upgrading existing sewer lines to accommodate 3,000 more households will cost $45 million. The Draft 2025 Water System Plan, still withheld from public review, will likely involve a similar capital amount, as will the 2025 Stormwater Plan (where capital costs are concealed by emojis). Finally, expanding the sewer plant itself will cost $50 million, again just for 3,000 more households. My projection that monthly City utility bills will double, and double soon, is probably an understatement when new State mandates for nutrient removal from sewer and stormwater discharges are understood and factored into the rate base.
City staff have clearly been instructed to somehow locate enough buildable land in the City to accommodate 3,000 more households, but to do so they started by excluding from their calculations the mandatory buffers designed to protect our remaining wetlands, streams, aquifer recharge areas, and geologically hazardous areas. 2024 Land Capacity Analysis, p.8. For instance, a 300 foot buffer for a one acre wetland will require twelve acres of buffer. Further, this Report just ignores the critical areas that the City has neglected to identify and map and just ignores multiple subdivision covenants and native growth protection easements established as environmental mitigation over the past 30 years.
A. DUE PROCESS
I. DUE PROCESS – PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE
Now that the Commission has acknowledged its error in operating under a statute that has been inapplicable to the City of Anacortes for thirty years now, i.e. RCW 35.63, and after strenuously resisting acknowledging these duties and responsibilities during the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Commission needs to eliminate the reference to this obsolete statute in its current Rules of Procedure, Authority, §1.1. The only correct reference is to RCW 35A.63. Adding a reference to RCW 35.63 introduces ambiguity that State law does not authorize or countenance.
As a personal aside, the Commission has a moral obligation to apologize on the record to Bill Turner for literally mocking him when he pointed this blatant error when he raised it at the outset of the CP/DR Update process. Fortunately you did not dissuade him from participating but how many others were frozen out by your disparagements? And the City Council’s unconscionable $3,000 screening fee for CP Amendments to be considered on the City Council’s Rocket Docket? A fee that the Commission simply accepted without question.
The ‘misstep’ as to avoiding RCW 35A.63.020 now needs to be avoided going forward:
“If any person or persons on a planning agency concludes that he or she has a conflict of interest or an appearance of fairness problem with respect to a matter pending before the agency so that he or she cannot discharge his or her duties on such an agency, he or she shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in the deliberations and the decision-making process with respect to the matter. If this occurs, the appointing authority that appoints such a person may appoint a person to serve as an alternate on the agency to serve in his or her instead in regard to such a matter.”
This needs to be a routine inquiry on the record on each matter that comes before the Commission. Such conflicts are to be expected and carry no approbation, as evidenced by the second sentence in RCW 35A.63.020. Simple fairness demands no less and the due process requires it.
II. DUE PROCESS – THE BURDEN OF PROOF
(AS TO THE PRESENT OR ABSENCE OF CRITICAL AREAS)
Anacortes Municipal Code (AMC) 19.70.025(G) is unambiguous: “Violations of this chapter are subject to AMC Title 20, Civil Enforcement and Penalties.Where a violation occurs within a suspected protected critical area or as depicted on City mapping, the property owner must provide an appropriate critical areas report to determine impacts. The report may be subject to a third-party review at the property owners expense”. Emphasis added.
Yet, under directives for City staff to create development sites out of natural areas that are designated for protection under the current City code, current City practice is to the illegitimately transfer the responsibility to concerned citizens. See e.g. Munce v. City of Anacortes, Skagit County Superior Court Case No. 24-2-00221-29 (the City denied, and continues to deny, three acres of wetland and wetland buffer protection at 4417/4419 H Avenue because Appellant Munce could not ‘prove’ to the satisfaction of the City that it was in fact a wetland and this despite the fact that the relevant this wetland has been designated on multiple City maps for decades as “wetlands”, “potential wetlands”, and/or “suspected wetlands”.
Apparently, it is necessary to comply with the State Environmental Protection Act, the State Environmental Policy Act, and common decency to add to AMC 19.70.025(G) along the lines of “If the City declines to enforce this provision, this Ordinance specifically authorizes third party enforcement actions against suspected violators and the recovery of legal fees and costs from the City”.
III. DUE PROCESS – BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE – R1 ZONE
The City’s 2024 Land Capacity Analysis, referred to in the Introduction to this Memorandum, ignored critical areas and their regulatory buffers to conclude that there were 99 building sites in the 298 acre R1 zone. However, the R1 Reconnaissance Report, Facet, 2024 (Report) presents a Best Available Science Report with mapping that frankly ridicules this notion. Snide remarks from some at the City have been made along the lines of “well this report was commissioned by NYMB neighbors”. Yet, the same consulting firm, Facet, has recently been commissioned and relied upon by the City for professional reviews.
Unless the City presents and adds a professional critique of this Report, the following sentence needs to be added to AMC 19.70.035(A): “Further, in the R1 zone different SEPA thresholds apply and relevant analyses must be performed as to the Best Available Science set forth in the R1 Reconnaissance Report, Facet, 2024.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Detailed comments as to the specific changes recommended by staff will follow.
Sincerely,
Ian S. Munce, AICP
