WA Growth Management Act and How it Influences Local Planning

Washington’s GMA (RCW 36.70A) requires cities like Anacortes to:

• Periodically update their Comprehensive Plan and development regulations every 10 years.

• Revise local plans and codes to be consistent with recent changes to state law. Anacortes explicitly states that its 2025 update includes revisions “to be compliant with recent changes to state laws governing Comprehensive Plans.”

• Incorporate new required elements, such as:

  • Climate element and greenhouse gas reduction sub‑element (new state requirement).

  • Updated housing requirements, including accommodating housing at all income levels.

  • Transportation element updates required by RCW 36.70A.070(6).

• Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)

• Transportation System Plan (TSP)

• Sewer / Wastewater Facility Plans

• Stormwater Management Plans

• Utility rate studies

• Public Works engineering reports

The Comprehensive Plan references these documents but does not integrate their findings. If those technical plans are old or incomplete, the Comprehensive Plan can unintentionally assume capacity that doesn’t exist.

This is why a Comp Plan can say “We will accommodate 3,000 new units” without showing whether the wastewater plant, SR 20, stormwater system, or staff capacity can support that growth.

While required elements must be adopted, Anacortes still has flexibility in:

• How it implements the required changes

• Local policy choices beyond the mandatory updates

• Optional amendments included in its annual docket (e.g., local zoning map changes)

Based on the city’s Housing Action Plan and permit data, Anacortes adopted and expanded several middle‑housing tools:

1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – Expanded

• Under HB 1337, all GMA cities—including Anacortes—must allow:

  • At least 2 ADUs per lot, by right

  • No owner‑occupancy requirements

  • Minimum ADU size of 1,000 sq ft

  • Reduced or eliminated parking requirements near transit

  These ADU reforms were mandatory statewide, not a local choice.

  However, Anacortes made additional optional expansions:
  Anacortes went further by updating its regulations to make ADUs easier to build and more flexible, beyond what state law required. 

  ADUs now account for 7% of all new housing units since 2013.

2. Duplexes, Triplexes, Townhomes – Allowed in More Areas

• Anacortes increased opportunities for “middle housing” types in residential zones.

• Duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes account for 14% of all new housing units since 2013.

• This reflects a deliberate policy choice, not a state requirement.

3. Cottage Housing & Small‑Scale Multifamily

• The city incorporated cottage housing and small multifamily forms into its regulatory toolkit (via the Housing Action Plan).

• These are optional under the state’s Tier 3 model ordinance for cities under 25,000.

4. Housing Action Plan (2023)

The city adopted a comprehensive Housing Action Plan that:

• Encourages middle housing

• Supports infill development

• Aligns with state housing goals but goes beyond minimum requirements 

Under HB 1110 (2023) and HB 2321 (2024), cities are divided into tiers:

• Tier 3 cities = population < 25,000

• Tier 3 cities are not required to adopt the full middle‑housing mandate unless they meet additional criteria (e.g., being in a large contiguous UGA).

Anacortes (population ~18,000) is below the threshold, so the city had flexibility. Even though Anacortes isn’t required to adopt middle housing under state law, we chose to do so because it helps meet local housing needs. ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and cottage homes are now easier to build in more parts of the city.

To support middle housing and make it more feasible to build, Anacortes adopted several related updates to our development regulations. These changes were not required for cities under 25,000 population, but the City chose to implement them to expand housing choices and reduce regulatory barriers.

Reduced Off‑Street Parking Requirements

Anacortes lowered off‑street parking requirements for many housing types, including ADUs and middle housing. The City also expanded parking‑reduction options in several zones, including allowing up to a 50% reduction in minimum parking when supported by a parking study.

Reduced Setbacks

As part of the ADU and middle‑housing updates, Anacortes revised setback standards. For example, detached ADUs may be placed directly on a lot line when adjacent to a public alley (with some exceptions), reflecting a broader effort to reduce setback barriers for small‑scale housing.

ADUs No Longer Require Owner Occupancy

The City removed the owner‑occupancy requirement for ADUs, consistent with state law (HB 1337) and local policy direction. Planning Commission records confirm that the City’s ADU code previously prohibited separate ownership and required owner occupancy, but these restrictions were removed in the 2025–2026 updates.

Elimination of Conditional Use Permits for Middle Housing

Middle‑housing types—such as duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and cottage housing—were shifted to permitted uses rather than conditional uses in residential zones. 

While eliminating CUPs reduces some cost, time, and uncertainty for developers, it eliminates neighborhood protections.  The previous process of neighborhood notification, public hearings, and the ability to require project‑specific mitigation such as height limits, setbacks, parking adjustments, design changes, noise controls, or landscaping—no longer applies.

How Elimination of Conditional Use Permits affects our environment 

Removing Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) and reducing setback requirements can have environmental implications, especially near streams and other sensitive areas. CUPs previously allowed the City to review each proposal individually, require public input, and add project‑specific conditions to reduce environmental impacts. Without CUPs, projects are approved administratively, and the City cannot impose additional protections beyond what is already written in the code.

Reduced setbacks can allow buildings and hard surfaces to be placed closer to streams, wetlands, and steep slopes. This can increase pressure on sensitive areas by reducing natural buffers that help filter pollutants, slow stormwater runoff, stabilize soils, and protect habitat. When discretionary review is removed, these protections must be fully addressed through clear, objective standards in the critical‑areas regulations themselves, because they can no longer be added on a case‑by‑case basis.

Because Anacortes is currently updating its Critical Areas Regulations, these 2026 GMA changes are relevant—especially the housing‑related reforms and any updates affecting development regulations, planning requirements, or environmental protections.

The city must ensure its Critical Areas Ordinance and upcoming Shoreline Master Program (SMP) periodic review remain consistent with the most current GMA requirements.

In addition to shaping our Comprehensive Plan objectives, these changes also influence how development interacts with sensitive environmental areas. Reduced off‑street parking requirements can increase the amount of oil, fuel residue, and other pollutants entering storm drains, especially when more vehicles park on streets or in areas without engineered stormwater treatment. Reduced setback requirements may allow buildings and paved surfaces to be placed closer to streams and wetlands, decreasing natural vegetated buffers that filter pollutants, slow runoff, stabilize soils, and protect habitat. And eliminating Conditional Use Permits removes the City’s ability to require project‑specific environmental mitigation, such as additional landscaping, enhanced stormwater controls, increased setbacks, or design adjustments to reduce impacts on nearby streams, steep slopes, or wildlife habitat.

These environmental risks are further compounded by the fact that the Anacortes’ planning department is currently understaffed and cannot consistently provide adequate enforcement of building and environmental codes. Without sufficient staffing, even well‑written regulations may not be fully implemented, monitored, or enforced, increasing the likelihood that impacts to streams, wetlands, and shoreline areas go unaddressed.

As a result, protections that were once added through individual project review must now be fully embedded in the city’s development regulations—and must be enforceable—because they can no longer be applied on a case‑by‑case basis and staffing limitations reduce oversight capacity.

The state has determined Anacortes should provide for approximately another 3,000 housing units over the new twenty years.  Our new Comprehensive Plan reflects this. 

Many residents have expressed concern that the new Comprehensive Plan did not fully evaluate the long‑term infrastructure costs associated with increased density and middle‑housing reforms. Historically, developers were responsible for building and paying for the infrastructure needed to support the number of units they created—including water, sewer, stormwater, and road improvements. Under the new plan, that language has been softened, creating uncertainty about who will pay for the additional infrastructure required to support higher levels of development.

Who Pays for New Infrastructure?

If developer‑funded build‑out is no longer clearly required, the financial burden can shift to:

• Ratepayers (higher utility bills)

• Taxpayers (bond measures or levies)

• The City’s general fund (reducing funding available for other services)

Without explicit requirements, the cost of accommodating new units may fall on the community rather than the developer.

 Sewer Treatment Plant Capacity Concerns

Anacortes’ wastewater treatment plant was designed for a maximum of 19,300 units. With increased density, ADUs, middle housing, and reduced lot sizes, the city could surpass that limit sooner than anticipated.

What happens when we exceed plant capacity?

When the plant reaches its design limit, the city must:

• Expand the existing plant, or

• Build a new facility

Both options are extremely expensive, and neither appears to have been fully analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan.

New State Requirement: Nitrogen Removal

Washington State now requires nitrogen removal in wastewater treatment for Puget Sound communities. This is not optional. Nitrogen‑removal systems:

• Require major new equipment

• Increase operational complexity

• Add significant capital costs

Industry estimates show nitrogen‑removal upgrades can increase the cost of a new or expanded plant by 50% or more.

Who pays for that?

If the Comprehensive Plan does not require developers to fund proportional infrastructure upgrades, the cost of nitrogen‑removal compliance will fall on:

• Local ratepayers

• City taxpayers

• Future bond measures

This is a major unfunded mandate unless the city proactively plans for it.

 Bottom Line for Residents

The new Comprehensive Plan increases allowable density but does not clearly identify who pays for the infrastructure needed to support that growth. With a sewer plant nearing its design limit and new state nitrogen‑removal requirements adding substantial cost, the community faces significant financial exposure unless the city reinstates clear developer‑responsibility language or creates a funding strategy.

The City seeks to reduce staff burden, shorten review timelines, respond to state pressure for housing production, and modernize a complex permit system.  This benefits staff and developers at the cost of public interests.

Why: Streamlining may speed up permits, but it also removes critical public‑review steps, reduces transparency, and increases the risk of unintended consequences — especially in sensitive areas like the R1 Zone. Once a Site Plan is approved, later permits cannot revisit design, environmental impacts, or mitigation needs, even if new information emerges.

Our Concern: Streamlining may speed up permits, but it also removes critical public‑review steps, reduces transparency, and increases the risk of unintended consequences — especially in sensitive areas like the R1 Zone. Once a Site Plan is approved, later permits cannot revisit design, environmental impacts, or mitigation needs, even if new information emerges.

Our Position: Before adopting streamlining, the City must restore early public involvement, require neighborhood meetings for Type 2 and R1 Zone projects, and ensure offsite impacts (traffic, stormwater, noise, lighting) are evaluated throughout the process. Residents deserve a meaningful voice in shaping development — not a system where decisions are made before the public is informed.

Now is the time to speak up. The City has not yet adopted these changes. Public comments and objections can still influence the final outcome from August 19 – September 15, 2026.  A public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission on September 15, 2026.

Although Comprehensive Plans have traditionally served as aspirational, long‑range goal documents, HB 1181 directly amended the Growth Management Act and now requires measurable, enforceable climate‑related policies. The recent GMHB decision involving Thurston County underscores this shift: the Board found the County out of compliance because its climate element relied on vague, aspirational language and failed to adopt policies that directly addressed documented hazards. This ruling makes clear that climate‑related planning must be specific, evidence‑based, and tied to real land‑use impacts. Development activities that affect stream buffers, stormwater pollution, impervious surface expansion, and infrastructure capacity directly influence climate vulnerability, and therefore must be addressed through enforceable policies and implementing development regulations. Early, structured public participation strengthens the factual foundation needed to meet these requirements and helps ensure Anacortes’ Climate Element and Title 19 updates comply with state law.

For Anacortes, the Thurston County ruling signals that future land‑use decisions must rest on clear evidence, measurable policies, and development regulations that genuinely reduce climate‑related risks. As the City updates Title 19, completes the Critical Areas Ordinance, and prepares for the Shoreline Master Program update, it will need to demonstrate that its policies meaningfully address hazards such as stormwater pollution, stream‑buffer degradation, impervious surface expansion, and infrastructure strain. This is not simply a climate‑element requirement—it affects how development proposals are reviewed, conditioned, and approved. A structured, early public‑participation model strengthens the factual record needed for compliance, reduces late‑stage corrections, and helps ensure that Anacortes’ decisions are both defensible under the GMA and trusted by the community.