Affordable living refers to the overall cost of living in a community and whether those combined costs remain sustainable for households across income levels.

Planners use the term to emphasize that affordability depends on more than rent or mortgage payments alone.

Affordable living refers to a household’s ability to meet basic living costs—such as housing, utilities, transportation, food, and healthcare—without becoming financially strained or cost‑burdened.

It means that overall living expenses remain within a sustainable share of a household’s income, typically with housing costs at or below 30% of income and housing + transportation under 45%.  Generally a household earning between 80-120% AMI is considered in the “affordable living” range.

For young families, planners consider total living costs—including housing, transportation, childcare, utilities, food, and basic healthcare—and generally view these costs as affordable when they do not exceed about 45–50% of household income. Costs outside this threshold are discretionary or one‑time expenses.  A breakdown for major expenses is housing (<=30%), transportation (15-20%), childcare(10-20%).  Young families are more sensitive to: transportation, childcare, and housing costs  as well as job and school access.

For seniors, those numbers change because seniors have different cost burdens and live on a fixed income.  This demographic should not spend more than 55-60% of income on total living costs which includes housing, utilities, transportation, healthcare, food and basic necessities, and communication and safety.  Seniors often have debt payments, long term care, and other costs of living not factored into this number.

Planners address disabilities, mental illness, and other household needs by designing housing systems that go beyond rent levels. Instead of treating these conditions as “costs” in a household budget, planners build accessibility, supportive services, affordability, and location needs directly into the housing itself. This includes creating accessible units, providing on‑site or mobile supportive services, targeting deeply affordable housing to residents with limited or fixed incomes, and locating homes near essential medical, behavioral‑health, and transportation resources. Planners also consider additional factors—such as age, childcare needs, transportation dependence, and income stability—to ensure housing is not only affordable but livable for people with diverse needs.

Affordable Living is becoming a much bigger part of housing planning conversations in Washington.  

Area Median Income (AMI) is the midpoint income for households in our area (Skagit).  It is used to determine eligibility for affordable housing programs and to classify income levels.

Capital Facilities Plan — Definition

A Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a required component of a city’s Comprehensive Plan under Washington’s Growth Management Act. It identifies the public facilities a community needs—now and in the future—and outlines how those facilities will be funded, expanded, or maintained.

A CFP must include:

• An inventory of existing public facilities and their capacities

• A forecast of future facility needs based on planned growth

• Proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded facilities

• A six‑year financing plan showing how improvements will be paid for

• A reassessment strategy if funding falls short, ensuring consistency with the land‑use plan

Facilities covered typically include water, sewer, stormwater, reclaimed water, schools, parks, police, and fire protection.

Where the Capital Facilities Plan Is Documented

In Washington, the CFP is documented in two places:

1. The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan

This is the policy‑level section required by RCW 36.70A.070(3). It contains the inventory, needs forecast, proposed facilities, and the six‑year financing plan.

2. Stand‑alone Capital Facilities Plan documents or appendices

Many cities—including Anacortes—produce a separate CFP document or technical appendix that provides:

• detailed project lists

• cost estimates

• funding sources

• timelines

• engineering‑level detail

These documents are typically published by the Public Works Department or included in City Council budget materials. They are updated more frequently than the Comprehensive Plan.

The Anacortes Comprehensive Plan is the city’s long‑range blueprint for how the community will grow and change over the next 20 years. It sets the overall vision for land use, housing, transportation, utilities, parks, and environmental protection, and it guides all future zoning decisions, development regulations, and capital investments. Every major planning or development decision the City makes must be consistent with this plan.

In simple terms: The Comprehensive Plan is the city’s master plan for where homes, businesses, roads, and public facilities will go — and how Anacortes will manage growth while protecting the environment and quality of life.

What the Comprehensive Plan Does

1. Sets the Vision for the City’s Future

It describes what kind of community Anacortes wants to be — including goals for housing, neighborhoods, the environment, transportation, and economic development.

2. Determines Where Growth Will Occur

It decides:

• which areas can grow

• which areas should stay low‑density

• where middle housing is allowed

• where commercial and mixed‑use development can expand

3. Guides Zoning and Development Regulations

The plan does not directly regulate development, but zoning must follow it. This means the plan shapes:

• setbacks

• building heights

• parking requirements

• allowed uses

• neighborhood form and character

4. Plans for Infrastructure and Utilities

The plan must show how the city will provide:

• sewer

• water

• stormwater

• roads

• parks

• public facilities

to support the amount of growth it allows.

5. Protects Critical Areas and Natural Resources

It sets policies for wetlands, streams, shorelines, steep slopes, and wildlife habitat.

6. Requires Public Participation

The plan must be updated with public input, though the quality of that input varies depending on how the City manages the process.

Why the Comprehensive Plan Matters to Residents

The plan directly affects:

• neighborhood density

• traffic and parking

• tree canopy and green space

• environmental protections

• utility rates and infrastructure costs

• where new housing types can be built

• whether development fits neighborhood character

• how the city responds to growth pressures

Even though it is a policy document, it has real, everyday impacts on how neighborhoods look and feel.

How It Connects to Recent Concerns

The 2025 Comprehensive Plan update:

• expanded middle housing

• reduced setbacks

• reduced off‑street parking requirements

• eliminated many Conditional Use Permit protections

• increased development capacity without increasing developer impact fees

• relied on infrastructure assumptions that many residents question

• incorporated environmental review that left major issues unaddressed

The Growth Management Hearings Board ruled that the City met the minimum procedural requirements, but many residents feel the plan does not reflect meaningful public input or adequately protect neighborhoods and the environment.

Concurrency in Washington land‑use planning means that public facilities and services must be adequate to serve new development at the time the development is ready for occupancy, without dropping below the city’s adopted minimum service standards.

In plain language: A city cannot approve development unless the infrastructure needed to support it—especially transportation—is already in place or fully funded to be built within a set timeframe.

Authoritative Definition (Washington Administrative Code)

Under WAC 365‑196‑840, concurrency:

• ensures public facilities are adequate when development impacts occur;

• prevents development that would reduce service levels below adopted standards;

• requires cities to set level‑of‑service (LOS) standards for facilities;

• mandates concurrency for transportation, and allows cities to apply it to other facilities if they choose.

Transportation Concurrency (Growth Management Act)

The Growth Management Act gives special attention to transportation:

• needed improvements must be in place at the time of development, or

• a financial commitment must exist to complete them within six years.

If a development would cause transportation LOS to fall below adopted standards, the city must either:

• require improvements,

• adjust LOS standards, or

• deny the development.

Key Points for Anacortes Context

• Transportation is the only concurrency requirement mandated by state law.

• Cities may adopt concurrency for sewer, water, stormwater, parks, etc., but Anacortes has not done so.

• Without concurrency for utilities, development can proceed even when systems are near capacity, shifting costs to ratepayers.

A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was a special type of land‑use approval that allowed certain uses in a zoning district only if the applicant met additional conditions designed to protect the surrounding neighborhood. These uses were not automatically allowed; they required a case‑by‑case review to ensure compatibility with nearby homes, environmental features, infrastructure capacity, and community character.

In plain language: A CUP was a safeguard. It gave the City and neighbors a chance to evaluate potentially disruptive or intensive uses before they were approved.

What a CUP Did

A CUP required:

1. Public Notice and Public Input

Neighbors were notified, and they could comment or attend hearings. This ensured residents had a voice before a project was approved.

2. A Higher Level of Review

City staff and the Planning Commission evaluated:

• traffic impacts

• parking adequacy

• noise

• hours of operation

• environmental impacts

• stormwater and drainage

• neighborhood compatibility

• infrastructure capacity

3. Conditions to Protect Neighborhoods

If approved, the City could impose conditions such as:

• increased setbacks

• additional parking

• limits on building size

• limits on noise or hours

• landscaping or screening

• stormwater improvements

• traffic mitigation

These conditions were enforceable.

4. Discretionary Approval

A CUP could be denied if the project was incompatible with the neighborhood or if impacts could not be mitigated.

This discretionary authority is what made CUPs so important.

Why CUPs Mattered in Anacortes

Before 2019, CUPs were one of the strongest tools residents had to:

• protect neighborhood character

• ensure adequate parking

• prevent incompatible uses

• require mitigation for environmental impacts

• ensure infrastructure could support new development

• maintain transparency and public involvement

They were especially important in older neighborhoods with narrow streets, limited parking, and aging infrastructure.

A Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is the set of city laws (AMC 19.70) that protect environmentally sensitive and high‑risk places such as wetlands, streams, shorelines, steep slopes, flood zones, and wildlife habitat. These laws limit or condition development in and around these areas to prevent environmental damage, reduce hazards, and ensure long‑term ecological health.

In simple terms: The CAO is the lawbook that keeps development away from fragile or dangerous places so the environment stays healthy and people stay safe.

Critical areas regulations are the specific development rules, procedures, and standards created under the CAO. They are the implementation tools that carry out the ordinance’s requirements.  Washington’s administrative code explains that cities must adopt “development regulations protecting critical areas” and that these regulations must use best available science and ensure no net loss of ecological functions.

These regulations include:

• how buffers are measured

• what studies are required

• mitigation sequencing

• vegetation standards

• performance standards

• permit review procedures

They are the operational details that planners, consultants, and applicants follow.

Currently the Critical Areas Regulations are under review and is scheduled for completion by end of 2026.  There are scheduled opportunities for public feedback.  See Anacortes Critical Area Regulation Updates for information and public engagement opportunities.

In short

• Critical Areas Ordinance = the law

• Critical Areas Regulations = the rules and procedures created to implement that law

The ordinance establishes the authority; the regulations carry it out.

What the CAO Protects

Washington State’s Growth Management Act requires cities to protect five types of critical areas:

1. Wetlands

Areas that store water, support wildlife, and reduce flooding.

2. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

Streams, shorelines, and habitats essential for salmon, birds, and other species.

3. Frequently Flooded Areas

Places at risk of flooding that require special building standards.

4. Geologically Hazardous Areas

Steep slopes, erosion‑prone bluffs, and landslide‑risk zones.

5. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas

Areas where groundwater is especially vulnerable to contamination.

Anacortes’ CAO covers all of these categories.

What the CAO Does

1. Regulates Development Near Sensitive Areas

The CAO sets rules for:

• setbacks

• buffers

• building limits

• vegetation protection

• stormwater controls

2. Requires Environmental Review

Projects near critical areas often need:

• site‑specific studies

• habitat assessments

• geotechnical reports

• mitigation plans

3. Ensures Long‑Term Protection

The CAO requires developers to:

• avoid impacts when possible

• minimize impacts when unavoidable

• restore or mitigate damaged areas

4. Reduces Public Safety Risks

By limiting development in hazardous locations, the CAO helps prevent:

• landslides

• erosion

• flooding

• water contamination

Why the CAO Matters to Residents

The Critical Areas Ordinance directly affects:

• where development can occur

• how close buildings can be to wetlands or steep slopes

• how stormwater is managed

• how wildlife habitat is protected

• how neighborhoods experience flooding or erosion

• how the city responds to climate‑related risks

It is one of the most important environmental safeguards in local land‑use law.

How the CAO Connects to Recent Planning Issues

In Anacortes:

• The CAO was reorganized under Ordinance 3040 (2019).

• Some protections were weakened or made more discretionary.

• The FACET environmental review identified issues that were not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan update.

• Middle housing expansion and reduced setbacks increase pressure on stormwater and habitat areas.

• The GMHB decision did not evaluate the quality of CAO protections — only whether the City had a CAO on the books.

This is why many residents feel environmental concerns were acknowledged but not meaningfully addressed.

Critical areas regulations are the specific development rules, procedures, and standards created under the CAO. They are the implementation tools that carry out the ordinance’s requirements.

Washington’s administrative code explains that cities must adopt “development regulations protecting critical areas” and that these regulations must use best available science and ensure no net loss of ecological functions.

These regulations include:

• how buffers are measured

• what studies are required

• mitigation sequencing

• vegetation standards

• performance standards

• permit review procedures

They are the operational details that planners, consultants, and applicants follow.

In short

• Critical Areas Ordinance = the law

• Critical Areas Regulations = the rules and procedures created to implement that law

The ordinance establishes the authority; the regulations carry it out.

In 2024 the City of Anacortes contracted DCG/Watershed to assist with implementation of the City’s Shoreline Permit Monitoring Program project to determine if development within shoreline jurisdiction is being authorized consistent with regulations of the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and whether completed authorized projects comply with the issued permits.  

The review found that Anacortes’ shoreline permits often lack the documentation needed to show compliance with the Shoreline Master Program, especially the SMP’s requirement to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Across 36 permits, most projects did not include required mitigation sequencing, rarely provided Critical Areas Reports even when located near sensitive habitats, and almost never submitted as‑built drawings or the five‑year monitoring reports required by the SMP. Site plans frequently omitted basic information such as existing conditions, quantified impacts, and adequate mitigation or planting plans. Because these core elements were missing or inconsistently required, the report concludes that the City cannot demonstrate that shoreline development is being permitted or built in a way that maintains ecological functions as the SMP requires.

The report is attached as Appendix A to FACET Report or you can read it below:

The City of Anacortes contracted DCG/Watershed to assist with implementation of the City’s Shoreline Permit Monitoring Program project to determine if development within shoreline jurisdiction is being authorized consistent with regulations of the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and whether completed authorized projects comply with the issued permits.

The project primarily focuses on whether SMP requirements are achieving no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions (NNL). Information gathered during permit review was analyzed
for compliance with the SMP and to help identify compliance gaps. Ultimately, the City will
develop a final report that documents methods and results for the proposed permit tracking
system, as well as adaptive management techniques to address any compliance gaps identified.

Methodology 

Shoreline permits issued within the past five years were selected using a randomized Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet. A review of all permit documents, including site plans, supplemental
reports, findings of fact, issued permits, as-builts, and monitoring reports was completed to
assess whether the issued permits have been meeting no net loss standards established in the
City’s 2010 SMP. The results of each review were compiled into a spreadsheet for consistency. 

Findings 

A total of 36 issued permits were reviewed, including six pilot permits and 30 additional
permits. Of the 36 permits, 21 were substantial shoreline development permits and 15 were
shoreline exemption permits. Issued shoreline exemptions met the exemption criteria listed in
Section 2.4 of the SMP. 26 permits required mitigation sequencing based on the type of
development, proposed impacts, and presence of critical areas. Our review found that 42% of
the permits included documentation that demonstrated mitigation sequencing, while 58% of the
permits did not. It should be noted that one of these permits was denied (SDP-2015-0004a). 

Site plans generally lacked existing and proposed conditions, identification of critical areas,
and/or quantified impacts, making project-related impact assessments difficult to determine.
When landscape and mitigation plans were included in the permit application, they did not
always appear to meet species and density criteria outlined in the Environmental Protection
General Regulations section of the SMP. Based on the SMP development regulations, mitigation
for shoreline impacts was required for 21 permits. However, mitigation was infrequently
included in the conditions for approval and only a handful of as-built reports were provided.
Further, Development Regulation 6.3.10 of the SMP requires periodic monitoring for up to five
years as a condition of approval. This requirement was not included as a condition of approval
on any of the shoreline permits reviewed. It should be noted that of these permits, one permit
has not yet been issued (SLX-2022-0030) and two permits have not been started/completed to
date (SDP-2020-0002 and SDP-2015-0001). Thus, no as-built or monitoring reports would even
be possible for these permits. This may also be the case for other projects. 

Most of the projects reviewed were within 300 feet of a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Area (FWHCA). Per the Critical Areas Regulations in Appendix A of the SMP, a critical area
report is required for projects located within 300 feet of a critical area. Pursuant to SMP
Appendix A, Section A-5.2(C)(5), a Critical Area Reports for projects adjacent to FWHCAs
require a discussion addressing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed to
preserve existing habitats and restore any habitat that was degraded prior to the current
proposed land use activity. Further, SMP DR-6.7.6 relies on a Critical Areas Report to establish
the extent of additional vegetated buffer areas adjacent to FWHCAs. Based on our review,
Critical Area Reports were infrequently required by the City and therefore were not often
included in the application materials. Some permit submittals included a Biological Evaluation
(BE) or Habitat Assessment, however these reports inconsistently provided an impact analysis
and/or mitigation recommendations. BEs typically assess project impacts associated with
federally listed and endangered species and do not address project impacts specific to shoreline
ecological functions. 

Conclusions 

The City is not always consistently receiving documentation that demonstrates mitigation
sequencing or addresses critical areas pursuant to the SMP. Further, conditioning these
requirements within shoreline authorizations is also inconsistently done. Submitted documents
sometimes lack required information, such as quantified impacts, subsequent mitigation, and
landscape or planting plans. Finally, few as-built reports and no monitoring reports verifying mitigation installation, maintenance, and monitoring were included in the permit materials.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the City is meeting no net loss standards of the SMP. 

Recommendations 

To ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions during future development activities, the
following recommendations should be considered:
1. Require that mitigation sequencing be clearly demonstrated for the entire shoreline
environment, or reasons why it isn’t applicable.
2. Require Critical Area Reports for projects adjacent to Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas in order to assess impacts to species that have a primary association
to the project area.
3. Require as-built documentation as a condition of permit to ensure mitigation was
implemented according to the approved plans, including installation of native plantings.
a. Consider requiring performance bonds, as necessary.
4. Require periodic monitoring for up to five years and annual monitoring reports to
ensure success of the required mitigation.
a. Establish checkpoints within the permitting documentation to ensure monitoring
performance standards are met prior to release of maintenance bonds, as
applicable. 

A Density Bonus allows extra units if a developer provides affordable housing.

A DNS is a formal SEPA decision issued by a city or agency stating that a proposed action is not likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts. Because the impacts are judged “nonsignificant,” the agency does not need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

In plain language: A DNS means the city has decided a project or plan won’t cause major environmental harm, so no full environmental study is required.

Where DNS Is Documented (Legal Sources)

DNS is defined and governed by Washington’s SEPA rules:

1. State Law (RCW)

• RCW 43.21C — establishes SEPA and the requirement to evaluate environmental impacts.

2. State Administrative Rules (WAC)

The detailed rules for DNS are in:

• WAC 197‑11‑310 — DNS definition and purpose

• WAC 197‑11‑330 — threshold determination process

• WAC 197‑11‑340 — DNS procedures and public notice

• WAC 197‑11‑355 — Mitigated DNS (MDNS)

These rules explain how agencies decide whether impacts are significant and how they must notify the public.

3. Department of Ecology SEPA Handbook

Ecology’s SEPA Handbook provides practical guidance on:

• how to make a threshold determination

• when a DNS is appropriate

• how to issue public notice

• how to handle appeals

This is the main reference used by planners.

How DNS Is Applied / Used

A DNS is issued after an agency completes a SEPA Environmental Checklist and reviews probable impacts (See Anacortes SEPA Checklist). The process works like this:

1. Applicant or city completes the SEPA checklist

This identifies potential impacts to:

• wetlands

• stormwater

• traffic

• wildlife

• utilities

• noise

• cultural resources

• cumulative effects

2. The city evaluates whether impacts are “significant”

If impacts are:

• minor,

• temporary,

• mitigated by existing regulations, or

• unlikely to occur,

the city may issue a DNS.

3. The city issues public notice

A DNS must be publicly posted and circulated to:

• agencies

• tribes

• interested parties

• the public

This triggers a comment period (usually 14 days).

4. If no significant issues are raised, the DNS stands

The project or plan proceeds without an Environmental Impact Statement.

5. If concerns arise, the city may issue a Mitigated DNS (MDNS)

This adds conditions to reduce impacts.

6. DNS can be appealed

Under SEPA, anyone with standing (see definition) may appeal a DNS to:

• the city (administrative appeal requires applicant pay a $3,000 fee) , or

• the Growth Management Hearings Board (for plan‑level actions), or

• superior court (for project‑level actions).

Why DNS Matters in Anacortes

DNS is central to how the city approves:

• development projects,

• infrastructure plans,

• Comprehensive Plan updates,

• stormwater and sewer plans,

• zoning changes.

A DNS can be controversial when:

• environmental impacts are underestimated,

• public comments are not addressed,

• the checklist is incomplete, or

• the city uses DNS to avoid deeper analysis.

This is exactly what happened during the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update, where the city issued a DNS despite extensive environmental concerns documented in the FACET report.  FACET suggested Anacortes improve their SEPA Checklist.  You can find this in the same FACET report under Appendix B.

Who Has Standing to Appeal a DNS?

1. Anyone who submitted SEPA comments

If you commented during the DNS comment period, you have standing. This includes:

• written comments
• emailed comments
• oral comments at a meeting (if recorded)

Participation creates standing.

2. Anyone “aggrieved” by the DNS

Washington courts interpret “aggrieved” broadly. You have standing if the DNS:

• affects your property
• affects your neighborhood
• affects your environment
• affects your use and enjoyment of public resources
• affects your financial or personal interests in a non‑trivial way

You do not need to live next door to the project.

3. Anyone with procedural standing

If the city failed to follow SEPA procedures (e.g., improper notice, incomplete checklist), any person harmed by the procedural error has standing.

This is why procedural flaws matter.

4. Organizations

Organizations have standing if:

• at least one member has standing, and
• the issue relates to the organization’s mission.

This is how Smart Growth Anacortes had standing in the GMHB appeals.

5. For GMHB appeals (plan‑level DNS)

Standing is even broader. A person has standing if they:

• participated in the plan process, or
• are affected by the plan, or
• raise an issue within the scope of the Growth Management Act.

You do not need to have commented on the DNS itself.

Where Standing Rules Are Documented

Standing for SEPA DNS appeals is defined in:

• RCW 43.21C.075 — SEPA appeals
• WAC 197-11-680: — SEPA appeal procedures
• RCW 36.70C (LUPA) — standing for project‑level land‑use appeals
• RCW 36.70A.280–290 — standing for GMHB appeals (plan‑level actions)

Courts have also clarified standing through case law, especially regarding “aggrieved persons.”

Anacortes imposes a $3,000 fee to appeal a SEPA DNS

The City of Anacortes charges:

• $3,000 for a SEPA Administrative Appeal

• This applies to appeals of DNS, MDNS, and EIS adequacy

• The fee is paid to the City, not to the Growth Management Hearings Board

• It applies to project‑level SEPA appeals heard by the City’s Hearing Examiner

This fee is listed in the City of Anacortes Fee Schedule, under Planning & Permitting.

Where It Is Documented

The fee appears in:

1. City of Anacortes Unified Fee Schedule 

Under “Planning, Community & Economic Development,” the line item reads:

• SEPA Appeal – $3,000

This is the official source.

2. AMC Title 19 (Procedures)

The code authorizes SEPA administrative appeals and allows the City to set fees through the fee schedule.

3. SEPA Appeal Instructions

When the City issues a DNS, the notice typically states:

“A SEPA administrative appeal may be filed with the City. A fee of $3,000 applies.”

Important Distinction

Appealing to the GMHB (plan‑level DNS)

• No $3,000 fee

• Filing fee is $0

• Only applies to Comprehensive Plans, Development Regulations, and non‑project actions

Appealing to the City Hearing Examiner (project‑level DNS)

• $3,000 fee

• Applies to subdivisions, site plans, conditional uses, etc.

So the fee depends on where the appeal is filed and what type of action is being appealed.

An Emergency Shelter provides short-term, immediate housing for people experiencing homelessness.  

The FACET Report is an environmental review prepared by FACET Consulting, an outside environmental firm hired by the City of Anacortes during the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update. The report evaluated how the City’s proposed land‑use changes — including increased housing density, zoning changes, and infrastructure assumptions — could affect the environment. It compiled public comments, identified potential environmental risks, and flagged issues the City should consider before adopting the plan.

In simple terms: The FACET Report is the environmental checklist and comment log the City paid an outside consultant to prepare so it could understand the environmental impacts of its Comprehensive Plan.

What the FACET Report Included

1. Environmental Checklist (SEPA Review) see Appendix B

FACET completed the City’s SEPA environmental checklist, which is supposed to identify:

• impacts to wetlands, streams, and wildlife

• stormwater and flooding risks

• air and water quality concerns

• impacts on utilities and infrastructure

• transportation and traffic effects

• cumulative impacts from densification

2. Public Comments

FACET collected and organized public comments related to environmental concerns. These comments included issues such as:

• stormwater capacity

• sewer plant limitations

• shoreline impacts

• tree canopy loss

• habitat fragmentation

• climate‑related risks

• neighborhood‑level environmental effects

3. Identified Issues and Risks

The report listed environmental issues that needed attention or further analysis. These were presented in a spreadsheet format, making them easy to see — and easy to ignore.

4. Recommendations and Notes

FACET flagged areas where:

• impacts were uncertain

• data was incomplete

• further study was recommended

• mitigation might be needed

Why the FACET Report Matters

The FACET Report was supposed to help the City:

• understand environmental consequences of increased density

• identify risks before adopting the Comprehensive Plan

• respond to public concerns

• adjust policies to avoid environmental harm

Instead, the City responded only to minor corrections and typos, leaving the substantive environmental issues unaddressed.  

This is why many residents feel the environmental review was procedural rather than meaningful.

How the FACET Report Connects to the GMHB Decision

The Growth Management Hearings Board did not evaluate whether the FACET Report was thorough or whether the City addressed its findings. The Board only checked whether:

• the City completed a SEPA checklist

• the City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)

• the City followed required procedural steps

Because the City technically completed the checklist — even if it ignored the substance — the Board found the City compliant.

The Growth Management Act (GMA) is Washington State’s law that requires cities and counties to plan for growth in a coordinated, predictable, and environmentally responsible way. It sets rules for how communities must plan for housing, transportation, utilities, land use, and environmental protection so that growth happens in an orderly manner rather than through sprawl or unplanned development.

In simple terms: The GMA is the statewide framework that tells cities how to plan for the future — where homes and businesses can go, how infrastructure will be built, and how natural areas will be protected.

What the GMA Requires Cities Like Anacortes to Do

1. Create a Comprehensive Plan

A long‑range plan updated every 10 years that covers:

• housing

• land use

• transportation

• utilities

• parks

• environmental protection

• economic development

2. Follow Statewide Planning Goals

These include:

• protecting the environment

• providing housing for all income levels

• reducing sprawl

• coordinating transportation and land use

• ensuring public participation

• planning for adequate infrastructure

3. Adopt Development Regulations

Cities must have zoning and land‑use rules that match their comprehensive plan.

4. Protect Critical Areas

Wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and wildlife habitat must be identified and protected.

5. Plan for Infrastructure

Cities must show how they will provide:

• sewer

• water

• stormwater

• roads

• public facilities

to support the growth they allow.

Why the GMA Matters to Residents

The GMA shapes:

• neighborhood density

• building heights and setbacks

• parking requirements

• environmental protections

• infrastructure funding

• public participation rights

• where growth is allowed — and where it isn’t

When a city updates its Comprehensive Plan or development regulations, it is doing so under the rules of the GMA.

How the GMA Connects to the GMHB Decision

The Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) is the body that reviews whether cities followed the GMA. In the recent case, the Board ruled that Anacortes met the minimum procedural requirements of the GMA — even though many residents felt the public process was guided, dismissive, or incomplete, and even though environmental and infrastructure concerns were not substantively addressed.

The Board checks whether the required documents exist, not whether the city’s choices were wise, responsive, or aligned with community values.

The following Growth Management Act policy toolkit is a technical reference that provides ready-to-use public comment language for local planning processes.  This reference can help guide residents on:

• new housing density mandates
• ADU requirements
• climate change and resiliency planning obligations
• critical areas protections
• shoreline/GMA integration
• comprehensive plan update requirements

GMA Policy Toolkit

The Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) is a state‑level body in Washington that reviews whether cities and counties are following the rules of the Growth Management Act (GMA). It acts like a specialized court for land‑use planning. When someone believes a city’s comprehensive plan, development regulations, or environmental review violates the GMA, they can file a petition with the Board, and the Board decides whether the city complied with the law.

In simple terms: The GMHB is the referee that checks whether local governments followed the required planning procedures — not whether their decisions were wise, fair, or popular.

What the GMHB Does

1. Reviews Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations

The Board examines whether a city’s planning documents meet the minimum legal standards set by the GMA.

2. Holds Hearings and Takes Evidence

Petitioners and cities submit briefs, documents, and testimony. The Board does not conduct new studies — it reviews the record the city already created.

3. Issues Final Decisions and Orders

The Board can:

• find compliance (city followed the law)

• find noncompliance (city violated the GMA)

• require the city to fix the problem within a set timeframe

4. Enforces Procedural Requirements

The Board focuses on whether the city:

• produced required documents

• followed required steps

• included required elements

It does not judge the quality of the city’s analysis or whether the city listened to the public.

What the GMHB Does Not Do

This is the part most residents don’t realize.

The Board does not:

• evaluate whether the city’s plan is good for neighborhoods

• judge whether public participation was meaningful

• assess whether environmental concerns were addressed

• require the city to adopt public recommendations

• check whether infrastructure assumptions are realistic

• weigh expert testimony against city staff opinions

• decide whether the city made wise or community‑supported choices

The Board’s role is narrow: procedural compliance, not policy judgment.

Why the GMHB Matters to Residents

The Board’s decisions determine whether:

• a city must redo part of its plan

• environmental review must be revisited

• public participation procedures must be corrected

• development regulations must be changed

In the recent Anacortes case, the Board ruled that the City met the minimum procedural requirements of the GMA — even though many residents felt the public process was guided, dismissive, or incomplete, and even though environmental and infrastructure concerns were not substantively addressed.

This is because the Board checks whether the required steps were taken, not whether the city’s choices were responsive to community concerns.

Housing Action Plan (HAP) – A required planning document under HB1923/HB2343/HB1220 to address housing needs.

HUD housing is affordable housing supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, including rental assistance, subsidized units, and programs that help low‑income households access safe, stable housing.

Categories of HUD housing are:

• Public Housing — Units owned and operated by local housing authorities.

• Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) — Rent subsidies that households use in the private market.

• Project‑Based Section 8 — Subsidies attached to specific buildings.

• LIHTC properties — Not technically HUD‑owned, but HUD regulates income limits and rent caps.

• Supportive Housing Programs — Including PSH, homelessness assistance, and special‑needs housing.

• Fair Housing & Civil Rights enforcement — HUD ensures nondiscrimination in housing.

Inclusionary Zoning requires or incentivizes developers to include affordable units.

Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) is a GMA required analysis of land available for future housing

Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of how well a public facility or service is functioning, usually expressed as a performance standard that a city must maintain as growth occurs. Under Washington’s Growth Management Act, cities adopt LOS standards to determine whether infrastructure is “adequate” to support new development.

In plain language: Level of Service tells a city whether its roads, utilities, parks, and other systems are keeping up with demand — and whether new development can be approved without overwhelming them.

What Level of Service Means

1. A Performance Standard

LOS is a quantitative or qualitative benchmark. Examples:

• Transportation: intersection delay, travel speed, congestion levels

• Sewer: treatment capacity, flow limits

• Water: pressure, storage volume

• Parks: acres of parkland per 1,000 residents

• Emergency services: response times

2. A Threshold That Cannot Be Violated

If a development would push a facility below the adopted LOS standard, the city must:

• require improvements,

• change the standard, or

• deny or delay the development.

This is the backbone of concurrency.

3. A Planning Tool

LOS standards guide:

• capital facility planning

• infrastructure investment

• impact fee calculations

• growth decisions

• long‑range budgeting

Why LOS Matters in Anacortes

• Transportation LOS is the only mandatory LOS under state law.

• Anacortes does not adopt LOS standards for sewer, water, stormwater, or parks — meaning development can proceed even when those systems are near capacity.

• Without LOS standards for utilities, the city cannot require developers to pay for upgrades through concurrency or impact fees.

• This is one reason utility costs are shifting to ratepayers.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is a Federal tax credit program that finances most affordable housing nationwide.

A DNS (Determination of Non Significance) with required mitigated measures.

Multi-Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) is a Washington program that offers tax breaks for projects with affordable units.

Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) — Older market‑rate units that are affordable without subsidy.

A Sewer Plan is the city’s long‑range blueprint for how its wastewater system will operate, be maintained, and be expanded over the next 20–20 years. It evaluates the current condition and capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, pump stations, and sewer pipes, and it identifies the upgrades, repairs, and new facilities the city will need to support future growth, meet state environmental requirements, and protect public health.

In simple terms: The Sewer Plan explains how Anacortes will collect, treat, and safely manage wastewater as the city grows — and how much those upgrades will cost.

What the Sewer Plan Includes

1. Current System Capacity

It describes:

• how much wastewater the treatment plant can handle

• how close the city is to reaching that limit

• which pump stations or pipes are at risk of overload

2. Future Growth and Demand

It estimates how much wastewater will be generated by:

• new housing

• commercial development

• population increases

• densification (middle housing replacing single‑family homes)

3. Required Upgrades

It identifies major projects the city must build, such as:

• treatment plant expansion

• nutrient‑removal systems (nitrogen reduction)

• new or upgraded pump stations

• larger sewer mains

• emergency backup systems

4. Environmental Requirements

It explains how the city will meet:

• state and federal water‑quality standards

• nutrient‑removal mandates

• discharge permit conditions

• climate‑related resilience requirements

5. Costs and Funding

It estimates:

• how much upgrades will cost

• how those costs will be paid

• how utility rates may change

• whether developers will contribute (impact fees, connection charges)

This section is critical because it determines whether ratepayers or new development will bear the cost of growth.

Why the Sewer Plan Matters to Residents

The Sewer Plan directly affects:

• utility bills (projected to rise from ~$200 to ~$400 per month)

• whether development pays its fair share

• how quickly the city can grow

• whether the treatment plant meets environmental standards

• whether neighborhoods experience sewer backups or failures

• how much infrastructure debt the city takes on

It is one of the most important infrastructure documents the city produces.

Why the Current Sewer Plan Is Controversial

The draft plan for Anacortes:

• does not include the full cost of required nitrogen‑removal upgrades

• assumes ratepayers, not developers, will fund most major projects

• does not analyze the infrastructure impacts of middle housing

• does not compare the cost difference between maintaining the existing plant vs. expanding it

• was developed with limited public engagement

• was not fully integrated with the Comprehensive Plan update

This is why many residents feel the plan does not reflect community priorities or provide a transparent picture of future costs.

A Shoreline Master Program is the city’s long‑range plan and set of regulations for how land along the shoreline can be used, developed, and protected. It applies to areas within 200 feet of marine shorelines, lakes, streams, and wetlands, and it is required by Washington State’s Shoreline Management Act. The SMP is designed to balance public access, environmental protection, and water‑dependent uses while ensuring that shoreline development is safe, sustainable, and compatible with natural conditions.

In simple terms: The shoreline plan is the rulebook for how Anacortes protects its waterfront and shoreline habitats while allowing appropriate development and public use.

What the Shoreline Master Program Covers

1. Environmental Protection

The SMP safeguards:

• marine shorelines

• wetlands and estuaries

• eelgrass beds

• fish and wildlife habitat

• bluff and erosion‑prone areas

It sets buffers, setbacks, and mitigation requirements to protect these sensitive areas.

2. Allowed Uses and Development Standards

The plan regulates:

• docks and piers

• marinas

• shoreline trails

• waterfront homes

• industrial and marine uses

• public access improvements

It determines what can be built, where, and under what conditions.

3. Public Access

The SMP requires cities to maintain or improve public access to the shoreline, including:

• parks

• viewpoints

• trails

• beaches

4. Hazard Reduction

It includes rules to reduce risks from:

• erosion

• landslides

• flooding

• sea‑level rise

5. Water‑Dependent Uses

The SMP prioritizes uses that rely on being near the water, such as:

• boatyards

• marinas

• marine trades

• ferry facilities

These uses receive special consideration.

Why the SMP Matters to Residents

The shoreline plan directly affects:

• where waterfront homes can be built

• how close structures can be to the water

• how marinas and boatyards expand

• how shoreline trails and parks are developed

• how sensitive habitats are protected

• how climate‑related risks are managed

It shapes the future of Anacortes’ waterfront — one of the community’s most valued assets.

How the SMP Connects to Recent Planning Issues

In Anacortes:

• The SMP is separate from the Comprehensive Plan but must be consistent with it.

• The GMHB decision did not address SMP issues because they were not fully briefed.

• Shoreline protections interact with middle housing, stormwater, and critical areas rules.

• Environmental concerns raised in the FACET review overlap with shoreline habitat issues.

Many residents feel shoreline protections need stronger enforcement as development pressures increase.

SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) is Washington’s foundational environmental review law. It requires state and local governments—including cities like Anacortes—to identify, disclose, and consider environmental impacts before making decisions such as issuing permits, adopting regulations, or approving plans.

Below is a clear, structured explanation of what SEPA is, how it is used, and where it is documented, grounded in authoritative state sources.

Definition

SEPA is a state law enacted in 1971 that ensures government agencies take a “hard look” at environmental impacts before committing to actions that may affect the environment. It supplements existing regulations by requiring agencies to evaluate probable impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures.

In plain language: SEPA is the environmental checklist and review process that forces cities to think about environmental consequences before approving development or adopting policies.

What SEPA Is Used For

SEPA applies to a wide range of government actions, including:

• Permits for private development (homes, commercial buildings, subdivisions)

• Construction of public facilities (schools, roads, pipelines)

• Adoption of regulations and plans (Comprehensive Plans, Critical Areas Ordinances, shoreline rules)

Agencies use SEPA to:

• identify environmental impacts,

• change proposals to reduce harm,

• apply conditions or deny proposals when impacts are unacceptable.

SEPA also encourages public involvement, requiring notice and comment opportunities.

Where SEPA Is Documented

SEPA is formally documented in three places:

1. State Law (Revised Code of Washington RCW)

• Chapter 43.21C RCW — the statute establishing SEPA’s purpose, authority, and requirements. This chapter defines SEPA’s policy goals and its substantive and procedural duties.

2. State Rules (Washington Administrative Code WAC)

• Chapter 197‑11 WAC — the detailed rules governing SEPA procedures, exemptions, threshold determinations, environmental checklists, and appeals.

3. Department of Ecology Guidance

• SEPA Handbook (2025 Update) — Ecology’s official guidance explaining how agencies must conduct SEPA review.

• Ecology’s SEPA Environmental Review website provides overviews, tools, and instructions for agencies and applicants.

These documents collectively define how SEPA works and how cities like Anacortes must apply it.

What a Stormwater Management Plan Is

A Stormwater Management Plan is a technical engineering document that evaluates how a city manages rainwater runoff—both today and in the future as development increases. Its purpose is to ensure that stormwater is collected, conveyed, treated, and discharged safely, without flooding neighborhoods, damaging infrastructure, or polluting waterways.

Stormwater planning is required under state and federal law because unmanaged runoff can overwhelm pipes, erode streams, contaminate marine waters, and cause property damage.

What the Plan Typically Includes

A Stormwater Management Plan usually contains:

• Current system capacity (pipes, culverts, ditches, detention ponds, treatment facilities)

• Flooding and drainage problem areas

• Water quality requirements under the Clean Water Act

• Projected runoff increases from new development

• Required upgrades to handle future growth

• Cost estimates for improvements

• Maintenance and inspection schedules

• Regulatory compliance with the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit

• Funding strategies (stormwater utility fees, grants, developer contributions)

This is one of the most important documents for understanding whether a city can support additional housing or commercial development without causing flooding or environmental harm.

Where Stormwater Plans Are Documented

Stormwater planning is usually found in several places:

1. Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) or Stormwater Comprehensive Plan

This is the primary engineering document. It may be titled:

• Stormwater Management Plan

• Stormwater Comprehensive Plan

• Drainage Master Plan

• Surface Water Plan

Cities often update these every 5–10 years.

2. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Documents

Washington cities must comply with the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, which requires:

• annual reports

• stormwater program documents

• monitoring plans

• best management practices (BMPs)

These documents are usually posted on the city’s Public Works or Stormwater webpages.

3. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)

Stormwater projects—culvert replacements, pipe upsizing, detention pond expansions—are listed in the CFP with estimated costs and timelines.

4. Public Works Engineering Reports

Technical memos, consultant studies, and drainage analyses often support the stormwater plan. These may not be included in the Comprehensive Plan but are essential for understanding system capacity.

5. Development Standards and Municipal Code

Stormwater requirements for new development (e.g., low‑impact development, infiltration, detention) are documented in:

• municipal code

• engineering standards

• stormwater manuals

Why Stormwater Planning Matters for Growth

When a Comprehensive Plan proposes thousands of new housing units, stormwater impacts can be significant:

• more pavement → more runoff

• more runoff → larger pipes, ponds, and treatment systems

• larger systems → higher costs

• higher costs → potential increases in stormwater utility fees

If the Stormwater Management Plan is outdated or incomplete, the city may not fully understand:

• whether the system can handle additional development

• where flooding risks will increase

• how much upgrades will cost

• who will pay for them

• how water quality will be protected

Did you know Stormwater is the #1 source of pollution in the Salish Sea?

This is why stormwater planning is a critical part of evaluating growth feasibility.

SGA Perspective:  In 2022, a volunteer group of scientists, Friends of the Salish Sea, discovered high levels of turbidity from outflows on the MJB Fidalgo Landing Project site.  It was discovered that a sediment retention barrier was not installed per permit requirements.  This was blocks from city hall, in plain view, and a prime example of what can happen when a city is known for inadequate oversight and a contractor might assume permit requirements are just “suggestions”.  Managing sediment in stormwater outflows is a critical requirement for protecting local marine species and the habitats they depend on.

What the Transportation Plan Is

The Transportation Plan is the section of Anacortes’ Comprehensive Plan that explains how people, goods, and services will move around the city as it grows. It covers roads, sidewalks, bike routes, transit, freight movement, safety, and long‑term infrastructure needs. State law requires cities to show that their transportation system can support the growth they are planning for, and to identify the improvements needed to maintain safe and reliable travel.

Where It Is Documented

The Transportation Plan is documented in the Transportation Element of the City of Anacortes Comprehensive Plan. It is also supported by:

• the Transportation System Plan (TSP) or equivalent technical appendix

• Capital Facilities Plan (which lists specific projects and estimated costs)

• Concurrency reports and traffic modeling

• Public Works planning documents related to streets, utilities, and multimodal improvements

These documents are typically available through the city’s planning department or on the city’s Comprehensive Plan update webpage.

What It May Cost

Transportation planning identifies a wide range of potential costs, depending on the scale of improvements needed. These may include:

• Roadway upgrades (intersections, signals, lane improvements)

• Sidewalk and pedestrian safety projects

• Bike infrastructure

• Transit enhancements

• Freight and truck‑route improvements

• Maintenance and preservation of existing streets

Large infrastructure projects—especially those tied to growth—can run into tens of millions of dollars over the life of the plan. Some improvements may be funded through grants, impact fees, or state/federal programs, while others may rely on local revenue sources.

The plan is required to include a financing strategy, but the exact costs depend on which projects are prioritized, how growth occurs, and how much funding is available.

What Utility Rate Studies Are

Utility rate studies are technical financial analyses that determine how much residents and businesses must pay for city utilities—usually water, sewer, stormwater, and sometimes solid waste. They are not policy documents; they are the math behind utility bills.

A rate study answers questions like:

• How much does it cost to operate and maintain the utility system?

• How much will future upgrades cost?

• How should those costs be divided between existing customers and new development?

• What rate increases are needed to keep the system solvent?

• How do rates compare to other cities?

• Are current rates fair and legally defensible?

Rate studies are essential because they determine whether infrastructure upgrades—like expanding the wastewater treatment plant—will be paid by developers, ratepayers, or a mix of both.

What They Typically Include

A utility rate study usually contains:

• Current operating costs

• Projected future costs (repairs, replacements, expansions)

• Capital improvement needs from engineering reports

• Debt service (loans, bonds, interest)

• Reserve requirements

• Revenue forecasts

• Rate scenarios (e.g., 3% increase vs. 8% increase)

• Impact on monthly bills for households and businesses

• Cost allocation between existing users and new development

• Legal requirements for rate setting

These studies are often 50–200 pages and include charts, financial models, and long‑term projections.

Where Utility Rate Studies Are Documented

Utility rate studies are typically found in:

1. Public Works Department

Often posted under “Utilities,” “Water,” “Sewer,” or “Stormwater” sections of the city website.

2. City Council Meeting Packets

Rate studies are frequently presented during:

• budget discussions

• utility rate hearings

• capital project approvals

Council packets often include the full consultant report.

3. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)

The CFP may reference rate studies when explaining how major projects will be funded.

4. Consultant Reports

Many cities hire specialized firms (e.g., FCS Group, HDR, Carollo Engineers) to produce rate studies. These reports may be posted separately or included as appendices.

5. Utility Master Plans

Rate studies often rely on engineering documents such as:

• Water System Plan

• Wastewater Facility Plan

• Stormwater Management Plan

These plans identify the infrastructure needs; the rate study determines how to pay for them.

Why Utility Rate Studies Matter

When a Comprehensive Plan proposes thousands of new housing units, the city must ensure utilities can support that growth. Rate studies reveal:

• whether the utility system has enough capacity

• how much expansion will cost

• whether rates will need to increase

• whether developers are paying their fair share

• whether current residents may face higher bills

Without updated rate studies, a city may approve growth without understanding the financial impacts on households.

PSH (Permanent Supportive Housing) is long‑term, affordable housing paired with ongoing supportive services—such as case management, behavioral health support, and stability assistance—designed for people experiencing chronic homelessness or who need sustained help to remain housed.

Anacortes is about to adopt permit streamlining to speed up development review, reduce staff workload, and make the process more predictable for applicants. The goal is efficiency: fewer steps, faster decisions, and less administrative burden on a small planning staff.  Comments and Objections can be submitted through September 15, 2026.  A Public Meeting is scheduled with Planning Commission September 15, 2026.

To achieve this, the City wants to shift many permits from public processes (neighborhood meetings, hearings, Planning Commission review, Council review) to administrative decisions made by staff. Site Plan Review became the main—and sometimes only—place where environmental, land‑use, and design issues are evaluated, with later permit stages limited to checking consistency with that initial approval.

What We Would Gain

• Faster permit timelines

• Reduced staff workload

• More predictable outcomes for applicants

• Simplified review steps

• Less duplication between permit stages

What We Would Give Up

• Early public involvement in many project types

• Neighborhood meetings that used to flag issues before plans were finalized

• Pre‑decision public hearings for Type 2 permits

• Opportunities to revise projects as new information emerges

• Council oversight for some permits

• Stronger tools to address offsite impacts (traffic, stormwater, noise, lighting)

• A more transparent process that allowed residents to see how decisions were made

Why Changes are Proposed

The City seeks to:

• reduce staff burden

• shorten review timelines

• respond to state pressure for housing production

• modernize an older, more complex permit system

But in doing so, Anacortes will be trading public participation and iterative review for speed and administrative efficiency.

What Public Works Engineering Reports Are

Public Works engineering reports are technical documents that evaluate the condition, capacity, and future needs of the city’s infrastructure systems. They are not policy statements—they are the engineering backbone that should inform decisions in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and development regulations.

These reports provide the data that answers questions like:

• How much capacity does the wastewater plant have today?

• How many more homes can the sewer system support before upgrades are needed?

• Which streets or intersections are failing or near failure?

• What stormwater improvements are required to handle additional runoff?

• What will these upgrades cost, and who typically pays?

They are essential for understanding whether planned growth is feasible.

What They Typically Include

Public Works engineering reports usually contain:

• Current system capacity (e.g., gallons per day for wastewater)

• Projected demand based on growth forecasts

• Deficiencies or bottlenecks

• Required upgrades to support future development

• Cost estimates for those upgrades

• Funding strategies (grants, impact fees, utility rates, etc.)

• Timelines for improvements

• Regulatory requirements (state, federal, environmental)

These reports are far more detailed than the Comprehensive Plan and are where the real feasibility analysis happens.

Where They Are Documented

Public Works engineering reports are usually found in:

1. Utility Master Plans

• Wastewater Facility Plan

• Sewer System Master Plan

• Water System Plan

• Stormwater Management Plan

These documents are often hundreds of pages and include engineering models, maps, and cost projections.

2. Transportation System Plans (TSP)

These include traffic modeling, intersection analysis, multimodal planning, and cost estimates for roadway improvements.

3. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)

This is where the city lists specific projects, their estimated costs, and funding sources. It should be based on the engineering reports above.

4. Public Works Department Technical Memos

These may include:

• capacity studies

• rate studies

• feasibility analyses

• consultant reports

• environmental compliance documents

These are often not included in the Comprehensive Plan but are essential for understanding infrastructure readiness.

Why These Reports Matter

When a Comprehensive Plan proposes thousands of new housing units or major land‑use changes without referencing current capacity or costs, it can give the impression that infrastructure is ready—even when engineering reports may show otherwise.

Public Works engineering documents are the only place where residents can see:

• whether the systems can handle growth

• what upgrades are needed

• how much they will cost

• who will pay

• how long improvements will take

• whether impacts on current residents are significant

Without these reports, the Comprehensive Plan is only a set of goals—not a demonstration of feasibility.

Subsidized Housing is housing supported by public funds (vouchers, tax credits, grants)

Transitional Housing is time-limited housing paired with services for people exiting homelessness or institutions.  Our Family Center provides transitional housing.

Urban Growth Area (UGA) is the boundary within which Anacortes’ urban development is allowed under the GMA.

Workforce Housing is housing targeted to moderate-income workers (often 80-120% AMI)