Sedro‑Woolley council removes land acknowledgement from draft comprehensive plan amid broad debate

The Sedro‑Woolley City Council voted to remove a land acknowledgement from the draft comprehensive plan after an extended study‑session debate that ranged from housing targets to zoning overlays and policy wording.

During the meeting Director Tom Glover briefed the council on the process and a planned joint session with the planning commission on April 1. Councilman LaVaca moved to remove the land acknowledgement and Councilman Henderson seconded; the mayor called for the ayes and nays and the motion carried 3‑2. The transcript records two officials opposing the motion: Councilwoman Pedersen and one councilman whose name is redacted in the transcript record.

Council members then turned to substance. LaVaca and others questioned wording in the housing element that currently reads the city "must ensure" capacity to accommodate current and projected housing needs through 2045. Council members said the draft’s phrasing — which references roughly 1,200 homes and affordability targets such as an 80% AMI set‑aside — reads as a prescriptive requirement the city cannot unilaterally guarantee.

"The word 'must' up there — we can't guarantee that," one councilor said during discussion, urging softer language such as "encourage" or "strive" to reflect practical limits on local authority and funding. Staff said they will bring suggested edits and mark them for the council ahead of the April joint session.

Councilors also debated the Maker's District overlay, a designation that permits mixed uses (light manufacturing, retail, professional services) in an area the plan envisions as a welcoming entrance to the central business district. Some councilors worried removing the overlay would remove development rights for property owners; others said the document contains language that differs from the 2016 plan and needs property‑owner input. The council agreed to invite the property owner to the joint meeting so the owner can present intentions for the site.

Other topics included outdated park project listings the council asked staff to remove or update, questions about policy language that appears prescriptive (for example, the draft’s direction to "construct indoor covered sports courts" for year‑round use), and proposals to change mandatory phrasing to feasibility or consideration language. Council members and staff also discussed the climate element and whether to include grant amounts and feasibility studies for converting public fleets to zero‑emission vehicles.

Glover told the council staff will draft revisions, show changes in the packet for the April 1 joint meeting and work through policy and ordinance language in follow‑up sessions.

Next procedural step: staff will return suggested redlines to the council and the planning commission on April 1 for a joint review; any ordinance adopting the plan will then reflect the council’s final decisions.