What Sequim Residents Are Saying About the City's Plan for Growth

By R.E. Carlino | The Sequim Post

Sequim's Comprehensive Plan is the city's long-range blueprint for growth, guiding decisions about housing, land use, transportation, utilities and public services. Washington's Growth Management Act requires cities to periodically review and update these plans. State law set a December 31, 2025, deadline for Sequim's current review, with the next required update due June 30, 2035.

How much should Sequim grow, what kinds of housing should be built, and will the city's water supplies, roads, and public services be able to keep up?

Those questions run through public comments submitted on Sequim's proposed Comprehensive Plan update, a document intended to guide the city's growth and development over the coming years.

The city's compilation contains 75 numbered public and agency submissions addressing the proposed Comprehensive Plan and related development regulations. The comments, compiled through October 13, 2026, include individual submissions, lengthy letters, technical analyses, and responses from government agencies and organizations. Some individuals submitted more than once, and not all commenters live within Sequim's city limits.

For a city with approximately 8,200 residents, the submissions offer a range of perspectives. A review of public comments submitted on Sequim's proposed Comprehensive Plan reveals several recurring concerns. Growth, land use and neighborhood character were recurring issues, followed closely by questions about water availability, infrastructure and public services. Environmental protection, zoning regulations, housing affordability and traffic also figured prominently in the comments. (See the city-compiled submitted comments here).

How Sequim Should Grow

Residents offered differing views on where and how Sequim should grow, raising questions about land use, zoning, neighborhood character, and alternatives to traditional single-family housing. Their comments reflected different priorities for accommodating future development.

Lynn Bender called for more affordable housing options, writing, “it would appear we need some new adequate affordable apartments that allow people to find housing quickly and move up to other residential choices.”

Brad Griffith suggested allowing satellite bedrooms as a less expensive alternative to building a complete accessory dwelling unit (ADU). He described the idea as “a more cost effective way to house family.”

Don Hanna favored infill and redevelopment over outward expansion, writing, “All new development should be directed at infilling, redevelopment, and high density with emphasis on people instead of cars.”

Bob Travis acknowledged the need for growth while raising concerns about available resources. “Properly supervised common-sense growth is necessary for continued community success,” he wrote. His comments also addressed water, electricity, infrastructure, and public services.

The proposed Westbay development near John Wayne Marina also drew differing views. Representatives of Seabrook, the developer behind the proposal, submitted comments advocating changes to the city's land-use and zoning provisions. Some commenters opposed the project, citing concerns about its density, traffic, water availability, environmental impacts, and neighborhood character. Others supported the development, pointing to potential jobs, tourism, and economic benefits for the Sequim area.

Can Infrastructure Keep Up?

Residents also raised questions about whether Sequim's infrastructure and public services can keep pace with future growth. Their comments addressed water availability, road capacity, traffic congestion, and the demands additional development could place on essential services.

Stephen Graham expressed support for the plan's overall direction while questioning whether infrastructure improvements would keep pace with new construction. “The draft is a good overall effort and I like and support the general strategy for Sequim's future development,” he wrote. But he also argued that “we need to get the infrastructure in place BEFORE the projects actually start.” Graham reported measuring water pressure as low as 30 pounds per square inch (psi) at his home near Silberhorn Road and South Seventh Avenue. He expressed concern about additional homes being built before a planned pressure-boosting system was installed.

Bob and Carole Travis raised concerns about long-term water availability, writing, “During our 20 years in Sequim, we have seen drought conditions become almost the ‘new normal’.” They also questioned whether water and electricity supplies would be sufficient to accommodate future development.

Debbie Minch raised concerns about medical services, regional transportation, and traffic safety. “we have a problem with medical services currently. I hope this is addressed and considered very seriously along with ideas of population expansion.” She also called attention to the availability of specialty medical personnel, transportation connections to Sea-Tac, and speeding along Silberhorn Road.

Dennis Burnett expressed concern about growing traffic congestion, writing, “There are hundreds of homes going in and around Sequim and unless traffic congestion is addressed driving will become a nightmare.”

Protecting the Environment

Residents also raised concerns about protecting Sequim's natural environment as the community grows. Their comments focused on preserving open space, agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and water resources while accommodating future development.

Carol von Borstel called for stronger protections for groundwater recharge and natural habitats. “Safeguarding our environment and way of life should not be left to interpretation,” she wrote.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife also recommended strengthening the Comprehensive Plan's language on protecting and connecting wildlife habitats. In its written comments, the agency emphasized the importance of habitat corridors that allow wildlife to move between natural areas and help prevent habitat fragmentation as development occurs.

Another commenter, identified only as “S”, urged the city to recognize Sequim's agricultural heritage, including its remaining farms and local food production. “Please do more to preserve the farms and the farming community in Sequim!” the commenter wrote.

Ivy Sacks expressed concern about losing open space as new housing is built. “I hope that the city will be able to keep some open spaces, and maintain a small town feel, not a resort mecca,” she wrote.

Housing Needs and Competing Visions

Beyond questions about where development should occur, commenters also addressed what kinds of housing Sequim needs and who can afford to live in the community. Their remarks reflected concerns about housing costs, opportunities for working families, and whether future construction will provide a range of housing choices.

Lynn Bender called attention to the housing needs of local workers. “If we don't have housing for nurses, clerks, teachers and other employees we cannot sustain our community,” she wrote.

Michelle Binder also emphasized affordability. “I agree that we need more housing but that housing needs to be affordable for the people who live in this community,” she wrote.

Sean M. Evans submitted a proposal encouraging mixed-use buildings along urban business corridors, including in Sequim. He wrote, “Urban areas on the Olympic Peninsula including Port Angeles, and Sequim should consider mixed-use buildings along their respective core district’s thoroughfares as a financially, and aesthetically attractive means of developing affordable housing.” His proposal envisions three-story buildings with businesses on the ground floor and housing above.

Next Steps and How to Comment

The city held two public open houses in July and August, followed by Planning Commission hearings in September and October. Residents also had opportunities to review the draft online and submit written comments.

On October 6, the Sequim Planning Commission concluded its public hearing and voted to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan. On October 26, the City Council will review the Planning Commission's recommendation before holding a public hearing on November 9.

The city will continue accepting public comments through the close of the November 9 City Council hearing. Comments may be emailed to PlanningDept@SequimWA.gov, with “Sequim Comprehensive Plan Comments” in the subject line, or submitted through the city's online comment form at https://www.sequimwa.gov/1301/Comprehensive-Plan. Written comments may also be mailed to the Department of Community and Economic Development, 152 W. Cedar St., Sequim, WA 98382.

⬥