# Mapping Whatcom County's Growth Future On a rainy Tuesday morning in February, six Whatcom County Council members gathered for what would become a revealing glimpse into the complex challenges of planning for the county's future. The special Committee of the Whole meeting, compressed into a tight 55-minute window, showcased the tensions between aspirational growth projections and practical realities that define modern land use planning. Chair Kaylee Galloway called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m., with Council Members Barry Buchanan, Todd Donovan, Ben Elenbaas, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler present. Tyler Byrd was absent. The single agenda item — discussing population and employment projections for the county's 2025 comprehensive plan update — would prove far more contentious than its bureaucratic title suggested. The meeting represented the first half of a two-part presentation series, with five more jurisdictions scheduled for the following week. What unfolded was not just a technical discussion about numbers, but a fundamental debate about how Whatcom County should grow and who gets to decide. ## The Framework Debate Before any presentations could begin, Council Member Todd Donovan raised his hand with pointed questions that cut to the heart of the planning process. Reading from letters submitted by various cities, Donovan expressed confusion about the county's approach: "There is a sense that we're being asked to approve an interlocal agreement that at least the way PDS seems to be driving things has this above the medium goal for planning for the entire county." Donovan's concerns reflected a deeper philosophical divide. Historically, Whatcom County had relied on the Office of Financial Management's (OFM) medium projections for planning purposes — a approach that had proven accurate over decades. But now, the county's Planning and Development Services (PDS) department was proposing to plan for significantly higher growth numbers, what Donovan characterized as "thousands or 10,000 more people." "When were we asked what the goal should be for countywide planning?" Donovan pressed, his frustration evident. "We shouldn't be talking about this pie in the sky plan if we should do what we've always done and plan for a medium." Matt Aamot from PDS attempted to provide context, explaining that the non-binding multi-jurisdictional resolution process had been successfully used in the 2016 comprehensive plan update. "It's not something new we're popping on you," Aamot said. "It's something that was in your resolution with the schedule." But Donovan wasn't satisfied with the procedural explanation. He noted the conflicting messages from cities — some supportive, others critical of the county's delays and approach. The city of Blaine, he pointed out, had accused the county of delaying and suggested the council was approving something without proper knowledge. The exchange revealed a fundamental tension: while staff proceeded with established processes, elected officials questioned whether those processes reflected current policy priorities and community needs. ## Bellingham's Balanced Approach Chris Behee, representing the City of Bellingham, delivered the most comprehensive presentation of the morning. Bellingham, as the county's largest city, faced the greatest growth pressures and had developed the most sophisticated response strategy. Behee outlined Bellingham's dramatic transformation over the past three decades. Since establishing its urban growth area in 1995, the city had completed 22 annexations totaling over 3,000 acres, investing more than $150 million in infrastructure. "That's the number we're paying attention to," Behee said, "what would we need in the existing growth area or potential reserve areas to continue that kind of growth." The city's preliminary proposal called for accommodating 30,000 additional residents by 2045 — a figure that splits the difference between OFM medium projections and the county's adjusted high scenario. "That number is very much in alignment with how we have been growing," Behee explained, "right around 1,400 to 1,500 people per year." Bellingham's strategy emphasized density and infill development. The city had already rezoned significant areas to allow urban villages, implemented minimum densities in multifamily zones, and removed parking requirements. Recent state legislation requiring middle housing would further increase capacity in existing neighborhoods. "The bulk of the growth that Bellingham is anticipating is going to land in the existing city limits," Behee emphasized. Of the 18,400 new housing units needed, about 9,000 would be seven-plus unit multifamily developments in designated growth areas. Chair Galloway pressed on the mathematics: "I'm struggling a little bit. I keep saying along this way, the math doesn't math." She questioned how the city could accommodate 25,000 people in limited areas when downtown remained filled with parking lots and new apartments weren't solving affordability problems. Behee acknowledged the challenge but explained that the 18,400 unit figure included more than just new residents. The state's Housing for All planning tool required cities to plan for current unhoused residents, households in cost-burdened housing, and adequate vacancy rates. "So there's a cushion there," he said. Bellingham's letter had endorsed "further discussion with Whatcom County and the cities encouraging a strategy that minimizes growth in the rural areas and aligns more closely with OFM medium population projections." When Donovan asked about this position, Behee explained the city's climate goals: "We're really hoping that fewer homes are developed in those rural areas that are 10 or 15 minutes beyond Bellingham city limits because those folks end up seeking services and jobs in Bellingham." ## Rural Resort Communities Face Climate Reality Matt Aamot's presentation on the county's three unincorporated urban growth areas revealed different challenges and opportunities. Each area — Birch Bay, Cherry Point, and Columbia Valley — represented distinct approaches to managing growth in specialized contexts. ### Birch Bay: Tourism Meets Permanent Residency Birch Bay, with its estimated 8,900 residents spread across 3,600 acres, exemplified the transition from seasonal resort to year-round community. The area had more than doubled in population over two decades, fundamentally changing its character. The county's preliminary proposal called for 2,662 additional residents by 2045, slightly above the technical consultant's middle scenario. "The proposed growth projection extrapolates the annual average population growth that occurred between 2013 and 2023," Aamot explained. But Council Member Stremler raised a critical concern: "How does that line up with some of the flood mapping that the county has been doing?" With sea level rise projections and updated flood maps, significant portions of Birch Bay faced future inundation. Aamot acknowledged the challenge but suggested it could be managed: "The middle sea level rise scenario very closely follows the existing floodplain. Any changes to zoning, we would not propose in that area." The employment projections for Birch Bay revealed the optimistic nature of the planning exercise. While the area had just 0.5% of the county's jobs, planners proposed 450 new positions by 2045. When questioned about this dramatic increase, Aamot admitted it was "optimistic" but said it reflected policy goals in the comprehensive plan and Birch Bay subarea plan. Council Member Galloway announced the recent launch of a new Birch Bay Community Advisory Committee, pressing whether it would be engaged in the planning process. Aamot committed to working with the committee, recognizing the importance of local input. ### Cherry Point: Industrial Future Uncertain Cherry Point presented perhaps the most complex planning challenge. The 7,000-acre industrial area housed two oil refineries and had recently lost its aluminum smelter when Intalco closed in 2020. County policy changes in 2021 had added environmental considerations, particularly regarding fossil fuels. Despite these uncertainties, the county proposed 1,200 new jobs by 2045 — above even the technical consultant's high scenario. "We would note that in the buildable lands we had a job loss because of Intalco closing down," Aamot said, "but other than that, we would have exceeded our projection in the last comp plan for employment." Galloway questioned whether the projections reflected reality given unclear ownership plans and mixed messages about future development. "I sort of recognize the land ownership out at Cherry Point is, you know, there's only a few really landowners out there now. I'm wondering if these projections have been informed by any coordination with the landowners." Aamot acknowledged limited engagement but expressed hope that an ongoing Port of Bellingham industrial study would provide better information. "Sometimes industries will share the information they want to share or not share," he said. ### Columbia Valley: Dreams of Employment Diversity Columbia Valley, tucked between Sumas Mountain and Red Mountain, represented the most ambitious employment growth scenario. With 3,577 residents but only 0.1% of the county's jobs, the area functioned essentially as a bedroom community. The county's proposal called for 350 new jobs — nearly 50 times the consultant's projection. To accommodate this growth, planners envisioned rezoning almost 40 acres to light impact industrial, a concept that had been in the subarea plan for over a decade but never implemented. Donovan questioned the wisdom of locating industrial development so far from population centers: "In a perfect world, would we pick that light industrial land and put it as far away as possible from where most people live?" Aamot defended the approach, noting it had emerged from extensive public participation in the 2006-2011 subarea planning process. "The hope was we got 3,500 people out there, which is larger than three cities in the county. So to have some zoning for employment out there." But Donovan's concerns reflected broader questions about sustainable development patterns and the relationship between employment centers and residential communities. ## Time Runs Short, Questions Remain As the hour neared its end, technical difficulties prevented the City of Blaine from presenting. Alex Wenger had struggled with computer problems throughout the morning, and with the health board meeting scheduled to begin promptly at 10 a.m., Chair Galloway made the difficult decision to postpone Blaine's presentation to the following week. "An hour goes fast when you're having fun," Galloway observed wryly as she adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m. ## What's Ahead The truncated meeting highlighted the complexity of coordinating growth planning across multiple jurisdictions with competing interests and constraints. Five more presentations awaited the following Tuesday, including Blaine's delayed appearance, followed by deeper policy discussions about the county's overall direction. The fundamental questions raised by Donovan remained unresolved: Should Whatcom County continue its historical approach of planning for OFM medium projections that had proven accurate over decades? Or should it embrace higher growth scenarios that might better position the region for economic opportunities while potentially straining infrastructure and environmental resources? The morning had revealed not just different approaches to accommodating growth, but different philosophies about what kind of community Whatcom County should become. Bellingham's emphasis on urban density and climate goals contrasted with rural areas' desires for employment diversification. Industrial areas faced uncertain futures as the economy transitioned away from traditional heavy industry. The non-binding multi-jurisdictional resolution process, designed to build consensus, appeared to be generating as many questions as answers. With cities submitting conflicting letters and council members questioning basic assumptions, the path forward remained unclear. As council members prepared for the health board meeting that would immediately follow, they carried with them the weight of decisions that would shape Whatcom County for the next two decades. The technical presentations had provided data and projections, but the underlying policy choices about growth, development patterns, and community character remained very much in play. The following week's continuation would bring more presentations, but the fundamental tension between aspirational planning and practical constraints would likely persist. In a county balancing urban growth pressures with rural character, environmental protection with economic development, and local autonomy with regional coordination, easy answers remained elusive.