# Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission Debate Growth Boundaries in Era of Climate Change On a hot Tuesday afternoon in July, the Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission gathered for their first joint meeting in years to wrestle with one of the most consequential decisions of their tenure: where the county's cities should grow over the next 20 years, and how to balance development with mounting climate risks. The special meeting on July 22, 2025, drew all seven county council members and eight of nine planning commissioners to the council chambers for a presentation on proposed "preferred alternatives" for the Final Environmental Impact Statement associated with the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update. What followed was an hour and fifteen minutes of intense discussion that revealed deep tensions between housing needs, environmental constraints, and municipal politics. Planning and Development Services Director Mark Personius led the presentation, walking the combined bodies through proposed boundary changes for each of the county's urban growth areas (UGAs). But beneath the technical maps and acreage figures lay more fundamental questions: How do you plan for growth when rising seas threaten existing neighborhoods? When wetlands constrain development more than anyone anticipated? When a city's grand housing plan collapses and leaves officials scrambling for alternatives? ## The Blaine Bombshell: A Thousand-Unit Housing Project Disappears The meeting's most contentious moments centered on the City of Blaine's dramatic proposal to abandon a long-planned workforce housing development in favor of expansion near Birch Bay. For nearly three decades, the city had worked to bring infrastructure to the Grandest Pond property in East Blaine — an area envisioned to house about 1,000 units of workforce housing and 100 units of affordable housing. But now the new property owners, Kevin and Rebecca Keck, have told the city they don't want to develop. All entitlements for the project expired just this month. So Blaine is proposing something unprecedented: a ballot measure in November asking voters to de-annex the entire 573-acre area, remove it from the urban growth area, and swap it for expansion rights near Semi-ah-moo on the west side of the city. "We've been trying to service this area for like I said 29 years and we've gone through a bunch of different funding options and nothing's ever come together," explained Alex Wenger, Blaine's Community Development Services Director. "So at this point that area essentially cannot be serviced." The proposal hit Planning Commissioner Rud Browne like a gut punch. "That conflicts with every discussion I have had with Ken Hurts for 10 years," Browne said, referring to the previous developer who had worked for decades to make the project viable. Browne noted that the county council had spent considerable time trying to help fund the infrastructure through an Economic Development Initiative and Local Improvement District. "I'm a bit shocked that we're sort of basically wiping out a thousand units of workforce housing," Browne continued. "It is a huge growth area for the city." But Wenger defended the pivot, explaining that the eastern area sits over the county's most sensitive aquifer recharge zone and contains extensive wetlands. The western expansion area, by contrast, has already been cleared and could support higher-density development that pencils out financially. The exchange highlighted a recurring theme throughout the meeting: the gap between planning aspirations and development realities. As Council Member Ben Elenbaas put it, "When we start walking down a path and planning out even ways to fund it and now all of a sudden we're doing a 180, I don't know that it's a great plan." ## Sea Level Rise Reshapes Coastal Planning Climate change cast a long shadow over the afternoon's discussions, particularly regarding Birch Bay and the coastal areas. Earlier that morning, the county council had received a presentation about sea level rise modeling showing that nearly 2,000 residential parcels in existing Birch Bay neighborhoods could be affected by 3.3 feet of sea level rise. This created a planning paradox that Council Member Todd Donovan zeroed in on: "If we're looking at population growth of 2,600, how does that align with potentially having a significant number of residential parcels that may not be livable?" The question hung in the air as officials grappled with whether it makes sense to keep flood-prone areas designated as "UGA Reserve" — essentially marking them for future development — when rising seas may make them uninhabitable within decades. "Insurance underwriters have the same information that we do and probably better," Donovan observed. "I don't think you're gonna be able to have a home in Birch Bay Village in some of these areas be insured. We're gonna be talking about managed retreat." Personius acknowledged the dilemma, noting that while they're not proposing UGA expansion in Birch Bay, they are recommending that some areas currently in reserve status be converted to reserve designation — keeping the same low-density zoning but signaling potential for future growth if conditions permit. ## The Sumas Strategy: Moving Away from the Floodplain The City of Sumas offered perhaps the clearest example of climate-adaptive planning. Still recovering from the devastating 2021 floods that inundated much of the community, Sumas is proposing to move its entire future growth area westward and uphill, away from the Nooksack River floodplain. The city studied 10 different areas and is proposing to abandon flood-prone zones in favor of agricultural land on higher ground. While this means building on prime farmland — always controversial in Whatcom County — it represents a pragmatic response to changing flood risks. The new draft FEMA flood maps, still under development following the 2021 disasters, show expanded floodplains throughout the Nooksack basin. Multiple cities are now adjusting their growth plans accordingly, creating a patchwork of climate adaptation strategies. ## Everson's Careful Shuffle Everson is pursuing a more nuanced approach, proposing to swap flood-prone areas for developable land outside the projected floodplains. The city wants to remove three areas (numbered 6, 7, and 8) that fall within the new draft floodway and replace them with areas 2 and 3, which are on higher ground. "Everson's trying to get out of the new flood[plain] and floodway and designate some areas for growth that are out of the natural hazard zones," Personius explained. But even this seemingly straightforward climate adaptation strategy raised questions. Council Member Scanlon noted that area 1B appears to be positioned where it could become an "island" during flooding, potentially isolating residents. Whether emergency management considerations were factored into the Environmental Impact Statement remained unclear. ## Bellingham's Infrastructure Puzzle The county's largest city presented its own complexities. Bellingham is allocated the lion's share of future growth under the multi-jurisdictional resolution — 44.8% of population growth, 51.1% of housing units, and 59.9% of employment growth over the next 20 years. Planning Commissioner Jim Hansen argued those numbers don't align properly. "When I see 59.9% of the job growth projected to go to Bellingham, I see no reason there should be only 44.8% of the population growth," Hansen said. "I think we should bump up the population growth to be equivalent to the job growth." The city is proposing to remove three industrial areas north of the airport from immediate UGA status, converting them to reserve designation. But Hansen questioned why they couldn't be zoned for higher-density residential development instead. Chris Behee, Bellingham's representative, explained that the areas north and west of the airport would be difficult to annex during the 20-year planning period because the city can't leapfrog the airport. The conversion to reserve status reflects practical constraints rather than a rejection of growth. The city is, however, proposing to bring one major area — area 4, owned largely by Kitec Corporation — into active UGA status. The 360-acre site could accommodate over 1,000 housing units, about 60-70% of which would be middle housing, addressing Bellingham's acute need for workforce housing. ## The Critical Areas Wild Card Throughout the presentations, Planning Commissioner Browne raised what may be the most fundamental challenge facing all the growth projections: the reality of critical areas — wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and other environmentally sensitive features that severely limit where development can actually occur. "My concern about any of the UGA forecasts is what is the analysis of what are the critical areas impacts," Browne said. "I think the amount of impact in those areas is far greater than anything we're forecasting and needs to be factored in before we work out what those UGAs actually have the capacity to take in terms of the land." Browne pointed to discrepancies between different wetland mapping systems, noting that state maps often show only the largest wetlands while missing smaller Category 3 and 4 wetlands that can still require 300-foot buffers. When actual field delineations are done, many areas predicted to be developable turn out to be constrained. "When you have land that is forested, any mitigation can only occur on land that is unforested," Browne noted. "That means you have to convert pasture land and cropland into mitigation land in order to support the density in those areas." No one had a ready answer for this challenge, which could upend capacity calculations across the county. ## Jurisdictional Tensions at Blaine-Birch Bay Border The Blaine expansion proposal also revealed tensions between municipal and county interests. Planning Commissioner Kelvin Barton, who represents the area and has lived in both Blaine and Birch Bay, warned that the proposed expansion crosses what many residents consider the natural dividing line between the two communities. "The unwritten dividing line is the top of that area where whichever way the water flows was considered Blaine would get what flows to the north and Birch Bay would get what flows to the south," Barton explained. "People are calling me and telling me that this is actually going across that line." Birch Bay residents are concerned about stormwater runoff from new development flowing through their community. As an unincorporated area, Birch Bay residents look to the county council as their representatives, creating a dynamic where the county must balance municipal growth ambitions with unincorporated area impacts. The issue is complicated by the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) District's existing financial constraints. As Wenger acknowledged, BBWARM "has no money to complete the capital plans that we have for stormwater as it is." Council Member Donovan pressed the question: has BBWARM been consulted about the impacts of Blaine's westward expansion? "We haven't had an opportunity to do that yet," Wenger admitted, though he expressed willingness to negotiate an interlocal agreement. ## Housing Math Gets Complicated One of the meeting's more technical discussions centered on how housing projections are calculated under new state requirements. Council Member Tyler Byrd noted that Bellingham's current average household size is 2.1 people, but their planning projections assume just 1.65 people per housing unit. Behee explained that the state's new Housing for All planning tool builds in multiple factors that make household sizes appear smaller than they actually are. The tool assumes a 6% vacancy rate to provide housing market flexibility, accounts for housing all currently homeless individuals, and includes extra units to help cost-burdened households move into more affordable housing. "There's kind of three pieces of a cushion that are built into those HAP tools," Behee said. "When you look at the raw numbers it makes it look like wow they've got a really low persons per household rate in that community." The complex calculations highlight how state housing mandates are reshaping local planning, sometimes in ways that seem counterintuitive to local officials. ## Regional Growth Allocation Debates Planning Commissioner Dan Dunne revealed that he had spent the weekend analyzing the historical accuracy of growth forecasts, questioning whether the multi-jurisdictional resolution's allocation of growth between cities and rural areas is realistic. His research suggested alternative distributions might be more achievable. "I spent the weekend looking at Jim's numbers and came out with a proposal that's based on an analysis of the historical accuracy of forecasts," Dunne said, referring to Hansen's population proposal. "If there's say four council members who are interested in having different numbers, we could have that conversation." Council Member Donovan supported further discussion, noting the non-binding nature of the current allocations. But with time running short, the conversation was deferred to a potential future joint meeting. ## Process Questions and Political Realities As the meeting wound toward its 4:15 p.m. deadline, several process questions remained unresolved. The timing of Blaine's November ballot measure creates complications — the county needs to make UGA decisions before knowing whether voters will approve the de-annexation that enables the land swap. The Environmental Impact Statement consultant work is being rushed to accommodate Bellingham's year-end deadline for comprehensive plan adoption. Personius said they're "pushing the consultants" to release the final EIS in August rather than the planned September timeline. Multiple officials acknowledged that the complexity of issues raised — from critical areas impacts to climate resilience to regional growth coordination — likely requires additional joint meetings. Chair Galloway mentioned a possible August 6 session focused on climate resilience elements. ## Rural Areas and Resource Lands The county's rural areas, often overshadowed by urban growth discussions, are slated to receive 9,000 new residents over 20 years — about 13% of future county growth, down from the current plan's 16% allocation. This shift toward concentrating growth in cities aligns with Growth Management Act principles but still represents significant rural impacts. The county is proposing to upzone three rural communities — Custer, High Notes Corner, and the Ferndale area known as Polling Guide — to create higher density within existing rural centers rather than spreading growth across the landscape. ## Looking Ahead: Climate Reality Meets Growth Pressure As the meeting adjourned at 4:18 p.m., it was clear that Whatcom County officials are grappling with fundamentally new planning challenges. The traditional model of steady outward expansion is colliding with climate realities that make some areas unsuitable for long-term development. The proposed changes reflect a patchwork of local responses: Sumas fleeing the floodplain, Everson carefully shuffling developable areas, Blaine abandoning a three-decade housing plan for uncertain alternatives, and Birch Bay questioning whether growth planning makes sense in areas that may be underwater by mid-century. Behind the technical discussions lay deeper questions about the nature of growth management in an era of climate change. How do you plan for population growth when existing neighborhoods may become uninhabitable? How do you balance housing needs with environmental constraints that are far more extensive than previously understood? How do you coordinate regional growth when each jurisdiction faces unique climate vulnerabilities? The answers emerging from this joint meeting suggest a future of more conservative, climate-conscious planning — but also one where housing goals may be harder to achieve and more expensive to implement. As Planning Commissioner Browne noted, the gap between planning projections and development realities may be far wider than anyone wants to acknowledge. The final Environmental Impact Statement, expected in August or September, will need to reconcile these competing pressures into a coherent regional growth strategy. Whether it can do so while maintaining the Growth Management Act's core goals of concentrating development and preserving rural and resource lands remains an open question. What became clear during this rare joint session is that Whatcom County's growth planning is no longer just about managing expansion — it's about managing retreat, adaptation, and the complex intersection of human needs with planetary limits. The easy answers of the past no longer apply, and the path forward requires navigation through uncharted territory where climate science, housing policy, and local politics intersect in ways that no comprehensive plan has had to address before.

### Meeting Overview Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission met jointly on July 22, 2025 to review preliminary preferred alternatives for urban growth areas (UGAs) across the county as part of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update. Planning Director Mark Personius presented proposed boundary changes for eight jurisdictions, with extensive discussion focused on flood impacts, housing capacity, and growth management challenges. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Designated areas around cities where urban development is encouraged to occur over the next 20 years, designed to prevent sprawl and concentrate growth. **UGA Reserve:** Land designated for potential future urban development but not immediately available for annexation, typically maintaining low-density rural zoning until cities are ready to expand. **Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):** Required environmental analysis of proposed comprehensive plan alternatives, studying impacts before final adoption decisions. **Multi-Jurisdictional Resolution:** County Council-adopted agreement allocating projected population and employment growth percentages among cities for the 20-year planning period. **De-annexation:** Process of removing territory from city limits, requiring voter approval and returning the area to county jurisdiction. **Critical Areas:** Environmentally sensitive lands including wetlands, steep slopes, and flood hazards that have development restrictions and buffer requirements. **BBWARM:** Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management district providing stormwater services to parts of unincorporated Whatcom County. **Draft FEMA Maps:** Proposed new flood hazard maps based on updated modeling following 2021 flooding, not yet officially adopted but showing expanded flood zones. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair | | Mark Personius | Planning and Development Services Director | | Alex Wenger | City of Blaine Community Development Services Director | | Chris Behee | City of Bellingham Planning Staff | | Kelvin Barton | Planning Commission Chair | | Rud Browne | Planning Commissioner | | Todd Donovan | Council Member | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | ### Background Context This meeting occurred during the state-mandated comprehensive plan update process, required every eight years under Washington's Growth Management Act. Cities must demonstrate they can accommodate their allocated share of regional growth within existing UGAs or request expansions. The 2021 Nooksack River floods significantly impacted this planning cycle, forcing several communities to reconsider development patterns in flood-prone areas. State legislation now requires more housing units and middle housing options, while climate impacts like sea level rise add new constraints. The timing creates tension between housing needs and environmental safety, with some proposed developments conflicting with flood risks. ### What Happened — The Short Version Director Personius presented each city's preferred UGA boundary changes for environmental review. Bellingham proposes moving three industrial areas from UGA to reserve status while expanding one residential area. Blaine wants to de-annex a 573-acre site (contingent on November voter approval) and swap it for western expansion areas. Several cities including Everson and Sumas propose moving growth areas out of new flood zones identified after 2021 flooding. Extensive discussion focused on Blaine's proposal, with concerns about losing 1,000 potential housing units and impacts on neighboring Birch Bay. Commissioners questioned whether wetland impacts were adequately analyzed in capacity projections. ### What to Watch Next • November 2025 ballot measure on Blaine's de-annexation proposal • Release of Final EIS in August or early September 2025 • Potential August 6th joint Council/Planning Commission meeting continuation • County decisions on UGA boundary adoptions by end of 2025 • Follow-up zoning changes for areas like Alderwood in 2026 ---

**Q:** What type of meeting was held on July 22, 2025? **A:** Joint special meeting between Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission to review UGA boundary proposals. **Q:** Who presented the preliminary preferred alternatives? **A:** Mark Personius, Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Director. **Q:** What does UGA Reserve designation mean? **A:** Areas planned for potential future urban development but maintaining low-density rural zoning until cities are ready to annex. **Q:** How many acres is Blaine proposing to de-annex? **A:** 573 acres in the grandest pond area on the east side of the city. **Q:** When will Blaine voters decide on the de-annexation? **A:** November 5, 2025 ballot measure. **Q:** What percentage of county population growth is Bellingham allocated? **A:** 44.8% of future 20-year population growth under the multi-jurisdictional resolution. **Q:** What are draft FEMA maps? **A:** Proposed new flood hazard maps based on updated modeling following 2021 floods, showing expanded flood zones. **Q:** Why is Everson proposing to move some UGA areas? **A:** To get out of new draft floodplain and floodway zones identified after 2021 flooding. **Q:** What is BBWARM? **A:** Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management district providing stormwater services. **Q:** When is the Final EIS expected to be released? **A:** August or early September 2025, with county pushing consultants for August release. **Q:** How many housing units could potentially be lost in Blaine's de-annexation area? **A:** About 1,000 units according to Commissioner Browne, including workforce and affordable housing. **Q:** What zoning would Blaine's de-annexed area revert to? **A:** Rural zoning under county jurisdiction, specifically R-10A (one unit per 10 acres). **Q:** Which areas did Bellingham propose moving from UGA to Reserve? **A:** Study areas 1, 2, and 3 - areas west and north of the airport currently zoned light impact industrial. **Q:** What happens if UGA boundaries aren't contiguous? **A:** Growth Management Act requires UGAs to be contiguous, so cities may need to designate connecting areas as open space. **Q:** How many Planning Commissioners were present? **A:** Eight commissioners present, with Julie Jefferson absent. **Q:** What is the current average household size in Bellingham? **A:** Approximately 2.1 people per household based on recent census data. **Q:** Why are cities using lower projected household sizes for planning? **A:** State Commerce Department tool includes 6% vacancy rate padding and housing for homeless population. **Q:** What was Commissioner Hansen's suggestion for Bellingham? **A:** Increase population growth to match job growth percentage (from 44.8% to 59.9%) and zone areas as UR-MX instead of R-10A. **Q:** Which city is not proposing any UGA changes? **A:** City of Lynden is not proposing any changes to their UGA boundaries. **Q:** What infrastructure challenge does Blaine face in serving western expansion areas? **A:** Need for pump stations and potential interlocal agreements with county for stormwater and traffic impacts. ---