# Climate Action and Urban Growth — A Joint Planning Session ## Meeting Overview On a warm August afternoon, the Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission gathered for a special joint meeting to tackle two of the county's most pressing planning challenges: implementing a new climate element in the comprehensive plan and making critical decisions about where the county should grow over the next two decades. The hybrid meeting, held in council chambers and adjourning promptly at 4:30 PM, brought together elected officials and planning commissioners to review months of technical work and community input on issues that will shape the county's future. Council Chair Kaylee Galloway called the meeting to order at 3:06 PM with all seven council members present except Todd Donovan, who joined later. The Planning Commission was represented by Chair Kelvin Barton and five other commissioners. What unfolded over the next hour and 25 minutes was a substantive discussion about balancing environmental protection, housing needs, and economic development in one of Washington State's fastest-growing counties. The meeting centered on two major agenda items: a presentation on the county's first-ever climate element, mandated by new state legislation, and a continuation of discussions about urban growth area expansions that will accommodate projected population growth through 2045. ## The Climate Element — Charting a Path to Net Zero Lauren Clemens, Whatcom County's Climate Action Manager, delivered a comprehensive briefing on the draft climate chapter that will become part of the county's comprehensive plan. This groundbreaking document, required by House Bill 1181, represents one of the most significant expansions of the Growth Management Act in decades, requiring counties to address both greenhouse gas reduction and climate resilience. "Whatcom County is inside the first jurisdictions required to meet new planning requirements under the Growth Management Act to add a climate chapter," Clemens explained, noting that the county was working from intermediate guidance released by the Washington State Department of Commerce. The numbers presented were sobering. Whatcom County's 2022 greenhouse gas emissions totaled 35.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person — the second-highest among the 11 counties studied statewide, exceeded only by Skagit County at 68.2 metric tons per capita. For context, other counties in the study ranged from approximately nine to 18 metric tons per person. The emissions profile revealed the county's industrial character: the highest percentage of emissions came from the built environment, primarily industrial processes and natural gas use, with additional significant contributions from transportation, predominantly passenger vehicles. Eight facilities in the county emit more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, including natural gas transmission facilities, power plants, and refineries. "The predominant source of emissions in Whatcom County are from industrial processes and natural gas use," Clemens noted, explaining that this includes major facilities like the Cherry Point refinery, which accounts for about 25% of county emissions but serves the entire state and region. The chapter addresses state requirements to track progress toward net zero emissions by 2050, reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled, and prioritize protection of overburdened communities — those facing combined environmental harms and health impacts. Planning Commissioner Rud Browne raised an important procedural question about the county's decision to submit the climate chapter to state Commerce for review before final council approval. "Normally for something like this, it would go through planning commission, then go to council, then be subject to council public hearing before it be submitted to a state agency," Browne said. "I'm a little concerned this is pre-empting the process." Clemens explained that the county was pursuing a voluntary state approval process that runs parallel to local review, aimed at getting formal and informal comments on whether the chapter meets state expectations. If substantial changes are made during local review, the county would notify Commerce of the updates. Commissioner Dan Dunne pressed on the specifics of policy language, asking about the distinction between mandatory "shall" provisions and more flexible guidance. Clemens directed attention to the state compliance checklist, explaining that certain items — like policies to reduce transportation and land use emissions, set net-zero targets, and address impacts on overburdened communities — are required for state compliance, while other provisions reflect local priorities from the Climate Action Plan. "The best point of reference is this fully planning jurisdictions checklist," Clemens said. "This is what the state will be reviewing to consider as compliant. And everything in this checklist would be items that we need to certify that we have policies to address." The climate vulnerability assessment revealed concerning projections for flooding and sea level rise. County-wide, about 6,652 buildings, 63 critical facilities, and 150 miles of road face risk from riverine flooding and sea level rise impacts by 2040. Three maps included in the chapter document risk from coastal hazards, riverine hazards, and combined threats to road infrastructure through 2080. Commissioner Dominic Moceri noted gaps in the flooding analysis: "On none of the maps I see anything identified along the South Fork of the Nooksack, although I know there's flooding that occurs there." Clemens acknowledged spatial resolution challenges and indicated they could include additional detailed maps if needed. Commissioner Browne urged inclusion of wildfire risk mapping, noting it as "a pretty significant map we should be showing as well." Clemens explained that wildfire risk is more challenging to forecast with the same precision as flooding, as available data focuses on broad wildland-urban interface areas rather than parcel-level projections. Council member John Scanlon raised a critical question about federal policy changes affecting emission projections. "We may have another change in administration or two, who knows, throughout the course of this process. So how does this process account for a change in federal policy?" Clemens acknowledged the challenge, noting that emission reduction modeling often assumes 100% compliance with federal laws that could be rescinded. "If those were rescinded, it could have some impacts and increasing what we expect to see locally. So that's why we kind of look at scenario planning," she said, emphasizing the county's focus on enacted state laws while recognizing uncertainty at the federal level. The discussion revealed the complex interplay between state mandates, local control, and federal policy. While the county must track all emissions within its boundaries, including major industrial facilities, the actual responsibility for reducing those emissions is shared across multiple levels of government. ## Urban Growth Areas — Where Should Whatcom County Grow? The second half of the meeting focused on preliminary preferred alternatives for urban growth area expansions — decisions that will determine where the county accommodates projected population growth of tens of thousands of new residents over the next 22 years. Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Director, introduced the discussion as a continuation of previous joint meetings where they had begun reviewing proposals from each city. "We're here to answer questions," Personius said, noting that city planners were available online to address specific questions about individual proposals. ### Bellingham — Balancing Growth and Jobs The Bellingham discussion revealed tension between accommodating population growth and creating employment opportunities. Commissioner Jim Hansen emphasized the importance of "population growth proportionate to the job growth, because I think it's really incumbent upon us to make sure that population matches job growth and we can cut down on the transportation miles." Chris Behee from the City of Bellingham explained that their preferred alternative projects about 30,000 new residents and just over 19,000 new jobs over the 22-year planning period. This ratio, he noted, is based on consultant analysis of the historical fraction of county-wide population in the workforce. "When Bellingham chose that 30,000 number, which is about halfway... exactly halfway in between the historic shares medium growth and the adjusted high growth scenarios, and we just split the difference," Behee explained. The city selected this level because "on a per year basis, that number is within a couple of dozen people of what we've actually been accommodating over the last 10 years inside the Bellingham UGA." Commissioner Dunne advocated for bringing study area seven (south U Street) into the urban growth area along with the proposed kitech property area. When Behee explained that the city was proposing only the northern reserve area partly because the city had purchased 60 acres in the southern area through the greenways program, Dunne observed the irony: "It just feels slightly ironic that the reason is for density, and the lack of density is because the city bought the 60 acres that could have been developed for homes." Commissioner Browne pressed on employment planning, particularly regarding industrial land needs. He noted that historically, "the majority of the real economic development in this community has come from Canadian companies trying to access the US market. To do that, they either need warehousing space or they need manufacturing space, both of which has a large footprint per person." Browne highlighted the unique geographic advantage: "There is nowhere else where you can be in Canada, drive down and manage a US team during the day and then drive back and have dinner with your family. It's a very strategic advantage which we need to retain if we want to keep high, high value jobs in the community." Behee acknowledged Bellingham's constraints for large industrial uses, noting that available industrial land consists primarily of very small parcels. He referenced the preliminary countywide industrial land study being completed by the Port of Bellingham, which would provide more detail about which areas in the county can accommodate larger industrial uses. The conversation turned to study area four, north of Bellingham along Meridian. Council member Scanlon asked whether it made sense "to look at the possibility there, in the next two decades of going all the way to Smith" Road, beyond the currently proposed boundaries. Behee indicated openness to the idea but noted significant work would be needed "to figure out what's actually possible on that area, given the wetlands and the streams that are present out there." He emphasized the city's need for some indication of county support for their growth plans before proceeding to their September Planning Commission meetings. "Some kind of expression of comfort with the growth that Bellingham is contemplating... so that as we head to Planning Commission in September and then to the city council after that, we have some level of understanding of, okay, there's general comfort or support for moving in that direction," Behee requested. Council member Donovan, joining the discussion remotely, raised concerns about the employment projections county-wide. He noted that for most jurisdictions, "their employment numbers are just bogus, and they're 100% above what even Leland estimated, and not Bellingham." He advocated for "active planning policy rather than a passive planning policy," arguing the county should "decide what's best for the county, and then take the steps in terms of mitigations, incentives and regulations" to direct growth appropriately. Personius provided important context about the policy drivers behind the growth proposals. "There's HB 1220, there's the housing affordability, which everybody has to deal with, cities much more so than counties," he explained. The new requirements mean "increasing densities to accommodate our fair share of affordable housing for all income groups." He noted that the current comprehensive plan allocates 84% of growth to urban areas and 16% to rural areas, while the proposed plan increases the urban share to 87% and reduces the rural share to 13%. "We're also commensurately right having higher employment allocations to those urban growth areas to attract more jobs there and reduce vehicle miles traveled for folks who live in those communities." ### Birch Bay — Sea Level Rise and Development Pressure The Birch Bay discussion highlighted the complex challenges of planning for growth in coastal areas facing climate change impacts. Chair Galloway noted her careful review of sea level rise projections: "I was really pleased to see that none of the proposed UGA areas were in the sea level rise or flood plain, so that gives me a little bit of peace." However, Council member Donovan raised concerns about existing urban growth area reserve designations. Looking at the blue flooding projection overlaying purple reserve areas on the map, he questioned: "If the goal is to recognize that this is not a place we want to develop, why would we have it as an urban growth area reserve?" Matt Ahmet from the planning department explained that the purple areas represent existing urban growth area reserves operating at very low density (one unit per 10 acres) — the lowest rural density available. "The blue is the modeled sea level rise, and it basically matches the floodplain for with a three foot sea level rise," he explained, noting the modeling assumes no mitigation measures. "Those areas in the UGA are in that striped area would remain at one unit per 10 acres. They're contiguous to the UGA, which is one of the requirements for expansion in the future, and should perhaps some mitigation be applied on the structural side or in an engineering side that might mitigate for that rise, that area possibly could be developed in the future." The discussion revealed consultation with the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District about servicing proposed expansion areas. Only areas closest to existing treatment facilities — proposed study areas five and six — received district support for cost-effective service extension. "As you go north and then you go west in that UGA, it just gets more and more expensive for the district to extend sewer and water, and that got pretty cost prohibitive," Personius explained. An interesting side development emerged when Personius announced they would amend the preferred alternative to include the Birch Bay Community Bible Church in the urban growth area reserve. "The pastor has submitted a letter since then indicating they would like the church to be included in the UGA reserve," he said, noting the church wants to connect to sewer in the future. Council member Scanlon raised regional coordination concerns, asking about "the impact of Blaine's plans on Birch Bay." The question reflects broader challenges when one city's development decisions affect unincorporated areas served by county infrastructure. ### The Bigger Picture — Jobs, Housing, and Transportation The discussion repeatedly returned to fundamental questions about growth management philosophy. Commissioner Hansen articulated strong opposition to rural sprawl: "I'm basically opposed to dumping population in both Columbia Valley and Birch Bay. If people want to move there, we should increase the density of the current areas that are outside of the flood zone instead of adding more areas in UGA. We should increase the UGAs in Bellingham and Ferndale and try to spare the rural areas because that's our mission under the Growth Management Act." Commissioner Browne highlighted infrastructure advantages in the Blaine-Birch Bay area, noting "Blaine has a surplus of sewer capacity that they overbuilt their sewer system in anticipation of growth which didn't materialize and given Bellingham is in the process of trying to come up with, I think, a billion dollars to fix their sewer needs." However, Council member Donovan cautioned against oversimplifying infrastructure capacity, reminding colleagues about "the amazing amount of capital facilities we need for stormwater management in that area, and the resources that we don't have for it." The employment projections debate reflected deeper questions about planning methodology. While some advocated for active policy intervention to direct growth patterns, others emphasized the practical challenges of predicting and directing economic development in a market economy. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting concluded with Chair Galloway expressing appreciation for "an incredible body of work" on the climate element and summarizing action items from the urban growth area discussion. The primary outcome was direction to explore extending Bellingham's study area four further north, which could potentially accommodate additional population growth. Both major items will continue moving through the planning process — the climate element heads to the Planning Commission on August 14 for a work session and public hearing, while urban growth area decisions await the final Environmental Impact Statement expected in about two weeks. The discussions revealed the inherent tensions in growth management: balancing state mandates with local control, environmental protection with economic development, and urban concentration with rural preservation. As Whatcom County faces unprecedented growth pressure, these policy decisions will determine whether the county can accommodate new residents while protecting the natural environment and rural character that define the region. The joint session demonstrated both the complexity of regional planning and the democratic process by which communities wrestle with fundamental questions about their future. With climate change adding urgency to every decision, the county must navigate between state requirements, local preferences, and the unpredictable realities of growth in the Pacific Northwest.

### Meeting Overview Whatcom County Council held a special joint meeting with the Planning Commission on August 6, 2025, to receive presentations on the county's new Climate Element for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan and to continue discussions on urban growth area proposals from various jurisdictions for the Environmental Impact Statement. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Climate Element:** A new chapter required under Growth Management Act changes (HB 1181) that jurisdictions must add to their comprehensive plans, focusing on greenhouse gas reduction and climate resilience. **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Designated boundaries where urban development is encouraged and where cities can extend urban services like water, sewer, and roads. **UGA Reserve:** Areas designated for potential future urban development but currently zoned at rural densities (typically one unit per 10 acres). **Overburdened Communities:** Geographic areas where vulnerable populations face combined multiple environmental harms and health impacts, as defined by the Growth Management Act. **Net Zero by 2050:** The state legislative goal to achieve carbon neutrality by eliminating or offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions. **Sea Level Rise Projections:** Scientific modeling showing potential flooding areas based on projected increases in sea level due to climate change. **Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):** A transportation planning metric measuring total miles driven, which jurisdictions must work to reduce under new climate requirements. **Study Areas:** Specific geographic zones being evaluated for potential inclusion in urban growth areas as part of the comprehensive plan update. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | County Council Chair | | Lauren Clemens | County Climate Action Manager | | Mark Personius | Planning and Development Services Director | | Chris Behee | City of Bellingham Planning Staff | | Kelvin Barton | Planning Commission Chair | | Daniel Dunne | Planning Commissioner | | Jim Hansen | Planning Commissioner | | Dominic Moceri | Planning Commissioner | ### Background Context Whatcom County is among the first jurisdictions required to create a climate element under new state legislation. The county has some of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the state (35.1 metric tons per person), largely due to industrial facilities like those at Cherry Point. Meanwhile, the county is updating its comprehensive plan and must balance growth pressures with environmental protection, particularly given significant climate risks including sea level rise and flooding in areas like Birch Bay. The comprehensive plan update involves complex decisions about where to locate future population and employment growth, with tensions between concentrating development in urban areas versus allowing growth in rural communities. Cities like Bellingham face unique pressures from new housing requirements and tight deadlines for plan adoption. ### What Happened — The Short Version Climate Action Manager Lauren Clemens presented the draft Climate Element, explaining how it addresses state requirements for emissions reduction and climate resilience. The chapter will be submitted to the state for review in parallel with local approval processes. Commissioners raised questions about policy language, wildfire mapping, and conflicts with other plan elements. The meeting then continued discussions on urban growth boundaries, focusing primarily on Bellingham's proposals to expand northward and Birch Bay's development challenges due to sea level rise. Bellingham requested county support for their growth proposals to meet upcoming deadlines. Concerns were raised about balancing job and population growth and protecting vulnerable coastal areas from future flooding. ### What to Watch Next - Planning Commission work session and public hearing on the Climate Element scheduled for August 14 - Final Environmental Impact Statement release in approximately two weeks to support Bellingham's planning timeline - Port of Bellingham industrial land study briefing to County Council on September 9 - Potential County Council expression of support for Bellingham's growth proposals before their September Planning Commission meetings ---

**Q:** What is Whatcom County's per capita greenhouse gas emissions compared to other Washington counties? **A:** 35.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person in 2022, the second highest among 11 counties inventoried by the state (only Skagit County was higher at 68.2 metric tons). **Q:** What is the state's target for net zero emissions? **A:** Net zero by 2050, as set by the Washington State Legislature. **Q:** Which facility contributes approximately 25% of Whatcom County's greenhouse gas emissions? **A:** Cherry Point facilities, which are regulated under the Climate Commitment Act and pay for emissions allowances. **Q:** What are the two main sub-elements of the Climate Element? **A:** Greenhouse gas reduction sub-element and resilience sub-element, both required under HB 1181. **Q:** What is a UGA reserve designation? **A:** An area designated for potential future urban development but currently zoned at rural density (one unit per 10 acres), providing a cushion for future growth. **Q:** Why is Bellingham requesting county support for their growth proposals? **A:** They need to meet a December 31, 2025 deadline to adopt their comprehensive plan to comply with unique housing requirements that other jurisdictions don't face. **Q:** What is Bellingham's proposed population growth allocation through 2045? **A:** Just over 30,000 people, which represents about 1,400 people per year, similar to their actual growth over the last 10 years. **Q:** Which areas are Bellingham proposing to remove from their UGA? **A:** Study areas one, two, and three between Bellingham and Ferndale, largely due to being beyond the airport and 80% impacted by wetlands and buffers. **Q:** What is the primary climate risk concern for Birch Bay development? **A:** Sea level rise projections showing potential flooding of low-lying areas, which appears as blue zones on the vulnerability maps. **Q:** What percentage of county growth is allocated to urban versus rural areas in the proposed plan? **A:** 87% to urban areas and 13% to rural areas, compared to the current plan's 84% urban and 16% rural allocation. **Q:** When will the Climate Element go to Planning Commission for formal review? **A:** August 14, 2025, for a work session and public hearing. **Q:** What is the estimated number of buildings at risk county-wide from climate impacts by 2040? **A:** 6,652 buildings at risk from riverine and sea level rise impacts. **Q:** Why is Blaine's comprehensive plan update complicated? **A:** They are proposing a "UGA land swap" to de-annex area one and add new areas, which depends on a November de-annexation vote and involves complex state regulations. **Q:** What is the role of the birch Bay Water and Sewer District in UGA planning? **A:** They recommend which areas are most cost-effective to serve with urban services, with areas five and six being closest to their treatment plant and least expensive to serve. **Q:** What is the timeline for the county to issue the Final Environmental Impact Statement? **A:** Approximately two weeks from the August 6 meeting date to help Bellingham meet their Planning Commission targets. **Q:** What industrial land challenge does Commissioner Browne identify? **A:** The need for large industrial parcels to attract Canadian investment for warehousing and manufacturing, which require significant footprints not available within existing city limits. **Q:** How many critical facilities are projected to be at risk county-wide from climate impacts? **A:** 63 critical facilities at risk from riverine and sea level rise impacts by 2040. **Q:** What is the preferred alternative for Bellingham's northern expansion? **A:** Bringing in the south half of the kitech property (North Bellingham UGA reserve) while leaving the South U Street area (study area seven) in reserve status. **Q:** Why did the City of Bellingham's purchase of 60 acres affect study area seven? **A:** The city bought the land through the greenways program, removing about half of the estimated development capacity for that area. **Q:** What is the projected timeline for Planning Commission recommendation on the Climate Element? **A:** Fall 2025, followed by additional Council discussion and then adoption. ---