# Building Tomorrow — Industrial Lands, Urban Growth, and the Future of Whatcom County ## Meeting Overview The rain-soaked autumn afternoon of September 16, 2025, brought together Whatcom County Council members and Planning Commissioners in a joint session that would prove to be one of the most substantive discussions of the comprehensive planning update process. Meeting in a hybrid format that connected chambers with participants across the county, this special session focused on two critical elements shaping the region's future: industrial development capacity and urban growth area boundaries. Five Council members gathered physically in chambers — Barry Buchanan, Todd Donovan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, and Jon Scanlon — with Mark Stremler joining later. Tyler Byrd was notably absent. The Planning Commission mustered four members: Dan Dunne, Jim Hansen, Dominic Moceri, and Kelvin Barton, with several commissioners unable to attend. What made this meeting particularly significant was its dual focus on economic development strategy and growth management policy — the twin engines that will drive Whatcom County's trajectory through 2045. The afternoon's discussions would reveal both opportunities and constraints that have profound implications for jobs, housing, and the county's economic future. ## The Port's Vision — Industrial Lands in the Spotlight Tyler Schroeder returned to his old stomping grounds at the county courthouse, now serving as Economic Development Director for the Port of Bellingham. His presentation of the Industrial Lands Report marked the first comprehensive analysis of the county's industrial development capacity in years — a study that Council Member Ben Elenbaas would later praise for its "refreshing truthfulness" in addressing realities often left unspoken in public forums. Schroeder's central finding was sobering yet optimistic: while Whatcom County has sufficient industrially-zoned land to meet projected demand through 2045, the quality and developability of that land presents significant challenges. "We need to get ourselves to 400,000 square feet of new industrial building per year to meet those employment projections," Schroeder explained, noting that the county currently averages only 250,000 square feet annually — a level that has dropped from the 400,000 square foot average of the 1990s. The study examined 19 distinct industrial areas across the county, from the massive Cherry Point complex to smaller nodes in rural communities. Using parcel-level analysis enhanced by GIS mapping, the port's team identified not just total acreage but critically, the developable portions after accounting for wetlands, critical areas, existing development, and infrastructure constraints. The numbers tell a compelling story. Of the 782 acres needed for industrial growth through 2045, only 485 acres are currently served by adequate utilities and positioned along freight corridors. "Developable industrial lands still take some steps to accomplish," Schroeder noted, pointing to infrastructure gaps as the primary constraint rather than raw acreage. Council Member Todd Donovan immediately grasped the consolidation challenge: "Is the port in a position... to buy some of these things and consolidate them so there are larger pieces that then are available for people looking for 10 acres or 20 acres?" This question highlighted a fundamental problem — much of the county's industrially-zoned land exists in small, fragmented parcels unsuitable for modern manufacturing needs. The presentation revealed particular challenges in Bellingham's guide-meridian corridor, where one-to-five-acre parcels under multiple ownership create what Schroeder called "personalization" problems. While some development potential exists, "it'll be a little bit harder to have larger business parks or larger manufacturing and industrial" operations. More promising opportunities emerged in Ferndale's Grandview area, where Economic Development Investment (EDI) funds have already addressed stormwater issues, and in West Lynden, which Schroeder described as potentially "the shining star" due to large parcels under single ownership with existing infrastructure. Commissioner Jim Hansen pressed on infrastructure specifics, noting that extending utilities to developable industrial land represents the clearest path forward. "Seems like the biggest thing we can do is see that the utilities and services are taken to those areas that are supposed to be developed for industry," Hansen observed. Schroeder's analysis of site selection trends proved particularly illuminating. Quality of life ranks highly for businesses considering Whatcom County — an advantage the region possesses in abundance. Energy availability also scores well, but regulatory responsiveness emerged as a critical factor. "95% and 98%" of site consultants prioritize expedited permitting processes, Schroeder reported, suggesting that streamlining development review could prove as important as infrastructure investment. The Port's data on target industries reinforced existing strengths while identifying growth opportunities. Food processing and cold storage — sectors where Whatcom County already excels — showed the strongest regional development patterns. Maritime and boat building leverage existing capabilities, while emerging sectors like alternative energy present new possibilities. Council Member Jon Scanlon probed the demand side, asking about specific business inquiries. Schroeder's response revealed both opportunity and frustration: "We can accomplish one out of five asks because of the availability that's associated with it." Local manufacturers seeking to expand from 10,000 to 60,000 square feet often find vacancy rates of just 1% in suitable facilities. Perhaps most telling was Schroeder's account of a local solar manufacturer that started in Whatcom County, grew to 60,000 square feet, then relocated to Skagit County for larger space before ultimately moving to South Carolina for state incentives. "We weren't able to keep them here because we didn't have the land available or the building to let them stay here," Schroeder explained. ## Urban Growth Areas — The Growth Management Crucible Director Mark Personius provided the scheduling framework for the remainder of the comprehensive plan update process. Planning Commission hearings on individual urban growth area (UGA) proposals were proceeding in waves, with Everson, Nooksack, Sumas, Birch Bay, and Columbia Valley heard September 11, and Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, Cherry Point, and rural lands scheduled for September 25. The joint session then moved through each proposed UGA alphabetically, revealing the complex balancing act between growth accommodation and resource protection that defines modern growth management. ### Cherry Point — Industrial Opportunity and Environmental Constraints The Cherry Point discussion illustrated how past industrial decisions shape future possibilities. The demolition of the Intalco aluminum smelter, which eliminated 800 jobs, has created redevelopment opportunities on a massive scale. County staff propose allocating 1,000-1,200 new jobs to the area over the planning period — enough to replace the lost Intalco employment and provide modest additional capacity. "Most of it would be intended to be the redevelopment of the Intalco site," Personius explained, though he acknowledged that plans for a hydrogen energy hub remain uncertain pending federal funding decisions. The county's strategy aims to diversify the industrial base beyond the heavy petrochemical focus that has dominated Cherry Point for decades. Environmental constraints continue to shape development patterns. BP's advanced mitigation sites north of Grandview remain under conservation easements, leading staff to recommend redesignating these areas from light industrial to rural to reflect actual development potential. ### Columbia Valley — Rural Growth and Infrastructure Reality The Columbia Valley UGA discussion highlighted the tension between rural character preservation and growth accommodation. Staff proposed actually shrinking the UGA by removing steep-sloped areas while adding commercial and light industrial zoning to support local employment and reduce vehicle trips. Council Member Kaylee Galloway raised a fundamental question about growth direction: "How do we ensure that we're not just like continuing to drive growth to sort of an economic and climate vulnerable region without the sort of commensurate infrastructure needs?" Personius acknowledged infrastructure limitations while defending the growth strategy. Converting rural forestry zones to light industrial could support local timber processing, while additional commercial zoning might finally enable local grocery service. The challenge remains economic viability — rural markets often cannot support the retail services that planning documents envision. ### Everson — Flood Risk and Agricultural Conversion Everson's UGA proposal brought the most contentious issues to the surface: flood risk management and agricultural land conversion. The devastating November 2021 floods fundamentally altered the planning landscape, requiring cities to relocate growth areas away from expanded floodplain boundaries. Council Member Donovan pressed on the agricultural conversion question: "Is it the county's position that UGAs can be expanded into prime agriculture lands?" Personius confirmed that Growth Management Act provisions allow such expansions with appropriate study and mitigation. Alex Putnam, representing Everson, emphasized that the city's proposal actually returns more agricultural land than it converts. "Everson is also proposing giving more agriculture land back to the county than they are proposing adding as UGA," she stated, framing the exchange as beneficial to agricultural preservation. The flood risk discussion proved particularly complex. Despite the 2021 disaster, city representatives expressed confidence in proposed expansion areas. Council Member Scanlon requested input from emergency responders, noting "I would love to hear from first responders and emergency management staff in Everson regarding the northernmost area of the map and its potential for future flooding." ### Ferndale — Dairy Country and Urban Pressure Mike Cerbone, Ferndale's Community Development Director, presented a city actively managing growth pressure. Recent annexations have proceeded where property owners see benefits, while other areas prefer rural character preservation. The discussion revealed specific tensions between agricultural operations and urban development. Council Member Elenbaas noted that "there are only a few operating dairy farms" in his district, with several encompassed by Ferndale's proposed UGA expansion. He reported "resistance from farmers about converting dairy farms to city." Cerbone acknowledged the pressures: "Adding land to a UGA or UGA reserve can put economic pressure on landowners" while maintaining that "Ferndale is not telling people what to do with their land." This tension between planning designation and land use pressure runs throughout the growth management process. ### The Agricultural Conversion Challenge Throughout the afternoon, the agricultural land conversion issue emerged as perhaps the most challenging aspect of UGA planning. Cities in the northern county — Everson, Nooksack, Sumas, and Lynden — find themselves surrounded by prime agricultural soils, creating inevitable conflicts between growth accommodation and farmland preservation. Council Member Elenbaas articulated the farmer's perspective: "Retiring development rights does not promote a viable, resource-based economy, which is the purpose of the ag zone." This observation highlighted the fundamental tension between compensation mechanisms and agricultural viability. The proposed mitigation measures — payments in lieu, development rights retirement, restrictive covenants — represent planning tools rather than agricultural policy. Whether these mechanisms actually preserve farming operations or merely provide financial compensation for agricultural land loss remains an open question. ## Wetlands, Mitigation, and Development Reality Commissioner Hansen's questions about critical areas constraints brought attention to another fundamental challenge. Tyler Schroeder's industrial lands analysis had identified "approximately 1600 acres that have wetlands and associated buffers" within industrially-zoned properties larger than five acres. The wetlands mitigation discussion revealed both progress and frustration. The city of Bellingham's mitigation bank development has been "quite fraught," as Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler explained, facing "regulatory hurdle after regulatory hurdle." Director Personius announced county development of an off-site mitigation program designed to streamline the permitting process. "Ideally, in my mind, is something akin to a fee and loop program," he explained. "You write us a check, we approve your permit, we'll go do the mitigation." Council Member Elenbaas provided ground-level perspective on wetlands mitigation banking, noting that "it's typically farmland that we're enhancing to wetlands." He highlighted efficiency concerns: "If you have like 80 acres of farmland that you're going to return to a wetland, you only end up with like six acres that are functional to restore" due to setback requirements. ## Infrastructure Investment and Economic Development The infrastructure financing discussion proved particularly pointed. Council Member Donovan repeatedly pressed on mechanisms for jumpstarting utilities extension. "We've been talking about potential lids or whatever... for almost two years now," he noted with frustration. "How do you jumpstart this?" Schroeder outlined potential tools including the port's industrial development district powers, revenue bonds, local improvement districts, and late comers agreements. The challenge remains coordination between multiple jurisdictions and utilities providers, each with different financial capacities and priorities. The discussion revealed a fundamental chicken-and-egg problem: industrial development requires infrastructure investment, but infrastructure investment requires development potential to justify costs. Breaking this cycle requires either public sector risk-taking or creative financing mechanisms that spread costs across multiple beneficiaries. Commissioner Hansen highlighted utility cost pressures, noting that Bellingham's comprehensive plan update discusses "incredible raises in utility rates in the upcoming years, without even talking about what it's going to cost to expand into these other areas that are not serviced yet." ## Regulatory Consistency and Business Climate Tyler Schroeder's presentation touched on regulatory differences between jurisdictions — an issue that Council Member Elenbaas praised for its honesty. "I applaud you for daring to speak about regulatory differences by jurisdiction, because any of us that have done any business in Whatcom County or cities know that that's a reality," Elenbaas stated. The regulatory consistency challenge extends beyond simple differences to fundamental approaches to economic development. Council Member Mark Stremler asked whether businesses decide against locating in Whatcom County due to community resistance to industrial activity. Schroeder diplomatically suggested that communities need to discuss "what's high wage, high demand jobs we want to keep locally and attract." Council Member Elenbaas was more direct: "My experience with prior councils and some members of this council is that they've gone to no ends to stop high wage job growth in our industrial [areas]." This observation highlighted ongoing political tensions around industrial development that extend beyond technical planning issues. ## Housing, Jobs, and Regional Competitiveness Commissioner Dominic Moceri raised the housing affordability question: "Can you speak to how housing availability and affordability is affecting attracting entertaining businesses?" Schroeder acknowledged housing costs as a factor but emphasized that businesses typically fail to locate in Whatcom County for other reasons first. "Quality of life is pretty high on a site selectors list," Schroeder noted, suggesting that the region's lifestyle advantages help offset housing cost concerns. However, he stressed the connection between job quality and housing affordability: "We don't do as much effort on high wage, high demand, job growth, and you're losing in that wage gap if you're not focused on both." This connection between economic development and housing policy runs throughout regional planning discussions. Higher-wage jobs enable housing affordability, while housing costs can constrain workforce availability for expanding businesses. ## Looking Forward — Policy Directions and Implementation The three-and-a-half-hour session concluded with clear policy directions emerging from the complex discussions. The industrial lands analysis points toward infrastructure investment priorities, particularly utilities extension and freight corridor improvements. The UGA discussions highlight ongoing tensions between growth accommodation and resource protection. Several implementation strategies gained support during the discussions: **Infrastructure Coordination**: Greater collaboration between the port, cities, and county on infrastructure financing and timing. EDI funds and potential industrial development districts offer tools for coordinated investment. **Regulatory Streamlining**: Both the industrial lands analysis and UGA discussions pointed toward regulatory consistency and expedited permitting as competitive advantages. The comprehensive economic development strategy update, scheduled for 2026, could provide a framework for regulatory improvements. **Agricultural Land Management**: The inevitable conversion of agricultural land to urban uses requires more sophisticated mitigation approaches. Fee-in-lieu programs and development rights retirement represent starting points, but preserving viable agricultural operations requires broader agricultural policy coordination. **Wetlands Mitigation**: County development of off-site mitigation programs could significantly improve development feasibility while achieving better environmental outcomes through consolidated mitigation areas. The session demonstrated both the complexity of growth management and the sophistication of current planning approaches. Unlike earlier comprehensive plan updates that focused primarily on land use allocation, the 2025 update integrates economic development strategy, infrastructure planning, climate considerations, and housing policy into a comprehensive framework. ## The Path Ahead As the meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m., participants faced a clear timeline pressure. The Planning Commission must complete its review of all UGA proposals and comprehensive plan elements by December, with final recommendations reaching the Council in January 2026. The substantive discussions revealed broad agreement on goals — supporting economic development, managing growth impacts, preserving resource lands — while highlighting significant disagreements on implementation approaches. The agricultural conversion debate, industrial land development priorities, and infrastructure financing mechanisms require resolution in the coming months. Perhaps most significantly, the session demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of the connections between land use planning, economic development, and regional competitiveness. Tyler Schroeder's industrial lands analysis provided data-driven insights that moved the conversation beyond abstract growth management principles to specific development opportunities and constraints. The joint Council-Planning Commission format proved particularly valuable, enabling real-time dialogue between policy makers and technical experts. As Director Personius noted, these sequential reviews ensure Council input throughout the planning process rather than waiting for final recommendations. The challenges ahead are substantial: financing infrastructure improvements, balancing agricultural preservation with growth accommodation, streamlining regulatory processes, and coordinating between multiple jurisdictions. But the September 16 session provided a foundation of shared understanding that will prove essential as these difficult decisions move forward in the months ahead. For a county that has often struggled with the tensions between growth and preservation, economic development and environmental protection, the comprehensive plan update represents an opportunity to develop more nuanced and effective approaches to these enduring challenges. The quality of discussion in this joint session suggests that opportunity may be realized.