# Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee Debates Development Applications and Comprehensive Plan Amendments ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee convened on March 11, 2025, for what appeared to be a routine discussion of the annual comprehensive plan amendment docket but evolved into a substantive debate about development priorities, infrastructure capacity, and procedural fairness. Committee Chair Ben Elenbaas presided over the 39-minute meeting, joined by Council Members Todd Donovan and Jon Scanlon, with several other council members and staff participating remotely. The central item on the agenda was Resolution AB2025-194, which would formally docket five proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan and development regulations for review during 2025. While such annual docketing resolutions typically receive perfunctory approval, this meeting revealed significant philosophical differences among committee members about growth management, infrastructure planning, and the role of private development proposals in shaping county policy. What made this meeting particularly notable was the collision between ongoing comprehensive plan update work and new private development applications seeking to expand the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area—applications that some committee members viewed as potentially inconsistent with current planning efforts and infrastructure realities. ## The Annual Docket: Five Proposals Under Consideration Lucas Clark from the Planning and Development Services Department presented five items proposed for the 2025 comprehensive plan amendment docket. Two were routine annual updates initiated by county staff: amendments to the Capital Improvement Plan and the annual "code scrub" to ensure consistency with the Growth Management Act. These drew no controversy. The three contentious items were privately initiated applications that would require approximately $9,600 in fees from each applicant—fees that could be waived by council action. Two applications sought to expand the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area: one covering 4.77 acres at 7850 Blaine Road, currently in the urban growth reserve, and another encompassing 37.66 acres near Cullen Road. The third application came from Wade King Elementary School, requesting exemption from impervious surface limits in the Lake Padden watershed protection overlay district. Clark explained the procedural framework, noting that under county code, "the executive PDS or county council by majority vote may place a proposed amendment on the docket" and that "the public can submit proposed amendments before the end of the year for consideration during the docket amendment." He emphasized that docketing an item merely authorizes staff review and public process—it does not guarantee approval of the underlying proposal. ## Donovan's Opposition: Infrastructure and Consistency Concerns Council Member Todd Donovan emerged as the most vocal critic of the private applications, raising fundamental questions about their consistency with ongoing comprehensive planning work and infrastructure capacity. His opposition centered on two key arguments: the applications conflicted with current comprehensive plan findings, and the county lacked adequate stormwater infrastructure to support new development. Regarding the Birch Bay applications, Donovan questioned why the committee would consider UGA expansions when preliminary land capacity analysis indicated the existing Birch Bay UGA could accommodate projected population growth. "Why have I not heard anything from PDS or the executive saying we want to expand the UGA?" he asked Clark. "We have this private application that maybe we have infrastructure for probably storm water. I haven't heard anything about this in the comp plan update." Donovan's concerns intensified when he learned the larger Birch Bay property was not currently served by the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, though it lay within their service area. Recent discussions about stormwater funding shortfalls made him skeptical about approving applications that could exacerbate infrastructure deficits. "We've had conversations about storm water," he said. "We just had this earlier today in our water work sessions about the lack of resources we have to actually fund those storm water projects." On the Wade King Elementary application, Donovan expressed frustration with what he saw as preferential treatment for a public entity. "Is the request then from the school district as a private actor inconsistent with our comp plan to exempt them from impervious service requirements that we will then apply the same impervious service requirements to all other private landowners in that Lake Padden watershed?" he asked. "Why is that piece special?" ## Elenbaas Advocates for Higher Ground Development Committee Chair Ben Elenbaas took a markedly different approach, arguing that climate change considerations should drive support for the Birch Bay applications, particularly the larger 37.66-acre proposal. His perspective reflected growing awareness of sea level rise impacts on existing coastal development. "I think about the birch Bay items, I think about how if birch Bay is going to accommodate growth, it has to be at higher elevation," Elenbaas said. "There are places in birch Bay we've all seen maps that show we have existing housing in birch Bay that's not going to be viable in some decades. And so, to me, we have to be able to build at higher ground." Elenbaas was particularly enthusiastic about the larger Birch Bay property, which he described from personal knowledge: "I'm actually really excited about the 37.66 acres because again, I am in that area often. And I think it meets all of our requirements on where we would grow, it is probably one of the highest elevations in the Birch Bay area, it probably has some places that have spectacular views, which would make it desirable. A major thoroughfare runs right to it, which is Grandview Road." He also noted the property's proximity to existing utilities and infrastructure: "It is serviced by Birch Bay water and sewer, which has the capacity to service it. And so I'm almost certain that they would have to pay for their own stormwater upgrades if they develop it." On the Wade King Elementary application, Elenbaas drew historical parallels to support accommodation for growing public facilities: "You look at places like Lynden high school, Lynden high school was right on the edge of town. It no longer is right on the edge of town. It's right in the middle of town. And so I think you find that a lot with schools and in 10 years, we might find that by the time the end of this planning period is over, you might find that Wade King's a little more central to a bunch of housing." ## Scanlon Supports Process and Public Input Council Member Jon Scanlon positioned himself as supporting the docketing process regardless of his ultimate views on the merits of individual applications. His approach emphasized the value of public input and technical review in informing final decisions. "Docketing this doesn't mean that we pass it," Scanlon explained. "Docketing it means that we go through the public process and answer all those questions." He expressed interest in learning more through formal review: "I'm interested in hearing more about what it is that is found when studying these things and then what the public thinks about it. I'm okay with asking for the staff time on this." Scanlon also raised practical questions about technical aspects of the proposals, particularly regarding slope stability and environmental constraints on the larger Birch Bay property. When he asked Clark about slope maps and stability analysis, Clark acknowledged that such information wasn't immediately available but would be part of any future review process. ## Procedural Complications and Parliamentary Confusion What should have been a straightforward committee recommendation became complicated by parliamentary procedure questions and competing motions. Donovan initially moved to advance only the two staff-initiated items (the capital facilities update and code amendments), which passed unanimously. Elenbaas then moved to add the three private applications, which passed 2-1 with Donovan opposed. However, Prosecutor's Office representative George Roche raised concerns that the committee had not made a proper main motion to recommend the resolution itself—only motions about which items to include in the docket. This led to confusion about whether the committee was amending the resolution or its exhibit, and whether their actions were procedurally valid. After some discussion, Elenbaas acknowledged the procedural irregularity and called the previous motions "out of order." Scanlon then made a fresh motion to recommend the resolution as presented to the full council, which passed 2-1 with the same alignment as the previous vote. The parliamentary confusion highlighted the complexity of the docketing process and the challenge of separating procedural questions (should we authorize review?) from substantive ones (should we approve the proposals?). ## Technical Staff Input on School District Application Michael Kershner from Planning and Development Services provided crucial context on the Wade King Elementary application that helped explain why the school district sought a blanket exemption rather than project-specific variances. The school was already exceeding its impervious surface allowance, meaning "any expansion at all would require a variance every single time for something as small as, like, for instance, they want to do a path around the field, a track." Kershner noted additional complications with the variance process: "It's up in the air as to whether we'd be able to grant a variance because that this would be like, is it a hardship? Are they creating their own hardship?" He emphasized that schools have inherently different needs than residential properties: "While yes, all other houses in that area would be subject to it, school is inherently different. It needs probably a little bit more flexibility in that impervious surface area." He also clarified that environmental protections would remain in place: "It's also in a Phase 2 area. So if they're triggering any threshold, they'll still have to provide stormwater that is consistent with the Department of Ecology stormwater management manual." ## Comprehensive Plan Context and Timing Questions Matt Aamot from county planning provided important context about how the private Birch Bay applications related to ongoing comprehensive plan update work. He explained that the smaller Birch Bay property had been removed from the Urban Growth Area in the 2009-10 comprehensive plan update and placed in reserve status. "The city of Bellingham now has suggested that this be a suitability study area to look at whether it should or should not be put back in the urban growth area," Aamot said. "So the city is going through a process with their officials and the public, and they'll look at their land capacity analysis and utilities and so forth. And they'll eventually then come with a proposal, either to add this, or to not add this." This information highlighted potential coordination issues between private applications and official planning processes, though Aamot noted it was still uncertain what Bellingham's ultimate recommendation would be. Council Member Kaylee Galloway, participating remotely, raised questions about timing and process, noting that "typically the docket comes to us in April, so it feels a month early" and that "typically, big policy discussions like this should have council discussion in advance of action." She expressed concern about the compressed timeline and indicated she might seek to delay action at the evening council meeting. ## Vacation Rental Regulations: An Unresolved Legacy Issue The meeting concluded with discussion of two previously docketed items that had stalled in implementation. Council Member Scanlon raised concerns about vacation rental regulations that the council had approved years earlier but which had not been implemented due to budget constraints and staff capacity issues. Donovan expressed particular frustration with the delays: "We've approved this a long ago, and I think Council Member Scanlon and I have spoken with the deputy executive about trying to get that contract going. There's no excuse that we need to wait for a college to do anything. We can get the stuff queued up." Aly Pennucci from the Executive's Office acknowledged the concerns but explained the resource constraints: "This is something you want to achieve what I've asked to do is for as part of the mid biennium budget review is to propose what the fees would look like in order to achieve cost recovery to support getting a registration system up online." She noted that implementing a vacation rental registry would require upfront county investment before fees could provide cost recovery. The vacation rental discussion illuminated broader challenges facing the county in implementing council priorities when staff capacity and budget resources are constrained. ## Closing and What's Ahead After 39 minutes of discussion, the committee voted 2-1 to recommend approval of Resolution AB2025-194 with all five proposed amendments included in the docket. Donovan's opposition reflected his concerns about infrastructure capacity and policy consistency, while Elenbaas and Scanlon supported moving forward with the full review process. The resolution advanced to the full County Council for consideration at the evening meeting, though Galloway's expressed concerns about process and timing suggested potential for additional debate. The committee adjourned with the understanding that the criminal justice and public safety committee would convene at 1:40 PM. The meeting encapsulated several ongoing tensions in Whatcom County's growth management: balancing private development interests with public planning processes, addressing infrastructure deficits while accommodating new growth, and managing procedural requirements while maintaining public engagement. These same tensions are likely to resurface as the docketed items proceed through formal review processes in the coming months. Most significantly, the debate revealed differing approaches to climate adaptation planning, with Elenbaas advocating for proactive accommodation of higher-ground development while Donovan questioning whether such accommodation should precede comprehensive infrastructure planning. This philosophical difference about managed retreat versus planned expansion is likely to influence many future land use decisions as sea level rise projections become increasingly central to coastal planning discussions.